Will Cain Country - Marianne Williamson Sounds Off On President Biden & RFK Jr.

Episode Date: July 21, 2023

With under six months to go until the first votes are cast in the 2024 Presidential Primaries, the horse race for the respective nominations is starting to take shape.  A FOX News Poll recently saw President Biden with 64 percent of support from Democratic voters, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received 17 percent support, and Marianne Williamson came in at 10 percent support from voters.    2024 Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson joins Will for a spirited debate on where she stands on the issues affecting Americans, as well, as some unlikely common ground between the two of them. Plus, Marianne delivers stark criticism for both President Biden and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Marion Williamson, candidate for the Democratic Democratic. Party nomination for president in 2024. It's so great to have you here today on the Will Cain podcast. Thank you. Thank you for having me. So I'm excited to have a conversation with you today that I imagine will cover various parts of both deep disagreement and various areas where you and I

will have unexpected alliances, unexpected agreement. And I think that will be, that will make for a fun conversation. But before we get started into some of that subject matter and some of that depth. Do you find it odd? And I think you did at one time. Do you still find it odd that you find these conversations about your run for president more welcome in places like the Will Kane podcast than perhaps in places like MSNBC or CNN? Well, look, I'm not the nominees. So you don't have any reason to put me down. And some could argue that those on Fox and Republicans almost feel that there's value in building me up because the one they're out to get is Biden. So nobody doesn't understand this, including them. But I have to say, you know, whether it's on the right or on the left,

whether it's on CNN or MSNBC or Fox, people are people. And some people are really, really nice and really kind and really fair. And some people you don't think so much that that's true about. So, yeah, I was on Fox and Friends yesterday. They've always been lovely to me when I've been on there. And when you, you know, it's funny because when you were saying before we have disagreements as well, this is America. We don't owe it to each other to agree. This is, that's only in a totalitarian state. Are you supposed to feel or think this way? And the fact that nobody has a monopoly on truth and that we can learn from each other if we judge less and listen more, to me, that's what's great about this country, actually. Well, you clearly didn't listen

to me. You clearly, Marianne did not listen to me on ESPN where my brand was. that I do, in fact, have a monopoly on the truth. But I said that in jest. And I really actually appreciate your response to that question. Because if we are searching for truth and authenticity, you know, I think what you said is absolutely true. For some of us on the right, there's probably a vested interest in hearing your or RFK's position because it detracts from the position of Joe Biden. But I can say, speaking for myself, I would have had an honest interest in you and your politics and your points of view, regardless of the existence. of Joe Biden. If this were a primary where we weren't looking at an incumbent, like it was

in 2016 for you and your run for president, I'd still want to hear from all the Democrats. I want to hear from the person vying to be the leader of the free world, the most powerful person, at least politically, on the planet. And so you would have been welcome here regardless, Marian. I do wonder, you know, people have you described you as, you know, the 2024 Bernie Sanders. But we did see what happened to Bernie Sanders. you know, and you for that matter, where you weren't welcomed into the debate when it comes to the Democratic National Committee. Oh, yeah. First of all, I want to quote Eisenhower here for a moment. He said the American mind at its best is both liberal and conservative. I don't think it's particularly healthy these days the way we think that if you're conservative, you line up on every, every issue this way.

If you are liberal or progressive, you line up that way. So, you know, the give and the take and the learning and you know, always agree on every little thing and you don't always disagree on every little thing. I just want to say that. That's kind of healthy. In terms of the Democratic Party and their obvious suppression of voices that do not fit in with the establishment elite, yeah, it's a problem. It's a problem. Do you think, you know, I think many of us to look back on specifically the run of Bernie Sanders is pretty easy to come away with the conclusion that it was fixed, that it was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton to keep Bernie Sanders from representing a threat. Do you, feel like you are, or RFK, for that matter, in 2024, suffering from a similar situation.

Is this game rigged in favor of Joe Biden? Well, the ambivalence I feel here is that I'm talking to you on Fox. So it's sort of like family business, you know, and so it's difficult, you know, no matter what you feel. I'm not the way I looked at, you know, Prince Harry, I don't care what you went through with your family. You don't talk about it on Oprah. So I have a little bit of that going on.

You know, I understand that, but you're not related to them. You're not related to the DNC. I understand that, truly. No, but I am running as a Democrat. Yeah. But you did say at the end. So, yeah, there are issues here. Absolutely. There are issues here. You know, the political parties in general, whether you're talking about Republican or Democrat or any other, political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. And George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us about them. He said they would form factions of men, he said, more concerned with their party than with their country. John Adams said that it was, he thought they were the biggest threat to our democracy.

So whether it's a Democratic Party or Republican Party, any time that I feel that they are blocking rather than facilitating the full expression of the voters themselves, yes, I have a problem with that, absolutely. You know, I appreciate you coming back to that. I understand again, I truly do understand the instinct to keep something within the family or at least not go to what appears to be the opposing faction against that family and discuss dirty laundry. But you did their address. It is a problem. What is it, you know, by the way, would you be in support of a different system where we weren't really beholden to two predominant political parties? You know, in European parliaments, there are various political parties that represent more defined outlooks and ideologies within the populace. Do you think that would be a healthy move for the United States to move away from Democrats and Republicans?

