The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 368. Speaking Softly and Carrying a Big Stick | Mike Pence

Episode Date: June 19, 2023

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and former Vice President Mike Pence discuss his current run for the 2024 presidency, the U.S. Government's overreach in economic matters when it should be playing referee, the indoctrination and sexualization of our youngest citizens, the realistic way forward on the Russia Ukraine front, and how we might finally stabilize a nation wrought with cultural warfare. Mike Pence, an American politician and native Hoosier, served as the 48th vice president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He previously served as the 50th governor of Indiana from 2013 to 2017, and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001 to 2013. Before this he practiced private law, led the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, and hosted “The Mike Pence Show,” a syndicated talk radio show that also aired as a public affairs program on TV once a week. He only recently announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and is currently on the campaign trail.  - Links - For Former VP Mike Pence: Campaign website https://winred.mikepence2024.com/mike-pence-for-president/endorse-mike-pence-gs/?utm_campaign=20230607_RW-PV.102976_t1349066-2833&ex_tid=20230607_RW-PV.102976_t1349066-2833&gclid=CjwKCAjw-b-kBhB-EiwA4fvKrP2mG12lObSBqxgeGAXKK6T6PGsZXmG_d9X88hMeyqV4dFtezETfyRoCpsoQAvD_BwE Twitter @Mike_Pence https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 

Hello, everyone, watching and listening. Today I'm speaking with former Vice President, and now 2024 presidential candidate Mike Pence, we discuss US government overreach and economic matters when it should be playing referee, the indoctrination of our youngest citizens, how parents are being purposefully alienated from their children via ideological capture, the realistic wave forward on the Russia-Ukraine front, the loss of international respect due to our current administration, and how we might finally stabilize a nation, wrought with cultural warfare. It's very good to have you on this podcast, Mr. Rice President. It's quite the honor as a matter of fact. I guess that's actually my first question. You know, this having presidential candidates sit down and do long

form podcasts like this is it's a new it's new like it's one year new really. So what made you decide to take the risk, let's say, or take or grab the advantage or the opportunity to do a podcast with me? Well, Jordan, just thanks for having me on. You know, I've been in my lab years for a number of years, was turned onto your work by my kids, a few of whom you met on the road and on the trail. And so it's a joy to be with you. Look, the decision to run for the highest office in the land is one

that no American would ever take lightly. And my family and I have given great thought, great prayer and deliberation to this question over the last two years. And frankly, ultimately, it comes down to two things. Number one, it's the privileges that we've had to serve, the experiences that we've developed. I was not only vice president serving American, home and abroad, but I was also a governor

of a successful state in Indiana where we cut taxes and expanded educational choice. And before that, for 12 years, I was a leader of house conservatives in the Congress of the United States. And the sum total of that 20 years of experience gives us the confidence that if we were given the privilege of serving as president of the United States, that we'd be prepared. We'd prepared to bring this country back, which leads me to the second reason why we should decide to run. And that was, I think this country's in a lot of trouble.

I mean, as I've traveled around the country over the last two years, it's clear to me that Joe Biden and the radical left have weakened America at home and abroad. And we need new leadership, I believe, in the Republican Party, and in the White House that'll set this country back on a path of a strong national defense, of limited government, of a commitment

to freedom and to traditional values. And it's in response to that. It's in the belief on which I was raised. I don't know if it made it in 12 rules, but it's an old rule in my life that to whom much is given much will be required. And my family and I have been given much, we've been given incredible privileges and opportunities to lead. And when we look at the challenges facing our country today, we just felt we had a duty to step forward.

We do so with great enthusiasm. And we've been very humbled at the outpouring of support that we've received. Mike Pence, 2024.com, and what we've heard out on the road already since we announced a little earlier this week in the great state of Iowa. So we've met twice before. We met in Washington. I met you and your wife, and then we talked for about an hour and a half at one point, about a year ago, I believe. We did. And I walked away from that thinking, if Mike Pence was president, we might see a return

to something like blessed normality. And that's a compliment, you know, because I think the times when politics, when politics gets radically interesting, something has gone dreadfully wrong. I'd rather see something approximating a sane, normative administration than a continual exciting, like, even hyper-charismatic battle. I think that's a sign of bad times. And so let me, let me, let me delve into that a little bit. You just outlined your qualifications. Well, I'm very humbled by those words. And, you know, it actually makes me think of another time, maybe a century ago. And I'm not someone that

looks backwards or wants to turn the clock back, we could stop that conversation with anyone else now. turn the clock back, we could stop that conversation with anyone else now. But there was a season after World War I where a Republican ticket stepped forward. Literally, their message was a return to normalcy. I get a sense that the American people would like to get back to the policies that were advanced under a president. I deeply admire, which was president Calvin Coolidge. He was someone that balanced budgets. He cut taxes. He oversaw an incredible time of American prosperity. But at the core of his philosophy was an often quoted

