Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1406 | Did Socialists Take Over the Democratic Party? What You Don’t Know | Victor Davis Hanson

Episode Date: October 9, 2026

Today Allie is joined by historian Victor David Hanson. They discuss his new book, “The Counterrevolution: The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement,” which analyzes Donald Trump’s political comeback and re-election to a second term. Hanson also gives wisdom about broader American politics and looks at historical parallels of political violence and the future of the Republican Party. Do you have a question for Allie? Leave a voicemail at 844-755-5252 Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠ Share the Arrows is sponsored by: A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.com Range Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIE We Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.com – Time Codes – 00:00 Intro00:47 Share The Arrows is Tomorrow!2:09 Addressing Roots, Not Symptoms7:57 Illegal Immigration16:57 The Loss of Identity23:17 Political Polarization30:12 The Strategies Are Not New36:12 The Violence of Progressivism51:46 The Future of MAGA1:00:22 What Needs to Happen Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers | Visit https://goodranchers.com/allie to get $50 off anything on the site. Preborn | To donate, dial pound 250 & say the keyword BABY or donate securely at https://PREBORN.COM/ALLIE. The Voice of Martyrs | Visit vom.org/Allie2026 to sponsor a pack, inspire your faith, and learn about our persecuted family. Everylife Diapers | Visit EveryLife.com and use promo code ALLIE10 to get 10% off your first order today! Cove Pure | Get a special holiday discount at CovePure.com slash ALLIE. Hurry before the sale ends! Episodes You May Like: Biden's Dark Deal With the Far Left | Guest: Victor Davis Hanson | Ep 576 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKQy9I8feFk  How Christians Survived Communism in Europe | Guest: Rod Dreher | Ep 321 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKN-dO1otR4  Socialism Is Not the Future | Ep 135 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW2cXGJ3fPQ    --- ► Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠► Buy Allie's book "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book ► Subscribe to the podcast:iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnPSpotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj ► Connect with Allie on social media: https://twitter.com/conservmillenhttps://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/ ► "Relatable" merchandise — use promo code ALLIE10 for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

One of the greatest myths of our time right now is that a Bill Clinton, JFK, Harry Truman Democratic Party is trying to be hijacked by crazy socialists. Who came up with the idea before the socialists ever mentioned it 10 years ago of packing the court, getting rid of the filibuster, destroying the electoral college? The Democratic Party, it's a chicken and an egg question. They were the chicken, and they hatched the socialist egg. They're not called the Republican Socialists of America. They're not called the Independent Socialists of America. They're not called the Socialists of America. They're called the Democratic Socials of America.

It was the natural home. So the chicken was the Democratic Party and the egg was the Socials, not the other way around. Before we get into that fascinating conversation with Victor Davis-Ganson, tomorrow is the day, y'all. Tomorrow is shared era. So if for some reason you have not gotten your tickets yet, maybe you're in Arkansas, Maybe you're in Oklahoma. Maybe you're somewhere in Texas and you can make the dry, get in the car right now.

Go ahead and get your tickets to share the arrows. There are still some seats locked. We've got Shane and Shane Rosario Butterfield. Costi Hen. We've got Elisa Childers, Gracie and the Castleberry, her mom of impugging Natasha Crane, yours truly. Sarah Huckabee, Sanders. It's going to be so good and so encouraging. So maybe just today, you're like, you know what?

I just want to worship alongside like, minded women. Like, I just want to be at a fight. I want to be equipped. I want to be challenged. I want to be convicted of my sin. I want to understand more about the Bible. I think I'm to share the arrows. This is for you.

No fluff, gospel-centered worship-filled conference, Dallas, Texas. It's tomorrow, y'all. Sharetheaeros.com. You will also be having a very, very special announcement of something that she for Ladyboro and I have been working on for all those two years that we cannot wait to share with you. Attendees at Share the Areas. So go to Share Thearrows.com.

All right. Without further ado, here is our friend. Victor Davis-Hampon. Thanks so much for taking the time to join us. All right, you argue in your latest book that is now out, the counter-revolution, that we are countering a revolution. But tell us what we are countering before we talk about what the counter-revolution actually is. Well, it's the second Trump administration, I think, is quite a lot different than the first. It's not addressing symptoms of progressivism, but it's addressing the causes of it or the origins

or the whole 50 years, 60 years, 70-year-old progressive project. And by that I mean, they're trying to say, why do we have an open border? It's not just enough to build a wall or to close it. Why do we have that? Why do we have DEI? Where do these ideas come from? And why do we just address the symptoms,

but we never go to the causes. So what the causes they feel are, and this is why I think they're so controversial and earn such odium from the left, why do governments or movements abroad hate the United States, given that we're very generous with our aid. Maybe it's USAID's $50 billion budget.

Maybe people come out of the university with separate dorms segregated by race called females and separate graduations, No First Amendment, Second Amendment, First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights when you're accused of something on campus. Maybe a 95% bias of the faculty. So the universities, maybe we don't need 300,000 federal employees. Maybe we should, if the media continues to, especially PBS or NPR, continues to give false scenarios, maybe we should defund them. So these are pretty radical counter-revolutionary movements, and they're aimed really at changing the entire structure that produce the symptoms of hard left progressivism, rather than in the first term or in some other Republican administrations.

They sort of trimmed around the edges, or they said, we shouldn't do this, or we will vote against this nominee. but now they're addressing the very idea of progressivism and how it became so influential. It is an interesting question that right now as we speak, the left does not control the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, or the White House, and yet it still exercises enormous cultural, institutional, bureaucratic influences. And that's what I think they're trying to address.

How did you react to, the reaction to Doche, because a lot of what you're talking about, I see Doge's role in countering those things and the bureaucratic bloat and the funding of the sources of misinformation and disinformation that are really harming us. Obviously, that was an endeavor by Elon Musk, the response to that, not just by those in academia and those in the liberal media who probably know exactly why they're reacting the way that they are because they don't like the counter-revolution, but a lot of just normal everyday people. How terrible is it that we would defund USAID?

