Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - BONUS EPISODE | The Truth with Vivek Ramaswamy

Episode Date: May 12, 2024

Today we'd like to direct you to a new podcast, Truth with Vivek Ramaswamy. The media has systematically lied to you about the war in Iraq, 2008 financial crisis, Russian Collusion hoax that never was, Covid-19 origins, Hunter Biden’s laptop, the truth about January 6th, how our money is being spent in Ukraine, the transgender Nashville shooter memo…the list goes on. If you want the standard conservative talking points, this podcast isn’t for you. But if you want to go deeper, get to the bottom of what is really going on behind the media smokescreens, explore the intellectual foundations of our America-First movement, and challenge your preconceived notions, then join Vivek Ramaswamy and go beyond the Overton window. Get ready for conversations you won’t find anywhere else. You can find Truth with Vivek everywhere you listen to podcasts. https://podfollow.com/truth-with-vivek-ramaswamy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, Bill O'Reilly fans. It's Vivek Ramoswamy here. I joined No Spin News this week to talk about my new podcast, Truth. In the segment you're about to hear, Ann Coulter and I discuss the state of nationalism in America. Well, we don't always agree. Hard conversations about these tough issues, including amongst conservatives, is exactly what this country needs. I want to share a portion of that conversation with you now. And if you enjoy it, subscribe to Truth with Vivek Ramaswamy today. We're going to save this country, and I'm counting on you to do it. Thanks for listening. There's an N-word that you're not allowed to say anymore, but I'm going to say it. Nationalism. It's a touchy word. You're not supposed to say the N-word anymore, but I'll say it. Nationalism.

I don't think it has to be a bad word, not in the American context. But there's two kinds of nationalism that I think we need to distinguish between. Historically, nationalism has been associated with ethno-nationalism. Why is that? Most nations are founded on the existence of a single ethnicity, at least as the backdrop of that nation's identity, a culture, a religious set of institutions, maybe a religion itself as a state religion, a monarch. These are the things that have historically grounded the identity of a nation. Well, nationalism refers to the idea of effectively viewing the exceptionalism of your nation relative to those around you and your national

pride as an anchoring of your own identity. And that's led to, I would say, consequences throughout the course of human history that haven't always been great as judged by posterity. You could think about single-handed dictators for much of American history and global history that have been defined on the back of being nationalist. Well, I don't think that that's necessarily the definition that needs to apply in the American context of civic nationalism. Beautiful thing about America is that we're not a country defined on the basis of necessarily a single cuisine or a single ethnicity or a single religion, but we're a nation defined on a single set of ideals that brought together a divided polyglot. And yes, even religiously diverse group of people 250 years ago. And so I think

that's at stake in the context of being an American nationalist is whether or not you're committed to those civic ideals. That's a different question from being an ethno-nationalist. Now, I do think that there are many now in our conservative movement as we look to the future of a conservative movement that puts aside the historical neocon baggage of interventionist foreign policy and a domestic surveillance state. Put that to the past. I think we're headed to a future where we still have to define what the different branches of a pro-nationalist conservative vision are here in the United States. I see the emergence of a strain that's skeptical of civic nationalism. I believe that civic nationalism is really just a siren song, something that we can't really

hang our hat on. It's too thin to anchor our identity to. A vision that says, you know what? Somebody who has been here as long as fourth or fifth or sixth generation as an American descended from people who have been here a long time ago have a different claim on this country than somebody who may have come here as an immigrant. Yes, went through the oath of pledging allegiance to this country, but nonetheless haven't yet vested in citizenship in the same way as somebody who inherits a country that's more than just an economic zone. And I think it's an interesting discussion to have. I think the future of the conservative movement depends on where we land here. On one end of our nationalist movement, a libertarian nationalist movement that says that you know

what, you can subscribe to the ideals of this country that you should achieve anything you want and you're equally American as long as you pledge allegiance to those ideals. But I think a subtext and a strain on the other side that's skeptical of that. It says, you know what, we should be open to using government as an instrument to advancing pro-nationalist ends. And there is a difference in how American you really are, depending on how long you've been here. And I think we ought to smoke that discussion out and have that open dialogue in a way that's been uncomfortable because of the Overton window that we accept around these topics. And I think we would be best served taking a truck and driving it through that Overton window so we can actually have an honest discussion about the