Calvin Coolidge statement that the business of America is business. And by that, he meant the business of America is not the government itself, that the federal government should not or the White House should not be the center of American life. And they actually, a Calvin Coolidge restraint in his instinctive conservatism, really set a tone that allowed for a period of incredible innovation

in the country. That's where we heard all the incredible stories about progress and in manufacturing and industry. And I hold to the view that it's the free market, it's free enterprise. That's where the energy comes from. I grew up in a small business family. I know who makes this country go every day and the government should be playing the role

of the referee of the private sector and not at center court with all the attention focus there. So let me touch on something else that you touched on earlier. You talked about the radical left. Now, I spent some time working with Democrats, and I just interviewed Robert F. Kennedy, and I asked him the same question that I've asked every Democrat I've met in the last five years. And the question I asked was, when does the left go too far?

And I believe this to be true, that none of the Democrats that I've spoken with and we spoke in good faith and we had serious conversations were able to or willing to answer that question. Now you made a comment about the radical left and so when do you think the left goes too far? And what would you what do you think if they are going too far, those who are on the far left? How do you identify that? And what do you think, what do you think might be, what's the appropriate response to that? Well, look, I've been at this a while.

But I never thought I'd live to see the day that socialism was the animating economic philosophy of one of America's two major political parties. And I like to say to people, Joe Biden won the nomination of his party in 2020, but Bernie Sanders won the party. I mean, all the policies that you've seen flowing out of the Democratic Party and out of the Biden administration are driven by European style socialism and welfare state policies. And that's too far. I mean, as I said, we're a nation that was founded on the

constitutional principles of a limited federal government, a free enterprise, free market, private property, all of those things have been a well-spring, along with our faith, our family as a foundation of creating the strongest and freestmost prosperous nation in the history of the world by far. And so that, to me, is a go too far, but I will tell you this whole issue of advancing through critical race theory in our schools, literally teaching our kids to judge their peers, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin, the opposite of the vision of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

And then beyond that, the radical gender ideology that is afoot in our schools and our universities and in the culture today, I think has literally shocked the conscience of many parents who might never identify with mainstream conservative philosophies that we share in traditional values that we share Jordan, but they find themselves struck. I mean, my foundation in Washington, DC, actually weighed in on a federal lawsuit. The Lin-Mar community schools in Iowa require students to bring in a permission slip from their parents to get a Tylenol. But under the school policy, a student could get a gender transition plan from the health department at that high school without ever informing their parents.

And as I said, when we went to Iowa and spoke about it, that's not just bad policy. That's crazy. And I see parents, parents' rights groups are rising up all over the country parents, rights groups are rising up all over the country and pushing back on the radical left's effort to indoctrinate our kids about our history and also this whole business of trying to communicate this radical gender ideology. I think it's a well-spring of support pushing back on that. I think you're gonna see that show up in 2024. Yeah, well two things on that I would say the first it was yesterday know the National Health Service of the UK declared that they would no longer allow the use of puberty blockers except in re for children except in research situations.

And so I believe it's the UK, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Holland have all drawn, and Holland is where this started, by the way, the Netherlands. They're dropping the gender, affirming model of care. And so the second thing is, yeah, this is a question I've been trying to put forward to Republicans, particularly at the level of the governor. So you know, the faculties of education in the United States and in Canada have a hammer lock on teacher certification.

And public education eats up about 50% of the state budgets. Now, I know this isn't a federal issue precisely, but I can't understand for the life of me why Republicans haven't noticed that by allowing the department or the faculties of education, which are among the most corrupt institutions in higher education, by allowing them to maintain their hammer lock on teacher certification, which they've done nothing to deserve. They're essentially handing over half the state budgets to the worst students at the universities who are the most ideologically adult

who have direct contact with children. So, I mean, from a strategic perspective, this seems to me to be a very bad idea. And, you know, it's hard to push back against the system of ideas, like the woke congregation of ideas, without also stepping into sensorial territory, which is the threat, I suppose, to some degree with regard to what's happening

in Florida. When you think about strategy to forestall the narcissistic progressive agenda, what sort of strategies do you have in mind that could be employed at the federal level? Well, first, I'm, you know, I'm heartened to hear the progress in other countries protecting kids from chemical or surgical gender transition. I strongly support efforts in my home state of Indiana and around the country to prohibit gender transition, chemical or surgical treatment for children under the age of 18. I look at, I'm libertarian enough to say if you're an adult, live one you live, I may not agree with decisions you make, but we'll love you and love our neighbor as ourselves in my faith requires right.

But live and let live. But for our kids absolutely not we've got to take a strong stand. I did a town hall on CNN not long ago and the host of the show insisted on asking me. I think about five times in a row about why I took such a strong stand on that. And I said, look, I'm standing here not just as a former vice president or a governor. I'm a dad, I'm a grandfather. This is really about protecting our kids from making decisions early in their lives when they're not equipped to make them.