Well, I've certainly scratched my head a few times what were the founders thinking. There's no doubt about that. The only thing I can figure is that they were trying to make it as different as possible. from the systems that they knew. Clearly, if we had a parliamentarian system, it would be much easier for all voices to be heard. There is no doubt about that. That's different, though, than saying, I think we should change. Enough change is going on. We can't just fundamentally change everything. And that's a level of change that, no, that's not something to try to put forward right now. But would it be helpful in terms of more voices having a chance to be heard?

Yeah. If you look at European systems on that level, they're ahead of us. More voices get to be part of the public sphere. So I wish it were otherwise, but no, I'm not suggesting that we go after that change. You know, I want to talk to you about particular issues that you feel passionate. If I may. Of course. If you look historically, the reason this didn't used to be such a problem is because historically, third party voices were much more vital and had much more opportunity to be heard. abolition emerged from the abolitionist party, women's suffrage emerged from the women's party, social security emerged from the socialist party. It's been in the last few decades that both the Democrat and the Republican Party formed a kind of unholy alliance, making it very, very difficult for third party voices to be heard. And that, so you don't have to change to a parliamentarian system to just release some of those strictures that both major political parties have formed.

And that's where you and I will find unexpected alliances or interesting agreement. our skepticism towards many of these institutions, including political parties and their underlying motives. You know, it's interesting, I know your issues, I know your positions, and I want to talk about some of them substantively throughout our conversation here today, but you just espoused a fairly conservative instinct, which I found interesting. I just heard it when you said, that's enough change. We are experiencing a ton of change right now.

You know, progressivism in and of itself leans heavily into change is good, change for any type represents progress. And I know that's not a brush with which you could paint every political position, but progressivism's arc definitely leans away from tradition and away from history and towards a better tomorrow change. And you did express at least a little bit of an instinct there. It's like society can only take so much change at a time. Well, this is the deal going back to Eisenhower's statement. The American mind at its best is both liberal and conservative. There are high-minded conservative values and there are high-minded liberal values. One of the high-minded conservative values is conserve those things which are

eternally true. So on that, you're absolutely correct and to see that in myself. You can't just go and throw a bomb on everything. And the high-minded progressive, the high-minded liberal, is yes, but you must apply these eternal values to present circumstances. And that is a yin and yang there. That's why, at our best, we do see both. And I think that we, serve each other by always reminding each other. There are times when I might be having a conversation with a conservative and maybe sometimes I come to a different conclusion, but I'll say to myself, yeah, well, they've got a point. We've got to keep that in mind also. And I would hope that that would be granted to our side as well, that a lot of these things are both and. And the fact that

so much of modern political conversation is either or does a disservice to all of us. Oh, I love it. you've wet the appetite. Let's go into some issues because I appreciate what you had to say about your characterization of the conservative mindset and the progressive mindset that the progressive mindset is I want to take these eternal values and apply them to the circumstances of today. The tension within that philosophy, within that ideology is at some point you've been to the point of unrecognizability, the principle, the eternal truth. So I want to see... On both sides. On both sides. Okay. Let's apply.

them then. Let's take a couple of issues. And let's see how that yin and that yang works out for you, Marianne Williamson, and me, Will Kane. I know you have been a big supporter of reparations. I see reparations as a policy, which doesn't just bend, but breaks the eternal principle, the truth of treating every single individual in society as an individual, living in the present tense in the current environment, and not beholden to the sins of our forefathers. and not reaping benefits from the victimhood of our forefathers. We have to have agency and we have to be individuals. Reparations destroys us as individuals.

I think that's kind of ridiculous. I think that when Germany paid $89 billion in reparations to Jewish organizations after World War II, it was an effort to live fully in the present. It is a spiritual principle. It is a spiritual principle that you can't have the future you want, whether you're an individual or a nation, if you're not willing to clean up the past. So the Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about living in the present versus living in the past. It says all men are created equal, that all men are given by God the right to, the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights.

So I would argue that part of guaranteeing the right to live life, liberty, in the pursuit of happiness means, being compensated for wrongs. By the, you know, by the middle of the 20th century, it was an established principle of civilization. This is why we gave reparations to those who during World War two had been placed in Japanese internment camps. I don't even see that as liberal versus conservative that you try to make things right when you've done wrong. That's all. I don't see it as a left versus right thing at all. What do you say to the individual who has that same guarantee of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, who did nothing to discriminate against black Americans, much less enslaved black Americans, but they are born under your estimation, under penalty

of reparations, to make whole for something that they did not do. That doesn't come from nowhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. So if there's reparations to be paid, it comes from current day taxpayers, right? It would come from me, and I didn't commit the sin. So my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness has been compromised by your desire to make up for something from the past. Okay. So this is the deal. My grandparents came from Russia and Poland. I don't have any slave owners in my past. But I'm not going to be not going to be penalized by reparations paid for slavery. Quite the opposite. First of all, as you yourself said, it's not about the past. It's not about where my grandparents came from. It's about my present role as a keeper of the well-being of my country, that I want my country to do the right thing. If the win and if the

