The Daily Signal - How Democrats Lost America's Trust: David Harsanyi on "The Rise of BlueAnon"

Episode Date: March 23, 2025

Author and columnist David Harsanyi joins The Daily Signal to discuss his book "The Rise of BlueAnon: How the Democrats Became the Party of Conspiracy Theorists." In this thought-provoking conversation with Rob Bluey, Harsanyi explains why Democrats have embraced conspiracy theories, analyzes the collapse of institutional trust in America, and shares his perspective on faith's crucial role in our society. Harsanyi argues that Democrats resort to conspiracy theories to avoid substantive debate, with the Russia collusion narrative being "the most effective conspiracy theory perhaps in political history." He discusses the modern media landscape, why Americans have lost trust in legacy institutions, and offers candid insights about the dangers of government replacing the role of faith and private charity in American life. The conversation also touches on Trump's administration, DOGE, college campus protests, and Harsanyi's new Substack newsletter where he continues to provide analysis beyond his regular columns: https://davidharsanyi.substack.com/ Subscribe to The Daily Signal for more interviews with thought leaders on the critical issues facing America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Daily Signal weekend edition. I'm your host, Rob Blewey. Today we're taking a deeper dive and going beyond the headlines to discuss the issues and events that deserve more attention. At The Daily Signal, the news never stops. Each day, we strive to bring you analysis and perspectives you won't find elsewhere. That's why we started this weekend show and why we're grateful that you're joining us today. Our conversation is coming up next. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans. We've mastered made to measure growth and expansion advice, and we can talk your ear off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do, business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us, and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. We're joined at The Daily Signal by David Harsani. He's the author of several books,

a columnist for us at The Daily Signal and syndicated nationwide. And also the author of a new substack, which we're going to get into and have David explain why he's decided to take that path that so many people in this creator economy seem to be doing these days. David,

welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. So your latest book is here, the rise of Bluenon, how the Democrats became the party of conspiracy theorists. Why don't we begin with the book? And then we can get into some other current events. You know, this is so true. And in fact, I feel like your book, which came out after the election in November,

has aged very well in these, in these months that have followed. Certainly, it seems that the Democrats are maybe in more disarray today than they were even back then after the election loss. Why have they resorted to becoming conspiracy theorists? Well, you know, there are many strands to why I believe they have kind of adopted this kind of outlook. And the most obvious reason is that they've been trying to circumvent real debate. When you're in power for a long time, when you're running the institutions for a long time, you don't feel like you have to debate anymore. You're in a position of power.

So calling your, you know, it started during the Obama administration, calling everyone a racist or disagreed with you then or a sexist when Hillary ran and so on. And I think that just blossomed into claiming that all and everyone you're running against is a fascist. And it's an easy way out. And I don't think they've actually weaned themselves off of doing that. This is, I think, what led to Russia collusion and all these other giant conspiracy theories. The most pernicious, for instance, is that, you know, asking someone to provide an ID is the same thing as Jim Crow.

You know, I mean, these are all very paranoid views of the world that the left had adopted that many of them, I think, were, you know, transparently insane. And a lot of normies were like, this is not how we need to have government run. And so I think that helped Trump win, actually. Yeah. What do you make of the move by some people who are outside of the bubble in Washington, D.C.? I'm thinking now of California governor Gavin Newsom or former Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who seem to be at least embracing more of these conversations or going against traditional Democrat orthodoxy on certain issues that are really political losers for them? I mean, Gavin Newsom even having conversations with people like. Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk on his new podcast.

Is it superficial, or do you think it's a, it's, there is a sincerity to actually wanting to engage in these conversations and debates? I think it's superficial. Maybe not Ron Emanuel has always been kind of a centrist, but, uh, not with Newsom. I, you know, when you are just calibrating your views to, to win races, it might work to some extent, but in the end, you have to believe things or, or you're just insincere and it's going to come through, I think, in the end. So I don't know how many people.

It's like Kamala tried to, you know, moderate her views, but you can't have a long history of believing one thing and then not the other or trying to mollify that progresses. I think the progressives took over that party and their quackery took over that party. And normal common sense. You know, I'll love to say common sense because, you know, it's a malleable kind of phrase. But I think common sense dictates that they're going to have to change. Now, can they? I don't know. There'll probably be some sort of internal war or civil war in that party.

