The Daily Signal - INTERVIEW | Mollie Hemingway on Conservatism

Episode Date: October 7, 2022

Mollie Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist, joins the “Kevin Roberts Show” to discuss the state of the conservative movement, foreign policy, the threat of the growing administrative state, and more. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts interviews Hemingway in front of a live audience. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, October 7th. I'm Jillian Richards. Today we're featuring a special episode from the President of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts' podcast, The Kevin Roberts Show. President Roberts talks to editor-in-chief of the federalist Molly Hemingway in front of a live audience. Hemingway and Roberts discuss the future of the conservative movement, foreign policy, the rise of the administrative state, and more. Check out their fascinating conversation right after this.

Hi, I'm John Carlo Conoparo. And I'm Zach Smith. And we host SCOTUS 101. It's a podcast where you'll get a breakdown of top cases in the highest court in the land. Hear from some of the greatest legal minds. And of course, get a healthy dose of Supreme Court trivia. Want to listen? Find us wherever you get your podcasts or just head toheritage.org slash podcasts.

Welcome to a very special episode of the Kevin Roberts Show. You know, we usually record this either in the studio at the Heritage Foundation. or as we've done recently on the road in the great state of Texas, we'd be willing to come to your state. But today we're doing this recording in front of a live audience. People, real Americans, great American patriots are here. Soon I will introduce my guest, but let me first acknowledge there are real people in the audience.

Where are you, America? An enthusiastic crowd that knows what time it is in America. The left hates it when I say that. Well, someone who actually loves it when I say that is my friend and the editor-in-chief of the Federalist.com, Molly Hemingway. Thanks for joining me. Great to be here with you. Somehow, some kind of way, Molly, you and I are just going to have a conversation in front of all these people. Seems perfectly normal.

Yeah, you're ready to go. So you're a busy lady as one of the very important leaders of our movement, and you're also modest, And so you probably don't want to take credit for that. Before we get into some really easy topics like the administrative state and the state of conservative public policy groups, what's going on with Republican leadership, generally speaking, and the state of the media, how did you get to do what you're doing? I'm not sure exactly how that happened. I'm from Colorado. I came out to D.C. actually, to start getting an advanced degree. I failed at that immediately.

Which means you're really smart. Yeah, somehow decades later, here I am. So I just always cared about some of the issues that we all care about. I studied economics in school, care deeply about protection of unborn human life. And so I just think it's an honor to be able to work on some of those issues in the media space. So tell us, I presume that anyone listening or watching, and I certainly know for our friends here in the audience,

they know what the Federalist is. But just give us an update on how things are going with the Federalist, which you probably can figure out, is a lead-in question to your strategic position within an industry, American media that isn't necessarily on our side. Yeah, well, the Federalist is going very well. We started about 10 years ago. We had this idea that the American people had really good ideas

that for some reason were not making their way into the D.C. conversation. And you looked at all of these meetings, outlets and they kind of had the same people saying the same things, but it wasn't really what the American people wanted, and particularly it wasn't what conservatives wanted. So we wanted to have a publication that would just force the conversations that actual Americans throughout the country wanted to be having into the space where the decisions are made. And that has gone very well for us. So we are broadly ecumenical on the right, and we love to host debates. We don't We don't try to say, like, who's in and who's out of the movement.

We just more like to look at the debates that are happening, looking at good ideas, testing out those ideas. And I'm really glad we started it. It's clearly a very important thing. And you see it in so many aspects that the American people want to be having more influence on the conversation that's happening in D.C. We're going to come back to the question of the state of the American media writ large. And it's something that obviously you know a lot about and something that frustrate. you and me and millions of Americans, but I don't want to do that until we pursue something you just mentioned, which is the ecumenism of the Federalist regarding the American right. And because

there's a very similar mission that Heritage has, we have our particular policy positions, but you know, one of our founders, Dr. Ed Fulner, is famous for saying we add and multiply. We try not to subtract and divide. We do that tell the truth, which means that sometimes friends on the right don't always like our position. We actually want to do what we do in order to affect policy change, but that doesn't mean that's what someone has to do if they're in the policy space. But all of that to say, what do you think are the two or three most important debates that are going on in American conservatism today? I think one of the most interesting ones that I follow would be what to do about big tech. Big tech is obviously a huge problem.