wage gap, for instance, is closed between black and white in this country. Our economy will be $1.5 trillion larger. So it's a value to white people as well as black people for us to clean this up. Now, not only that, if you, if I may, if you look at Germany, we talked before about Germany and reparations paid to Jewish organizations, I think it's worth noting that World War II was over in 1945. And I think not only because of reparations, but in large part because of reparations, because of that complete Maricopa on the part of the nation of Germany, there has been a lot of emotional and psychological reconciliation between Germany and the Jews of Europe. We have a civil war that ended in the 1860s, and we are still handing this toxic baton

generation to generation to generation. And I think that in our generation, we could really interrupt that pattern. And to me, that's part of what this is about. A couple more questions on this. We'll move to other issues. How far would you go with reparations? The United States wasn't alone. It wasn't unique. Slavery was a common practice throughout all of humanity for much of humanity. There were, still are today, by the way, African countries that participate in slavery. The North African Barbary pirates participated in slavery, enslaved Europeans and white Americans for that matter. There's been slavery shift around the globe by, from tribe to tribe throughout humanity. How far back and how far

why do you go with reparations? Do I deserve reparations for somewhere back in Monty lineage if I can find evidences of slavery? The United States did not enslave your people, okay? No, this is. So it's limited to my nation state? We're talking about American policy. And by the way, I think it's worth noting here, not that it's specifically part of our conversation, but I think a lot of people listening might not realize. According to the United Nations, There are today on the planet probably 6 million people living in abject slavery in some parts of the world. I think I myself had not realized until I read more about that how much this actually exists in the world today. In terms of the United States, no, we're talking about the United States.

We're talking about a particular situation, which was almost 250 years of the institution of slavery in this country. We're talking about the almost 100 years after that of institutional suppression of black. people in the American South, right, with the Black Code Laws, subpar opportunities economically, socially, and politically. And the fact that at this point, it is clearly there is much economic hardship that is a legacy of that time. Now, my plan has to do with setting up a council of black leaders, a set amount of money that would be dispersed over 20 years, and then this council, within the two categories,

economic and educational renewal, and that within these categories that are agreed upon, it is left to this council of black leaders, whether it has to do with historical black colleges, whether it has to do with anti-gentrification, real estate buys in certain cities. I don't know. I really think actually that should be for those black leaders to decide. So what I think we accomplished in that part of the conversation was first I started to put flesh on the bone of your proposal, but by acknowledging that it's something for the nation state, We've removed ourselves from the idea that it's a philosophical remedy. We're more like practically here trying to solve.

And what I hear you describing, practically solve for something that happened in the United States. So I want to ask practically, would that be a one-time? Would that be a one-time sort of like reparations check that's written and then we're done with it? Or is it successive, like illegal immigration? Successive amnesty like illegal immigration. I'm seriously, because like you pointed out, like Germany, Germany that was really soon after that horrible Holocaust. And so, as you mentioned, we're well removed from the institution of slavery, less removed, but still. But they're not. You and I are removed from it. But millions

of millions of black people are not removed from the effects. No, no, no, hold on real quick. I'm not, no, I'm just, I'm just, hold on real quick. I'm just talking about the passage of time. I'm talking about, you know, and we're even removed from the era of Jim Crow. I'm not as, obviously not as much. We're a little more than half a century from that. So what I'm getting at is with the passage of time, it leads to the obvious practical question. How many generations do you continue to then use reparations to absolve the past? Is it a one-time deal or does it come up again and again and again? You know what? Your question, first of all, it's a very legitimate question and kind of it proves my point. Let's deal with this. Let's deal with it once and for all.

that's what I'm saying. You come up with a number through negotiation, and then it is dispersed over 20 years so that you're crossing a whole generation, and we're done on that particular issue. Do you really think it would be done? Do you really think this call would be done? Well, it will be done. Well, listen, reparations to Jewish organizations doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen. Slavery happened. There are psychological and emotional elements here, but as I said to you before, I think that those reparations helped actually establishes. establish a greater social, psychological, and emotional, as well as obvious financial remuneration. So I think it helps the reconciliation.

Would it solve everything? Of course, it wouldn't solve everything. And I don't think government ever can or even should be expected to solve everything. There's something sort of conservative for you. I bet you like that, huh? I loved it. I loved it. It gave me a warm, tingling feeling after a spirited debate.

This is a good transition into another issue. and you advocate for the forgiveness of student loan debt. Here's something I want to ask you about that. By the way, it's actually to me it's very similar philosophically to the reparations debate. It's a lot of like who should be accountable for what. Like it's about individuality and agency and who's responsible for what. But I actually am going to jump straight to the practicality of this again.

If we wiped away student loan debt, we would still have an underlying problem. And that is that college tuition, I imagine you and I have some agreement on this, is out of control. Yeah. It's exceeding inflation. It's a horrible return on investment in my estimation. And it is burdening students. It is absolutely burdening students with ridiculous amounts of debt. But I don't see forgiveness is the way to solve that problem, debt forgiveness, because I'm, again, like the illegal immigration analogy, I think you're signing yourself up for rolling waves of debt forgiveness. What do you do for the next generation of students that also take on a ton of debt? We're just kind of signing up for rolling waves of debt forgiveness. Once again, a legitimate question. Let's go back. Until the 1970s, this was not an issue. We had tuition-free college. I come from Texas. You come from Texas.