future of where the conservative movement is headed from here, not just on the issue of national identity or nationalism or immigration, but more broadly. And that's why I brought on today, somebody who I think has some thoughtful perspectives on the future direction of our country, of our conservative movement, and on this question of nationalism and national identity, somebody who have been fascinated by for a long time and have interacted with on social media, but for the first time we're having a at least live form conversation in the offline sense of it, it's Ann Coulter. So, Anne, thanks for coming on, and I'm looking forward to our conversation today. Me too. Thanks for having me. That was a fantastic opening monologue. I too am a

fan of yours. I'm going to make a point of disagreeing with you so that it will be fun. You are so bright and articulate, and I guess I can call you articulate since you're not an American black. Can't say that about them. That's derogatory. And that was a great opening segment. Lots of things to talk about there. Oh, and I agreed with many, many things you said during, in fact, probably more than most other candidates when you running for president but i still would not have voted for you um because you're an indian we'll get back to that um and it's directly related to what you were just talking about you know the thing about nationalism you're totally right it is like to use the word nationalism oh it's hitler

it's hitler and you know hitler had soup that doesn't mean we shouldn't have soup Hitler loved dogs that doesn't mean you shouldn't love dogs so i think we have to move past this if If Hitler did it, it must be bad. But I do notice when I was listening to your monologue, I don't think I do use the word nationalism. I would use a word you used in your monologue, which I liked quite a bit, and that's citizenship. There's citizenism.

How about Americanism? I'd also point out that the only people who are not allowed to be proud of their ethnic group do tend to be Anglo-Saxons. Oh boy, you can't be proud of being white. Whereas, you know, watch a soccer. Watch a soccer game and see, you know, Venezuela. We're Mexicans. It's funny. Hispanics don't even think of themselves as Hispanics. They think of themselves as the country they're from. I think French feel very proud to be French. We saw Macron expressly objecting wokenness on the grounds that this is an American institution. We're not going to import this. So you do see basically every other ethnic group, very proud of their ethnic group. And the thing I'd say about America, okay, Okay, no single cuisine, but you can get Chinese food and Mexican food in Paris and Tokyo.

Food has definitely migrated across countries. There is a core national identity that is the identity of the WASP. And that doesn't mean we can't take anyone else in a Sri Lankan or a Japanese or an Indian. But the core around which the nation's values are formed is the WASP. We've never had a president who didn't have at least partial English ancestry. Never. We've only had one Catholic president. There was only one Catholic signatory to the Declaration of Independence.

They were all not only Protestants, but pretty much Presbyterian. King George referred to the American Revolution as that Presbyterian war. So there is a lot in the whole, in the freedom thing, Samuel Huntington of Harvard has written about this, It's a fantastic book. I recommend to everyone, who are we? And he describes how, you know, back in colonial times, interestingly enough, for example, Jews could vote, but Catholics couldn't because people thought that was they would be more loyal to Rome once they became more American Catholic and less Roman Catholic, then they were just, you know, part of us and part of Americans. But you do notice, and he describes why so many countries that have not done very well are dominating. by Catholicism. It's much more from the top down. It lends itself to an authoritarian governance.

Whereas, you know, Calvinists, it's between you and God. And moreover, because of the Presbyterian, I think every ethnic group has this, you know, the WASP work ethic and the Jewish work ethic. And I'm sure there is an Indian work ethic. But specifically with Presbyterians or Protestants, let me put it that way in the Calvinism, even though might not be theologically true, but the idea that you are part of the chosen and you prove that by being successful. It's almost the reverse in Catholic countries, not so much this country because American Catholics

have basically become Protestants. And that is this worship of being poor, as if you are closer to God because you're poor. That's not the way to create, like on the go developing country. No, I think that that's an interesting tour through that historical lane, but I want to pick on one point you said, which is citizenship, right? Let's talk about what does it mean to be a citizen of a nation. And it's interesting if a lot of people trip up on this, they'll say, well, it means what you get, right? Do I get to vote or do I get some other claim?

