The Megyn Kelly Show - Collusion Between Political and Media Elite, and Learning Through Joy, with Marianne Williamson | Ep. 288

Episode Date: March 29, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Marianne Williamson, spiritual leader and bestselling author, to talk about Will Smith's apology and what the incident at the Oscars says about society, growing up in Texas, loving America while learning about the world, spirituality and faith, the different kinds of love, learning through joy, developing our emotional muscles, the danger of political partisanship, the power of independents in America, the "collusion" between the political and media elite establishment, the decline of corporate media, Trump and the GOP, Biden the Democrats, the climate change debate in America, Biden's Russia flip-flops, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Joining us today, Marianne Williamson, spiritual leader, author, and political activist. She has been highly requested by you, our audience. We get so many requests to hear from her. We were getting interested ourselves more and more, and then did our own research. And I said, I've got to know her. And we have so much to get into today. We will get over and into her thoughts on the current news, like the fallout over the Will Smith Oscar slap. They're talking about taking his Oscar away from him now. I mean, that's absurd, right? Like, come on. But OK, they're thinking about it,

as well as President Biden's handling of Russia and Ukraine. Now he's changing his message again on his statement about regime change that he made the other day. And then we'll talk about Marianne's run for president. Right. And what she learned about our media and our country when she tried her hand as a Democrat politician. Marianne first became a household name long before she ran for office. She was invited on the Oprah Winfrey Show back in 1992 to discuss her smash book. It would certainly become a smash after the Oprah appearance in particular, called A Return to Love. Oprah said that she experienced 157 miracles herself after reading it. And we'll get into what that means. Marianne went on to author more than a dozen self-help books, including seven New York Times bestsellers, multiple number one bestsellers. And in the

course of her career, Marianne has garnered the support of millions as a spiritual leader, not just Oprah, Katy Perry, Kim Kardashian. I think it was Steven Tyler who credited her with helping him get over his alcohol problems. I could go on. Many of these same stars would come back and help support her during her political campaigns. The one that you may be familiar with was in 2019. She ran for the Democratic nomination. She captured the attention of millions and millions of Americans. I mean, I remember looking at her saying, who is this?

And I was an Oprah fan, but somehow Marianne had escaped my notice, sadly. But I was like, one of these things is not like the others, right? It's like she sounded different. She looked different. She had a totally different message. And that's why she was the most Googled candidate in 49 out of 50 states after the first debate. Here's a quick look back at why she received so much attention. If you think we're going to beat Donald Trump by just having all these plans, you got another thing coming.

Because he didn't win by saying he had a plan. He won by simply saying, make America great again. John Kennedy said, by the end of this decade, we are going to put a man on the moon. Because John Kennedy was back in the day when politics included the people. Ladies and gentlemen, we don't have a health care system in the United States. We have a sickness care system in the United States. We have a sickness care system in the United States. Ms. Williamson at the last word. My first call is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the place where it's the best place in the world for a child to grow up.

And I will tell her, girlfriend, you are so on, because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up. I assure you, I lived in Grosse Pointe. What happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe. We need to say it like it is. It's bigger than Flint. It's all over this country. It's particularly people of color. It's particularly people who do not have the money to fight back. And if the Democrats don't start saying it, then why would those people feel that they're there for us? And if those people don't feel it, they won't vote for us and Donald Trump will win. Wow. She dropped out of the race at the start of 2020, but she never strayed far from the political realm. And now many are asking, what's next for Marianne Williamson? She joins us now

to discuss it all. Welcome, Marianne. So nice to meet you. Oh, it's so nice to meet you too. Thank you so much for having me. I love listening to that. Your southern roots come out when you're in the debate, right? You're from Texas originally. Yeah, I'm from Houston. And when I get nervous or tired, it all comes out. Well, I love it. Lisa's genuine. My old pal, my best friend from high school, Kelly, she used to, after she had a few drinks, this is, you know, I knew her beyond high school, college, law school, and so on. She used to develop a Southern accent, which was very random. There are times when it's useful. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about you personally before we get into your rise as a spiritual guru. Now I've read a bunch of your stuff, and I get it, and I love it, and I have a lot of things I want to ask you about in my own life. But before we get there, tell us about your upbringing.

It sounds like you moved a lot once you became a young adult, but how about, you know, zero to 20? What was that like, broad brush? Middle-class Jewish family in Houston, Texas. Really wonderful parents. Pretty big extended family. Good public schools. My parents traveled a lot and they took us with them during the summers. And I mean serious travel.

My parents went everywhere and really exposed us as well. I visited behind the Iron Curtain back when I was a teenager. I visited Vietnam when I was a teenager. So everything from Southeast Asia to Europe. Never did South America, but traveled enough as a child that I know it affected me in some really meaningful ways. People would say, my father used to always tell the story that people would ask him, why are you taking your kids to do so much international travel at such a young age? They won't even remember it. And his answer was that it would get under our skin. And he was absolutely correct. There was a certain level of propaganda that I was never vulnerable to because I had seen as a child, you know, I know you're a mother. I've heard you talk about your children. You know, the importance of early childhood,

you know, the importance of all childhood and youth. That's when synapses form. Something becomes viscerally known, and then you can never really deviate from that in the same way. And so that orientation has really profoundly affected how I've looked at the world and still do. I love that because I've heard like Goldie Hawn, she's a friend and she's been on the show and she talked about how she's got this sense of wanderlust and always has. And this is something different. I think you may still have that based on the way you chose to live your life on you as a young child and leading you to question things, like you say, propaganda that are fed to us by our media domestically, by our political leaders domestically, just by the world about what's important, who we are, and so on. And as I see your story, once you got to be in your 20s, you started to deal with that clash of sort of this imprint the world had made on you of like, what's out there, what people are like, what's important versus what you'd been

told was important, what school had taught you, what, I don't know. I mean, you explained it to me, but you definitely seem to be sort of bouncing around from thing to thing, looking for meaning without a ton of success at that point? Well, I don't know. First of all, I think for everybody, the 20s are hard. I have a lot of compassion for people in that decade. And that's what mine were. Mine were pretty garden variety, trying to find out who you are, experimenting with everything possible. Certainly in my generation, we were. It wasn't so much a clash. When I traveled all over the world, I still had a solid grounding because I was raised in a rather traditional home. I was certainly taught to love my country, to be grateful

for my country. All four of my grandparents were born in Russia, Poland, Minsk, Minsk, Belarus. They came here as Jewish immigrants seeking a better life for themselves, and they found it. So I was raised with great gratitude and love and honor and respect for this country. It's just that I was raised through travel to understand that we're just one of many countries, and that the fact that we are big and we are powerful and we are leaders is not about you're better and you should get whatever you want, but rather if anything else, you have that much more to be responsible for both at home and your presence in the world.

That was very different than my own personal journey in my twenties. My personal journey in my 20s. My personal journey in my 20s was definitely, like I said, the difficulties, the pain, who am I, individuating, becoming who we are. I had a difficult time, but I didn't have a difficult time any different than anybody else I knew or that I know for that matter. What my questioning became in the 20s was not about issues like America. It was issues of spirituality. I was very, always, starting from even when I was a teenager, I was interested in any kind of philosophical, religious, spiritual issues. It could be exoteric, it could be esoteric, it could be Hegel, it could be the I Ching, just anything of the higher mind. I didn't know what to do with that. I didn't know where to go with that.

And that became a real struggle with my parents because at that time, what were my options? Well, my mother kept saying, we'll send you to rabbinical school. But I didn't see myself as clergy. I didn't want to work within an institutional religion. Well, what's your other lane that you could go into? You could be a teacher, a professor of comparative religion. I didn't see that either. The kind of career that I have had didn't exist then.

