Will Cain Country - Peter St. Onge & Conn Carroll: 'X', Musk, & Free Speech Under Attack By The Media

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Story #1: After all of the suggestions of self-reflection, what do the media and Democrats do after the election? Triple down! Elon Musk and X are facing criticism from a mainstream media who are losing control of the narrative.  Story #2: What kind of cuts can we expect from Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and DOGE? Plus, President-elect Donald Trump threatens Mexico, Canada, and China with tariffs. Breaking down what this means with economist, host of the ‘Peter St Onge, Ph.D Podcast’ & visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Peter St Onge. Story #3: According to the Author of ‘Sex and the Citizen: How the Assault on Marriage is Destroying Democracy,’ Conn Carroll, the data shows the Democrats might actually be the party of single cat ladies.  Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! 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. One, after all the suggestions of self-reflection, what would they do after the election, the Democrats? It seems that the answer is triple down. on transgender ideology, on the suppression of free speech. Everywhere you turn right now, complete panic mode, cornered dying animal.

From Axios to CNN, they are going to attack free speech, they're going to attack Elon Musk, and they are attacking X. Two, Doge, what kind of cuts can we expect? Is it real? And President Donald Trump promises tariffs on Mexico and Canada. with Professor Peter Saint-Age. Three, maybe J.D. Vance was right. Maybe Democrats are the party of single, lonely cat ladies. So says the Washington examiners, Con Carroll.

It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Terrestrial radio, coast to coast, on demand by subscribing on Apple or on Spotify. You can also join us every Monday through Thursday live at Fox News Facebook or Fox News YouTube. You can set a reminder and you can jump into the comments section. You can become a member of the Willisha by subscribing to the Will Cain show on YouTube. Speaking of comments, fellas, we have a lot today from the Commentariat on CNN and from the

National Press Club. They're ready to attack Elon Musk. they're ready to attack free speech. They're ready to attack X. I think that we have to be able to execute the process of deduction. We have to use reason and logic. The true attack is on you. The true attack is on your mind.

But there's also comments in regards to yesterday's show. I'm not bragging. I'm really not. It's not the whole, you know, lesson of the last 10 years, scream your successes and pound your chest. I'm really humbled, really. On Thanksgiving, I'm going to spend some time grateful. And I'm just so, I don't know, tickled to see what's happened with the Willisha, with our audience.

I mean, we did $160,000 yesterday on YouTube. And we've been averaging, we talked in our pre-show meeting, well over $150,000 over the last three weeks. And that's taking out what we did during election week. We've seen record numbers of subscribers on Spotify and YouTube, the podcast, and it feels like this thing, this thing that we've been in on together, the four of us. So the OGs out there who've been with the Will Kane show, watching and listening, it just feels like we've built something. We've, and it's, it's happening. It's happening.

So I'm just, we're all grateful and tickled to death. I did get a comment last week talking about our show. I was talking about, I was talking about Demon Copperhead and my recommendation during Will's rabbit hole that everyone should read Demon Copperhead. And I made the mistake, and it truly is a mistake of saying how incredible this author is, Barbara Kingsolver, because she's like, I don't know, in her 60s, and she's writing in the voice of an 11-year-old man. And we had an email in from a long time, OG, very upset with me for describing a 60-something-year-old woman as an old lady's. And I, you know, as I get older, trust me, my definition of what is young gets older. But if you can please, and I know that we have an interesting. audience that really spans generations. It truly does. And by the way, genders. We have young people

with this on YouTube. We have older people with us on Spotify and Apple. And I love them all. And so please don't be insulted that I said a 60-something year old woman was an old age. I don't think that. I mean, hell, I'm a 49-year-old man. But it's actually a compliment. How is this 60-year-old woman writing in the voice of an 11-year-old boy? Two days, you're reading Demon Copperhead? I am. I started it. I'm a chapter six now. Yeah, it's pretty good. It's interesting. I don't know where it's going. Yeah, it's really, really interesting. And that whole area of the country is just something I don't know a lot about. So it's pretty fascinating. Appalachia. And speaking of comments, yesterday's episode here of the Will Kane show,

I revisited my weekend of the 2024 Squirrel Hunt and Catfish Rodeo. I should say I did see the comments on Instagram. I did see some of the comments during the show from YouTube. Here's what I find fascinating. There's a little bit of an evulsion to hunting squirrels, but there's no love for the catfish. And same with Peanut the Squirrel, the travesty of the New York Department of Environmental Nazis taken down Peanut the Squirrel.

There was no love for Frank the Raccoon. Like he is a footnote in history, all the love for Peanut the Squirrel. So my question for you three is, why squirrels? Why the squirrels receive protected status? It's a game animal. People hunt squirrels.