There's a reason we know that kids drive cars until they're 16. And you can't even get a tattoo under the age of 18 in my home state. So this principle of protecting kids from choice irreversible choices. And you know, and have spoken more eloquently than maybe anyone else about the deleterious effects. Now, go back to your question, because I think it's the fundamental question. And that is, so how do we push back?

And that is, so how do we push back? And I will tell you, I believe that giving parents the ability to choose where their children go to school, public, private, parochial, or homeschool, is the cure for what ails education in America. I think your point about teacher certification is a profound one. But I'm very struck by the fact that someone who I'm sure you respect a great deal, a factor couple, a Milton and Rose Friedman, maybe one of the great free market economic minds of the last century.

He left his entire state to a foundation to promote one idea, And that was educational choice. Because Milton Friedman said, our form of government will not survive without an educated citizenry, and that the only power strong enough to transform and renew American education is the free market. It's a very simple idea. I'm proud to say the

state of Indiana, Jordan, was one of the pioneers in educational choice. We had, we were home to the very first privately funded school voucher program in the country that's been replicated all over the country for decades. But when I was governor, we had a, we had a small educational choice program. I doubled it. I made it the largest in the country, but we just, and I don't know if the viewers and listeners of your podcasts know this, but we really turned a corner very recently in this debate when the state of Arizona under governor Doug Ducey in the last year in office, passed the first ever universal school choice program in the country.

The state of Indiana has essentially followed about 98% of people of our state now have educational choice. Iowa has followed, other states are following. And I would submit to you that whether we're talking about the radical, it left agenda in our schools, whether it's critical race theory, woke politics, or some of the profound issues in higher education, you're speaking, man, you give parents the ability to choose where their kids go to school, uh, to be able to take their business down the street and find a school that, you know,

it gives them a more classical education that, you know, my school teacher wife would tell you that teaches phonics to kids. I mean, parents will go shop and they will, I don't, I believe, whatever people are on that ladder of success in America, everybody loves their kids, everybody loves their grandkids, and you give them the power to choose where their kids go to school and will turn education around in America faster than you could imagine. So I have a question, specific question about that. When I was talking to one of my wiser friends about the issue of school choice, the objection he raised,

and I wasn't really sure what to make of it, was that if you provide parents with choice, what you end up with is a public school system that has the worst teachers and the students who are most disaffected and alienated from their parents. And so he felt that there was an element of that that would be disastrous for the kids who are in the worst shape with regards to parents

and future opportunity. What's the experience of Indiana and the other states that have moved in the direction of school choice? What has that taught you were revealed in that regard? Well, I used to say, you know, long before I held office for 20 years, I had a talk radio show. We used to talk a lot about this. And I grew up in a family that ran

gas stations. I actually worked for five years, helped pave my way through college, pump and gas. And so I would kind of break it down this way. I'd say to people, look, if there's only one gas station in town, and you had to buy your gas there, how clean do you think the men's room would be? Right? So it's competition, competition for customers makes everybody better. And I will tell you, our experience in Indiana has been that our public schools have gotten better. They have they have stepped into that competition and improved once once parents become empowered. We've seen we've seen parents in Indiana over the decades choose another public school over the public school that's failing them. And

I will tell you it's it's always been impressive to me that from very early on, the African-American community in this country has been a generation ahead of the rest of the country in support for educational choice. Jordan, literally, literally back in the 1990s in Indiana, when the overall population, even in a state that was promoting school choice, maybe get 50, 55% of Hoosiers that would support allowing parents to choose or the kids go to school, the number in the African-American community in our state was closer to 70 to 75%. And you and I know why.

It's because of the minority communities in many of our major cities. Their kids are relegated to some of the most failing and dangerous schools in the country. Those parents know they should give me the choice. They've taken that choice. And a lot of times they go to the school, this in their neighborhood, they go to the little Catholic school that's just down around the corner, and it engages parents.

I've heard the argument your friend made, and I look, I don't mean to demean it, but it's just not been our experience. I mean, literally, I think of, John F. Kennedy back when he talked about cutting taxes across the board, including the Capitol Gaines Tax. And he said, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats.

You know, you create competition in education in America as we have in Indiana, and states around the country are doing. All the schools get better. And as someone who's married to a woman that taught for 15 years in a public school, 15 years in a Christian school, I can tell you firsthand, there's an overwhelming majority that are teaching in our public schools or dedicated public servants, men and women that care deeply. It's just the management, not being responsive, pushing down some sort of a liberal agenda, watering down some of the fundamentals and criteria for a good education. I think that washes away through the force of the free market. I really do. So I feel obligated to warn you that according to the dictates of YouTube, apparently, we've both now engaged

in hate speech and the incitement of violence. So I had a YouTube video taken off my channel yesterday, an interview with Helen Joyce who wrote a book on the trans minor surgery phenomenon. And so I'm sure we've broken the YouTube rules already in this discussion. So it'll be interesting to see what they do as a consequence of that. So all right, so you think that the experience in Indiana has shown that because of the introduction of competition,