I can't believe that we want, you know, kids in Haiti to be struggling or eating less. I can't believe we're taking money away from cancer research and Uganda and all of these different things. Did that immediate emotional response by so many progressives and independents surprise you at all? It didn't surprise me. It did surprise me that the, Doge people didn't anticipate it because the left for many years has operated under the premise of a binary that 70% of the country are oppressors and 30% are oppressed, victimized versus the victimizers. And so any time you try to make fundamental changes in the progressive

project, they're always going to say it's a war against the entitled, the white, the heterosexual, the male, the Christian, whatever. formula they use versus the innocence. And that just as expected on spec, it kicked in. So when you basically eliminated what is now 300,000 jobs, people said, well, Joe Smith doesn't have a job because Donald Trump doesn't care whether he can feed his family or USAID. Everybody's going to die in Africa because they're not going to get vaccinations, even though Bill Gates's multi-billionaire, multi-billion plan had vaccinated hundreds of millions of people worldwide. So I didn't think they would, they didn't have a, I guess I'd say a tragic view of that, whether they just ignored it.

What they should have said is we don't like laying off people and we're going to have a robust economy in the private sector that will pay you more and give you more opportunity. But we can't go on like this with a $31 trillion debt. but it was sort of, it was kind of talking to their own constituency. Hey, isn't this great? We're finally the first ones to reduce government. While the left was saying, these people are cruel and inhumane and what's this poor person going to do without a cell phone or without a job?

And that narrative picked up by a 90% bias mainstream media was quite effective. And they didn't have a counter narrative in advance, I think, prepared for that. Yeah, and you know, I see this issue a lot, especially when it comes to immigration. Obviously, you and I and a lot of people are for the mass deportations of illegal immigrants. And I really don't feel bad at all when I see videos of these illegal aliens getting rounded up and deported, especially when we're talking about those who have committed additional crimes after the initial crime of crossing the border illegally. But I also understand that you and I aren't representative of a lot of. lot of normal people in the middle on the left who see this is entirely oppressive and see every

figure of illegal immigration as totally sympathetic. And they kind of were losing, it seems like, the Trump administration, the PR battle. Now, I have two minds about me when it comes to this. On the one hand, who cares? As you said, the media is going to be 98% against Donald Trump, no matter what they do, no matter what counter narrative they put out. the media is going to find a way to paint him as a cruel dictator and all of us who support him as some kind of, you know, we're nefarious lemmings. On the other hand, I also am like, yeah, but there's more that couldn't be done because there's a lot of people in the middle who aren't on the left, a lot of, you know, suburban moms who actually could be persuaded by a counter-narrative,

but they have to be given that. They have to be given another explanation besides cruelty for the deportations for Doge for these, you know, counter-revolutionary policy. So I'm just curious where you land between the, who cares, don't even worry about the counter-narrative. We're just going to do what we're going to do because the media is going to stab us in the back anyway, versus the, no, we actually need, we also need a human-centered compassionate message for why we're doing what we're doing in this counter-revolutionary way. Yes, I think I agree entirely with you. And they didn't have, I mean, it was good that they were stalwart in face of criticism and kept doing it, and we all admire that. But they didn't address what were obvious therapeutic talking points

by the left. The first one was, well, this isn't really a crime. It's a civil infraction. In fact, it is a crime, whatever gradation you say it is, it is a crime. And then they didn't say, if it wasn't a crime, then why wouldn't people, we wouldn't have a crime? We wouldn't have a border. The only way we can have a border is we enforce the boundary and then we deport people who broke the law. And they could have said things like when you're in an airport security line coming in from a different country and somebody doesn't have a passport, they don't let him in the country. Or they'll take him into a special room and say, you don't have a visa and your country record. They didn't try to explain any of that. And then they didn't give any historical context. They said,

We love immigrants, but we've never had 16 and a half, 17% of the population non-native born. We've never had 55 million people here of various statuses that weren't born in America. So we want meritocratic, diverse, legal, and self-supporting immigrants. And that's the natural thing. But what's happening is the most fundamental revolutionary act in our recent history. And it's a cynical ploy of the Democrats to grow government, get a needy constituency, because the majority of these people are coming in on-audited, without background checks, with enormous needs in health, education, legal representation, housing, food. And that is part of the progressive project. It's a cynical ploy.

And said that the left just said, well, this is the great replacement theory, the white paranoia. This is, and they didn't, they didn't. So I don't fault their enthusiasm and their zealousness was absolutely necessary, given Republican administrations of the past were lacking in wine. But they could have predicted what the left was going to say, especially since the left wing agenda is really a 70-30 issue in most cases, and they're on the 30% end. So they have two remedies, two or three.

One is, as we said, to use the institutional power of the bureaucracy and the media in lieu of actual political support to advance this agenda. But the second is, to be frank, is to change the demography. If you look at Canada, a lot of the problems we're having with Canada is that it's the most endowed, naturally endowed country in the world, essentially second largest area in the world after Russia. it should be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but it has a retrograde socialist paradigm, and it's got 1% growth for 10 years. And you ask why it does, and you look and see that 27% of the present Canadian population

was not born in Canada. Another 7 million parents were not born in Canada. And then you have 2 million visa holders, and you add up all those people who are either first generation or second generation residents, and they're almost 46% of the population. And they have enormous needs in a Western therapeutic country to give them vast layers of support, you know,

from education to food and housing, as I said. And so they're just incapable given they won't, they've adopted a socialist agenda about energy use and public beneficia that they're not able, to meet their NATO requirements. They're not able to not run a surplus with us. And we don't talk about this. Right now, the biggest crisis, I think, in the Western world, it's part of a therapeutic epidemic, but it's the inability to say that we are a distinct nation with distinct history and protocols and values and constitutions. And if you want to come here, you're going