University of Texas, when you and I were growing up, or certainly when I was growing up, no biggie. Same with University of California had an incredible system. University of Florida had an incredible system. So this entire issue of using this as a profit center for these hyper-capitalistic forces and banking forces and financialization forces should never have occurred. That, to me, is the moral basis of all this. In terms of going forward, you are absolutely correct.

We have to stop the system. That's why you don't just forgive these loan debts. You institute tuition-free college, college and tech school, just like they have in every other advanced democracy. For instance, let's take a country like Australia and how they do it in Australia. So in Australia, as in other European and other advanced democracies as well, they go as high as their achievement level, their hard work takes them, okay, whether it has to do with liberal arts education, whether it has to do with tech school. You go as far as you can go, your tax money is used on that. When you get to the point, and it's factored in, there's a statistical, you know, fiduciary decision here, at what point you're making enough of a living that it is. considered reasonable for the government to start paying itself back because it would not impact your ability to thrive, the money starts coming back. Simple. You get really rich. The government's going to ask for more. If you never, ever get there, then that's okay too. But the whole society is going to benefit from this. And that's the same kind of system. That's my problem with so many of these things. Whether you're talking about universal health care, whether you're talking about tuition-free college, these are rights that are granted to the citizens of every other advanced democracy.

and they should be granted to us as well. Yeah, this is going to, you and I have skirted against some areas of agreement and disagreement as we go. Just every other advanced democracy is not necessarily a model for the United States, but that's a throwaway comment to me. You know, well, how they, well, you, let's go there. Let's go there because if you look at some of the, how riddled with despair, so many of our citizens are. Now, I'm not saying, I'm not saying that, you know, these other countries are necessarily perfect, but let's not kid ourselves, will. You have 70, according to a CNBC report that came out recently, 70% of Americans say that they live with chronic economic stress. That's not a country that's doing well.

I'm sorry. So, Marian, health care again, is going to be a great place to talk about this. So first of all, let's start with our areas of agreement, okay? I'm with you. This is something we do, and you see too much on television. You keep talking about areas of agreements and disagreements. It's called a conversation. That's all. I mean, can you imagine a merry couple who everything? Yeah, exactly. It's like agreement, disagreement, it's a conversation and hopefully, okay, thank you.

I appreciate that. We're just meeting. I'm judging your level of sensitivity. Trust me, modern day America has taught me that most people's sensitivity is incredibly high. I just haven't to have learned in the past 10 minutes that Marianne Williamson's is not. And for that, I will be eternally grateful. I won't have to search for areas of agreement, which I'm not. I'm not searching for areas of agreement or laying runway. So I think college has, I agree, it's been profiteered. Banks have sucked blood out of the college system. I think Democratic politicians, including Joe Biden, he played a role in making sure that you couldn't absolve yourself in bankruptcy, have all played a big role in that. And I think this, anything you subsidize, Marian, prices will go up. Whenever the relationship between the consumer and the provider is disrupted, and a third party steps in and covers the bill, everyone's incentive to keep prices down and offer the best quality has been interrupted.

And that exists within the college tuition system, but it also exists in health care. Another high inflationary system. Pharmaceutical companies, you're going to get rid of the subsidies for pharmaceutical companies? Yes. Now, I do know what I'm saying there, that they have a lot of inventive things that they have done based upon needing to be on the front end of R&D and government subsidies have helped that. But I have become, obviously, we could talk about the reasons why, a huge skeptic of the pharmaceutical industry, but even broader than that, the health care industry at large. And I don't think the answer is Medicare for all or something like that. It is get the government out of these relationships, quit subsidizing it to return it to true market principles. Okay. So the top five pharmaceutical companies last year alone made a profit of $88 billion. It is absurd that we are subsidizing pharmaceutical companies. We subsidize industries that are already making multi-billion dollar profits, whether it has to do with pharmaceutical companies, whether it has to do with big oil companies or not.

So if you want to take the government out of it, I agree with you. Take these subsidies out. But I also agree with Martin Luther King when he said if they give it to poor people, they call it a handout. When they give it to rich people, they call it a subsidy. Remember, this is people's tax money. So when you're talking about universal health care, for instance, I don't see why it's any different than the fire department. Do you want to say about the fire department, privatize the fire department?

And why in terms of public schools, we're fine with taking it through grade 12. Why is that after grade 12 it becomes some awful government behemoth if you help people? I don't understand that as the same thing. What you're suggesting, if you just stop the subsidies and let the free market handle it, then everything would be fine. There are places where we should allow the free market to handle things, but I don't think that those, when it comes to such things as health care and college, I don't believe that the free market alone can be trusted to handle the problem. Let's talk about quality really quickly. You used analogy of education. I'm not pleased, and by the way, I don't know your personal history.

I know you have one daughter. I don't know where she went to school. but I know that a lot of Americans are not pleased with the quality of K-12 public education. And you could say the same thing about health care. So the concern for me, especially now we could look to Europe or other places, is by saying, okay, in order, you and I both agree there's a problem. I want to go one way, you want to go another in response to that problem. My concern is the compromise and quality. If I turn it over to the government, education, or health care, I'm pretty confident it's going to look like the DMV, that it's going to look like the post office.