But, yeah, we'll see. David, you also talk about in the book how, you know, it's typically in legacy media circles, Republicans who are called the conspiracy theorists and they have, you know, no shortage of examples that we could point to reminding their audience of various things that have happened historically. But you say that, you know, at the same time, the Democrats don't necessarily get called out for some of their crazy beliefs. Do you see that changing at all in the future with the rise of conservative media or the embrace of different voices, including people like yourself who have moved to a platform like Substack?

It's to some extent, yes. I think what happens, my argument in the book is that everyone is susceptible to that kind of thinking. I mean, it's since the ancient Greeks, we've had conspiracy theories mainstreamed sometimes, and they affect how we govern and stuff like that. But over the last 20 years, it's been Democrats who are far more dangerous in that way because they calibrate their conspiracies to sound plausible. They have these giant megaphones, you know, cable news, whatever, you know, they control the flow of information,

and they adopt those things. And it's much more dangerous than having, you know, Alex Jones somewhere saying something. And most people, you know, most normal people don't take that very seriously, but they take CNN seriously. They take, you know, these news, New York Times seriously. So that's why they were more dangerous. Now, no one trusts them in. I mean, there are no untrust the media. So you have left this vacuum that is being filled by a lot of interesting people, but also a lot of quacky people and crackpots, you know? So it's, I think it's difficult for a lot of consumers of news to navigate now and know what's true or not. I think it's going to stabilize at some point, but I think we're now in kind of the whirlwind, you know, where, where there

are a lot of, I see giant accounts on there on the right who say a lot of crazy things as well. And it's important, I think, for people to, I don't know, I hate to say do your own research, but maybe double check what you're what you're believing or not. So it's a difficult time, I think, for just normal people who want to read the news, you know? It absolutely is. And I think particularly on social media platforms, you know, something can spread virally so quickly that by the time you get around to determining, I think back to the, you know, devastating crash at DCA that, Washington-Ragan Airport and all of the rumors that circulated in the hours and days after that, some of which turned out to be completely false. But, you know, there are Americans who may have

seen that first tweet or Facebook post and never saw the follow-up. And so you're absolutely correct that I think news consumers need to be skeptical about what they read and hopefully look at multiple sources. Can you share an example from the book that really stands out in your mind that, you know, it really crystallizes this idea of, you know, some misinformation or conspiracy that the Democrats have embraced? I mean, you know, it seems sort of cliche to talk about it still, but the Russian collusion hoax. I mean, it was hatched by Democrats. It was handed to either the media who spread that were either part of it or they're too stupid to be in the media anymore. I mean, you know, the idea that the president who's elected is a, is an asset for the, the Russians,

would be the most, the biggest controversy, the biggest event in American history outside of maybe the civil war, the revolution, right? It would be insane. And the way that they just flung that around without any kind of real proof, and to see how many people believed it, it literally undermined the entire first, almost the entire first term of the Trump administration. It's kind of like a soft coup by the intelligence agencies. I'm not one of these people who goes around talking about the deep state all the time, but there is a deep state. obviously, and they were very effective. And this is why I like Doge. I don't even care how much money they cut. I think just trimming down this massive bureaucracies that run our country, we're not governed by them. We're just, you know, they're like our babysitters, basically, and they're not elected, and they have no constitutional reason for existing. And that goes for the intelligence agencies. Anyway, that's off topic. I think that that was the most effective conspiracy theory, perhaps in political history. You know, I mean, I can't think.

of another one that was as widely believed as the Russia collusion hoax, you don't even have to like Trump to understand that that was one of the media's, I think that destroyed, I think that destroyed media. I don't think anyone will really trust them. And that's bad. I want people who go after everyone, who are skeptical of power. You know, it's not, my problem isn't that people are hard on Trump. My problem with media is that they're not hard on any, you know, their own side. Anyway, so I got a little off track there, but I think Russia collusion hooks. It's a great, great example. And I completely agree with you on the trust in media question.