to have to assimilate, integrate, and adopt our culture. And we don't have the confidence to do that. And people like the fire president of Mexico was Obador was bragging. He said, it's a beautiful thing. We sent 40 million people and they welcomed them all in. And now we're the biggest minority. And what he was saying is we do not want our people to be fully assimilated because they are a powerful constituency in foreign relations for our benefit, and they send back $65 billion a

year as our chief source of foreign revenue. And basically, they're subsidized by the federal government through various welfare programs to free up the cash to send to us. So we don't ever say these are cynical ploys by these other countries to, really in a cruel fashion, consider humans as an export commodity. And we should have taken those arguments and had the higher moral ground. Quick pause to tell you about our first sponsor for the day. And it is a voice of the martyrs.

I have talked about Sabina Wormbrandt. She is an incredible figure in Christian history who helped ensure that those who were suffering during World War II had access to Bibles. In these communist, atheist countries where reading the Bible and going to church was forbidden, she and her husband ensured that the word of God was still spread. And that is what Voice of the Martyrs, the organization that they founded so many decades ago, still does today. They are equipping the persecuted church in tangible ways. They're also sharing their stories with us to make sure that we know what our brothers and sisters in Christ are going through around the world. So we can have our own perspective on like what suffering really looks like, but also so that we can be praying for them.

and we can partner with voice at the martyrs to equip them. They had a resource called Whom Shall I Fear. It's a daily devotional that will encourage you here to live boldly for Christ, just as the church does around the world, even in the most highly persecuted areas. When you give just $35 or more, you will get a free copy of whom shall I fear. And your gift of $35 is going to sponsor a care pack for children of persecuted Christians. right there you were helping to quit the church. Go to BOM.org slash alley 2026.

Then to BOM.m.org slash alley 2026 to get your gift today. At what point do you think America lost our national identity? At what stage did at least a lot of people say, okay, you know what? America's nothing to brag about. Western civilization is nothing to be. be proud of. We're totally fine with a Somalian person being proud of their culture, whether they're in Somalia or whether they're in Michigan. And we would never, I would never, of course, I don't even think, you know, no liberal white person would go to Somalia and plant their flag there and say,

conform to me, give money to me, you need to accommodate me. And I want you to change based on what I think. They would call that, you know, white supremacy. It's really only America and Western and majority white countries that have this kind of guilt complex that makes us say patriotism is wrong, but only in our case. But it hasn't always been that way. So can you identify a time when their revolution, the progressive revolution that really culminated in progressives, if I can say, it's uncharitable, but like hating America largely and convincing so many people that you should not be proud of your national identity. When was that? Well, it started in the 60s. I'm going to be 73 in a few days, and I went to a newly open campus University of California at Santa Cruz. I came from

a very culturally conservative family here on the farm in which I'm speaking. When my father dropped me off at the dorm, as he walked in, on one side was a picture of Che Guevara. And on the other side of the dorm wall was Mao. And as we drove up to the campus, there was a traffic jam because the students for democratic society was blocking the roads, trying to tell the parents that America was a horrible place and killing thousands of innocent Vietnamese. So it started that it's happened before. It's innate to Western civilization.

If you go back to classical texts, there are a lot of people who, Romans and Greeks who attack their own society as sort of the cost of a free self-critical society, which is good. But that goes to extremes on certain occasions in cycles, and we're in about a 50-year cycle now where legitimate criticism ends up into pathological hatred. And that started in the 60s, and then the 12 years of Reagan and George H.W. Bush kind of calmed it down. But I don't think we give credit enough to Barack Obama because what he did, he didn't just give the global's view that we're not exceptional, we're just like Greece or Britain, and he didn't just do the apology tour. He took the old 11% black, 91, 89% white binary, and he redefined it

without any attention to class. So he said, if you're not white, We're not going to talk about affirmative action. We're going to talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion. And in this binary, you can be a rich Indian. You can come from one of the wealthiest families in Kuwait. You can be one of the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico. You can be blue eyes in Argentina. You can be worth all sorts.

But you have a claim against the majority because you're oppressed. and that really spurred this idea. And what was lost was class. So all of a sudden we had this ridiculous situation today where somebody who's impoverished in East Palestine, Ohio that the government just ignores when they have a toxic fume. They're considered privilege when they have nothing because they're white. And then we have people like Hassan Piker and his Porsche

or LSEE with $600,000 income or the Mondamis who were settler, Colonialist in Uganda, 1% of the Ugandan population controlling 65% of the wealth were Indian nationals. And they're victims. And then they start talking about white, white, white. And nobody really questioned that. But it was Obama who took that energy of the 60s and he formulated, he institutionalized it. And then the Biden, who was a waxen effigy, that Obama team then really went into action under the guise of good old Joe Biden from Scranton that four years.

And they were very brilliant. And they did things. They understood that they were not dealing with the symptoms of conservatism. They were going at the heart of it. They were trying to change the ballot laws in most of the states under the guise of COVID. So we went from 70% in election day voting where you can actually have ID and check people off a list to 70% mail-in or early voting where there was not much. chance. They tried to fundamentally change the system, and they still are, because they want to go to the symptoms of conservative traditional power in the United States, and that's what DEI does,

and that's what K through 12 does, that's what the universities do, that's what the foundations do, that's what the corporate boardrooms do. So what's scary just to finish is that this, what was a motley group of West, when I was in college, they were pretty pathetic, these rich kids running around with long hair and wire rim glasses and mow caps and spouting, chanting that they love Castro. And then they were in the wilderness in the 70s and 80s. And then they reemerged their children, in some cases their grandchildren, and they got smart, and they seized the institutional power.