So I just kept reading, reading, studying things that I now know were my preparation for my career. But because at that time, this career niche didn't exist, I didn't know what I was preparing for. I just knew that it was what I loved, much to my parents' chagrin, as you can imagine. Well, you were, I mean, my sister-in-law, Diane, calls herself a searcher. And to me, you seem like a searcher too. Somebody who's just questioning, questioning, questioning, looking for a teacher, something that resonates with you as having some answers that are meaningful. I can relate to that to some extent myself. And then it seems to me, you found it, right? In A Course in Miracles. Well, first of all, I want to say that I think we're all seeking. Some of us

just don't know it. I think that we all live with a level of deep existential angst, questioning. We all have those times in the middle of the night where we wonder what it's all for. I don't think that just some of us, I think that's all of us. It's just some of us make a place for it in our conscious lives and others sort of shoo it away. I did know as a Jew and as a student of comparative religions in school, et cetera, I did know that there were spiritual truths to be found in all of them, but I couldn't figure out how to apply them to my life. When I read The Course in Miracles, it's not like, oh, nothing had been true until A Course in Miracles. A Course in Miracles isn't a religion and there's no doctrine and there's no dogma. It's a psychological training in forgiveness. It's based on universal spiritual themes. So what I found in the course

was not so much truth I had never read, but a way to apply it to my own life, to my own personal disasters, to my own inability to figure out what to do with my life and how to fit in. That's the difference that A Course in Miracles made for me and still does. I always say my life works really well when I practice what I preach. Spiritual exercise is like physical exercise. You never get to stop. You never get to look in the mirror and say, okay, I look good. Now I don't have to exercise anymore. Because just as there is physical gravity that'll pull you down, there's emotional gravity, there's psychological gravity, there's even spiritual gravity, negativity and victimization and anger and so forth. So it's about application. That's what I found in A Course in Miracles. I found practical ways to embody and to live and to apply these principles that I knew I was excited by, but I didn't know how to bring into my own life. So what, I know that you had a marriage, you said it lasted about 15 minutes.

Yeah, best weekend I ever had. I've been there, managed to find love, true love, second time around, though still friends with my first husband. So that happened and you've, you've written about, you've written a whole book on weight loss and I know you struggled with weight issues and just what you describe as, as I want to get, I don't want to say it wrong, but it was something to the extent of self-loathing, self-loathing for, for a number of years. And I think a lot of people struggle with that. So once again, I don't, I'm sorry. You know, I was just going to say, was that all before you came to A Course in Miracles? Like this life, to me, it seems like this life-changing book and program for you, or is that all ongoing too, right? Is all that stuff just still there and you just know how to deal with it now? Well, first of all, I want to say that if

there's anything unique about my journey, it's that it's not unique at all. Very garden variety, existential angst. When you say self-loathing, anybody who has not faced their own self-loathing has not really looked in the mirror and dealt with the level of self-awareness that perhaps would serve us. So I don't think that I, in my books, am describing a journey that is unique to me. In fact, I don't think my books would be as popular as they've been if I was only describing a journey that was unique to me. I think spirituality is about the journey that is universal. So do I still go through it?

Absolutely. I'm certainly not an enlightened master, but I will tell you that as I practice the principles to which I'm committed, both personally and professionally, my life works when I do it, and it doesn't work when I don't do it. I can honestly say that the good times are the rule and the bad times are the exception, which is itself. Thank you. Thank you. And also, a lot of it just has to do with growing up. A lot of it has to do with just maturity. I think in life, there's a line

in the Course in Miracles, it is not up to you what you learn. It is merely up to you whether you learn through joy or through pain. Life teaches us. I think what spiritual principle enables you to do is to learn through joy, learn through wisdom. Rather than creating all this chaos in your life that you ultimately realized was unnecessary and that caused you and possibly other people a lot of suffering. Now, we should tell the audience what A Course in Miracles is, right? It's a book by, is it Helen Schuchman? Yes. Okay. And it is, once again, as I said before, it's not a religion.

No doctrine. No dogma. It's a psychological mind training in the relinquishment of a thought system based on fear, which dominates this world, and the acceptance instead of a thought system that is based on love. That's really all it is. It's about, in a way, Megan, it's common sense. It's that we should be about being better people more than just trying to accumulate things. It's about how we should bless people more and blame people less, that we should try to be forgiving. We should try to be charitable. We should try to be generous. We should think about our own personal selves less and think about where we fit into the larger scheme of things more, that we should not just be going out there trying to make something happen. We should be going out there seeking to the best of our ability to serve the dictates of love, however they are revealed to us, that power is in the present, not in the past or in the future.

These are principles that we all know. Some people look at them religiously, some people spiritually, some people through a secular lens. But one thing is obvious, and that is who among us doesn't know that peripheralizing these issues has taken us personally and collectively to a terrible place. And just to expand on that, because when I first read love and fear, I understood those terms as most people do. Love is a feeling you feel for your fellow human being. It can be romantic love, it could be love for a child and so on. But love as it's used here and in your books is a much bigger word. And so is fear. Love encompasses joy and kindness and all sorts of different positive things, and fear isn't just fear. Well, let's go back to what you said about love. I don't

think it's bigger than what you said. I think what you said is bigger than most people think. You know, there's a line in Les Miserables which says, to love another person is to see the face of God. I don't think the love of God is separate from the love of one another. And so when you were talking about the love for our friends, the love for our family, and also that has to include love for people we don't like, love for the earth, love for the peoples of the world, that is the love of God. The love of God is not separate from those things. But we have a political system, a social system, an economic system that almost mitigates against the deep awareness of those things in our lives. And that is what has taken us to where we are. Now, when you talk about fear,

yes. So what the Course in Miracles says is that there are only two emotions, love and fear. And it says that all negative emotion derives from fear and that fear is the absence of love, just like darkness is the absence of light. Darkness isn't actually a thing. It's the absence of a thing. And if you are dealing with darkness, you can't hit it with a baseball bat, analyze it away, hit it away. You have to turn on the light. So what the Course in Miracles teaches us is that all negative emotion, all internal chaos and suffering is derived from where the mind goes in the absence of love. And that the answer with

a capital A is not just further analysis of the fear. The answer with a capital A is to find the love that is possible in that moment, which is always forgiveness, getting over yourself, dwelling in the present. You develop the sort of attitudinal muscles, just like you go to the gym and you work on your physical muscles. You do spiritual practice, whatever it is. It's prayer, it's mindfulness, it's reflection, whatever people are finding today to take you into that internal place where you dwell as the best of who you are rather than the reactive, crazy self. You were mentioning before I came on about Will Smith. Well, he had a moment where love got lost. Something else came in. And I was glad to see him yesterday acknowledge that, return to his true

self, really atone, apologize. I felt it was very sincere,one apologize i felt it was very sincere but i also felt it was very important and that's the journey listen his journey i have to say when you see big celebrities apologize like that a day later i mean let's be honest the pr people get a hold of them and they they say this is what you're going to say i mean let's let's that's the truth even that night when you went out there and apologized moments later, he didn't apologize to Chris Rock. Well, he did yesterday. I know, but that was after the PR people got ahold of him. Well, yeah, but hold on. Wait a minute. Absolutely. And I bet his lawyers did. And I bet his agents did. And I bet some people who tell him the truth who love him did.

Whatever gets us there and um because life told him see i'm more cynical than that place pardon me i'm more cynical while you were reading course of miracles i was in law school so i'm just more cynical than you are actually it's not that i don't believe him it's just that i've seen a lot to know you can't always give people the benefit of the doubt like i'm sure some pr person wrote that entire statement for him and he signed off on it because he doesn't want to lose his oscar and he realizes he upset a lot of people and it's in his best interest now to say he's sorry to chris rock but is he really sorry to chris rock i don't really care and i don't really believe that he is well i'll tell you this much it's still good it's still

good that he did it and it's still good for the kids to see that. That's true. That's true. My husband and I told our children about this story yesterday morning because we figured it was everywhere. And that was the first thing my husband was telling our children this morning is that he apologized. He apologized in writing repeatedly. He took responsibility.