I mean, I know that that's been dwindling for a long time. But I mean, if there was one incident in the last decade that really illustrated why Americans lost faith. And unfortunately, I don't know how those big institutions, those big media institutions gain that trust back. I think it's interesting to see what this White House is doing in some of the battles that it's picking with journalists, the Associated Press being one of the notable examples. They've added a new slot to the press pool where folks like those are my colleagues at the Daily Signal or the Federalist or Daily Wire or Daily Caller. You can go down the list are now getting access and the ability to ask the president and other high-ranking officials' questions where they previously

were shut out because the White House Correspondents Association largely controlled that and had a monopoly on it. And so it's certainly interesting to see how it all plays out. But, you know, in addition to the media, I would say, you know, one of the other institutions in our country that really is so, you know, influential and formative in shaping the minds of young people are, you know, higher education institutions. And we're seeing that play out right before our eyes. Not only this battle that's going on between President Trump and some of these institutions like Columbia University, but their reaction to that. And I'm just curious to get your take on whether you think that there's any opportunity to really make inroads.

in higher ed and what the path forward might look like. I don't know. I mean, I was thinking last week about, I was thinking about writing a column about this. I mean, I don't think there is any institution left in American life that we actually can really trustfully anymore other than perhaps the Supreme Court. I think that's the only institution that actually basically works the way it should. Congress doesn't do his job. Most often presidents exceed the constitutional powers that were given them, you know,

because everything has fallen apart. Higher ed is a huge problem. We have, you know, the Trump administration was a $4 million, I think, of funding. They took away from Columbia. I don't think taxpayers should be propping up these institutions at all. They're no longer, Ivy League institutions used to be prestigious. Our leaders came from there. There was a high level of educational expectation when you went there.

I don't think any of that's true anymore. It starts with the professors. it goes to billions of dollars of Qatari money, for instance, being pumped into these schools. That's why you see these kind of cost playing Hamas supporters all over and universities do nothing about it. I think that's one of the reasons. I don't know. You know, there's been going on a long time. When I was young, you'd see you'd go onto a campus, you'd see people wearing Mao shirts and so on.

And I get that young people want to be transgressive. They want to be, you know, revolutionaries. But I was far more excited about reading Hayek or something that it was around reading, you know, Carl Marks. It's incredibly boring. So I never really understood that mindset. I would be fine if that existed if there was a counterweight to it that was similar, similar. But there isn't, you know. There are very few schools, I think, that you can point to in the United States who teach liberal arts, for instance, that aren't just completely left wing.

So I want to help schools maybe that provide a lot of STEM degrees, make doctors, you know, things like that. But, you know, the whole social science, you know, quackery that goes on in these schools, I don't have any, I don't know how to fix it if that's dressing or where it goes. I think they need to basically be destroyed as much as possible. And new institutions need to be built up that are open to all kinds of debate, you know. So that's going to take a long time. It's going to take a long time. And I think one of the things for conservatives or anyone who's right of center listening, and if you're still taking a donation to these institutions that don't align with your values, you know, that's the first place to start to start reexamining. But since you brought it up, I mean, obviously these campuses have been hotbeds of pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas sympathizers. We had this recent debate, ongoing debate about whether or not the Trump administration can deport individuals who are supporting. terrorists. Where do you fall on that particular question? I have always considered myself, you know, a free speech absolutist. I think I still am. I support Mahmoud Khalid's right to unfettered

speech here and in Algeria or Syria, wherever he hopefully goes next. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says that we have any kind of responsibility to hand citizenship to someone who brings nothing to this country except maybe importing bad ideas from other places. Liberals love or leftists, They all want to call them liberals. Love to talk about immigration. Sometimes I think it's the only thing they actually think is good about America, right? They're quoting the new colossus off the Statue of Liberty. Well, that poem says, leave your bad ideas behind.

Makhine Khalil is a perfect example of someone who is importing hatreds, ancient hatreds. He is, he, you know, he backs a violent philosophy, and he's acted in a way to target others in that school. Just because Alvin Bragg, the DA of Manhattan, doesn't press charges against people like that. That doesn't mean that I haven't engaged in criminality. But my view is, I mean, the law says that if you support or part of a group that supports a terrorist group and Hamas is a DOJ designated terrorist group that kills and rapes and kidnaps Americans, you can be deported. But if that is unconstitutional, we need to change the law. It would be suicide to let people like that come into this country. So I don't know. I mean, that's my view of it. I don't think it's a free speech issue. No one's made a law saying he can't speak. They just don't, we don't want to mirror anymore. And we have every right to bring people in here who are going to make this country a better place. There are millions of people running away from a liberal regimes around the world who would make great Americans. That guy is not one of them. And I think the Trump administration is completely right. Well, and there's there's probably no question that this will end up in the courts as so many of the other executive actions.

and things that Trump has done. You know, speaking of that, of those, you know, many things that he's done, everything from ending birthright citizenship for those who are not, those who are here illegally or temporarily, you know, to taking other actions to try to clean up some of the mess that was left after four years of Joe Biden, what stands out in your mind as the actions that will have maybe the most significance or lasting consequence, recognizing, as you rightly pointed out, that Congress at the end of the day really needs to probably codify these. otherwise they could just be swept away by the next president.