I think Obama was the watershed period, where he mainstreamed being very hard, being left, spread the wealth, you didn't build that, all that stuff. Started with Obama. Yeah, it's interesting. I remember there is this study, and maybe there's an updated one now, but it was Pew Research and it was in 2017, and it was analyzing the polarization and politics and where those who identify as Democrat and those who identify as Republican had gone on each issue since I think it was maybe 1995.

And on every single issue, the left had moved further to the left, on every cultural and political issue that they looked for, whereas the right stayed the same, maybe a little bit more conservative on some things, but on immigration, on guns,

on homosexuality actually had become, for sure, on sexual and cultural issues, Republicans had actually become more liberal. But for the most part, they stayed the same. The left on every single issue got much,

much further to the left. And yet, when you talk to someone who is progressive, it seems like they believe, well, no, no, no, no, we've always been this way. We've always thought these things. It's actually Trump, who is the great disruptor. He is the one who changed the trajectory. It wasn't Obama. Obama was just an extension of everything that liberals always believed. It was Trump who came in and just stirred everything up. That's why we're angry. That's why we're demanding these things. That's why we're pushing so hard because Trump is so crazy. That's just factually and historically inaccurate. Even if Trump was a great disruptor, it seems to me that progressives, many of them don't even know that they're in the midst of a revolution.

Yeah, I think one of the greatest, I think you're getting at a very important point. One of the greatest myths of our time right now is that a Bill Clinton, JFK, Harry Truman Democratic Party, is trying to be hijacked by crazy socialist. But if you just put that aside for a while and ask yourself, who came up with the idea before the socialists ever mentioned 10 years ago of packing the court, getting rid of the filibuster, destroying the electoral college, that was Hillary's big theme, and bringing in two more states. As far as methodology, I mean, who got out in front of the Supreme Court?

court like a 60s radical and said, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, you're not going to know what hit you. You reap the wind, you're going to, you sow the wind, you're going to reap the whirlwind. Who said, get in their faces, follow them, harass them? And I could go on and on, but the Democratic Party, it's a chicken and an egg question, but they were the chicken and they hatched the socialist egg. So the socialists are not, I mean, they're not called the Republican Socialist of America. They're not called the independent socialists of America. They're not called the Socialist of America.

They're called the Democratic Socials of America. So they were a bunch of motley, downwardly, mobile, urban, mostly white kids with degrees and student loans that were not marketable. And they were absorbed or they, when they wanted to get political and get serious, they went to their natural home in the Democratic Party. And, you know, it wasn't like Hikim Jem. Jeffreys, you could argue, is the second most powerful Democratic politician. He endorsed a socialist over a Democrat, Andrew Cuomo.

Keith Ellison posed with an Antifa and said, this is the great book to go after Donald Trump. It was the Democrats that, you know, weaponized with lawfare for criminal suits. They were the ones that created the phony dossier. They were the ones that did the fake Russian created the laptop. They were the ones who tried to get Trump off 20 ballots, 20 state ballots. They were a very radical group the last 15 years. And so the socialists then merged into them because they found that this was a place.

They didn't form a third party. They didn't try to make a socialist democratic socialism. They didn't try to make it a normal, organized political movement. and they went right into the Democratic Party because that was their natural home because the Democratic Party bore no resemblance to what it was in 1992 or three. If you look at the agenda of the Democratic Party,

at least as it was formulated in 2000, excuse me, in 1992 and 1996, they called for a balanced budget, closing the border, deporting people were here illegally, trying violent juveniles that were 16 and 17 as adults and having compromises on Texas and trying to pay down the debt. It's all in there.

Today, to a Democrat, that would seem further to the right than Trump. So the party was changed partly because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I don't know what the exact. actual trajectory was, but Obama, as I said earlier, fueled a lot of it. And that's, it was the natural, it was the natural home. So the chicken was the Democratic Party and the egg was the socialists, not the other way around. The socialist didn't all of a sudden dream up all these ideas and methods.

And then these very moderate Democrats said, hey, we're being absorbed by radicals. No, they were the radicals. And then the Democratic socialists were just a disorganized kind of buffoonish group of people who said they've got the money, they've got the model, they've got the institutions, and they agree with 90% of what we want. Another pause to tell you about every life. Well, we are getting down to the wire with this pregnancy, y'all. And I have about to be in the newborn stage again. We're out of diapers with our other three, but with this one, we're going to be in it again. We're going to need lots of diapers. And you could bet that my dikers will be for. from every like because they're awesome they work really well would be using them if they didn't

but also they come in premium materials so they're clean they're good for their skin and don't have to worry about all of those allergens and fake stuff that's in so many diapers plus i love that every like aligns with me some of these big diaper companies are actually donating to pro abortion politicians and pro abortion causes i don't want that totally counterproductive so that's why i was partnering with every life go to every life. use code alley 10 you'll get 10% off your first order everylife.com code alie tapp you know a lot of the things that we talk about today feel so new transgenderism the idea of butchering children who believe that they're born in the wrong body even the idea of open borders I'm sure there are people

who have believed that throughout history but it certainly does seem crazier and more radical the convergence of all of these issues that are represented by today's democrats but they're strategies you argue really are not new like you talk about the french revolution and how we saw a group of radicals there that you see reflected in modern progressives in america so what is the parallel well the parallel is if you look at the revolutions of 1848 that swept through europe some of some of the ideas were good mostly anti-monarchies and if you look at the bolsheviks a very crazy splinter group from the Minchaviks that were originally part of a movement to have a parliament to balance the power of the Tsar or you look at the Jacobins who hijacked the French Revolution

in 1792-3 and gave us the Robespierre brothers and the reign of terror all of these movements have certain things in common but one of them is they're not bottoms up they're not grassroots We don't, I live in a 95% Hispanic community and I can tell you, I don't know one socialist here. I have somebody working on the foundation, U.S. citizens of Mexican American descent today, and I talk to them why they're working. They're not radicals at all. They're trying to build businesses and be upwardly mobile. They're not the people I see each week when I go to Stanford University who are well off radical professors, 95% of whom are radical democratic professors. So this is a top-down movement.