And you're right. There's a good lesson in it. Whether he learned it himself, time will tell. I know a response from Chris Rock. Go ahead. off and had a good enough excuse that you wouldn't be held accountable. That was a very dangerous trajectory for this culture. And I'm glad that that trajectory was interrupted. Well, I mean, there's no question that what he did on stage was a criminal act. And Chris Rock doesn't want to press charges. That wouldn't save your average person in all cases, but doesn't look like that's going to happen. And now the Academy is talking about taking away the Oscar, which I think is ridiculous. I don't like that's going to happen. And now the Academy is talking about taking away the Oscar,

which I think is ridiculous. I think that's ridiculous. I don't think it's going to happen either. Whoopi Goldberg is apparently on the board that looks into these things. And she came out and said, that's not happening. So that must just be an attempt to appease critics just to put that even potentially on the,

on the line. Um, but yeah, so now it looks like whatever he gets, they'll say, okay, that's fine. And it'll be some sort of mild censure and we'll all move on with our lives. But yeah, so now it looks like whatever he gets, they'll say, okay, that's fine. And it'll be some sort of mild censure. And we'll all move on with our lives. But you know, thinking about I have to say, I do feel like we lost a little bit that night, we lost a little bit of our, I don't know, civility toward one another, the norms that

we normally, you know, observe. And I realized there's been a lot of that over the past 10 years. But I don't know that to me, that would have been an unthinkable act 10 years ago, even just 10 years ago on a live broadcast like the Academy Awards. And the fact that it was celebrated by some, some people just thought it was great. He was protecting his woman, said to me, you know, we're losing, we're etching away a little bit more each day at these norms that we once agreed to live by. Well, that's why it's important that either he apologized and atoned or that he be held accountable. It's like with the pussy tape, oh, that's just locker room talk. No, it's not. And the same thing with here. Oh, it's just because he was a man protecting the honor of his wife. No, that's not okay. Certain things are not okay. And we have suffered greatly as a society by being too flexible around what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. And I

think holding people accountable is extremely important, but I also believe that God is merciful and apologies and atonement and amends do matter as well. Yeah. Well, I agree with that. And that's a problem because when you take it into the political arena or even Will Smith is not a political guy. As far as I know, I don't I haven't heard him go left or right. But when you take into the political arena, people just dig in on their side versus the other side. And you mentioned, you know, the Trump tape, you know, his supporters just saw it like went to the mat to defend him on it it's like why can't there be a moment where you say that's not okay what he said on the tape is not okay and you can still vote for him you can still support him you don't have to make an excuse for that moment you know but that's where we are now your guy is the greatest the other guy is the

worst well not only your guy is the greatest the other guy is the worst but Your guy is the greatest. The other guy is the worst. Well, not only your guy is the greatest, the other guy is the worst, but your guy is the greatest based on his politics. Your guy is the worst based on his. You know, if you look back at President Nixon and Watergate, it was Republicans who drove to the White House and said that it's over. You know, in his farewell address, George Washington warned us about political parties. And he said that they will form factions of men, he said, who are more concerned with their party than with their country. And that's what's happened to our country. People more concerned with just taking up for the people who agree with us and damning the people who don't agree with us.

And certain principles should matter, whether it's with someone that we agree with or someone that who don't agree with us. And certain principles should matter, whether it's with someone that we agree with or someone that we don't agree with. And I think, I feel confident that enough Americans are realizing that, that this idea that we're all gonna just exist in silos and only hang with and only defend people that we like or people who agree with us has taken us to a terrible place.

And when I say a terrible place, I mean a trajectory of damage that is careening out of control as we speak. So I think the fact that so many of us are talking about what you're saying, recognizing the damage that it does to close your heart to anyone who doesn't agree with you, or to cover up for the mistakes of people who make mistakes that should be considered intolerable, even if we do agree with them. We have everything a bit upside down right now. And hopefully we're getting back towards that golden mean of human thought and behavior. The one uplifting spot, the one sign of hope on this front is the number of independents, I think, is at an all-time high. The number of people who are leaving the parties and saying, I just don't identify with these

people and I don't identify with these sweeping platforms. I'm just going to make up my own mind. I love to see the number of independents grow. I've been one myself for, I don't know, going on 20 years now. Highly recommend it. And it just feels liberating not to have to put on somebody's team jersey. I know you actually, I'm speaking to somebody who ran

for the Democratic nomination, though, as you well know, you can't win if you run as an independent. Yes, and I ran for Congress as an independent. I think that, like you said, the growing crowd, the growing population, the growing demographic is independent. The problem we have,

however, is that the Democrats and the Republicans have sort of sewn up the system institutionally in ways that make it very difficult for people who do not run as a Democrat or a Republican to have the voice in the political landscape that we should have. And this is very damaging right now. If you look at the history of the United States, third party voices were very important. Abolition came from the abolitionist party. Women's suffrage came from the women's party. Social security came from the socialist party. The greatest movements forward in this but were not generated from the major parties. And now with this lock that the Democrats and the Republicans, I'm not saying that it's a lock that we can't, you know, I'm not saying

it's a door we can't break into. I think we must break into it. But it's definitely a problem and has left so many Americans feeling politically homeless for the last 40 years. No, it's like you look behind those doors. It's like behind the one door I see AOC. Behind the other door I see Matt Gaetz. And I say, I'm just going to reverse back here. I will not be sharing jerseys with either of those people. Well, if you look at it from one angle, they're so very, very different. But the most dangerous thing is not the ways that the parties are. And I think that Americans are now realizing we must look clear-eyed at where we are, whether it has to do with the state of our environment, the state of our economy, the state of our democracy. We are on a suicidal march.

And this is where the system brought us. Now, I'm someone who thinks it started with Republicans, but the Democrats haven't stopped it. This orgy of deregulation, this orgy of corporate dominance, this economic ordering of our society. And then you look at the ways in which they're in lockstep. They're in lockstep when it comes to funding the military. They're in lockstep when it comes to too many things that actually affect the daily lives of the Americans. So I understand why people are upset. And I myself, having run for president, certainly saw how the system operates in such a way as to only allow people, to the best of its ability, to only allow people into the game who align with their predetermined agenda.

And you have to be, in their minds, one of the people that they consider ready to perpetuate the system as they gain from it. It's not just as they see it, but as they gain from it. It's very much true. It's not just the parties who control that door or try to stand behind it. It's the media as well. I call it the political media industrial complex. I saw how it works. You were talking about the most Googled person within 49 states. And within three days, you couldn't look at any media outlet that I wasn't described as dangerous and crazy and crystal lady and anti-vax and anti-science. And I was like, really, like what? So I saw how it works. I saw how they collude. But I'll tell you something else that I saw. I saw how corrupt all that is. But I also, I realized that the system was even more corrupt than I feared. And people are even more wonderful than I hoped. When you're actually out there talking to voters, it's exhilarating. It's inspiring, particularly in those primary states where people realize that their vote could affect the world. People take it so seriously.

That's why I left that experience. I came out of that experience more cynical about the system, but more committed in my faith that representative democracy is in fact a genius idea and we need to get back to it. Oh, much more to go over. Gosh, this is great. We haven't even scratched the surface with Marianne Williamson. We'll squeeze in a quick commercial break and much, much more right after this quick break. Marianne, in reading up on you and the press coverage, reminding myself of how they covered you when you were running for office for president for the nomination, it reminded me of something that I saw about myself in the press in The New York Times. It was when I left Fox and I went to

NBC and I gave an interview to the media reporter there. And he was asking me why I made the decision. You know, I went from this powerful post and cable news to a morning show, which is softer. And I kept talking to him about how I had been very unhappy in my old post. And I was really on a search for more joy in my life that I, you know, people only knew this sort of tough news anchor version of me. But what they didn't know was behind the scenes, I was miserable. Wasn't seeing my kids grow up, wasn't seeing my friends. I had no life. All I did was combat for a living, right? On the world stage. And I did it well, but it wasn't doing anything for me as a

human. And I read the article and I can't stand these guys at the Times. Honestly, there's some guys I like over there, but the Times is just so biased. So what was my message? I'm leaving Fox news. I mean, you think if there's anything the New York times is going to celebrate about somebody like me is that I'm leaving Fox news. Nope. The whole thing was mocking me for pursuing quote joy. And it talked about the number of times I use that word. Right. And I was like, fuck these guys. Sorry. I'm in Lent and I'm trying not to swear, but I'm really doing poorly at it. Anyway, that's how I felt when I read it, right? And when I read the press coverage of you, went back, read the Times, read the Post and all of

them, Washington Post, it was that times 100. I mean, it was that magnified out beyond brutal, vicious, mocking you for your decades as somebody who's been very helpful to people spiritually in a quest to make people's lives better. And you come into the presidential politics with a different kind of message focused on love, right, trying to change the way we deal with one another as parties, as a country, as citizens, through this lens of love, as we discussed. And all they could do was make fun of it. It must have been infuriating. Or I don't know. You tell me, how did it make you feel? Well, it was brutal. It was brutalizing in all the ways that you just described your own experience reading that article. And mine was that several times a day, all day, every day. But let's talk about why they did it. They didn't really do it. This whole canard of me

being such a silly person. They did it because they knew that I wasn't joking. They called me a joke because they knew that I wasn't joking. Let's look at what's happening here. This is a political establishment that, as we said before, has taken us to maybe six inches away from the cliff, both in terms of the vitality of our democracy, even the survival of our democracy, the survival of our ecosystem, the unbelievable rigging of our economy. And they have the audacity to say that the only people we should consider qualified to even be in the conversation are those whose careers have been embedded for decades in the car that drove us into this ditch. They're the only ones we should consider qualified to take us out of the ditch. So yeah, there is an elite establishment in the media and in politics.