It is existing almost as a government more powerful than our government. It's deeply harming these bedrock American ideas about freedom of speech, the search for truth, how we discuss with one another. And so you're seeing a lot of debates on how to tackle this problem, but I like that those debates are being had. So that's one of, I think, one of the more important issues. I also think that our foreign policy is something that needs to be debated and thought through. For this weird period of time, it was treated as if you just had to support a particular foreign policy approach that wasn't even that conservative. I mean, Americans have had Americans on the right, going back to Eisenhower and even before, I mean, going back to George Washington, really. This idea that we need to have a strong defense, but also be mindful of where we're interfering or where we're intervening so that we could be laser-focused on our national interest.

And we had this period of time where we kind of deviated from that and we decided we were going to spread democracy everywhere, we're going to do regime change wars. And if you didn't support that, even though that was a very conservative thing not to support it, you were kind of written out of the movement. Well, now we're getting back to having really good debates about it. And I mean, the sad thing is because of what's happening with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we need to be having those debates because everything is very fraught right now. and we are at risk of having World War III go nuclear. And so important to have those debates. It is. And just to kind of hang on that point a little bit,

I think it's really important for American conservatives to realize that in its history, perhaps with the phase of neo-conservative foreign policy as an exception, American conservatives, in almost every generation but that one, were neither isolationists nor interventionist. In fact, and the federalist, very much to your credit, writes eloquently about this. The American conservatives in the 21st

century ought to be returning to what the founders would remind us. It's exactly what you said. Hamilton and Washington, and perhaps the most articulately, that yes, America has a position in the world. Yes, as a Judeo-Christian people, we feel a moral obligation to everyone on the planet, certainly have a certain solidarity with the Ukrainians, for example. And yet, especially as we accrue this national debt as we have our own family structure falling apart domestically, it's perfectly appropriate. We asked the first question regarding foreign policy, what's right for Americans? Are you optimistic that as a movement, we're going to cohere the movement into more of a consensus around that? I had been pretty optimistic. I thought that things

were going pretty well that way, but when you saw just the mad, so the situation is very bad. in Europe right now. Obviously, Russia does this improper invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. response was sort of an immediate rush to spend as much money as possible supporting that. Well, statesmen should think, what is the end goal? Where are we going with this? You would think after all of these wars where we didn't really have a good strategy for how are we going to get out of this or what's our actual goal for victory, that we would have thought deeply about what's our end game here. What do we hope to have happen? And there were a lot of wise, people saying, we have to be careful, lest this escalate into a nuclear conflict. This week,

we have Putin threatening nukes. He's obviously mobilizing troops, which is one of the first large-scale mobilizations we've seen there since World War II. He's using extremely incendiary rhetoric. So I think statesmen should think through how can we stop this from happening? Nobody should want nuclear war with Russia. I feel like that's such an obvious thing to say, but you're not hearing a lot of people speak against it, whether it's Joe Biden or Liz Cheney. There seems to be this DC establishment consensus that we will spend as much money and get involved as much as possible. Now people are talking about actually, you know, officially going to war with bringing Ukraine into NATO, which would trigger the Article 5. You know, we would have no option here.

And it's not just that we would generally want to avoid that type of conflict unless we have to do it for its own sense. sake, we also have massive problems. Well, we have massive domestic problems. We have economic problems. We have gas prices and food prices. We have a completely open border. We have civic unrest in this country, but we also have major problems with China. And so you want to make sure that we're not staying, we're not getting distracted from what is the biggest threat to our national interest, even if I assume we all agree that Russia's a bad actor here. And I think one of the things that's frustrated me, you and I have talked about this a couple times this year, is that just to ask that question, whether it's someone in the media

or someone leading a think tank, we're put into this pro-Pooten crowd, which really we're not even going to engage because it's just stupid. But the point is it really speaks about the state of American media, that you and I can handle disagreement. There's no problem there. In fact, we'd rather like it. But the disagreement is so baseless in substance. From your perch at the Federalist, what's your sense about whether people can hear in the audience, listening, can be optimistic about the media industry, at least returning to being somewhat neutral? So I was just thinking when you're talking about this, that the day that Putin started really getting bellicose last week, I mean, he's been escalating since the beginning. The rest of the