And when you look at these people very carefully, they all, they all, they fit it to a T. Mondami, as I said, is a very wealthy person. His parents are PhDs. Hassan Piker comes from a multimillionaire family. Ro Khanna, who thinks he's a socialist now, is probably worth a quarter million dollars. A billion dollars. His father-in-law is extremely wealthy. His wife drives a $200,000 range rover.

and Bernie Sanders even has three homes and technically a multimillionaire. So these are very affluent people who did very well by America, especially immigrants. And then the second thing, so for them it's kind of a play thing. And they think they're going to run the country and they're mad for power and they're wealthy and they're accustomed to being pampered and privileged. And the other thing, very importantly, in all these revolutions, linen, Marx, all of them, they were never subject to the consequences of their ideology. No sooner did the Bolsheviks take over, and they were building vacation homes on the Black Sea.

And the same thing was two of the Robespierre brothers. They were very well educated, they were upper middle class, and some of them were even royalty. and the same thing is true today. All of these people, and we saw that in Martha's Vineyard, when Ron DeSantis got really smart, and the Texas Governor Abbott got smart, and they said, if we're going to be overrun by people, we're going to send them to Martha's Vineyard as a test case.

And everybody came out, they expressed at Martha's Vineyard, and they said, oh, this is so terrible. We feel so sorry, we're going to get care packages. Does anybody have an extra puff coat? Let's give these nice boxes, and then it was within 24 hours. see you, wouldn't want to be you, the bus is getting you out of here. And that's what's so strange about the Democratic Party. It's the party of the wealthy and the privileged, at least the elite is. And that's true to form throughout history that these radical political revolution, even the

Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara and Castro were not poor. They were members of the aristocracy. and it's and they're always used to being exempt from any of the nefarious and bad things that happen when their ideas are actually implemented into practice and I could all during the height of the DEI I would hear people in Palo Alto tell me from Silicon Valley multi-millionaire and billionaire families and kids we all support DEI and then they found out that Stanford took it seriously. So 8% of the incoming class at Stanford were white males. Well, that can barely account for athletes, legacies, children of administrators. It's only about two or three hundred people. So what happened? Very quickly it came, got around that if you gave, the price was about 10 million

bucks to get your kid into Stanford. It wasn't ever written, but if you gave 10 million dollars, you had a chance of getting your white male kid into Stanford. And so other words, these people who were telling the guy in East Palestine, Ohio, you're just a poor white kid and you have no culture and we don't like you, even though he might have had a perfect SAT and a straight A, we don't want you at Stanford. And we believe in DEI. We want the black and Hispanic children of orthodontist and dentist and architects. but if they take away our place, not yours, we don't care about you,

we're going to pay the necessary dangle or bribe money to get our kids in. And they did. And Stanford will never talk, Yale, Stanford will never talk about that. And why is a movement that is apparently about diversity and inclusion and compassion and empathy and all of these things, why is it throughout history, progressivism, so violent? I mean, obviously we could talk about Charlie Kirk. We could talk about a lot of instances, but Trump alone has survived.

I believe it's seven assassination attempts. You're a historian. I think that's unprecedented. You tell me. But how do you see this in light of... Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Well, it's funny you said that I looked it up

because I wanted to quantify it by actual data. We've never had a president... 47 president. We've never have a president. in whose tenure the Secret Service shot back at a potential assassin on four different occasions. So you're right, it is a record. We've never seen that happen. The Secret Service have never pulled out their guns or rifles and tried to shoot in Pennsylvania,

in Florida, in Washington, D.C., and again in Florida, trying to break into Marlau. On each one of those occasions, the Secret Service had to fire guns to what they thought to save the president. So as to your question is, why is the left so violent? I think it's, I tried to answer that in the book, but I think it comes from two causes, one pragmatic or practical and one theoretical. Theoretically, they believe that they're morally superior

because they believe in a mandate of equality. They want everybody to be equal. And so it's like Alexis de Tukville said, in democracy in America, you've got to be very careful to maintain an independent middle class so you'll have a peasantry like Europe. And there we all know that democracy can't really flourish because most people would rather be poor and equal than all better off, but some people really better off, given the pernicious power of envy. So they feel that because they care, even if it's abstract, that any means necessary are justified because they are morally superior

to selfish Republicans or libertarians who only care about themselves. But they, you see at ICE, they are violent because they're trying to help Juan Rodriguez, who's a victim of ICE. And therefore, if I have to ram my car into an ICE person, or I got to tax an ICE facility, in Texas, it's justified. Or if Luigi Mangione wants to shoot Brian Thompson in the back in a very cowardly fashion, then it's good. He's saving thousands of people, or at least he's drawing attention. Or if a young mother wants to strangle three of her children, then we have to address the pathologies of America that allows postpartum depression to flourish, or something like this. But it's always, I am morally justified.

Next sponsor is co-pure. So there are a few products that I use the most when it comes to the sponsors that I talked about on the show. This is up there because we use our co-pure tabletop or countertop water purifier every single day. We've had a lot of water purifiers, okay? We've had all of the ones that you probably have in the crunchy world that claims to do so many amazing things.

The co-pure has to be my favorite because it's got so many settings on it. That's what I love about it. you can set it to the exact temperature of the water that you want to be dispensed. And so if you want hot water for your tea, if you want warm water, because you're making a bottle, if you want ice, cold water, cool water, you can get that and it's all in your co-purifier. This is the best of the best. It is eliminating up to 99.9% of contaminants in your water, pharmaceuticals, fluoride, lead, arsenic, all that said that you and your fans don't need to be drinking on a daily basis. You'll get the sleek, really good-looking, super-affected co-pure.