And they look at anybody who doesn't toe the line with their perspective and with their agenda for the future. And they'll do whatever it takes to get you out of the conversation. And in my case, it was, you know, that kind of smear, character assassination, mockery, minimizing. And also, it was quite disappointing how easily people bought it. I mean, it's true, they're good at what they do, the smear machine, but it was a little disappointing how easily, what an easy time they had. And I couldn't help but wonder if it might not have been so easy for them if I were a man. Oh, 100%. There was sexism involved in the way they covered you. There's zero doubt of that. And, you know, you see it from organizations like The Times that, you know, they want to consider themselves and try to diminish me. If you're not, if you don't hold their exact politics, right. And you're, forgive me, but just short form, I think a little closer to like a Bernie than maybe to a Biden. That's threatening in the same way. And they didn't like Tulsi. They didn't like you. They certainly don't like me. And yet, you know, they hold themselves up as these fair, impartial, moral arbiters who are going to sort

of keep the train running straight on the tracks. You tell me, what was it about you, do you think, that actually turned them off? Well, first of all, the very fact that I was there, that I had the audacity, you know, like, who let you in? And the answer is James Madison. Who let you in? This is the is James Madison. Who let you in? This is the United States of America. Susan B. Anthony helped, certainly. Even Eisenhower said that politics should be the part-time profession of every American. This idea that the rest of us are supposed to stay in our lane, I would hear that, stay

in your lane. What they have done is created the illusion that a political class should be running things. This country was founded on a repudiation of an aristocracy, whether that is an economic aristocracy, whether it is a political aristocracy. That's what this country is not supposed to be. And the fact that we are reenacting an aristocratic system is not good news. So yeah, it was an inconvenience to them. And I think they figured when I was on the debate stage the first time, oh, it's a joke, she can't do any harm. And look, I understand that in my nervousness, I said a couple things

in ways, whether it has to do with girlfriend you're on, or I'll meet you in a field of love. I understand that in my nervousness, I gave them some ammunition. But I also understand that I said many things on those debate stages that I'm very proud to have said that I think needed to be said. And I think some very serious people realize that. After the second debate, they knew, oh, wait, we got to get rid of her because she could be an inconvenience if she continued to talk about things like environmental injustice, reparations, things which I had brought up on the stage that are in fact challenging to the neoliberal economic order of both Democratic and Republican politics. So they came after me, but I'm here, aren't I? And the cast was on the side of the road, but I'm here. You helped change the conversation. And I mean, I think that's also what Tulsi Gabbard did and why

she's received similar treatment. You know, you're not allowed to challenge their orthodoxy. And even Trump, he was experiencing the same thing over on the Republican side back in 2016, because he did not sound like the other guys up there. You know, I mean, in a way, you guys are similar. Forgive me. I know you're not his fan, but I'm just saying in a way you're similar. No, I understand the way in which you mean that. I want to tell you something that Tulsi Gabbard said to me the last time I saw her. She was still in office. Her term was not over yet. And she said something interesting to me. She said, you know, it's not that you and I, meaning Tulsi and Miriam, she said, it's not that you and I saw something the

others don't see. It's that we looked at the system and said, I see you. And I thought that was pretty interesting. Well, there's no question. And I've heard you say this before, that the system conspired to keep Bernie down and elevate Hillary back in 2016. There's no question at all. And there's a large faction in the Democratic Party that wanted to hear his ideas and might have gotten behind him. But I mean, it was a complete media blackout and smear campaign. It's not just the Democratic Party that wanted to hear him. The country wanted to hear him. You know, in 2016, if the DNC had just kept their fingers off the scale, and we know now, I mean, they admit in court they had their fingers on the scale.

If they had just kept their fingers off the scale, either Hillary or Bernie would have won the primary. But whoever would have won the primary, but whoever would have won, the Democrats would have felt good about the process of the primary. And then I don't think Trump would have won the presidency. This idea that the end justifies the means must be replaced by the Gandhian principle that the end is inherent in the means. You can't say, I'm going to compromise my integrity because what I want to do with it ultimately is a good thing once I get the power. You have to

seek to exercise the power from the beginning, even gain power from a place of integrity, or else the whole thing will crash and burn, and on a certain level, you will deserve it. When I was reading up about some of the things that you've written and your beliefs, I thought, how can any of these beliefs about putting out more love in the world and eschewing fear and rejecting what society tells us is important, competition, good grades, more money, material goods, how can that, how can those two things live together in a politician? Right. Like how I how did Hillary Clinton get ahead by doing all the things that you say are in the fear category? Listen, this country elected Abraham Lincoln. This country elected Thomas Jefferson. This country elected Franklin Roosevelt. I don't think the problem is where the people are in their head. The American people would love to elect someone who genuinely embodies and represents those principles of basic human dignity and decency and ethics within the public sphere.

The American people are hungry for it. The American people are ready for it. And I say that as someone who has campaigned. The people are ready for it. And I say that as someone who has campaigned. The people are not the problem. If you look at poll after poll after poll on issue after issue after issue, the American people are not the problem. The problem is that we have a political system that actually suppresses the will of the people because it does more to serve the will and the short-term profit maximization goals of their corporate donors than the safety, the well-being, and health of the people they

serve and the planet on which we live. So it's really important that we not say, oh, people would never vote for that. Give people an opportunity to vote for that. And I think the people would vote for that and will vote for that because somehow we are going to make that happen. I can see though, I mean, I will tell you just, maybe it's a blessing that you didn't get the nomination because having been in media for as long as I have, I can tell you that it is hard in certain arenas to pursue love. It is very hard to live a life anchored in love versus fear, as we discussed those terms in certain professions, including media. It was one of the reasons I had to leave cable. I mean,

all you do there is stoke fears. All you do is appeal to people's most base fears and instincts, and it's not uplifting in any way, nor is it designed to be. It's one of the things I like about my new lane, the digital lane, where you can talk about much, much more than just the scariest, worst, most divisive things. You can talk about the news, you can empower people with information, but you can do it in a way that is genuinely enlightening as opposed to just trying to scare people. Yeah, but look at, you're an example. Look at independent media.

People are turning away from corporate media. People are turning away from the cable stations that you're talking about. Where are people going? People are looking to independent media like yourself, like so many others for that very reason. Because people are sick of it. At a certain point, you've just like so many others for that very reason, because people are sick of it. At a certain point, you've just eaten so much junk food, you really actually want a vegetable. And so I think in the political system, it's the same thing. People are hungry for something else. And unfortunately, it's the system itself being so held hostage, beginning with the political parties, also with the money that floods the system, that is keeping the people from being able to express their will.

I think of myself less like a vegetable, more like a mimosa. There's some stuff in there that may not be perfectly good for you, but overall, you're going to feel good. There's some vitamins. You've got a little bit of mimosa going on. I've got a little bit of tequila going on. Yeah. All right. Stand by. Great place to pause it. We are not them. And what the system has done is to say that we're the weird ones, and more and more people are recognizing, no, we're the weird ones. They are carrying forward an agenda that is based on bad ideas left over from the 20th century. And it's time for us to enter the 21st.

Mary Ann Williams said, this is so fun. You're even greater than I thought you'd be. Stand by, much more to do with you. And actually, I do want to ask you about your weight loss book because who doesn't want to hear some thoughts on how to lose that extra five pounds? Much, much more to go over. And remember folks, you can find the Megan Kelly show

live on Sirius XM triumph channel one 11 every weekday at noon East and the full video showing clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megan Kelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, go ahead, go on over there. Do me a favor, subscribe and download on apple spotify pandora stitcher or wherever you get your podcast i've told you before i read all the reviews on the apple uh service and they've been wonderful thank you so much for all the great feedback on rfk really really appreciate it and i'm still reading them every morning so don't forget go on over there and let me know what you think about today's show or any other and you'll also find our full archives while you're there.