people responding have also been escalating. But he said that he was going to mobilize troops, and he reminded everybody that he has nuclear warheads, and he does have 6,500 nuclear warheads. The reason why that's an important thing to focus the mind is that people with nuclear capability don't have to accept conventional defeat, and people who don't have to accept conventional defeat, like you just work with it differently,

and all this sort of schoolyard posturing is not going to win a war against a nuclear superpower, or just we might be able to win that war, but do we want that war to happen? Anyway, the day that happens, And Biden, I think, gave some remarks at the UN, and a reporter was just summarizing what the remarks were. But at that same moment, there was this very political charges against Donald Trump's business that Leticia James in New York had put forth. And I think by and large, everyone on left and right agrees this isn't really a real case.

It's legal trouble for Trump, but nobody thinks it's real. It's civil charges instead of criminal charges. And then they moved to, like, hours of discussing that. And I'm like, we should be talking about this potential for nuclear war. And our media are so insurious and so deranged and so political, they move to this other thing that doesn't even matter. So I'm not very hopeful. I worry that things are too far gone.

Actually, if I can just say really quickly on this, I think people on the right have been upset with the media for a very long time. Eisenhower is the first Republican president to complain about the bias in the media. But people would be wrong to think that because this is a long complaint, that what we're dealing with now is just a continuation of that, we have an absolute propaganda press. They invent stories. They suppress stories. They exist only to push an agenda. And even taking like a stupid example of this week when President Biden clearly forgot the death of the member of Congress whose bill he was.

highlighting the way you had a press briefing afterwards where members of the media were actually asking some tough questions of Kareen, John Pierre, and she did a horrible job with it, just absolutely horrible. She was saying that he asked where she was because she was on the top of his mind, which is not a good answer. And she kept saying it over and over that it was on the top of his mind, and that's why he thought she existed or that she was alive when she had died in August. And so You got these tough questions, but that night on the nightly news, nobody mentioned it. That's propaganda press. That's not, you know, particularly in an environment where we just had a previous administration

where if, you know, Trump walked gingerly down a slick metal ramp, it was days of coverage about how probably the 25th Amendment needed to be invoked. So they are, they're so far beyond mere bias. Well, and for those of us who can remember Reagan in the 1980s, when, you know, President Reagan was president, there was no evidence of the onset of Alzheimer's, which of course ultimately took his life a decade later, but the media every day were inventing these stories, right? And if that's happening, if there's some cognitive decline for the leader of the free world, then we ought to know about it, not for the gratuitous picking on him. In fact,

we ought to have great charity there, but we would expect the media at least to state what reality is and they're not doing it. Let's leave that there because I'm afraid we're not going to fix it. And let's move on to something that the media is very complicit in. In fact, I think they're largely responsible for it. And it's something you spoke really eloquently on recently at the National Conservatism Conference, and that is the administrative state, but particularly the two-tier justice system, as you put it. For our audience, whether watching, listening, or here live with us, what did you mean by that? Well, we have witnessed, and this is not a completely new problem, but I think anyone who's read into it now cannot deny that we're witnessing two completely different

standards of justice based on whether you're a political ally of the ruling regime or whether you're a political opponent. You know, a really good example, I think, is how we had widespread coordinated, very well-funded riots against the White House, against federal courthouses that were besieged, you know, firebombed for months in Portland, the Marco Hatfield Federal Courthouse, federal monuments to our history, police precincts, and we had very little response to that at all. The Department of Justice basically said there's not much we can do here.

Anytime someone suggested doing something to restore law and order, they were attacked. There was really nothing done to the people. It was widespread, coordinated, well-funded. You had prominent members of the Democrat Party actually endorsing bailing out rioters who were engaged in this violence. It cost billions of dollars of damage. More than two dozen people were killed.

And you had a media complex that said that these were mostly peaceful riots. And it just kind of went away. And it was horrifying for a lot of Americans. And then you have on January 6th, you have a riot at the Capitol over people being upset at the administration of the 2020 election. and you see a completely different response, obviously. The media and other Democrats are focused on saying it's the worst moment in the history of the Republic, and you have a Department of Justice that has the largest investigation and largest prosecution effort ever done by that department.