And that doesn't really work. Actually, if you look through most of American history, for example, women were citizens long before women could vote, right? And so it's not about what you get. in my book, and I think that this is true with the American conception of citizenship, I think it's true of the Roman conception of citizenship, is it's about your loyalty, actually. Yes. To whom do you actually pledge loyalty? And so I think you and I share that in common, actually.

I don't know, I've never ever asked you this in, but I assume from seeing the things you've said, tell me if I'm right about this, you're probably against the existence of dual citizenship as a concept. Is that fair to say? Yes. Yes. You and I share that in common. I mean, it's incoherent. It's not just outrageous. It's incoherent. It's incoherent. It's oxymoronic. How could you possibly have a loyalty to two different

nations where the essence of citizenship is which nation to whom you had your undivided loyalty? That's what the essence of citizenship is all about. So you and I agree on so much there. But where I wouldn't say lose you, but I may fail to fully understand you, is on that axis of citizenship, what does ethnicity have to do with the matter. And I think you would be well served, and maybe this can be a great platform for you to do it, to make the case for why that, what you put at WASP basis for the American identity, how is that relevant against a backdrop of which you got the WASP seventh generation descendant of some rich guy on the Upper East Side in Brooklyn that pretends to hate this country because it's the cool thing to do

versus somebody who came here is the kid of immigrants but pledges loyalty to this country. if loyalty was the access for citizenship, aren't you actually committing a bit of a sin reverting back to a conception of citizenship that has nothing to do with loyalty in the first place? Well, I will say many of those seventh generations, wasp, I definitely hate. I know we have a lot of really, really bad ones. But like I said, anyone can adopt this. I guess what I just said, if any of your children marry a D-A-R, I would definitely vote for them for present. It's not so much. It's more president is different. You have to be national born, as you know, which, by the way, Ted Cruz is not basically on because of what you were just describing. Where is the loyalty? So ambassadors' children born actually in the United States are not natural born. But that's a total sidebar. I've got not a sidebar at all. I mean, the fact that ambassadors kids born in the United States are not citizens is actually an overlooked fact. The kid of an ambassador from Mexico does not enjoy birth. right citizenship, neither does somebody who's in this country illegally.

Yes. Right citizenship either, right? So that's actually a quite important logical chain. But I go back to, forget even the, because you get to this constitutional, you know, legalistic, and I like that stuff, but we'll just put that to one side for a second. But the essence of American identity, I think there's a part of you that believes, I think you basically said so, that part of that identity is tied to a certain Anglo-Saxon heritage of this country and that you're more American.

invested into that over the course of generations that are descended from that, rather than somebody who came here with a civic commitment to the country, went through the naturalization process and then their kids made some real sense of the word. And the reason I respect you is that you actually have the, so to speak, the stones to be able to say it, is that you think that there's a difference in the status of the Americanness of that person. And that's where I think I disagree with you. But I want to give you the opportunity to err the case for that strand of national

identity that I think we ought to just smoke out and be able to have a discussion about. Well, the reason I mentioned the national-born citizen is I'm only talking about President of the United States. So obviously the framers thought there was something different about being president, the one man who holds one entire branch of government in his hands. It isn't to say anything about who could be a Supreme Court justice, and they have a little more power than the president, by the way, or Secretary of State or Governor. or obviously senator or any other position, but president, and I guess by extension, vice president,

that is something that the framers didn't think was, it was so important that you had this deep generation-wide loyalty, and why would they think that? Well, as many said at the time, freedom is a wonderful thing, but it's a very hard thing to learn. And one of the things, and I cite these polls at my book, Adios America, it's striking and depressing that lots of our very best immigrants just do not understand the Second Amendment.

They do not get the First Amendment, and you take polls of them, you know, should you have a right to bear arms? Should hate speech be banned? And it's noticeable that large percentages of immigrants and children of immigrants really don't get And I think that is the point of having natural-born citizen only for president, that this is a really delicate thing we have, this freedom to bear arms, and there being no such thing as hate speech. And it's just an additional little safeguard. Here's my question for you on that is because the left is actually very good at using what I call proxy logic. I reject proxy logic, but the left is actually very good at this.