everybody benefits, and you said in particular, perhaps black students and their parents, okay, so that's a good, that's a good, that's a good for you in that direction. Let me ask you a couple of questions in a different direction if you don't mind. Um, I think often at the moment that we're all fiddling well Rome burns because, possibly, because of the situation in Russia and Ukraine and no one, one of the things that I found heartening, let's say, about the Trump presidency where you served as vice president was that there were four years without a major war and your

administration or that administration also advanced the Abraham Accords, which was a major move in the direction of peace in the Middle East. And now we have this war percolating away madly between Russia, Ukraine, and it's really a proxy war in many ways for the West and Russia. And it doesn't look very good to me. And so, if you became president, first of all, what do you think the way forward is on that front? I know the hawks are saying the hawks on the Republican side in particular, and I think

this is also true on the Democrat side, are taking this as an opportunity to demolish Russia's conventional forces and to take them permanently out as a conventional enemy, let's say. Now, the problem I see in that is that when you push someone as powerful as Russia into a corner, when they're nuclear armed and their conventional forces are weak, that that loosens the finger on the nuclear trigger. And it also doesn't seem to me that given how dependent we are on Russia and Ukraine for food and for energy that weakening both of those countries on something approximating a permanent basis strikes me as as reasonable long-term policy. So what do you think the danger is on the Russia-Ukraine front and what would your administration? What steps would your administration take in that direction? Well, I'm someone that believes that America is the

leader of the free world, we're the arsenal of democracy. In 1985 Ronald Reagan and a state of the union address articulated what came to be known as the Reagan doctrine, which essentially said it'll be the policy of the United States that if you're willing to fight the communists in your country, we'll give you the means to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. And it was part and parcel of what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. And I believe that that wisdom is still true today, that Ukraine is not our war, but freedom is our fight. Now, I know there are people in the presidential contest in my party who have spoken miringly of Vladimir Putin's genius. Others have said that it's simply a territorial dispute.

It's like, I can tell you, I know the difference between a genius and a war criminal, I, and I know the difference between a territorial dispute and a Russian invasion. I mean, what's happening in Ukraine today is an unprovoked invasion that is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. And I believe it's incumbent on the United States of America to continue to lead the West and provide the Ukrainian military what they need to repel the Russian invasion and reclaim their sovereignty. Now, I believe that's the right thing to do. My wife and I, Jordan, about a year ago, we're visiting a Christian relief group in Poland that was assisting refugees.

And when we arrived, we were told that we were clear to go into Ukraine. This was a month after hostilities had begun. And we went 10 miles across the border to a refugee center. And Jordan, I say this with a broken heart. I saw things I thought I'd never see other than in black and white films from 75 years ago. I mean, there were all crowds of all women of every age, children of every age, carrying everything that could carry on their backs, literally fleeing this unconscionable Russian invasion. And so I think we have an obligation to be there.

But I also wanna say to you, I think it's in our national interests. There's others have said that it's not. I've met Vladimir Putin. I believe it was no coincidence that ours was the only administration in the 21st century where Putin did not attempt to redraw international lines by force. I mean, he rolled the tanks into the country of Georgia under the Bush administration. He of course took Crimea under the Obama administration. and now he's rolled across the border of Ukraine.

I think the reason he did didn't do that during our years was because we have the largest increase in military spending in more than a generation. We unleashed our military against ISIS, and they took them down without firing a shot. We actually took down a hundred Russian mercenaries in a conflict in Syria without one American casually. We shut down the Nord Stream 2 pipeline for all of the rhetorical efforts by my old running mate to reopen dialogue with Russia. We were very tough on Russia, and we were willing to use American military force to defend our interest and defend our allies around the world.

And I think that kept Russia in check. So I think this is a moment that needs to be met with American strength, and I'm going to continue to advocate for that. I also think at the end of the day, if Russia was able to overrun you crane, it in my judgment, it would not be long before the Russian military was crossing a border where we would have to send troops like like my son, the marine, my son-in-law, the Navy pilot. He crosses into a NATO ally than we're involved. We should not ever send American troops into Ukraine. We should hasten the delivery of military equipment and give them the ability to defend themselves. But I think stopping Russia there is also in the interest of the United States.

And it sends a, it sends a deafening message to China. Lastly, Jordan, it sends a deafening message to China. We repel, we give you crane the ability to repel the Russian invasion. Then I have no doubt in my mind that President-A-G, who I've also met and spoken to privately. I think he will, he'll get more instruction from that regarding his potential military ambitions in the Asia Pacific than anything else that we could do. I was just informed your team once, 30 seconds to speak with you.

My team doesn't need me. Oh, hi. Oh, it's just my wife said hi. Oh, come on over here. That's a good step over here. That's a good emergency. Yeah. Stick your head, you could see if you look at the screen.

Karen, fans, Jordan, Peter, hello. Nice to see you. Hello, nice to see you again. Yeah, nice to see you. Hi. Thank you for lending us your husband for an hour. I'm sorry, sorry. Anyway, hello.