I don't think it's going to look like the Cooper Clinic. And I want more Cooper clinics out there. I want more, you know, opportunities for trial and air so that the best lifts to the top and not an 11th grade education that looks like the post office or a hospital that looks like the DMV. I think by going your way, we lose quality. I think it's a big both and there because this is an example of where the high-minded conservative principle has value and so does the liberal. And we're not talking about government run. We're talking about government funded.

Those are two completely different things. So when you talk about the quality of the public education, I grew up in Houston. I had a very high quality public education. My daughter, where we were growing up, she also, and she went to public school, and she had a very high quality education. Unfortunately, that's an economic element there. We have too much involvement of the tax basis with how these schools are funded. So for the most part, if a child is growing up in a financially advantage,

neighborhood in the United States, they stand a chance of having a very high quality public education. The problem is all the millions of children who go to schools where the tax base is very lower, almost non-existent, not financially affluent, and therefore have a lower quality of education. Now, when you talk about the fact that there should be this rise to the top and there's a good argument to be made there in terms of charter schools, et cetera, like why aren't we applying the same principles of the marketplace so that you have the higher quality? I don't think there should have to be a choice here. In order to have school vouchers, in order to have a situation where people do have choice,

it should not be at the expense of public education. That's the problem I have. Somehow we have to find a way for the high side of the marketplace of ideas to have its voice, and to be expressed within our educational system, but not in any way at the expense of public education. You know, in the early days, these were called common schools. Isn't that interesting? That's what in the early days of our republic,

they called public schools, common schools, because it was a place where people, no matter who they were, no matter what their financial background, their class, et cetera, because we were supposed to be a classless society, they all met and had the same opportunities. We must, we absolutely must guarantee that that that, be the case today. Let's take a break for just a minute, Marion.

This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows.

Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox True Crime.com. You're very thoughtful. That's very clear. You have, you're intelligent and you've thought through these issues. Obviously, that doesn't lead us always to the place of agreement. But, you know, especially in 2016, you were painted as the crystal lady and the person preaching the politics of love, which, by the way, probably isn't something we should mock in and of itself. What do you think most people get wrong about Marianne Williamson? That certainly. I've given that. thousands of lectures, many of them on the internet. I didn't mention the word crystal anywhere. I've written 15 books. Crystal's never mentioned. And not only that, even about my spirituality, you know, if people actually read my books, I'm rather traditional. I talk about universal spiritual themes, but they are traditional universal spiritual themes. So this whole woo-woo crystal thing was

simply a narrative that was created to mock me in order to peripheralize my candidacy. And there are similar efforts now. And it's the dirty side of politics. I think it's really, really egotistical as an individual or as a society to mock the concept of spirituality. You know, that's been a big part. So you told us earlier, I know, you know, your family is Jewish. What is your, but what is your religious faith? I hear you on spirituality. I'm a Jew. You are practicing Jew? Yeah, you're born a Jew, you're a Jew. You know, it is, this issue, is it just a religion?

Is it also a race of people? I believe it is. So I am a proud Jew. But there is a difference between those who feel, even within a particular religious denomination, okay? There are people who feel that their broader metaphysical and spiritual outlook is not necessarily defined by any dogmatic or doctrinal constrictions of their particular religion. And I think that's true of, you know, there are Christians, for instance, the, what's called the mystical path is within all the great systems of the world. And that mystical path is simply the path of the heart. So in Islam, it is the, it is the Sufis, Christianity, the Gnostic Christians, the mystical Christians. In Judaism, there's the study of the Kabbalah. So, within Islam, it is the Sufis, it is the Sufis. So, with

all the great religious systems of the world, there are the representatives of the mystical heart, which is the direct experience of God's love. And I also think, you know, and this has been part of my writing and my teaching and my career for the last 40 years, there are common universal themes within all the great religious systems of the world. So are the individual religious identities important? Absolutely. Do many people find their, their means? meaningful, strong connection to God within them? Yes. But there are also people today who are finding their spiritual connection, not within the

confines of specific religious denominations, but within a just a deeper experience of love and forgiveness. And is that how you would describe yours? I mean, I'm tempted to ask you, would you describe your faith as, like, reform Judaism as opposed to conservative Judaism? You just mentioned Kabbalah? No, I was raised a conservative Jew. Yeah, well, no, I was raised a conservative Jew, but remember, conservative Jew is not political conservative.

Yeah, I was raised a conservative Jew. Okay. And still today, that would be a description that you would embrace? Well, I think that was sort of my foundation. I'm a Jew, you know, to walk with mercy and with humility and do justice, to Kuno-Lam, to repair the world. And also, as I believe, many people have these days, you know, you take care of your people. So I'm concerned about, you know, how Jews are treated, the rise of anti-Semitism. violence against Jews in our country, violence against Jews internationally. You know, it's interesting. In both Judaism and Islam, there is something that is different than Christianity,

and that is the following. In both Islam and Judaism, the theology is intimately entwined with the history of the people. Christianity doesn't have that. Christianity has that. It's a personal relationship with God. But within Judaism and within Islam, you have that you can't really talk about a relationship with God without talking about your relationship to the nation of people, which is, and I certainly have that.