That's not sustainable to have that where you can riot at will and however much you want and however bad you want against the White House, against the Supreme Court. We had people, all the justification for why they had to be this harsh on, the Capitol rioters would have applied to what happened during the Kavanaugh confirmation as well, where you had disruptions of constitutional proceedings invited by members of the Senate, by senators. They helped people come in and disrupt the proceedings. You had attacks on the Supreme Court. You obviously have had the lives of Supreme Court justices threatened.

And again, the Department of Justice is like, well, what are you going to do? Well, that's not sustainable. Let's say we'll talk at some length about midterm elections and beyond. So we'll get into that a minute. But let's just presume for a moment that House Republicans are in charge of the chamber in January. Do they have the political will and is there enough popular will behind them for them to begin fixing that problem at the Department of Justice? Or is it so such a problem of such scope that it's we have to do. be sober and realize it's going to take a lot longer. I certainly think everyone should realize how

long it will take to truly fix the problem. I am hopeful, which I feel stupid for being hopeful. Oh, come on, Molly. We don't mind the optimism. No, you know, it's like when you see this over and over again where voters do what it takes to change the political control of one chamber, the other, and they're like, this time they're going to actually do something and then they don't. But I have a little bit of optimism because I've talked with a lot of these members. I think they don't naturally have the will, but they understand that the American voter is done, that they are really worried about the future of the country, whether the republic will survive. And there's a much greater awareness. I mean, we're in a totally different place than we were like six years ago in terms of

people's awareness of the corruption of the bureaucracy, how it is going after self-government and how, you know, a lot of what's happening, a lot of what's coming out of the Department of Justice reminds a lot of people more of Soviet era, Russia, than what they were, whatever have hoped would have happened in the U.S. And there have been problems for a long time. There have been efforts to improve those things. You know, there was a church commission to take over, to take, to look at some of the abuses at the Department of Justice, you know, several decades ago. Something needs to happen. I'm a little just a little worried too because while Republicans, I think, seemed to understand the issue, it would be great if there were some Democrats who understood that this is a threat to the

republic. And so even if the political advantage of having a completely weaponized Department of Justice is massive, and it clearly is, it's very bad for the country. So you'd hope somebody would peel off there. And that's distressing. I mean, you know I'd wake up each day hopeful about the future, although not in a hollow, optimistic kind of way. We had that conversation. here at this event that has produced this live audience today, but for the purposes of the conversation you and I are having, I've been thinking and saying since the Mar-a-Lago raid that regardless of what someone thinks about President Trump, personally or politically, that raid is about us. It's about you and me. It's even about people left of center who, in a different

set of political circumstances, if the Department of Justice were to keep this authoritarian approach, would be just as victimized. Am I incorrect in making sense? that claim? No, not at all. But I mean, it just, even if it didn't involve the rest of us, we're talking about an agency that lied about the Trump campaign in order to secure a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. They have, there's no reason to trust anything they're doing if it involves the bad orange man. Like, they are just, they have done horrible things against him in particular. And the idea that we would just wait and see what information they have. I saw people after that raid say, we're going to have to wait and see.

No, we waited and waited and waited through years of the Russia collusion hoax to find out that it was worse than anything we ever imagined. We do not have to wait and see. They have lost the confidence of the people. And they just also, like, when you do find out about it, it really does appear this is a paperwork dispute. The kind of common paperwork dispute that you see with any outgoing president, and the idea that you would raid the home

and think that that would not be a big issue for people is just mind-boggling. Well, to agree with you, enthusiastically, the wait-and-see approach is so frustrating. I mean, I've been waiting and seeing for justice to be served to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Y'all can clap for that, by the way. I thought y'all were still here and awake,

so thanks for the reminder. but it really does underscore the two-tier system of justice we have. So let's get back to... Can I just even on that too? We have people who were deeply involved in the Russia collusion hoax who are mocking Americans. They go on MSNBC, they go on CNN, and they mock the victims of what they did, even though we all know, like we all know that that was a hoax. We all know that that was done by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that the FBI was a willful

participant in it and they still haven't held anyone accountable. And that bothers me more than anything, I think. So let's say that it takes, it's going to take a long time to fix the Department of Justice. Just stick with me for a few steps here. Let's say there's a conservative majority. I'm just going to leave party out of it. There's a conservative majority focused on this in the House and the Senate in 2023. And let's say that they actually are going to wield the power they have that would be remarkable. I'm a historian. I just call the balls and strikes.