I told him the kids are big fans. That's how we got. So let me ask you then more specifically, if the war in Russia plays out the way that would be most beneficial to the West, what's your vision for victory and the cessation of conflict? What is it do you suppose that Russia has to leave on the table or bring to the table in order to bring this war to a halt? Yeah, I just think I think we have to support the Ukraine military until they repel this

Russian invasion from across their borders. I don't know. Now, I'll defer to President Zelensky and the government in Ukraine if they have a different view. But I think that giving them the means to push Russia out from where it commenced this invasion is absolutely essential to sending a message to the wider world that America is the leader of the free world, and we'll support those that are standing for their freedom and sovereignty.

And do you think that would mean that the Russians would have to abandon the territory they took on the east? And also, what about the situation in Crimea? What do you see the postwar? I don't understand exactly what might constitute the postwar boundaries of Ukraine. Yeah, well, I think if things worked out

as well as they could. Well, again, I would leave that question, which predated our administration to the Ukrainian government. But with regard to this invasion, this incursion, the Donbass region, I just don't think we can tolerate it. And let me also say, President Biden said in his state of the Union address that we're there as long as it takes. Jordan, it shouldn't take that long. We're the arsenal of democracy. We've been dragging our feet on giving them equipment.

We promised from 33 Abrams tanks all the way back in January. They still don't have them. We've been dragging our feet on giving them aircraft. It was our administration that started back providing military resources to Ukraine. The Obama Biden administration had refused to provide any military resources.

They were sending blankets and MREs. We came in, we provided them javelin missiles, we provided them resources that they were able to use in this fight over the four years of our administration. And the Biden administration immediately ended that when they came in. But at the initiation of hostility started to catch up. But I want to be clear, all of your viewers and listeners, Joe Biden has been slow on the uptake. And I think that frankly, the disasters withdrawal in Afghanistan created the conditions that emboldened the

enemies of freedom. Now, Vladimir Putin is the one that's responsible for this unconscionable invasion. But I've no doubt in my mind that that disasters withdrawal in Afghanistan emboldened him to move. And I honestly believe that it's been the failed policies of the Biden administration that are contributing to not only war in Eastern Europe, Chinese provocations, but for heaven's sake, Jordan, after we achieve the first peace accord in nearly 30 years

in the Middle East, the Biden administration did nothing to build on the Abraham Accords, sent ambiguous signals to Israel about our support, and then stood idly by while China negotiated a treaty between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I mean, there is a vacuum of American leadership on the world stage today. And the antidote here is American engagement American leadership and American strength. It also, it's also worth folks that are looking on knowing the Biden administration has been busy cutting military spending since day one. And the only thing positive about that, that gigantic supplemental

build that passed at the end of the last Congress was that it caught up on military budget cuts that the Biden administration had been advancing. But with this new debt ceiling deal, people deserve to know that after you net out inflation, it's got a 1% cut in military spending. China's floating in new battleship every month and has doubled its military budget in the last 15 years. And here we have an administration that is cutting military spending all the while they're carrying that political correctness and critical race theory and radical gender ideology into the Pentagon's always itself. So we need new leadership.

We need to be building a military that's fitted to the times that's also the best way to ensure peace in the world. Always has been, always will. So your sense is that the best strategy for dealing with Russia and also tell me if I've got this right and also simultaneously China is to bolster the American military to ensure that Russia, the sufficient aid is provided to Ukraine to stop Russia and its tracks, that that sends the proper message to China, that that would require further support for the American military, and that that's the best way to stop Russian adventurism.

What do you think of arguments that Russia had felt threatened as a consequence of NATO incursion into Ukraine, and that a fair part of this conflict emerged because the Russians felt that they were being encroached upon by the expansion of the NATO alliance and the potential inclusion of Ukraine into that domain. I mean, and you know, it's also the case that Putin certainly has appealed to his people on that front. He's also told his people that he is a buttress against the kind of woke ideology that we've also discussed. And so, um, while those are all, and then the third problem, I suppose, is that I'm still concerned understanding your argument. I'm

still concerned that pushing the Russians into a corner where they become dangerously weak heightens the probability of, let's say, limited exchange of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. So you said, we frighten China, we keep Russia at bay. I'm concerned about the fact that the Russians perhaps share some of the more conservative western views with regard to the Woke nightmare, and also that if we push them into a corner, they're more likely to have an itchy nuclear trigger finger. So I just honestly believe the NATO argument, the threat from NATO, that's all just posturing

by Putin. You carefully examine his public statements for years, Jordan. He's been very clear that his ambition is to reestablish what was the old Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. And so there's, I mean, look, NATO has been a peaceful alliance of the West forged as it was in the aftermath of World War II and I think there's one reason and there's one person to blame for the unconscionable invasion and war that's raging in Ukraine today. And that's Vladimir Putin.