More than 280 shows now. We've got Marianne Williamson with us today, author, spiritual leader and founder of the nonprofit Project Angel Food. She made news when she ran for president. And when we come back, I'm going to ask her, uh, after this break about this debate moment from 2019. be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He's going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he's harnessed fear for political purposes. So Mr. President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field. And sir, love will win.

That's next. Don't miss it. Don't go away. We'll be right back. So, Marianne, how about that soundbite, that direct invitation to Trump? I don't think you're wrong that Trump has appealed to people's fear. I think it's what virtually every single politician everywhere does other than you, right? He's not alone in that approach. So what do you make now of that messaging and how it worked? I think it was very damaging to the country. I think that he harnessed the lower aspects of human consciousness that dwell within us all. I think when Abraham Lincoln talked about the better angels of our nature, that's something very real, the best that we are capable of. And then there is the worst

that we are capable of, the rage, the bigotry. When I was younger, nobody who is a conscious, intelligent observer would ever suggest that we never had racists, we never had bigots, we never had anti-Semites, we never had homophobes, we never had xenophobes. Of course, we have always had those people. We're human beings. But when I was younger, we had reached a consensus in this country that those were fringe elements and neither major political party would ever seek to harness, at that point, would ever want again to harness any of those forces for political purposes. Those levies fell with social media and then through a politician who was not above seeking to harness those forces for his own political purposes. This is a terrible thing to happen in any society. And I hope that more and more people will reject that kind of demagoguery, both as Republicans and as Democrats, so that we can get back to a far more noble politics. I'm not naive about the history of the United States. I'm not saying

that we've ever embodied fully the principles on which we purport to stand, but I'm old enough to remember a time when there was at least a social consensus that we were supposed to try. We were supposed to try to be good. And we have to get back to that intention underlying our politics, whether we are on the left or on the right, that no political positioning should be at the expense of our basic decency and dignity as human beings. I do believe that we are getting there. What specifically? Because in the same way the media misrepresented you, they misrepresented Trump a fair amount. That's not to defend everything he said or did. But what are you referring to? When the president would talk certain ways, not about women, when he would

talk certain ways about Mexicans, when he would talk certain ways about protesters. There was a man, and he was in Portland, right? And it was reported that he might be Antifa. He was sitting on a sidewalk, right? Now, in America that you and I grew up in, now remember that we learned this in school, we have laws of due process. And if you think someone might have done something wrong, then the police, if there is a reason, might arrest that person. And then that person will have the rights of the accused. And if that person has behaved criminally and is prosecuted by the system, then they will be held accountable accordingly. That's not what happened there. That was an extrajudicial killing. They just went and they killed him. And the president of the United States said, we got him. Megan, that's police state stuff. That is police state stuff. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, right, left, that's police state stuff. We don't do that in America. And to hear the president of the United States speak that way. And also, hello, there is absolutely no evidence. as well as judges that were appointed by Democratic presidents and elected by the people. In case after case after case, no evidence was found, no evidence was proven that had anything

to do with the idea that this was not a fair election in 2020. And this man is still saying it was rigged. We're still finding out things about ways that he and his administration, certainly, allegedly, something went on there, things that we know were not so great. He's still saying it. But to me, even the way he's talking about the election today is just a continuation of a pattern of deep disrespect for democratic principles, deep, deep disrespect for the laws and the traditions of the United States. And to me, that has nothing to do actually with whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican. That's demagoguery. And that's the dismantling of our

democratic system. So let me ask you a question on this, because I'm not going to defend Trump on all of his comments. And, you know, that's a losing battle. But I will say this. For example, the issue of due process. Trump so often made controversial comments where you're like, what is he saying? Why would he say that? Like, dumbass thing to say.

But then when you looked at the way he behaved, it was redemptive. And on the issue of due process, that's a great one, right? So, okay, he shouldn't have said that. He shouldn't have made that comment. However, how did he behave in office? You know what Trump did through Betsy DeVos? He restored due process for young men who got accused on college campuses of being sexual predators or harassers, something Obama had taken away from them. And Biden right now is working to take away again after Trump restored it. So that's that affects hundreds of thousands of people across

the country, at least. I mean, I don't know how many men are in college right now. I don't know they have a number. But so that's one area. Yes, he made terrible comments about women. Hello, I'm aware. But who signed the Anti-Sex Trafficking Act when they actually got something they'd been pushing to get through? They couldn't get it through under Obama. They finally got it through under Trump. Donald Trump signed it. Like, I'm not saying the man was perfect. But you know, when I look at I'm not going to and I'm not going to excuse his rhetoric. But when I look at how he actually legislated how he governed, I could defend him on virtually any of these subjects. Well, the fact that he did some things that you and I might agree with does not make unimportant

the things he did, which were actually horrible. He did not just make the comment, we got him. They shot and killed him, Megan. This was not just a comment. This was not just a rude comment. This was the police going over to a guy and just killing him out there in the streets killing killing David Dorn or hurting 2000 police officers. I'm not. None of this is defensible, but you just good luck finding the president who is going to completely uphold all of the things that are important to you in the way that you want them upheld. I have some serious disagreements with the president, President Biden, but the places where I have serious disagreements with him are places where he's actually continued policies of the Trump administration. that Trump did, such as the ones that you mentioned, that many of us could have legitimate approval of. But I think the bigger picture is something very, very dark. When Steve Bannon said that they were coming to Washington to dismantle the administrative state, I think that's exactly what they tried to do. Starting with Reagan saying that government is the problem. I think that there are people in this country,

I think it started with the Koch brothers in the 1970s, who put the primacy of property rights, exalt them to such an extent that even as the Koch brothers said at the time, in order for this absolutism of property rights to be protected, democracy itself must be held in chains. And that is what these people sought to do. That is what they are seeking to do right now with voter suppression laws around the country. I don't think that this should even be seen as a right-left issue. Eisenhower said that the American mind at its best is both liberal and conservative. We are e pluribus unum. We are different political views. We are different ideologies. We are different cultures. We are different ethnicities. We are different sexuality. But there must be some unifying principles on which we agree to agree. And the president,

even though you can, President president, even though you can, President Trump, even though you can see particular issues where you might say, well, that was pretty good. I thought some of his stuff on China was pretty good also, by the way, some of his commentary on China. But the point is the deeper issue of respect for law as it is written in the US Constitution, whether it is Biden that is behaving in an outrageous way, or it is Trump that is behaving in an outrageous way, or it is Trump that is behaving in an outrageous way. We shouldn't respond to these things just as Republicans or Democrats. We should respond to them as Americans. You know, to me, it's so aggravating because

the media covered, you know, everything Trump did, you know, to the nth degree. And let's not even get into Russiagate, which was fake and made up. But you talk about respect for norms. I covered the Obama administration night after night after night after night. And I listened to President Obama himself say he had no more room on executive action when it came to immigration reform. He was out of tricks. The bag was empty. He'd done everything he could do and said, I'm not a king. I'm out. And then he did more. And then he did the Dreamer executive order and so on. And that was extra. That was that was lawless. That was not respectful of the Constitution. And then now I see Joe Biden do things like the eviction moratorium, which he knew he knew was unlawful. He knew the Supreme Court was not going to uphold it. And he he did it

anyway. He knew it was lawless. And sure enough, it got struck down. And the same thing with the with the mandate on the vaccines. He knew it was going to get struck down, but he did it anyway. So I I mean, you could go on and on about the lawlessness of our of our, you know, leaders. But you have to make the case on both sides. This president has behaved in an in a lawless way as well. And what was done to President Trump, look, the Democrats have no high ground. There is no high ground. They cannot sit and point to him and say, how dare you deny the facts when it comes to his loss? I don't support, Trump did lose. He lost. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. And a lot of my listeners

don't like to hear me say, well, that's the case. That's not to say it wasn't rigged to help the Democrats. It was look back at what they did to the New York Post reporting on Hunter Biden. Right. But I'm just saying, if we're going to be based on reality, let's be based on reality. And this president misleads us at every turn. And the media misleads us at every turn when it comes to media, when it comes to Russiagate, I mean. And I could go on. And we're supposed to just look at the orange man bad and blame it all on him. And I'm sitting here as somebody who was never a huge Trump supporter saying, these are lies and this is biased and it's unfair and really hating everyone. That's where I live. You know, but even what you just said, stay stuck in the us versus them.