And then let's say that in 2025 there's a conservative president, whoever that is. And let's say that conservative president is willing to wield the power he or she has. Do you think that this decade we could totally reform the FBI?

So I think it could happen. I do want to just be realistic here. Oh, there you go again. On the House side, well, on the House side, I think that there's more energy there. The Senate is still struggling with its identity. The conservatives in the Senate are still struggling with their own identity. They seem to resist this idea that they need to use their authority

and use their power to affect positive change. I'm really interested to see what happens in the midterms. Every time you have new members come in, they have their own, they reflect the attitude of the moment. Well, the attitude of the moment right now I think is really interesting. And so I think some of these people who might get into the Senate would add a much-needed vigor and enthusiasm for actually getting things done. So that's my little, but I'm not totally optimistic. I think the Senate still is having a bit of an identity crisis. We don't really have an option other than to reform the FBI.

They are a threat. They are a threat to the continuation of our republic as they are right now. I mean, they're doing the partisan things, but they're doing, they're just not being even in their administration of how they, of how they handle problems. You have, like I mentioned, attacks, assassination attempts against a Supreme Court justice. Actually, threats on many Supreme Court justices, threats on judges, firebomings of pro-life maternal care centers, attacks on churches. And the Department of Justice has all but said, like, not really a big deal. And then meanwhile, they're going after anyone on the other side of the issue who's involved in any kind of scuffle outside of a clinic. This is one of the most important things for us is that we be a nation of laws and not of men.

And our FBI and unfortunately Department of Justice, too many people there do not understand the importance of doing that. So I'm optimistic only in the sense like we have to reform the FBI. There's no other option. but if we don't, very bad for the country. Sorry to be so negative, but... Unfortunately, I think that's true. So I sense, however, that the House Conservatives and not just our Freedom Caucus friends

who happen to be my closest friends in Congress, they are serious once they have the gavels, the Oversight Committee, all of the committees, obviously, because they will be in the majority, about seizing the moment and not just for the purposes of partisan political gain, but the other part of that is, and we were chatting about this before we started the recording, is that there also has to be what I like to call the ecosystem of policy groups, of grassroots people.

There has to be the political will that's supporting them, as I like to say, providing air cover for these elected officials to do something that's kind of risky. Do you sense that the conservative movement is there and ready to see? sees that moment? So I was just talking about this with members of leadership on the House side today. And there is a reality that the think tanks that were supposed to support conservative governance in this town have not done a, had not done a very good job. Some in particular, you know, were almost working against conservatism as opposed to supporting them with good ideas. I was asking them about the think tanks that they thought were most promising. And I heard from

very high-level people who were going to be, you know, even higher, presumably after the midterms, who were praising heritage for the good work that you've been doing particularly recently, providing thoughtful witnesses for hearings. You know, it's a very difficult thing to find witnesses who will come and get beaten up by Democrat majorities, frankly. And they were saying that they were just very impressed with how that had happened. They need ideas on how to tackle some of these really big issues, whether it's tech issues or otherwise, and they're getting ideas from you. But one of the problems that we've had recently on the right is a lot of, a lot was invested in, you know, this town is full of think tanks. And they did.

a very bad job during the Trump administration, frankly. I mean, they were working against it instead of for it. They did not have good policy ideas, and they were, you know, sabotaging and frequently. And it was just a really big problem, and you saw it reflected not just in the executive branch, but in, you know, just kind of less being done on the hill than you would have liked. Well, thanks for that reminder. I'm just going to take it as a reminder even more than a compliment, although it sounds like there are some folks in the house who are grateful for what we're doing. That's a privilege for us, but a reminder to stay on offense, to remember what time it is, that, of course, our research here, of course, can speak for heritage.

Our research will always be the core of what we do. But as I like to remind our policy scholars, and this is coming from a recovering academic, that every word we write is not for our ego or for some white paper. It's to take America back. And I think we just believe at Heritage that if we do an even better job of that with each successive year, that we actually have reasons to be optimistic. But I want to let that be the context for a policy question for you. I'm grateful. We're grateful at Heritage that there's a commitment to America. We think it could be a lot more substantive, but we've expressed gratitude, heartfelt.