And we just simply need to hold him to account. With regard to the fact that we never want to forget that Russia is the second largest nuclear power in the world. I believe we need to make it clear that our military support for Ukraine is for repelling the Russian invasion in Ukraine and restoring their sovereignty. I think that it's absolutely essential that the Commander Chief of the United States make it clear to the Ukrainian military and our alliance how far our support goes. And I think that making it clear that this is about reestablishing had cleared this about reestablishing what's been claimed and not not intruding upon or attempting to move into the sovereign territory of Russia is important. And look, it's, but this is this is statecraft, this is real. And I just have to hold view that weakness arouses evil, but peace comes through strength.

And I think that by electing a new president that understands that basic principle that's able to marshal the support in the Congress, to build a military fitted to the times by hastening the support. If the war isn't already over, hastening the support of the Ukrainian military to repel the Russian invasion. I think the world quiets down very quickly. And again, the argument that I really reject is people that say, well, the real issue in the world today is China. Well, okay, I've met President Xi.

I've been to China. I'm a student of China's ambitions. I've met with all of our allies in the region. I understand what China's up to and how broad their ambitions are. But I also believe that as you can see, the alliance has been forged between Xi and Putin that Xi is looking very carefully at how the West responds to Russia's attempt to redraw international lines by force. And while it's continued, its provocations even over the last two weeks with Navy ships at sea in the Taiwan Straits and in the air, sending a message to them that the free world will not tolerate redrawing international lines by military force will contribute greatly to contribute greatly to tamping down China's ambitions in the Asia Pacific. Do you two questions then?

Do you think that Putin respects Biden as a negotiating partner, and do you think that Putin would respect you as a negotiating partner, and maybe why to both of those questions? Well, it would be hard for me to believe that Putin or any leader around the world. I think they respect the United States of America, but I don't know that they respect the president of the United States today at the level that they should. And it just comes from a series of steps by this administration. To unilaterally reopen Nord Stream 2 to Russia, I mean, it was a policy of appeasement to reverse one of the policies we'd put into effect, made no sense at all, to attempt to get back into the Iran nuclear deal. Literally

hat in hand begging the mullahs in Iran to come back to the table and renegotiate until it finally fell apart was just absurd. And of course, the fact that we had negotiated an agreement in Afghanistan with the Taliban that made it clear that they were required to work with the Afghan national government, never harm any military personnel, and never harbor terrorists. Those were the three preconditions, or we made it clear to them that we would hit them harder than they'd ever been hit before. 18 months went by in our administration and the early days of this one

where there was not a single American casually in Afghanistan, the Taliban knew we meant business. But in this administration, when we began an orderly withdrawal, which for some incomprehensible reason got delayed into well after the fighting season. And if you recall, President Biden, it was leaked that they were talking about making the departure on September 11th, which was incomprehensible to me that we would mark

that date, a date of a dark day in American history, the source of which was launched from Afghanistan for the withdrawal. In any event that he moved the date of withdrawal, he deleted, he gave the Taliban the opportunity reconstitute, but the initial failing was when the Taliban began to move their military in the north into Ma' al-Sharif and we did nothing. I think that's set into motion not only the disaster that claimed the lives of 13 American

servicemen and women, courageous servicemen and women who are standing at the airport and cobbled trying to save lives. But I actually think it set the conditions for the Afghan National Army to throw their guns down, make no opposition at all. And since then, we've also confirmed, and at least in one instant taken successful action

against them, harboring terrorists, once again, in Afghanistan. But all of those conditions, I believe, may well, I don't know, may well have contributed to Putin assuming that if he rolled into Ukraine, that the same thing would happen. I mean, you remember Joe Biden actually actually was asked, would we get involved if there was a Russian invasion? And he actually made reference, if it was a small invasion, it would depend. And then when the invasion began, if you remember, the administration leaked to the media that they'd reached out to President Zelensky who I know and became familiar with, they reached out and said,

we'll send a plane like like like like Ghani who got on a plane and got out of Afghanistan as soon as things began to collapse. And in words that I think will echo into history, President Zelensky said, we don't need a plane, we need ammunition. And he squared his shoulders and fought back against the Russian invasion. So all of this, when you say to me, look, I'm an American, I'm a patriotic American, I love our country, I love the world respects the United States of America, but do they respect our current commander-in-chief at the level that they should? I would argue they do not. Okay, so the second part of that question is, you know, do you think Putin would respect you, but I want to modify that question slightly too, because there must be a temptation at this level of intense negotiation. I suppose

a psychological temptation also to not be strong, but to look strong, right? And you can imagine that a weak man in a position of power will fall prey to the temptation to look strong and to therefore put forward more force than is absolutely necessary in an attempt to buttress his image. And so I would like to know how it's best for leaders to protect themselves against that temptation. So if you became president, you would step into the hot seat, huh? And that's being heated up in many ways simultaneously. How do you protect yourself psychologically against the temptation to, you know, to beat

your chest and be a strong man instead of trying to settle the situation internationally in the manner that's best for everyone going forward? And this pertains to the question of why Putin might regard you as a respectable negotiating partner. So let me let you elaborate on that. I mentioned Calvin Coolidge at the outset of our conversation. In my announcement speech last week, I quoted Calvin Coolidge who said it's all together a benefit to the country. And to the office holder with the president does not consider himself to be a great man. And I can assure you, I'm never confused about that.