When you use my code Alley, you get a discount on your order. Go to co-pure.com slash alley, co-pure.com slash alley. The other reason is more concrete. And it goes back to classical wisdom, and that is most people do not believe in socialism. They know that if they work hard, they want the fruits, of their labor. Not that they're greedy and they're willing to help other people, but they want to make that decision of how much money they give to charity. They do not want to work very hard and then turn over to a central government who takes their money and gives to people often without

legitimate criteria. So they don't like mandated, and the left knows that. So the left says, the people do not know what's good for them. It's the opiate of the masses, religion. It deludes them. or tradition and custom deludes them or their own selfishness deludes them. So therefore, because our agenda will never be popular, even though it's the morally superior one, we've got to have to force it down the throats. And I think it was Lenin who said, if you're going to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs.

Sometimes that's attributed to Stalin. But it's not a natural human agenda, and the people who advance it do so because it gives them inside moral superiority and getting maybe a corollary of getting back to the point that they're mostly wealthy, it also asks which is their guilt. They feel that if I'm for mandated equality and I want to help the poor everywhere, but I want to have my Malibu Beach House and my Brentwood House, and I want my kids to get into Stanford,

or Harvard or Yale, and I'm willing to pay is to take a place from somebody else, I feel really, really guilty about that. But therefore, I'm going to, you know, post to how horrible Donald Trump is or how selfish the Republicans are, as long as I get to keep what I have. And that's how they square that circle of being selfish, but also in the abstract magnanimous with other people's capital. Well, obviously, it's a violent revolution that needs to be countered. And we've already talked about just a little bit how Trump has done that. His administration has done that. In the past year, though, we have seen what seems to me as a further fracturing of the Republican party of the conservative side, some of it's over foreign policy, some of it's over Israel,

some of it's over the economy. It seems actually to be mostly centered on foreign policy. And I just wonder what you think of the future of the Republican Party, is unity even now? necessary for a counter-revolution, and is it possible? It's a very good question, again. So let's quantify, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson and people who follow them represent a large constituency, and Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massey, maybe even Nick Fuentes, maybe eight or nine percent. of the party.

So what I'm asking myself empirically, does that translate into power in the Republican Party? Obviously not, because Marjorie Taylor Green wisely didn't even run for re-election. Thomas Massey, who was very popular in his own district, didn't even get the nomination. He lost in the primary. Tucker Carlson talks a lot about a national agenda, but he's not going to run for anything.

So it's mostly a movement that appeals to disaffected, often white males who have been the object of attuburation and feel that they can't, they're not given their due and it's not fair and they have a lot of legitimate arguments. But I don't think it's it rivals the zeal on the left of the socialist, number one. And number two, it's you're absolutely right. right, it's confined mostly to foreign policy. And the argument is we don't want any misadventures abroad, which everybody agrees with, like 20 years in Afghanistan or 10 in Iraq, at the expense of our own people. And so it's an American first argument. And Donald Trump promised that. But if you look at what Donald Trump actually said, he was never a Buchanan isolationist. He was never a Ron Paul isolationist.

He said from the very beginning that we have to build up our military, that we're being pushed around the world. He was not a neocon nation builder. He was a Jacksonian. No better friend, no worse enemy. We'll leave you alone. Don't tread on me, but don't screw around with our interest. So a Buchananite would say, well, let's just let Latin America be, or Tucker Carlson.

It's their trouble. A Jacksonian says, I'm not. going to wait to Maduro communizes all of Latin America and the Chinese come in and take the Panama Canal. I'm going to go down to Panama and warn the Panamanians. It's either us or them, the Chinese. I'm going to go tell Maduro, get out. If you don't get out, you're going to have to get out because we know you're sending illegal aliens, drugs to our country. And the same thing in the first term. I don't know why there was a confusion because when the Wagner group attacked our insulations in Syria, Trump said, kill them all. When Soleimani was touring the Middle

East, trying to refine and hone terrorism to attack our insulations, we killed him. When Baghdaddy was beheading people and ISIS had half of Iraq, Trump said no more and got rid of him. And that was pretty much when North Korea was sending missiles into Japanese airspace, Trump said, I have a bigger, I have a bigger button than you do, Kim Jong-un. So he was a reactive, and the same thing happened. He tried to negotiate. He tried to negotiate with the Iranians. He warned them. He said seven presidents have warned you not to go this way, but I'm the first one that even when I took out Soleimani, I did not bomb you again. And you told us that you wanted a performance art retaliation at our base. I let you do it. I told everybody to get inside

the base. You caused some minor damage. You gave some, you know, ruptured eardrums of some of our soldiers. But that was okay. He didn't, he was not a neocon warmonger. But his, all along his principle was, if you a threat in the United States or its interest, we're going to retaliate disproportionately to you. And I think a lot of people didn't understand that. thought he was going to be, you know, let the Middle East be, I think Tucker said it, let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And who cares if they did not dominate the Middle East? It's a Muslim Middle East. We have no business there is what they said. And the same thing about China, they said, don't get in a fight with China, let them do what they want. And if South America is all

communist, that's their, and Trump, but he was never in that camp. And I think finally to get to the gist of your question, I think the problem is not Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massey and Marjorie Tater Green. The problem is that you've got, you're going to have a crisis with a rivalry between what I would call the Rubio Camp and the Vance Camp. And they're not like Tucker Carlson at all, J.D. Vant. But they have a different, when J.D. Vance, quotes Uie Long as sort of a good person that spread the wealth who was an utterly corrupt and he didn't admit that he was utterly corrupt or when he says Israel can't kill its way out of Lebanon when really it's it didn't want to attack it it was attacked by 7,000 missiles from