I'm particularly encouraged today by the Republican Study Committee and Congressman Banks issue. their family policy, something that heritage has been part of and working on. The point is, I think you put those two together, you put the policy priorities we have any other think tank who wants to go fight, and it makes me optimistic, but what do you think the first hundred days for a conservative majority needs to look like? I say that as someone who is a very active conservative college student when the Gingrich's revolution came to town, and they didn't mess around in 1994. So, again, I get to be political even if you can't. This is why I'm more optimistic. on the House side than the Senate side.

I was mildly appalled when Mitch McConnell was asked months ago what his agenda was going to be if Republicans took control of the Senate. And he's like, we don't need to talk about that. Like the badness of Biden is sufficient. And that's probably true that the disaster of the Biden administration is sufficient to possibly win the Senate. But I just thought way to not understand where the American people are. They want action.

They are really done with this idea that it's just like, You win some, you lose some, you get a tax cut, and then everyone's supposed to be happy. Whereas on the House side, they seem to understand that they actually have to provide. And Kevin McCarthy, by the way, like I don't think of him as like some stalwart conservative, but he seems to understand that if you can unite the conservative wing of the Republican Party and that more establishment wing that has been informed by the conservative wing, you have a very powerful group of people. win elections, you win national elections, you can get a lot done in the House. And so, you know,

I used to always think it only mattered what your personal politics are, but in his case, I think he's actually kind of got a vision here. And so they've laid out what they want to kind of do right away, including, you know, tackling these 87,000 IRS agents right away using the, you know, it kind of depends on will they just have the House or will they also have the Senate? What you can do is very different depending on how much they'll control. But I think they're also understanding to let the conservatives, like the principled people, handle oversight and accountability for some of the injustice that's happening in the executive branch, and then also working on, you know, just broadening the coalition, tackling the issue of parental bill of rights

type things that are working so well for conservatives throughout the country. And so I would hope that they would just get moving right away on some of the, in my world, I'm. I don't know if this will actually happen. Accountability would mean impeaching Merrick Garland. And so I would hope that they would just come right out of the gate. Working, you know, just immediately call him to testify. If he does not provide every document that they ask for, they pulled him in contempt immediately,

and they'd start building the case because there are so many different areas in which he has really attacked the country on this uneven handling of rule of law, the going after the parents, He's responsible for our border just as much as Majorcas is responsible for not having a border. All of these things are very big problems. And so I would hope they would get moving on that.

They better or they really will strain credulity. And I can say the conservative base will leave them. And say this as a friend, grateful to all of them representing the largest conservative policy group in the world, the privilege of leading that. We are conservatives 100 times out of 100 before we're members of any political. party. And so we look forward to being the accountability party. I just, I love that. I will tell you that I've told some of them that I will personally seek the destruction of the Republican Party if they disappoint me one more time.

Might be overstating it, but. I'd sit and talk with you for a couple hours, Molly Hemingway, but we have time for just one more question. And it's a question that I know you get out. a lot and the federalist for that matter just to praise the federalist again I think is a real antidote for the problem that Americans feel and it is what can they do and so for the audience wherever they are they're asking you the question Molly what can I do even if it's a tiny role to help take back this country what's the advice you give them I love the question I think you know I work in the media space I'm so focused on the threat posed by our propaganda

to press, but I was reading recently that where people get their news, you know, a lot of people get it off Facebook or they get it off their respective media outlets, but most people get their news by talking to friends and neighbors. And I think this shows the value of being informed yourself and having the courage to speak with your friends, your family, your neighbors, because that actually can do far more to affect how things end up than anything else. And it does also, like practicing that courage of speaking the truth to people. who may not be completely aligned with you is good practice for the days to come. Simple but very effective.

Well, for those of you who are here live in our theater, how about a round of applause for my having me. Thanks so much for joining us. Most importantly, thanks so much for being our voice on the Federalist. And for those of you who have tuned in to this episode of the Kevin Roberts Show, I hope you're feeling that you've heard some reality, but that you're also a little more encouraged. about the conservative policies that must happen so that we can take our country back. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you next time.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thank you for listening to the bonus episode of the Kevin Roberts Show on the Daily Signal podcast. If you haven't done it already, please be sure to subscribe to the Kevin Roberts Show and the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, IHeartRadio, or wherever you listen. And please leave us a five-star rating and review on Apple Podcasts and encourage our others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and be here later today for the Daily Signal Top News. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia

Allen, Samantha Asheris, and Jillian Richards. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.