Even what you're just saying, stay stuck in the right versus left. I don't think it's right versus wrong. That's where I am. I'm right versus wrong. That's what I. But to me, there's a much bigger story here going on than just what Biden did or what Trump did. And that is what both major political parties support. Both Biden and Trump continued the oil drilling, the

fossil fuel extraction, which is destroying this planet. We have to do it, Marianne, because it's to help the people who need to power their houses and need cheap energy cannot get by with the prices that we are going to impose on them if we try to make this work on solar and wind turbines. And that's really clear. I'm all for cleaning up the environment. I'm a mom. I don't want to pass on a crappy earth to my children. But I understand the support for fossil fuels for now, or the slow weaning off of them, because we need cheap energy. You know, when Jimmy Carter was president, he had solar panels on top of the White House. And then one of the first things that Ronald Reagan did was to take them off. If we had started a just transition to clean energy back when Jimmy Carter first talked about it, we would not be vulnerable to Russia the way we are right now. And I disagree with you about what is possible. You know, this used to be a country that knew how to respond to emergencies. This used to be a country that knew

how to do whatever it took to make sure that our children's lives would be okay. We have, you were talking about President Trump in the defense budget that President Biden has just put forth. There is 18 times more expenditure on the military than on climate change mitigation. The president could declare a warp speed effort make a warp speed effort employing the national defense production act and move towards a just transition from a dirty economy to a clean economy this isn't just about what something's going to cost it's about the fact we're going to cost the cost here at this point could be the survival of the human race and we could do it if when you say we just can't do it yes we could do it but not you know what we can do with we can do with nuclear we could do with nuclear some people would argue

with that i have concern about that but they are moving forward more quickly on fission than they had expected to be able to in the meantime there is so much more that could be done with solar so much more could be done uh with wind farms so much more could be done if we were to apply the resources, once again, 18 times more in this budget to be spent on the military than to be spent on climate change mitigation. But let me ask you about that. Okay, let me respond to that. Because one of the reasons that he wants to spend more on the military and defense is because there's a belief that deterrence works on stopping things like what we're seeing in Ukraine right now, that if we had a more robust military, if we had a stronger sort of messaging and real threats that Vladimir Putin

believed, that perhaps he wouldn't do things like this in the future, okay? Because this is like an old belief that deterrence works if exercised properly and with a strong bicep, right? And the president's critics now would say he should have been doing that all along. We should have been sort of exercising our military might, reminding Vladimir Putin who we are, who America is, what we're capable of, as opposed to having the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal while allowing Putin to fill his coffers with Germany's money, which is, you know, totally dependent on Russia for its energy, right? Because Russia shut or Germany shut down its nuclear power plants. Germany's completely dependent on Vladimir Putin. So in your world, right, like this is the pushback in these positions that

this attempt to go green by Angela Merkel weakened Germany, empowered Vladimir Putin. And at the same time, while we were trying to BFF it up with Vladimir Putin by not criticizing Nord Stream 2, which we should have been, which we were doing under Trump, we were stopping it. We were weakening our own position and helping pave the way for a war in Ukraine. Well, now Biden has realized none of that works. Putin's in Ukraine. The Nord Stream tool was a disaster. And we need to build up our military again because not flexing the muscle, going into the fetal position was a disaster. OK, that's the other side's argument. OK, do I get to talk now?

Now it's yours. First of all, OK, first of all, the military. We have 7000 nuclear bombs in our arsenal that we know of. And they are now budgeting trillions more on developing more in the future. The obvious, if anything is obvious now, it's that the principle of mutually assured destruction did not work. It only works if you're dealing with a rational actor, which Putin has proven at this point that he is not. So if we had 50 in our arsenal, how would it be any different than having 7,000 in our arsenal? And I don't think that the problem is that Putin doubts our military power.

The issue going on, as everybody knows, is that our leaders and the leaders of Europe do not want to start World War III. I'm very happy to see the kind of strength and power of the Western Alliance, the United States and Europeans. I think that they have shown Vladimir Putin a resolve. It was never an issue of how much military power we have. It was an issue of how much resolve we have. And that is what he did not expect. And we have shown that resolve, both with military aid to Ukraine, as well as with sanctions. So having a bigger military at this point would make absolutely no difference to what is going on in Ukraine. That's that. Now, on the issue of the environment, the fact that we are so vulnerable to oil and gas from Russia is the problem. If we had already, the fact that now we're going begging MBS,

we're begging Saudi Arabia for oil, we're begging Venezuela for oil. This is not, if we had moved into green energy, into clean energy over the last few years when we should have, we wouldn't need to be hoarse to Russia. We don't need to be doing it now. What do you mean? We were energy independent two years ago under Donald Trump when we were using not just oil but natural gas. There's nothing wrong with natural gas.

Well, you know what? Now, wait a minute. Let's just pull back a little bit. You and I, this is America. In America, in a free society, we don't all have to agree on everything. You say there's nothing wrong with natural gas. A lot of people have a lot of problems with that. It doesn't even have to be either or. Even if you do believe there's no problem with natural gas, it is indisputable that we could have moved much quicker and that it is the resistance of the

fossil fuel companies that are keeping us from developing the kind of clean energy system that will both protect us, protect the earth, protect the ability of our children to breathe, protect any kind of energy from these petro-states, which are autocratic, ethno-nationalist states with which we should not be doing business. This is from Michael Schellenberger, who wrote the book Apocalypse Never, which is well worth the time. Number one, no nation has decarbonized its electricity supply with solar and wind. The only successful decarbonization efforts have been achieved with nuclear. Had Germany spent on nuclear what they spent instead on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power. The problem is that every time anti-nuclear climate campaigners succeed in closing a nuclear plant, wherever it is, the burning of fossil fuels and carbon emissions go

up. Nuclear is a reasonable answer to all of this. And it is eschewed, demonized and rejected by virtually all of the Democrat Party. And it's a shame because it could have helped California, could have helped the United States, It certainly could have helped Germany. They went a different way. Look at France. France went nuclear. Germany tried to do renewables. Didn't work.

Had to go to Putin to back backdoor supply their energy supply. And now energy is at least one third cheaper in France than it is in Germany. Like these these pie in the sky policies have been tried. They were tried in Vermont. They didn't work. They were tried in Germany. They didn't work. I like the all in approach. I like a fine. We want to work on wind turbines, want to work on solar. I'm all for it if we can find a way of supplementing and getting there in a more reasonable way. But those two are not going to do it alone. And it was no time to stop drilling in America. And it was no time to turn off the fossil fuel faucet like Biden did and like Merkel did. Excuse me. Because I think that's how Biden has given more permits for oil drilling than Trump did. Unfortunately, we have not stopped oil drilling. We are doing oil drilling right now. Biden has been threatening the oil industry. They know very well that he will hit them with more regulations than they could ever operate through. They are on record as saying that's why some of those permits are still outstanding.

See, where you and I disagree on this is I think we're talking about the survival of our planet here. We're talking about the survival of the human race. I'm talking about the survival of the people now. That's all well and good for like, you know, 100 years from now. I get it. And I don't want three feet oceans, though, I'm also told that two feet oceans we can handle. And it's already happened in places and it's being handled. But it's all well and good for you and I as Americans to sit here and say, Oh, you know, the earth, what about people who are in truly socioeconomically deprived areas that genuinely need fossil fuels to survive, they cannot afford the energy, the people, the people in these economically deprived areas are the people who are already experiencing the droughts, They cannot afford the energy. within 15 years of such a raised temperature, saturating entire swaths of continents, where the temperature is so high that your food systems collapse, your economic systems collapse, and we could have millions, even hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

But I think more- That's not true. That is definitely not true within the next 15 years. Well, you know what- That is an overstatement. Megan, you and I are both better than this. You and I are both better than this. You have mentioned some legitimate points of debate. I have mentioned legitimate points of debate. I don't think either one of us are saying things that are not true. Marianne, what you just said is not true.

Okay, what is it that you're saying that I'm saying that's not true? Within 15 years, look, the temperature is absolutely true. No, it's not. Look, we've had policy experts on this. Hold on. So how long do you think if we continue with the rate of fossil fuel extraction that we are doing now? So how long is it, do you think, before you have a complete inclusion of your ecosystem? We've already peaked on our carbon emissions.