Hezbollah he has a fundamental different view than Marco Rubio wing and I don't know how that's going to be how I don't know how that's going to come out because I think J.D. Vance and many ways is the most gifted politician I've seen in repartee, and the reason he was picked for the vice president slot was not because he did in traditional terms offer diversity. After all, he was a white male coming from a state that was staunchly Republican, that he gave no advantage in the electoral college. But they knew that he was a masterful orator. And, and debater, and he was on afraid. So they unleashed him on all the networks, all the, you know, meet the press, face the

name, all that stuff. And he just devoured everybody. He was brilliant. And so he's, people underestimate him. He's one of the most adroit politicians of our lifetime. But he has views that he interprets Trumpism in one way and Rubio and that wing and another. and they've got issues about anti-Semitism and the fringe groups. And I think at some point, people are going to say to J.D., can you just tell us that you don't

believe or you don't have views that are parallel are the same as Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massey and those people? And maybe he says, I don't want to denounce people, I want to have a big tent. We know how that worked with the Democrats. But that's going to be the problem. And I'm not taking sides either way, but I can see that Trump is going to have to intervene or somebody is going to have to resolve that because that could be serious in 2008. Next sponsor is Good Granchors.

I love Good Ranchers. So you can rely on Good Rangers for years in our home. I love their seed oil-free chicken nuggets. They're also blue-free, which means I can eat them. I love them as much as my kids do, maybe even more. We used their bacon almost every night. We made our signature, not really significant. We didn't come up with it.

But our go-to green beans last night, puts some bacon and some green beans, cast iron skillet on the stove top. No better way to cook your grapeies. Honestly, everything is made better by Good Ranchers Bacon. We also had their better than our organic chicken. You've got their ground beef, their steak. Chief of Laderbro, grill the steak also last night.

It was so good. You love relying on Good Rangers. It's all from a local American farm or ranch. Christian family owns company, you want to support. Go to good rangers.com slash Ali. Get $50 off anything in their site. Go to rangers.com slash alley.

Well, I'm curious who you think, in your opinion, would do the best job in carrying out the core counter-revolutionary aspects of MAGA because it seems that from your book, you do believe that those things can live on. You also say in the preface as you're drawing on soul's conflict of vision, you're talking about, you know, the progressive vision, and then trumps, you say, current, last, desperate, often heavy-handed attempt to undo all the economic,

cultural, social, political, and military orthodoxies of the last 50 years. Well, he's only got, what, about two and a half years left? And to me, it seems like, okay, we need more time and power with the exact same agenda of the counter-revolution to get some things done. So if it is, Marco Rubio or someone like him, versus J.D. Vance, or someone like him?

Who do you think would be most effective in carrying that on? Well, I'll preface it by say, neither one is going to be able to say that I was a MAGA, true and blue at the beginning. I had talked to J.D. at an event once in 2016 just after he had written an op-ed calling Trump a fascist. And I remember Marco Rubio on the debate stage really tore into Donald Trump,

and Donald Trump was kind of patting at the air and saying, calm down little Marco. So they both came late to the MAGA movement, which doesn't mean what I'm trying to say is neither one of them is going to be able to accuse the other one of the original MAGA feedays. So they're adaptable. But I guess I would say that right now Marco Rubio represents the Jacksonian Trump view of foreign policy. And J.D. Vance represents the domestic idea of sort of semi-managed economy with tariffs and partnerships with private enterprise and joint investments. A lot of the things the Wall Street Journal hates, for example. And so it'll just be a question of who is better able to adapt to an area which they're less experienced. experienced in or less comfortable with. So if JD Vance can formulate a foreign policy similar to

Trump's, maybe, I don't know, you know, and not say things like, I talk to the Iranians and there's some good moderates there and we're making a lot of progress. There are no moderates in that government. If you were moderate, you'd be shot on site. And on the other hand, I don't sure that Marco Rubio has the firsthand experience that JD was with the white underclass and how they were victimized by globalization. So it's going to be interesting. They're both, the nomination or the public support will go to the candidate who can best adapt and formulate the area that he's least strong in.

Will Rubio develop an American first domestic policy? And will JD develop a Jacksonian policy? And I have a feeling there's going to be an enormous amount of pressure to put both of them on the ticket. The only thing that's changed from that formula of what seemed like a slam dunk maybe six years ago, I mean six months ago, there's a large contingent of traditional Republicans. A lot of them Jewish that have made it clear they do not want JD Vance on the ticket. and that'll be something maybe they would like him as vice president. I don't think he would, I don't think you can be vice president more than two terms or one term,

but that's never happened before. They have a person come back, I think. So the big question is if you want to solve the problem by having them both run, then the question six months ago was obviously JD is the heir apparent, but now there are people in the party that say no, Rubio has earned the heir apparent. slot. So that's going to be very interesting. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see. Yeah. I think right now the polls, everybody shows that JD is the favorite, and that's in part because Rubio has been on record that says if JD runs, he will not run for president. But we know how

political promises go when there's a lot of pressure on you. But if it's, if I were JD, and he met with Jewish leaders the other day. It's not just Jewish leaders that people, there were a lot of people in the party that were offended on some of the remarks he said about the Iranian, the Iran war, or Israel's actions after October 7th. And he needs to clarify that in a way that makes it unequivocally clear that it's not anti-Semitic and it's not anti-Israel because the Republican Party for all the propaganda if you look at the polls it's still 65 percent and up supports Israel and I think the other thing very quickly is I think that a lot of people are trying to hurt JD on his side so I think somebody like Tucker Carlson the other day for example he said

and I knew him very well and like him although I don't agree with him. I should say I don't agree with his latest manifestation. But when he says that Donald Trump should be removed immediately, and he's saying things like that because he wants JD to be in a position where he has to either agree with Tucker or cut him off. And if he cuts him off, then he makes him a victim, and that's sort of mean. And they have a long personal relationship. His son work for JD. And so he's putting pressure on JD. He's basically saying, I'm going to get more and more provocative in my anti-Trump zeal to put you in a position where you're going to have to at some point choose between what I represent and Donald Trump.