Well, you know, I ask you that out of curiosity, all of that, and I just find it also, you talked a moment ago about the despair with the United States of America. We're in a particular moment of despair, especially among young people, in, you know, a loss of purpose, embrace of alcoholism, drugs, and suicide. I think it's tied to a loss of purpose, which is almost inextricable in some ways of talking about spirituality. And I think that we're looking at a society in general that's looking for meaning and looking kind of frantically, like, you know, whatever social media cause might be on the rise or, you know, and by the way, it's, you know, that suggests I'm talking about

the left. In a lot of ways I am, I think the left has placed politics on the mantle of meaning in a lot of ways. But it's also happening on the right. There's a lot of ways in which we're just so, so self-evidently empty and looking to fill a hole that used to be. filled by spiritual meaning by God. Are you asking me if I agree with that? I would love to know if you agree with that. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with that.

And I have a 40-year career based on that and speaking to that. However, I also got to a point in my working with people of recognizing that you could not separate economics from a deeper inquiry into where people's despair comes from. Chronic economic anxiety. You know, no amount of private charity. can compensate for a basic lack of social justice. So on one hand, I totally agree with what you're saying, and I feel that an unjust economic system has contributed to the atomization,

has contributed to the lack of community, has contributed to the over-materialization and even over-secularization of our society. Yes, I was going to say I agree with that, except I'm not sure what solves the soul is just more wealth, more economic security. I'm not saying that's not a contributing factor. I agree it can be a contributing factor, but I think our problems lie deeper. And by the way, Marian, I'm taking you up on your invitation here.

It's a conversation. I know that statement didn't end in a question mark, but we're just having a conversation, right? Not necessarily a debate or an interview. Yeah, and I appreciate that. Okay, let's do it real quick, the story of Marianne Williamson. I read a little bit about you, and I find sort of your path to where you got the four-time bestseller,

or 15 different books, as described by many... Seven-time bestseller, four times number one. But who's counting? Not you. Thank you for that correction. The spiritual advisor to Oprah Winfrey. But you, you know, you had a wandering path, I think. That's fair to say, for quite a while in search.

And I think it was, well, I read about... This is where I want you to fix it, like Texas to California to New York and several relationships. I thought you described. you know substance abuse at one time as a remedy yeah just tell me your path i'm curious i went through my 20 i went through my 20s my 20s particularly in the time in which i grew up my 20s were very typical drug use yes this is this is do the math i was born in 97 7 in 1952 drug use drug use and drug abuse are two different two different things yeah so i was yeah yeah and i got it not abuse

got it so you were smoking weed having a good time in greenwich village I had the same experience of the 20s. When you say I was in Texas and I went to college in California, then I moved. Yeah, I have moved. And I think that so many of the places that I moved to, particularly in that period of my life, so much of that was very rich experience that helped me. But let's be very clear here. My career, my very serious career as a lecturer, ultimately as a writer, as an AIDS activist, began when I was 31 years old. So, you know, it's not like, you know, she just was this big wander. I mean, 31 years old is I think doing pretty well. I learned a lot. And during the 20s, yeah, I had a lot of jobs, including secretarial work, waitressing work. I look at my 20s and I think, boy, what an education in life. And I'm very grateful for everything that I went through in my 20s. We had the same path. Texas to California for school. Went to California for school. Lived in New York for 15 years. I went to Pepperdine. And then I came back to Texas. Yeah. And then I went to New York. Physical beauty is wasted on the youth. I mean, you send an 18-year-old to Malibu. It's gorgeous. But,

you really could have just as good a time in Waco, Texas, at Baylor, you know. I don't know. Well, Baylor definitely is a good school, but whatever. That's another conversation. Okay. Let's go back to just a few more issues. What do you feel about the movement the last couple of years? I know your position's been distorted because, you know, we had the conversation about

pharmaceutical industries, you know, and then there's the debate about vaccines. And one of you guys in the Democratic pool for president here, RFK talks a lot about vaccines. I think whether it's him or you, it's always torn apart and distorted as to what you actually believe. You're not anti-vaccine. You are skeptical of pharmaceutical companies. But I'm curious more about kind of what happened starting in 2020 with this movement

towards, in some cases mandated vaccines. In other cases, just overwhelming societal and top-down governmental pressure to keep your job, to get in school, to go to college, to take a medicine that many people were like, gosh, I don't like all of this pressure on me to take this one particular drug. I think sometimes people had had some legitimate pushback. On the other hand, it's funny, I was asked about this on a program earlier today. Let's remember how many times it was take the vaccine or put a cue tip up your nose. So I don't have a problem with the government saying,

in order to go there or do that, you have to put a Q-tip up your nose. When you're talking about vaccines, there was some legitimate questions about that. But I don't think it was an overreach for government to tell you that the vaccine or be tested. I don't think in the midst of a health emergency, it's asking too much to ask people, like I said, to put a Q-tip up your nose. I'm tempted to go into, I'm going to, I think we're going to talk together again one day and we're going to talk about climate change. I'm just afraid it could be a half-hour diversion in our conversation because it would be so big. I can only imagine. Having talked to you this long, I can only imagine, but. I want to return to the race, if I might. It's interesting listening to you, and again, I've read and seen you do this on several occasions.