Yeah, for sure. If Congress doesn't move forward, the next time there's a Democratic president, there will be. I know everyone when they're in power feels like they're never going to lose it, but they do. I remember 2008. When Obama won, it seemed like it was over for conservatism forever. Within two years, he was stymied and couldn't do anything except abuse his power. So that's something to think about Congress on tariffs, for instance. Like, wherever you stand on that, Congress just handed that power over to the president.

President. Congress just rights a law enhance emergency powers to the president. That is not how the Constitution envisioned governance, for sure. You know, I mean, so, well, the most consequential stuff, I think, is the Doge stuff, but it does need to be codified because, for instance, you can try to destroy the Department of Education, but if you don't do it statutory, you know, through legislation, it's not going to last. Some Lib is going to win again, and they're going to build it up again. So to me, I am a big fan of Doge. That maybe they should, you know, should be a little more careful and how they do things. Yes, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think destroying the administrative state could be his legacy. I think it's great for America,

but Congress has to act. The problem is whenever Congress has their party in power, they don't want to take the power away from the president. And so we're going to need some great statesmen to step up at one point. I'm not holding my breath on that, though, frankly. Yeah, I mean, I've said that I've been in this fight long enough to know that, you know, politicians talk a good game on the campaign trail when it comes to cutting government spending or eliminating your marks. So you can go down the list over the last two decades. And, you know, the Tea Party just marked its 16th, you know, birthday, you know, from that famous moment, you know, when Rick Santalliano made the declaration. So here we are. We've got a bigger debt. We've got a $2 trillion budget deficit. So you're absolutely correct. I mean, unless Congress actually takes some steps here in the approach. appropriations process or through other means, I don't see this changing. And frankly, you know, the fact that many are unwilling to even have the conversation about reforming entitlement programs is part of the problem. Yeah. I mean, I am like for Doge, but the cuts, he, you know, Elon Musk is exaggerating what can be done there. I mean, discretionary spending, you know, you could cut all of it and we're still in trouble. You need Congress, first of all, to change the trajectory of spending and to start actually to. talking about reforming some of these entitlement programs, like you say. But I mean, that's always,

as you know and I know, been a dangerous thing to do. It can sink your presidency to do that. And so I don't know how to approach it. I actually, I think Trump is the guy who could do it. You know, he could make that case. I think he could bring Republicans with him. They're willing to do that. And I think he can convince a lot of independence that it's a good idea, probably. But the thing is, I mean, I just don't, I think he, you know, he said he's never going to touch them. And I think in some sense, you know, he is a bigger, you know, we're, there's not a consistent philosophy there for me to grab on to. Some ways, he's, he's very conservative about spending. In other ways, I think he's kind of a big, bigger government kind of Republican.

So it's going to be really difficult. And you see the budgets that, you know, that are going through now. There's no real cuts there, right? And I think people are fooling themselves if they think this isn't going to continue to be a problem until we have a real problem. then there's going to be a lot of blame to go around. David, shifting from government spending to some of the cultural issues in our country. I know you have thought a lot about the role of faith. I'm just curious if you can share with us.

Some of your thinking about where you see us heading in the future. I mean, there are so many issues tied up with this particular conversation from a policy standpoint, but also just to the way that we treat each other and live our lives. So what's your perspective? Well, I am not, you know, I'm not a religious person. I'm an atheist, I guess. I don't like that word. I guess I'm a non-believer. But I am a religious person and I think religion is good. I especially think organized religion is spiritual, but they don't like organized religion. Organized religion is kind of a culmination, a summation of a thousand of years of thinking about morality and the way we live our lives. So I think it's a great thing. And whenever it falls apart is the 20th century proved in Soviet Union. and in Europe, it's a bad idea. I think actually now in the European Union, lack of faith has led to kind of a worship of a bureaucracy almost and a lot of immoral policies about, you know, the elderly or abortion or things like that. So I think it's problematic. And you see it happening here now.