And that's going to be difficult. But so far, JD hasn't made that decision. I think you're right that he will. interesting analysis for maybe the why behind Tucker pushing and pushing. So was Thomas Massey. So they're all doing that. They're all trying to be outrageous and earn. Trump has no problem.

And that's what makes it even harder for JD. Trump's already said that Tucker has a, Tucker has many things, but one thing I was on his show every Monday night for six years. I can tell you he's not low IQ. So when Trump says he's low IQ, I mean, that's, So Trump's already made the decision that they're not MAGA and he doesn't want anything to do with them.

And that makes it even harder. And they like that. So they try to provoke Trump as well. And that's really what they're doing. They're saying to J.D., we hate your boss and we're going to try to embarrass you until you come out on our side. If you don't come out on our side, we're going to get, we're going to really ratchet it up. So Trump one day is going to call you and say, hey, J.D, you're either on the team or you're not. And that's what they're pushing for, a showdown.

Last sponsor is Pre-Bor. They've got amazing news. Just this year, they have saved over 50,000 babies. And they have seen 5,100 commitments to Christ from women and dads who have come into their clinics. They have gotten non-judgmental, compassionate care from men and women who have shared the truth with them about the life inside the room, share the truth with them about the gospel. That's what Pre-Born does. all across the country, and you can partner with them.

You can put your money where your heart is. You can help save babies. You can help spread the gospel, which then, of course, save souls. You are investing in eternity when you give just $28 that covers the cost of a light saving ultrasound. Go to preborn.com slash Alley. Make your donation today. That's preborn.com slash Alley.

If we were to look past the midterms, even past the next election that we're talking about, if we were to look a decade from now, we were to talk again, and for you to be able to look back and say, you know what, the counter-revolution of MAGA, of the non-left, it actually did succeed. What would have to happen? Maybe let's pick three things. What are three things that would have to happen

for you to say that the counter-revolution has been a success? The first, I think, we would have to have a secure border beyond the Trump administration, both in Republican and Democratic. Put it this way, the Republicans, I think, would support that and will, and they would have to have such success and popularity that would be impossible for a Democratic administration to do what Biden did,

even though they'd like to do it. So a secure border, legal-only immigration probably at about $200,000, and acculturation, assimilation, integration agenda. And we're having that now. The second thing is, I think they would have to go back to the idea that your race is incidental, not essential to who you are. And Trump is fighting DEI on every front. And he's winning a lot of adherents in the Hispanic community, and even in the black, especially the black male community. So it's not just a white or even an Asian thing.

But if he could get back to the idea that how you look and your superficial appearance, and if that is true 10 years from now, that is the second enormous achievement. The third is I don't think people realize what he's trying to do. They just look at certain aspects. Oh, we haven't won in Iran yet. Or, oh, we took out Madero. What he's trying to basically say is, I'm going to remake the world in a way that forever enhances U.S. security and ensures U.S. dominance. We are not in decline.

And here's what I've done in my tenure. If you look at the top 10 software companies in the world, nine now are America. If you look at the top 10 AI companies, eight are American. If you look at the number of satellites, we launched 10 times the amount, mostly due to Elon Musk, then all the world put together. If you look at our GDP,

far from being overtaken by China, we're 10 trillion dollars bigger than their economy. So one American can create, takes four Chinese counterparts to produce 10 trillion less than what we do for each American. and were 10 trillion bigger than the EU, even though they have 100 million more people than me. That was not at all in 2015 predicted. And so when you look at all of these criteria, we are the world's largest producer, not just now, but in history of gas and oil.

And Trump is desperately trying to make us the largest producer of rare earth, et cetera, et cetera. So the third thing that he would be remembered for is that he took a declining America where it was the Obama mantra was we're going to have managed decline or even the Romney McCain view that we have to give enormous concessions to our allies so they'll like us or they'll stay in NATO or all this. But when you look at what he's done with NATO or getting the Chinese out or when he came to. when he came into office of the 32 Latin American, Central American, South American, Caribbean nations, almost 28 of them were communist, socialist, anti-American. Now there's only six, five, I think. And so nobody gives him credit, but he is remaking the world in a way that if these policies were to continue of deregulation and support and protection of American companies abroad

and telling Silicon Valley, for example, why do you give money to the left? They hate you. They want to confiscate your government. They want to pick winners and losers. I don't care if you like me, but I want you to make America first. So Andrew, make all the weapons you want,

or David Sachs, or Mark Andreessen, come on and join us, but you've got to be like the World War II capitalists, the War Production Board. they produce more tanks more planes than anybody in the world so if you're patriotic and you're nationalistic and your interest are america versus all the people want to destroy us that i'm going to do all i can regardless of what your personal politics are that was an amazing achievement i think so those three things if we can solve the immigration problem if we can look at our

americans as you know at the content of our character not the color of our skin and that's in process and then if we get people who will continue the idea that America is not in decline, but actually its greatest epoch, economically, culturally, influentially. The one thing I would add that I'm disappointed, I'm sure you are too, is that we're either $32 trillion in debt, or if you recalibrate under this new system, we're $40 trillion in debt, and we're paying $3 billion a day in interest, and it's not sustainable, and nobody on their left or right seems to address it. Yeah.

Wow. Okay. Well, here's to hoping. Here's to hoping that those three priorities at least get done in the next 10 years. I think you and I would both be very happy with those results. And whether the progressives admitted or not, they get to reap the benefits of the counter-revolution, even if they fight against it. You made a very good point.

The irony is that left are going to be. big beneficiaries if this revolution, this counter-revolution ever works. Yep, absolutely. Everyone, go get your books. Wherever books are sold. Thank you so much. Thank you.