I think this is not a gratuitous compliment. You do try to take the high road in so many different situations. Whatever you see as an ad hominem attack, you're choosing not to go down that path. I saw an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News where you were asked about – I think you were asked about Joe Biden and his age, and you kind of didn't want to go down that path. It seemed to me from a distance, Marian, that you felt like it was a personal attack. And I think you said in response, I want to talk about the issues. I guess my question for you is, don't you think at some point, if not the number of his age, the ability to do the necessities of the office is actually an issue. I think it is for many Americans when you see polls. Like whether or not we use the word competency or ability, at some point, we should be able to trust the person in charge has the faculties to do the job.

That's why I believe so strongly that the president should debate his challengers. The president should debate me. The president should debate Robert Kennedy. Because I think the debates would be a very good way for the president to show his mental acuity or lack thereof to the American people. Now, Trump is only, what, a couple of years younger than the president. But clearly this issue continues to come up. People are watching. People hear the gaffs.

Then see decision making that clearly shows a man of right and solid mind. What you were referring to before is true, however. I'm running on the issues. In terms of his age, once again, we want to handle that. You want to see how agile the president's mind is. Have him debate, his challengers. And I think a lot of that will be put to rest. Yeah.

And I guess we're just talking together out loud. And I think you're not disagreeing with me. I think his age, not his age. his his his faculties is an issue and i think um you're just opting for the show don't tell way of exposing that or transparency for the public on that issue what do you think of rfk junior we agree on one thing and very little else i haven't found anything else the one thing we do agree on and that i think many millions of americans are both left and right are awakening to is the corporate capture of the U.S. government.

And I think you and I have referred to that here. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, big food companies, big agricultural companies, big chemical companies, gun manufacturers, big oil companies, defense contractors. Their short-term profit maximization is in too many cases placed before the safety, health, and well-being of the American people. Too many legislators show abasance to their corporate donors, even in cases where the expressed will of their own constituents is something completely different. That's a problem.

And Bobby and I both named that. Pretty much everything else, he and I just don't see things the same way. Really? Even on climate change? I know that's been a big part of his career. What about climate change? Well, but I read what he said about climate change yesterday was something about how the discipline of the free market would handle it. I do not believe that the matter can tell them what you said before.

You probably agree with Bobby on that. I don't believe that the discipline of the free market is. going to handle the catastrophic problem that we have on our hands. Let's discuss that shortly. I think that's a very fair question you have for RFK. I do, too. I would love for him to appear in this format with me as you have, because

I can't quite pin him down on where he is on climate change. I've seen in the past where he said something... Well, you can't pin him down because in most issues he says two things. Well, right. I've seen him say that you should jail climate deniers. And now he sounds like what he would have

previously described as a climate denier. He says one thing, and you think, oh, he agrees with me. And then he says something else. He goes to something. I go, oh, my God. So, yeah, I think he throws bones to all of us, yeah. I don't know that I... He calls it unity.

I don't call it unity. You know, just we can do this very quickly. Do I think the free market solves the problem of climate change? In large part, I also think it's a greatly over-exaggerated problem. that the apocalyptic predictions have, you know, one after another been proven wrong. And because of that,

I know it's going to sound inflammatory, but because of that, it becomes like a death cult with these kids who believe the world's coming to an end. And it's just not, the world is not... So when you say what's happening right now, like, I don't even know what you're referring to. Where is that we're sitting on the precipice of disaster? I'm referring to storms.

I'm referring to fires. I'm referring to the hottest days on record. I'm referring to the fact that if these... Oh, Marian. Oh, Will. If you look at the trajectory of heat, the melting of Arctic ice, et cetera, and I know I'm going to say this, and you're going to go nuts. Should I say it?

Whole swaths of continents will could become inhabitable. Implosion of food systems, implosion of economy, hundreds of millions of climate refugees. Oh, my God. I should glue myself to a Van Gogh. Well, but they don't hurt the Van Gogh. If they actually hurt the Van Gogh, I would be very angry at those kids. They don't actually hurt the Van Gogh.

They're trying to. If they were harming world treasures, that would not be okay. But they're not harming world treasures. They're performing. There's a performative acts of civil disobedience. They're invading Wimbledon. I do think, Mary Ann, that there's an anti-humanity to it all, that they're willing to disrupt the greatest achievements of human

kind, including, you know, great performances in the present tense at Wimbledon or great works of art from the past. And it reveals that it is somewhat of an anti-human environment. Okay, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question. What do you think about the Boston Tea Party? Well, what are you talking about? I mean, dumping tea into the river in search of freedom and rights? Or did I think it was an ecological disaster? Throwing the tea into the Boston Harbor was an act of civil disobedience. And I think that these kids are acting in the same. Oh, my God. in the same tradition. Listen, obviously, there are some who go too far and would be destructive, but

listen. Only if you put tea on the same level as a Van Gogh. Only if you put tea on the same level as a Van Gogh. But they're not harming. You keep repeating this. None of your listeners should be misinformed about this. They are not harming the Van Gogh. There has not been one case where there was harm done to the piece of art. You think if there was not protective glass, they wouldn't do what they're doing? I think that they've been very careful. And if they were harming great art, I would have a big problem with that. They're not. I appreciate that.