They'll say, we need diversity in a corporate institution. So we're going to select for diversity of thought, not by screening candidates for the diversity of their thoughts, but by screening them for the diversity of their skin color, which is a really curious thing. If you care about diversity of thought in a border room, why do you care about diversity of your X or Y chromosomes? You could have a roomful of people that look really similar to one or another and think very differently or a roomful of people that look really different and think the same, which is much of what you get in corporate America today. So that's what I call reasoning by proxy, where one of the things I've often said to the left is if you want to select for diversity of thoughts, screen candidates for the diversity of their thoughts. If you want to select for diversity of experience, screen candidates for the diversity of their experiences, that might be a better way of achieving your stated goal than to use the logic of proxy. So again, the constitutional questions decide. I think we're talking about a cultural matter relating to national identity. My question for you is, I worry that you may, I say this respectfully, maybe making some of the same category error that our friends on the left make to say that, yes, it is shameful that immigrants and kids of immigrants often have no idea what the heck the Bill of Rights is actually about.

The Second Amendment exists not to protect some guy who wants to go sport hunting, but it's the one amendment that puts the teeth in all of the other ones. The First Amendment, the right to free speech means nothing if hate speech is carded as a category. because the definition of free free speech is the right to express any opinion, no matter how heinous it is. And that's protected in backstop by your ability to protect yourself physically, if necessary, from a tyrannical government that otherwise will be prone to overreach. And so these are basic concepts that many immigrants, first generation Americans, and for that matter, I could say it from having gone to school with many of the waspy varieties that populate places like Harvard, too, where I've gone, goes for any sixth or seventh generation, American too.

it's shameful, the level of civic absence of knowledge, a black hole of understanding of the history of our country. And I guess my question for you is, why solve for that through what I would argue is a pretty poor proxy, whether or not you're talking about a safeguard. If there could be a safeguard to ensure that you have leaders in this country or citizens of this country that have a better understanding of that, I would love that safeguard.

I personally believe that every high school senior should have to be able to pass a basic civics test, the one we ask immigrants to pass before becoming a voting citizen of this country, before you cast that ballot in a ballot box, you better darn know what branch of government the president leads. And yet, you actually have more people would fail the tests that naturalized citizens are likely to pass who aren't even naturalized citizens. Why not solve for the actual target that you and I both care about, which is loyalty and an understanding of what you're actually pledging loyalty to,

rather than using what I would argue is a left-like false proxy target, that you used to solve for the same thing. First of all, what you just said, what you started with there, if liberals you say you love diversity so much, but you're just, it's diversity of ethnicity and not diversity of thought. If what you want is diversity, you need to have diversity, you should be focusing on diversity of thought. That was the essay I wrote for my law school application essay

and my mentor at Cornell Reddit and just threw it over his shoulder and said, fine, take the flamboyant route. So anyway, that's what I argued low these many years ago. Yes, couldn't agree with you more. And no, of course, they don't care about diversity. Number two, I mean, it isn't really true that the seventh generation wasps are voting worse

than the immigrants. One of the problems with the immigrants we've been taking in actually, probably any immigrant, but definitely 90% of legal immigrants come from the third world. They're used to authoritarian governments. They block votes. And every four years, I have to hear about how, no, I think we're going to take the Hispanic vote this year, I think we're going to get the Asian vote. No, you're not Republicans.

Every election is decided by slight movements of the white vote. Now, the fact that the white vote is that close, yeah, okay, I hate 50% of them. But they're the ones who, you know, change their mind and look at the different candidates. It's much more easy to boss around people who have come from an authoritarian culture. And yes, take your point that this is at least for this one position president. You are looking at something other than just what the person actually believes. But, you know, nobody really knows what a person actually believes. why not have a fail safe? I want to hear you say it. And I'd also be more comfortable

if you, if you, your third generation and have some, some English or, you know, British blood in you. Hey, guys, it's Vivek again. That's just a brief clip of my conversation with Anne Coulter. We covered a range of topics that you're not supposed to talk about in public. And we didn't always agree with each other either. You can hear the remainder of our discussion right now by subscribing to my podcast, Truth. Just search Truth with Vivek Ramoswamy on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and listen to conversations that you will not find anywhere else. That's how we're going to save this country.