I'm an everyday American. I'm a small town guy from Southern Indiana raised by a combat veteran family living the American dream, but I Look, I you you ask a very profound question and I go back again to history. That's what all of my My background was in college. I was a student of American history Teddy Roosevelt. I think said it well They're not on the global stage America should walk softly and carry a big stick. I'd leave it to others to judge how my leadership would be assessed. I think I've got a reputation for standing my ground. I think people know that my yes is yes and my no is no. The way that I would maintain that, I would tell you, for me as a Christian believer, is daily time and devotions and prayer.

I'm someone that really believes in investing time in my faith to study and understand what the Bible teaches about wisdom and I've always sought to apply that in my life. But with regard to Vladimir Putin, I can tell you I've had a conversation with him one-on-one and it was at an international conference and we had a brief exchange and he wanted a private moment together. This was in the year leading up to the midterm elections in 2018, Jordan. We had a poll aside, there were a fair number of people around, and this has been written about, and I wrote about it in my book. But as he began to engage me, he had an international conference coming up with President Trump, and he asked, you know, if I would convey a desire for nuclear non-proliferation that we've got to begin to talk about those things. I nodded and listened, and then I looked at him and I said, standing just a couple of feet away from him,

I looked at him and said, well, Mr. President, I have something I'd like to say to you. And he said through Russian, through an interpreter, he said, I go ahead. And I said, we know what happened in 2016, and it can't happen again. And with that, he, sure, speaks perfect English with that, he feigned that he didn't understand my statement and, and he, and he turned to his foreign minister, Lavrov, who was standing nearby and and Lavrov said in English elections. I mean, look, in the 2016 election, the Russians did not interfere on behalf of any particular candidate.

They interfered across the board. It's what they do in Western countries. They so dissension and misinformation, and we know for a fact it happened. And I'd said so publicly. But so he turned back to me after Lavrov said elections and said through Russian, he said, no, that wasn't us. We had nothing to do with that. That wasn't us.

And I nodded and said, Mr. President, I'm very aware what your public position is on this. But I'm telling you, we know what happened in 2016 and it can't happen again. At that point, he shrugged a half nod and the conversation moved on. I mean, that's really, really where it begins. I think between heads of state, and I've been able to represent the United States on the world stage. That wasn't a very private conversation. There were a lot of staff on both sides.

There's pictures of it. You can find on the internet pretty easily. And there were reporters with an air shot that wrote about that moment. But I think the most important thing between heads of state is that you have the ability to look people in the eye and tell them what your expectation is and make it clear where the consequences will be, even without saying it. And I would tell you that if I had the great privilege of being president of the United States, I'd look for friends all over the world for the United States. I'd look for friends all over the world for the United States. I'd look for opportunities for peace, but I'd have one hand extended in friendship, and

the other hand resting comfortably on the holster of the arsenal of democracy so that those who are enemies of freedom around the world who would threaten our people or threaten our allies would know America means business. So we have time. I know you have a hard out in an hour. We have time for one more question. And so I'm going to ask you a follow-up to something you just described. I mean, when I met you and your wife and when we talked, I did get the impression, you know, that I walked away from that conversation thinking that for what

it's worth, that you struck me as a man who could be trusted. And I already made reference to the fact that I think you could bring a certain degree of admirable normalcy to the insanity that reigns at the moment. But I would say in reference to the great man issue, you served for a long while as the right-hand man of a man who I think does style himself rightly or wrongly a great man. And of course the shadow of Trump or the legacy of Trump hangs over you rightly or wrongly. Why is it that you served with Trump for so long? Why did you think that was in your best interest, his and the countries? And why do you now think that you would make a better leader than

the former president? Well, first let me say I'm humbled by your kind words. My respect for you is boundless and I'm grateful for those words. I'll share them with my wife when we break Well first look when when I got the phone call to join the national ticket or the a group of people being considered for it I Didn't expect it. I'd actually endorsed another candidate in the primary in Indiana But Donald Trump had won the nomination. And for me, the prospect of Hillary Clinton, serving as president for eight years,

following the liberal and failed governance of Barack Obama for eight years, was an incredible threat to the America that I had grown up in. I thought if we put 16 years of essentially a socialist agenda in effect, driving America toward a secular European-style welfare state, my children and grandchildren would not grow up in the America that I had grown up in. And so for me, when the phone call came, I had one of two questions that I had grown up in. And so for me when the phone call came, I had one of two questions that I said,