You know, there's a, there are a lot of nuns, which are people who, who don't subscribe, you know, believe in God, maybe, but don't subscribe to any kind of particular faith. And churches are, you know, or you know, most churches, not all are losing members. So I think that's a very bad idea. We are a Christian country. I don't mean that in a democratic sense, but in just a moral sense. And obviously, I believe, though it's politically incorrect to say, that Christian majority nations, even ones who aren't religious now, but still have that history, are the most

successful in the world and the world has ever seen, the most moral world has ever seen. So if we lose that, I think we're headed in a bad direction. And it's, I don't know how to fix it. I don't know what to do about that. But my pitch to people always is, even if you don't believe it, it's a good idea to act like God exists, right? Constitution. If you, you know, we don't believe the state handed that to us. We believe that these things are endowed to us by a higher power and can't be taken away by the state ever.

And that's how I like to think about natural rights as well. But I think that folks in America on the left for instance who are constantly believe that they can ship away at those rights because they think that it's given to us by some politician. And that road is a bad one. I don't know if that answers the question. But so I'm worried, I guess, is what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm worried about it as well. I think on multiple levels, I mean, everything from, you know, the family unit and not having, you know, that moral compass that you talked about to. to just the fact that, you know, organized religion was a way to maybe set aside political differences and come together.

I mean, you have families that can't even have conversations with each other because they're such deep political divisions. And it probably goes back to, you know, things that you write about in the book. I mean, with such, you know, strident beliefs about particular conspiracy theories, let's just put it out there. That, you know, it leads to, you know, the cancellation of Thanksgiving dinner, which is just tragic. I mean, we erect idols, right? I mean, listen, I'm pretty libertarian about the world in a lot of ways, but when you have a flag that just signifies what kind of sexuality you are or what kind of, you know, who you like. I mean, that is a perversion of what a flag should mean. It's not normal.

And this is, I think, because people are looking for new churches. I mean, think about how people, you tell someone, Donald Trump's going to get rid of the Department of Education. And you would have thought that he's bringing, you know, he's destroying a church or some or cathedral or something. You know, that thing was invented in 1979. It has no real purpose. The states and the local communities run schools, which is how every, you know, I don't even know how anyone could not get on board with that kind of idea. But they don't. So, because they like centralized state stuff.

And so that's why when you see people so go, get so passionate about the USAID cuts, right? It's because they treat the state of some kind of church. I mean, there's no way you could care that much about something so empty and vacuous, you know. Not saying all the programs are terrible, but a lot of them. So anyway, yeah, I think it's a big problem. Again, I'm not a big solution guy, I guess, because I'm not exactly sure how to pitch people and bring them back into churches. I guess that's for the church to figure out. I think they're doing a great job for the most part.

I'll tell you one way. I tell you one way not to do it is the way that Jews do it, like, like me and now many other religions, create unorthodox perversions of faith just to bring people in that have no real connection or to the traditions and orthodoxy of whatever religion you're talking about. That is the surest off ramp for real religious people. And I'm jurist, so I can say this, I guess, but there are a lot of Jewish factions that essentially are anti-Jewish, you know, and it is a, they use the faith as a way to destroy the faith. They say abortion is a Jewish value, which it's not.

And a lot of people believe that that's true now. And I see, you know, I don't want to, you know, pick on any, you know, Christian denominations in that way. But I see that happening quite a bit more and more in churches splitting. I think that that is really corrosive as far as it goes because you need some kind of hierarchy, I think, some kind of belief system. even if you don't believe everything, you can still be part of that church, you know, but it seems like we're going into different direction.

It's already interrupt you there. No, it does. It does seem like we're going in a different direction. I'm glad you brought up the USAID example. Another one that I saw recently was the Department of Agriculture came under fire for the fact that food banks don't have enough food. And I'm thinking, you can go down the list of so many things that the private sector or charities used to provide that the government came in and just crowded them out.

Exactly. And I mean, you see this even with Catholic charities. I mean, the fact that Kevin Roberts wrote about this recently and the fact that, you know, now the significant amount of government funding that goes to these non-governmental organization crowds out the private sector. And when people used to give to those charities as a means of helping others in their community, you're just not seeing that as much. And so when I see that criticism of why isn't the government supplying more food for the food bank, I'm like, where are the fellow citizens who used to do this? that through their church or some other organizations. So it's a great point. Yeah, no, and you see charitable giving. I mean, this has been a long known that conservatives and religious people give more than socialistic people, I'll call them. And you see this in Europe. We give a lot more because we understand the role of community and of your own, you know, participation in helping your community be better. And like you say, you know, the higher taxes are the less inclined you would, for instance, be to give because you're figuring government's taking care of that. Yeah, maybe government takes care of it.