We've already peaked on our carbon emissions in the United States. Several of the countries have already peaked on our carbon emissions. We've already peaked on our carbon emissions in the United States. Several of the countries have already peaked on their carbon emissions. What we're looking at is 75, 100 years out, a possible two-foot rise in the oceans. And there are ways of working around that. And it's not a great thing, but it's not as catastrophic as the Greta Thunbergs of the world would have you believe. They're suggesting it's going to happen in 10 years and 15 years. We heard that from AOC. It isn't true. 15 years from now, that's not going to be happening. Well, maybe we'll talk 15 years from now.

You know, it's like what you can do. John Kerry was saying this 10 years ago. And here we are. We're just fine. So, look, it's alarmism. That's why Michael Schellenberger called his book Apocalypse Never, because we've been told for years now it's coming. It's coming in five years, coming in 15 years, coming in 10 years. What do you think? It's real. It's a problem. I'm not denying that. But well, you know, alarmism about, you know, it's 15 years from now at the polls. So you're already seeing that.

You're already seeing huge weather catastrophes. We're already being told that the fires in California by 2030 will be one-third higher than they are now. But more than this, you and I disagree on fossil fuel extraction. You and I could be just having a conversation about the use of nuclear power to generate energy. But I think that what you and I as American women can be demonstrating right now is not insulting the views of the others. The fact that some people feel so strongly- Marianne, this is not a question about insulting. I'm fact-checking you.

No, I'm not saying you're insulting me. 15 years is not true. No, no, no. Well, things that you've read say that it's not true. Things that I have read, also very legitimate climate scientists- What specifically? Because Michael Schellenberger is an actual expert on this who worked for Green Peace, who worked on the Obama-Cylinder deal, who believed in solar and renewables and devoted his entire life to it, only to discover through firsthand experience it was not workable. And he is the one who has written, for example, and I mean, I'll tell you this. Climate change does not threaten the existence of our planet.

Deaths from hurricanes have declined 90 percent in 100 years. Deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest level in 120 years i could go on he's the one pushing for nuclear he's a true expert you're not but i've had him on the show repeatedly you're not an expert on climate change megan i'm not and you are not and he might be i'm citing an expert for you do you do you dispute those facts? Well, you're misrepresenting. There are hundreds of climate scientists, Nobel Prize laureates, some of the greatest climate scientists in the world who disagree with him. And there are hundreds on his side as well. Only the most extreme people are putting

it in terms of 10, 15 years. And then politicians should run who represent one view or another. And you would support the politicians who represent the idea that fossil fuel extraction is okay. I would represent politicians who feel that making a warp speed transition away from fossil fuel extraction is in the best interest of the country. That's fine. That's a democracy. That's right. I'm not taking an issue with your beliefs or what you want to run on or what you want people to vote for. That's up to you. My only job in this seat is to stay factual and to correct people when they misstate facts.

And I'll do it to the left. One man, one man's book. Listen, I write books. It's not just one man. Somebody wrote it in a book. Doesn't mean, you know, we wrote it in a book. There are many climate scientists who say the opposite. Marianne. And it's up to everybody to investigate the material themselves.

With respect, I am in the business of having fair and balanced debates. I had a debate on this very show with someone who is more aligned with your views and someone who is more aligned with Michael Schellenberger's views. Two totally different people. No one put it at 15 years like you have. It's my job to keep us within the factual realm. That's where we are. I'm going to leave it at that. People can go back and listen to that podcast. They can listen to the many we've done with Michael Schellenberger. They can listen to you and look up Greta Thunberg and John Kerry and everyone's views. That's what they should do. But people come to me because they trust me not to be a partisan on things like this. And I'm not. OK, let's shift gears and talk about President

Biden, because he was, of course, running against you when you were trying to become the nominee. And, of course, obviously wound up winning not just the nomination, but the presidency. And now is kind of all over the board on his messaging with respect to Russia. He over the weekend had a comment when he was speaking in Warsaw that certainly suggested like he was calling for a regime change, saying Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power. Then the White House had to walk it back and say what he what he really meant was he just he shouldn't have any power over the neighboring regions, you know, places like Ukraine. That's what he meant. Now, this is like the third or fourth time they've had to walk back something by President Biden has said on Russia and Ukraine in the past 10 days. That now he comes out today and says, actually, I stand by what I said. I don't take it back. What I meant was simply, it's my personal opinion. Like, come on, man.

How could you have a guy like that in power? I'm speaking about my personal opinion, not calling for regime change. Marianne, I'd love to know what you think about about regime change in Russia. The White House was right to walk it back. And I'm glad to hear, I mean, I'm sorry to hear that the president is in any way doubling down today. I think until that point, until that trip to Poland, I do appreciate the tenor of the White House's response. It has been very sober in terms of the Ukraine issue. I have supported the issue of military aid when possible, short of dangerous things such as the no-fly zone. I have supported the sanctions. However, we should deal with what's happening right now, and that's what the president should be supporting.

Putin does seem to be pivoting. He's withdrawing some troops from the area of Kyiv. He seems to be looking on some level for an exit ramp himself. Zelensky has said that he's open to the idea of Ukraine being neutral. So the United States should be in every way possible ramping down that kind of language. Macron and other European leaders were very critical of those comments by the president, as are you and I. And the United States should be doing everything possible now to support whatever kind of negotiated settlement that there might be. In the meantime, the fact that we've shown Putin that we're tough and that we're serious is a good thing and it was necessary. Paul Begala, who helped get Bill Clinton elected, he's a CNN contributor.

He was in the news saying they were great comments by President Biden, the original ones, not the... No, they were not. What his position is, it's another mr gorbachev tear down this wall evil empire type moment mr gorbachev tear down this wall was one of the great presidential statements you know that's what he's saying he's saying this was like that he's comparing it to that no well he's wrong you and i would i think agree the fact that paul begala is full of it on that. And it was a terrible thing. It was a big mistake. But I think a little bit of much like you were saying before, with Trump, you said sometimes it's not just the words, there's redemptive action after. I do disagree with those words. I think they were a terrible thing to say. And in general, the policy of this administration regarding Ukraine is something

that I support. How do you get to, you know, this is kind of a fun interview, right? Because we started talking about love and self-help and so on. Then we got hot and heavy into politics and climate change. How do you, take us back to like the original philosophy. How do you look at Donald Trump with love? How do you look at world Trump with love? How do you look at world politics with love? How do you deal with conflict with love in your heart? How do all those life lessons translate into subjects like that? You're married. You can be married to someone. You can be deeply in love with someone. Sometimes you're going to disagree, and you have to be able to fight disagree. And you have to be able to

fight fair. And you have to be able to disagree. Sometimes people aren't going to see things eye to eye. And I think when it comes to politics, it's more important, not less important, to remember that there must be an honorable center of debate. I don't believe in personally demonizing Trump any more than I believe in personally demonizing Biden because it tears down the fabric of political debate in this country. It's not that I want to personally demonize the president. I didn't vote for him. I thought he was qualified and a decent president. The others, I simply disagree with their politics. This isn't about demonizing them as human beings. Trump, however, takes it to a whole different place if I think he's a man whose personal character and behavior, even politically, was unworthy of the position. But that doesn't mean I don't think he's an innocent child of God. He's an innocent child of God. And I read Mary Trump's book. I understand

he was traumatized as a child, et cetera. But it's like you and I were talking about earlier at the beginning, even about Will Smith. You can know where somebody's bad behavior comes from and still say they must be held accountable for it. And that's how I see politics. George Bush, I could tell he was like a nice guy. His politics, the Iraq war was not nice. And politics in that sense is a very adult. You have to be very adult and very mature.

You have to learn to say no. You have to learn to set boundaries in political relationships, just like in personal relationships. But that doesn't mean you don't see that person as an innocent child of God or want to tear them down politically on a personal level. And that tearing down, when you were talking about leaving Fox, when you were talking about all cable, you didn't just say Fox. That's what our political conversation, that has actually been fostered and exacerbated. Matt Taibbi's book, Hate Inc., both sides have done it. They actually, in order to get ratings, actually foster this mean spiritedness in our political dialogue. And it has done terrible damage to our country.