I would need to have answered. Number one, we need to know them better. We didn't know either the president or his family at all, and everything the penses do we do as a family. And secondly, I said I'd want to know what the job description was. Cause only one person gets to write that job description every four years

for the vice president. And so, I mean, my attitude was, if we felt there was a rapport that we could establish with them as a family, which we did almost immediately with them. But if I felt like a job description would give me the ability to help the country first by defeating Hillary Clinton and secondly by advancing a conservative agenda. I was anxious to do that. And once he explained to me that the role of the vice president in his mind would be an active role. It would be active in the legislative process, active in even interviewing appointments

to the Supreme Court, active around the country, promoting our policies, active in even interviewing appointments to the Supreme Court, active around the country, promoting our policies, active around the world, representing America. When the phone call came, Jordan, I said yes in a heartbeat. And I will tell you, I'm incredibly proud of the record of the Trump-Pents administration. I mean, my old running mate promised the government as a conservative, and we did. We cut taxes, rollback regulation, three justices to the Supreme Court that just gave America a new beginning for life. We rebuilt our military, created the first new branch of our armed forces. We secured the southern border of the United States of America.

And as you've said many times in this conversation, the world was much more peaceful. And ISIS was destroyed. And the most dangerous terrorists in the world was taken out. It's all a record I'm incredibly proud of. In fact, as I'll share again here in North Carolina today, some people might wonder why I'm running against my former running mate.

In the wake of how proud I am of that record, some in this field are already criticizing our record. It's a right to do that, but I'll battle them on that too. But for me, it came down to the promise that I made when I took my oath of office and the overall direction of the party. As I said in my announcement speech, when I I raised my right hand I swore to the American people into Almighty God that I would support and defend the Constitution of the United States and on that fateful day of January 6th President Trump asked me to choose him over the Constitution but I thought my duty was clear and still believe it was,

that I was there under the Constitution to preside over a joint session of Congress to open and count the votes that had been certified by the states reviewed by the courts and would be debated in objections in the Congress. But our job was to open and count. No more no less. We did our duty that day.

I'll always believe by God's grace to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. But the fact that the president continues to say that I had the right to overturn the election animates me. I think no one should ever serve as president of the United States who puts themself over the constitution of the United States who puts themself over the Constitution of the United States. It's the oath we swear, and I'm going to take that case to the American people. But secondly, it has to do.

My candidacy is animated by my belief in the conservative agenda, something that you've articulated in new and renewed and fresh ways for individuals and for the country, and I'll always be grateful for that. But it's an agenda about American leadership in the world. I mean, it's my old running mate and others are backing away from America's leadership. I want to lean in. I want to rebuild our military. I want to make sure that we continue to be the leader of the free world.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility, Joe Biden's policy is insolvency. I mean, we have a national death death the size of our nation's economy. And Joe Biden, what he meant to talk about, the entitlements that represent 70% of the federal budget and growing. We are headed to a debt crisis, the likes of which the world has never seen. And Joe Biden refuses to talk about it by my own running mate refuses to talk about it. I mean, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have the exact same policy on entitlement reform. And many Republicans as well in this field also shy away from talking about it. I'm going to talk about how we deal with the national debt, how we improve and reform these programs. And lastly, my commitment to the sanctity of life. I'll always be grateful to have been part of an administration

that appointed three of the justices that sent Rovers' way to the Aship of History where it belongs. But now in this new season, this new era for life, just at this moment when we can work to expand protections for the unborn, protections for women in crisis pregnancies, support for newborn. Some in our party, including my old running mate, are shying away from standing firm out of concern for its impact on politics. I don't believe that. I believe if we stand firm

with compassion and principle, the American people will rally to our cause. But even if they did not, I think the cause of life is the calling of our time, the sanctity of life, being restored to the center of American law, I think must remain an objective of the Republican Party. And so for all of those issues, it's what brings me to this fight. But that was why I joined the ticket to begin with. And no regrets, no regrets. I'm grateful for what we did. We're able to do for the country. I was sorry it came to the end that it came to, but I'm absolutely convinced if we'll keep our party and our country on course of the same policies that minted our movement starting

back in the days of Ronald Reagan and going forward, that will restore this country, will secure our nation. America will be stronger and more prosperous than ever before. So help us God. All right, sir. I swore to your staff that I would ensure that this podcast lasted no longer than its deemed time and that was a really good place to end, I would say. And so thank you very much for taking the time to talk with everyone who's watching and listening today and with me. It's a

privilege to be involved in the election campaign in the manner that I am and I certainly appreciate your time and attention. As I do appreciate the time and attention of everyone who's watching and listening. And so perhaps there's some time in the future, you've got a whole year on the campaign trail, we can sit down and have a further discussion. There were lots of other Pandora's boxes that we could have opened,

but we covered a fair bit of territory usefully today. And so once again, I'd like to express my appreciation for your willingness to sit and talk with me. I'll look forward to Jordan Peterson and God bless you for your matchless voice. Ciao everyone. Yep. Bye bye sir. you