I appreciate that. Hey, really quickly on that, the hottest day of the year and everything in the melting, the bottom line, my response to all that is we just have so little data, Marianne, meaning the hottest day of the year, they started measuring that. That stat that everybody ran with a week ago goes back to 1979. So it's the hottest day since 1979. That's not exactly a good scope of where we've been in this planet. And we can only go so far back in measuring climate.

And we act like we – and I'm not saying we don't impact it at all. I'm not doing that. I'm not saying there's zero human impact on the climate. But I'm also not saying we need to shut down the major innovator of human reduction, you know, reduction in poverty, fossil fuels, and start to tax – Wait, well, did you just say the fossil fuel extraction? What did you say about fossil fuel extraction? it's the greatest innovation of humanity?

Yeah, the single greatest discovery to lift people out of poverty on, yeah, in the face of humanity. Yeah, I mean, I can show you the charts on it. When we started pulling oil out of the ground and when the global population got off the floor of poverty. So there was a time in which that would presumably be true. However, we're now living at a time when it is beyond outlived its usefulness. It is now contributing to a disastrous trajectory.

Tell that to China and India. You're right. And that's why we have to step back. This is exactly why we need to step back from this Cold War talk with China because we have to move into a collaborative, more of a collaborative relationship with them. In order to handle the climate crisis, you're absolutely correct. And also so that we can handle AI as well. By the way, this great capitalist venture stuff that you're referring to with this greatest innovator, apply it to wind, apply it to solar, apply it to green energy. Nobody's saying down with the thing. entrepreneurial spirit, we're just saying take that entrepreneurial genius and apply it to a green energy grid, the development of green energy grid. But what about the conversation we had earlier about subsidies? Those things all live on subsidies. Well, I don't mind subsidizing something that's going to save our lives. But subsidies to pharmaceutical companies, you know, the business model of these people is not job creation. It's job elimination. So subsidizing, you yourself talked about

profiteering. There's a difference between profit, righteous profit, which you and I would both support and profiteering. So if there's right, there is righteous profit to be earned from development of green energy grid. And we need to do it. We need to do it now. You got a tough argument to make that, you know, lives are at risk when it comes to putting windmills up, but not in creating new, new pharmaceuticals. But look, people are dying now. People are dying right now. I agree with this. Corporatism is out of control. I'm, I'm into capitalism. Pardon, you're into, okay, you're saying you're into capitalism, yes. Hold on. But I didn't finish that statement. But I'm not into corporatism. And I'm not seeking kumbaya. I'm not into kumbaya. But that's a place where we have agreement. I don't like corporatism. Good. Good. You and I agree. And I think that this is interesting what's happening here. This is one of those horseshoe areas. I think that there are people on the left and on the right who have come to recognize there's a level of corporate tyranny that is now baked into the cake in America. And that's what we can agree. That's what we can agree. I don't care whether people on the left or the right.

People who are being unjustly treated from the over-financialization of this country are being treated by the, are being oppressed, economically oppressed by the corporatist elements. You and I agree on it. And I think that's one of the greatest hopes for America right now is how this isn't a left-right issue. This is a bottom-up issue. One last question for you. If the Democratic nominee for president is Joe, let's make this a two-parter. If the Democratic nominee for president is not Marianne Williamson. If it's Joe Biden, will you support Joe Biden?

If it's RFK Jr., will you support RFK Jr? I'm not saying anything. I'm not saying anything. I can tell you this. Why? This is the first time in an hour. Because my heart's truth. Everything you've asked me, I've spoken, my heart's truth.

My heart's truth has nothing to say right there other than silence. I tell you this, I'm not voting for Donald Trump. I am not voting for Ronda Santos, and I am doing whatever I can. to make sure that neither one of them gets into the White House in 2024. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Can I just tell you something, Marianne William Williamson? This has been an absolute pleasure. I have enjoyed this conversation. It has been fun. You are impressive. You're right.

if you get the Democratic nominee for president, I will do everything in my power, besides lie, to make sure you do not become president. I disagree with you too wholeheartedly to ever Okay, but Wayne Dyer. I want you to know, Wayne Dyer, Wayne Dyer, you said you were good friends with Wayne. Wayne was one of us politically. Be very clear here. As long as you know that. And by the way, I'm friends with a lot of people who are one of you. I'm friends with a lot of people who disagree with me. I just wouldn't vote for him for president. So, but that means I'm, that, that's, what a beautiful kumbaya, the one, the kumbaya we were in search of throughout this conversation. I'll tell you one thing that you have earned today.

You haven't turned my vote, but you've earned my respect. And I truly appreciate you coming here today to share your point of view, going back and forth with me. I found it so much fun. I hear that. And I wouldn't vote for you either. So it's totally cool. All right. Thanks, Rand.

Thank you. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Tregaddy podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.