And that's not even counting the social media. I mean, that's Facebook's whole business model. And that's not even counting the social media. I mean, that's Facebook's whole business model. Oh, absolutely. And that's where those levies have fallen. You know, I'll tell you something, an anecdote in my own life experience. It was really interesting to me. It was back during the Clinton presidency. And I was visiting my friend, Dennis Kucinich. He was a congressman at that time. And we were at the Capitol and we were going up to the lunchroom and we were getting into an elevator. And Lindsey Graham at that time was a congressman, not a senator yet, from South Carolina. Dennis is coming in. Dennis and I are coming into the elevator. Lindsey Graham is coming out. And Lindsey Graham at that time was one of the really big attack dogs against President, then President Clinton in the lead up to the impeachment.

I saw Dennis and Lindsey Graham. Hey, Dennis, how you doing? Hey, Lindsey. And they hugged or they patted each other on the back or whatever. And I got in the elevator. I was like, what are you doing? What are you talking about? I said, he's and then I said all these things about Lindsey Graham because I so disagree with him. He said, Marianne, that's ridiculous. He's a great guy. We work together on a lot of stuff. He said, what you're talking about is just what you see on television and they foster that and they want you to see that. I never forgot that. And even to this day, believe me, I very much disagree with many of the things that Lindsey Graham is saying today, but I remember what Dennis told me, and I'm old enough to remember how that all started, how that kind of crossfire mentality set us up to hate each other rather than

honorably debate each other. We must go back to the better angels of our nature, even when we are discussing politics. It's so true. Listen, I wish we could. I don't see it happening. Because it used to be, like you say, even the politicians could see each other in the Senate chamber or they could see each other at the House and they could argue it out.

Yeah, Tip O'Neill and Reagan would have a drink at the end of the day. Or even campaign managers. My friend Bob Beckel at Fox just passed recently. But he used to talk about it because he ran presidential campaigns and he'd go at the end of the day and have have drinks and they talk strategy even they'd laugh about mistakes the other side made with the other side, you know. Now it's just like, it's so personal. And both sides do it for sure. I mean, I'm thinking right now about, you know, how do you forgive a justice department that wants to label you a domestic terrorist as a parent, right? Like, how do those

people ever think about having a beer with the people who are behind that push? It's just, there's such, how does Brett Kavanaugh ever have a beer with, you know, the people who accused him of gang rape with zero evidence. It's so hard. And I know you believe he should. Brett Kavanaugh should forgive those people. And we should all be forgiving those who do us harm, do us wrong. I don't know. Well, you know, the other side would say, how does how does Ketanji Brown Jackson ever have nice comments to say about Cruz and Hawley and Ram and Blackburn? They asked her about her policy positions.

Both sides. They asked her about her policy positions. That's not that you cannot compare that to Justice Kavanaugh at all, Marianne. That's not that is not a fair comparison. Well, you know, Megan, this is an example. You know, you you you quote Michael Schellenberger. I, you know, I've read enough about how he's one of those major climate change deniers. We simply don't agree.

No, he's not. No, he's not. And that's okay, too. Have you read his book? I've read articles about him. And so I'll read his book now if you'd like me to. I've certainly read articles about him. He is not in any way a climate change denier.

He's not in any way a climate change denier. Not in any way a climate change denier, not in any way. Well, if you look, you know, if you certainly can read articles out there about how he is and because I haven't read the book, actually, I don't want to comment any further. It is obvious. My point is that you and I, you know, we have to do it like right here. OK, like right here. So I. We're having a debate. you drew a false equivalency. This isn't a friendship. This is an interview. And I'm challenging you on your false equivalency. My false equivalency. So tell me where my false equivalency is right now.

That asking Katonji Brown Jackson about her rulings on people who look at child porn is in some way comparable to calling Brett Kavanaugh a gang rapist. You cannot put those two things even close to in the same category. The way I'm talking about the tone with which she was spoken to, the fact that they treated her so disrespectfully, I think was something that is an example of what you had mentioned before, where there has been such a degradation of the level, personal level of debate and the way people are treated. So, yes, I do believe that Ketanchi Brown Jackson was, is it Jackson Brown or Brown Jackson? I think I'm a little dyslexic right now on this. Brown Jackson. Was treated with great disrespect. Okay. I accept that that that's your belief I didn't see that

um but I think even if I were to grant it yeah but even if I were to agree I just don't think you can't put gang rape in the same category as disrespectful tone the the the woman who was describing behavior that she alleged was carried out by Brett Kavanaugh towards her years ago, many people felt was relevant to the larger conversation. That's a dodge. That's Christine Blasey Ford. She was the main witness who we now know is working with Democrats and has admitted that she had a greater stake in the matter that was she was very concerned about how he'd rule on abortion but putting her to the side you had other women come forward with absolutely baseless allegations who were given remit by the senate that was looking at brett kavanaugh and by the media that covered him i know because i worked at nbc at the time and i watched them air reports

of alleged sexual assaults that have absolutely no factual basis and absolutely no factual witnesses. And yet they went to air with them while they were bearing stories about Harvey Weinstein. That's another matter. But gang rape was a separate allegation. Gang rape was an actual allegation made against him that was totally baseless. I'm not talking about Christine Blasey Ford. Then it shouldn't should never have occurred. You and I don't disagree on any of that. An unfair fight is an unfair fight, no matter who wages it. Well, that's I mean, OK, agree. So we'll leave it on a note of agreement, because I think,

you know, what was done to him was the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen done in the U.S. Senate. It put what was done to Robert Bork, to Clarence Thomas, to shame. And I covered all of them. I mean, I was I was a lawyer for 10 years and I covered the high court for three years as a reporter. I covered Elena Kagan. I covered Sonia Sotomayor. I watched Mrs. Alito in tears as they crossamine him. What was done to Brett Kavanaugh motivated a generation of Republicans to put on that team jersey in a way few events ever have. And I think it has its special, infamous place in our history as disgraceful and an example of everything that's wrong with our politics today. So anyway, I think it's a sore spot for a lot of us because as a lover of the court, I found it deeply wrong. And I think he still has to wear this albatross around his neck that's been placed there unfairly and just wrongly. Anyway, I'll give you the last word on it. Oh, I mean, I hear you. I think it's there's probably legitimacy there. I mean, there's also legitimacy on the fact that to many of us, the fact that President Trump said, it's okay, we got him because they went and just shot some guy because they didn't like him. I'm sorry, but it's worse than the albatross that Kavanaugh is wearing.

However, my problem is with the entire neoliberal political establishment on both sides of the political aisle. My concern is with the massive transfer of wealth into the hands of 1%. My concern is with a rigged political economy. My concern is the fact that, you know, it's interesting in the first commercial that you did, you talked about your pain in your left shoulder. Now, it's interesting that you said that because I had rotator cuff surgery in my left shoulder. And I didn't know until that experience, I never knew what deep, serious, excruciating physical pain is. But more importantly, I learned, I put up on my Facebook page that I was in pain.

This was even before the surgery. And I got that night 5,000 comments. I didn't know until that experience how many thousands of Americans live with chronic pain. And when like serious chronic pain and get up and go to work every day. When I went through that experience and I understood where would I be if I didn't have insurance to pay for this surgery? Where would I be if I didn't have insurance to pay for these pain drugs that made it in any way bearable, even with all the pain pills I was taking, screaming out in pain? That kind of thing is what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the 31 million Americans who do not have health insurance. I'm concerned about... So many of these things that you and I are talking about form this kind of veil of illusion over what really

matters. We have half a million people are homeless in this country. We have 42 million people who are living beneath a poverty line. We have 18 million Americans who have said that they couldn't afford to fulfill the prescription that the doctors had given them. We have people working full-time minimum wage jobs who cannot afford anywhere in this country a two-bedroom apartment. We have the fact that 1% of Americans hold more wealth than the entire middle class. To me, so many of these left-right things are just a veil that keep us from recognizing the system that both Democrats and Republicans are keeping in place. And that's what I hope that we as Americans will keep our eye on in order to change no matter how

much investment both the Republican and the Democratic establishment have in keeping things the way they are, including the gargantuan increase by President Biden. I got to go. But even more with the military. Thank you. Nice meeting you. And thank you for facing a heartbreak. Yeah. Marianne Williamson, thank you. Her 2019 book, A Politics of Love, a handbook for a new American revolution. Check it out. Hope you tune in tomorrow when we have Senator Tim Scott for the very first time. Looking forward to it. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.