But then also they take those charitable dollars and do all the things that whatever these politics or bureaucrats want to do, do. So you're not, you've lost agency almost in the way that you're handing out. It's not really charity out. Someone takes it from you, gives it to someone you don't want to give it to.

So, yeah, I think you make a great point with that. David, I always enjoy talking to you. And I want to give our listeners and viewers some more information about how they can, can follow your work. You recently started a substack. So many people are gravitating to that platform. What was the impetus for you to build an audience there? Well, I'm a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. I read two longer form essays a week. But I have a lot of other things to say sometimes in shorter form. So my friend Ben Dominic, who has the Transom, which is a long time, I don't know

if it was always a substack, but it was similar in a newsletter, you know, suggested that I could, you know, collect those things and reach out to more people. So I decided to start one, get my cultural picks. I have a link there to a weekly podcast I do with Molly Hemming, where you called You're wrong. And, you know, it's just a way for people who like my work. And I'm very appreciative of those who do, you know, can see all the stuff I'm doing in one place.

And let me ask you this because, you know, on another podcast, Semaphors mixed signals, they recently had somebody from Substack talk about the significant growth that that platform has experienced. I'm just curious from your standpoint. I mean, do you think that this is a model that will, you know, if not replace, at least compete with traditional news brands as individuals can build up their own followings and not necessarily have to work for, you know, some of those big name publishers? As far as punditry goes, I think it's great.

You know, there are so many interesting people with substacks that I read. There are too many for me to even subscribe, you know. It reminds me a little bit in a way. maybe this is a regression and a way back to the blog, blog at Revolution, which I was around for, which was, sorry, excuse me, which was, I think, the most exciting sort of revolution in media that I lived through.

You know, there were just so many great voices that never had a platform, you know, and all that. And then I think it got a little with social media, it got a little crazy, you know, where we were just too many voices, maybe, you know, crowding out smart people. So this is another way to just be able to read the long form writing, the arguments of folks,

who are really smart and you get to pick and choose so they're not, you know, crowding you. I'm still sort of learning how the other parts of substack work because it has kind of a social media component as well. But I don't know. It's been fun. I've only written like three or four of them. I kind of also, it's a way to, you write a column, but you maybe after you've written it, you have a little more context or you have a few other things to add.

So that's what I do there. And so people can reach me through there as well. So I like to talk to Fantoran. yelling at me, but, or critics who aren't yelling at me, but making some good arguments. And sometimes they convince me to think a little differently about stuff. I love that. My colleague, Tyler O'Neill, who recently published a book called The Woktipus, started a substack at Woktipus.com. He's had tremendous growth there from people who just want to, as you said, get more context and information maybe about the topic that he's covering. So how can our audience

find more about you on Substack or in the other platforms, were you right? Well, I'm unfortunately a big Twitter user, so I think that's the best place to go. David, Arsane is, you know, with no, you know, no underscoring, just one word, is the place to go. And I have my substank link up there, which I forget what it is right now. And also a link to my Washington examiner pieces that they can read and occasionally write for other outlets as well. Well, David, we will leave links to all of those places in the show notes and description. And as well as to your books on Amazon. other publishers that carry them. So we appreciate you spending time with The Daily Signal today

and we'll continue to closely follow your work in the future. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. We are going to leave it there for today. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button so you never miss out on new shows from The Daily Signal. Every weekday catch top news in 10 right here in this podcast feed. Tony Kinnett helps you keep up with the day's top headlines in just 10 minutes. And every weekday afternoon, catch Victor Davis Hanson's thoughtful announcement. for The Daily Signal. He picks one big news story or policy issue that's driving the day and offers his take. And stick around for the weekend for the Daily Signal's featured interview.

If you like what you hear on this show, would you take a minute to leave us a comment? We love hearing your feedback. Thanks again for being with us today. The Daily Signal podcast was made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Blewey and Katrina Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen and Tyler O'Neill. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, John Popp and Joseph Fonspakovsky. To learn more or support our work, please visit DailySignal.com.