So what's the love affair with squirrels? I was very surprised to see all the comments and just being like, can you not talk about killing squirrels? There are so many of them, and I never think twice about them. I may have killed more than you did last weekend, just with my car in my lifetime, which I feel bad about. But, you know, it happens. Yeah, but the number of squirrels that you see running fence lines and in tree tops

compared to the number that are in, that are roadkill, they're survivors, maybe. There's not many getting hit by cars, percentage-wise for the population. Here's my theory. it's the tail it's the twitchy furry tail because the difference

between a squirrel and a rat is the tail people have pet squirrels too I mean yeah the rodents and that nasty hairless

long tail on the rat is a real personality killer for the rat which are really smart animals I think you nailed it pigs donkeys

rats yeah it's the tail man that's what's caused the love affair with the squirrel And by the way, speaking of comments, there's also an animal, there's a debate raging, and you guys have it. What is the debate that is, speaking of Elon Musk and X and free speech, here is an exercise in free speech taking place on X.

You guys have this debate. Before we get into substance today, we got to deal with this conversation. And it's put out originally by someone under the handle dog mom. Dogs should be allowed everywhere as long as they are trained and well behaved, period. to that the Daily Wires Matt Walsh says no nope absolutely not and also hell no dogs are not people if you want to have your dog in your house or bring him to a place meant for dogs that's fine you cannot force the rest of us to be around your dog in places that we are not that are not meant for animals there are millions of examples of such places in a civilized society if you want to live in a place

where animals and humans cohabitate in virtually all public spaces go to a third world country It's right up your alley from the sound of it By the way, I've been to Greece I mean, and by the, and Central America Dogs and people are absolutely cohabitating In some of these third world countries Now here at the show, we have both sides of the debate, right? So two a days, you're pro dog every environment

Yep Pro dog every environment I have one word for Matt Walsh on this take Which is wrong I mean, you heard it from the man himself I think dogs should be everywhere There should be more dogs and less people.

That's just my opinion. Would you be okay with having Violet in your studio, mid-show? Yes. The only thing is Violet is a violent shaker, meaning when she wants to, like, shake her ears out and she's got her collar on. She's a violent shaker, so you guys would hear the jingle jangle of her collar too often.

I love that. Intuitive, I mean, tinfoil, you're incredibly anti-dog. You hate dogs. I'm not quite in Mount Walsh's vein, but yeah, I'm not. I just don't really want, to be places where there's all the dog dander and the drool and, you know, especially like if you're eating food, like you're in a restaurant. I can't stand going to a restaurant and there's being dogs there. My trust level of, uh, tinfoil just went down a little bit. That's an L take,

but. Oh, I don't, would you guess that Donald Trump is a dog guy? I don't think so. I don't think so. I doubt it. I think he'd, I think he'd be on Matt, on the side of Matt Wall. Here's a little, here's where I am. To be clean. Yeah. I am a viable. I am a viable. I am a violator, but I'm also Switzerland. So, well, at various times in my life, I've definitely been a violator. Like, when I was in college, I had a Doberman, Leon, he was incredible. And he went everywhere with me. There was no place I thought if I could go, he could go.

And that was everywhere. Now, this dog was basically a human. I mean, he was so smart and loyal and minded me. And dog mom in her post on X didn't say that, as long as it's well behaved. I'd take him to, you know, frat parties, and it was awesome, man, off the leash. He just wandered the party and check in with me every five minutes. But Violet, a little more impulsive, you know, I don't take her everywhere. And what I would say is if it's an outdoor place, like an outdoor bar, you know, you got some cornhole going, you've got, you've got picnic tables with beers, your dog can go.

but I'm with tinfoil on indoor. No, not indoor. Indoor's for your house. Your office, if you own the office. This is the liberty of being a proprietor. You can take your dog. No service animals.

Yeah. Well, but the definition of the service animals totally destroyed. You guys know it. I know people sitting with their dogs on planes. I said that facetiously because of that. I'm like, what's the malady? Emotional stress? At this point,

don't even know everything emotional support pig we used to do that in college you'd go to the you'd go to the college doctor be like oh I need an emotional support dog and then they'd sign off for you and you'd be allowed to have a dog all of a sudden it's great it's it's totally abused it's been it's been this is like the the wheelchairs on southwest airlines okay you guys are walking you know 50% of the path you're just using this to get up in front of the boarding process this what is this this is like this is the definition of the problem of America. You make laws and rules.

We can't even quantify the number of laws that we have. And then because you have so many laws that you have to create so many exceptions and then people take advantage of the exception, then you got a class of people who the law doesn't apply to. You just, you make a rule, it's just like parenting. You make a rule, you stick with the rule. That's it. It's a hard rule.

You make not very many, hard, few rules. That's the best way to govern a society. all right you can jump into the comment section there on youtube and facebook let us know what you think about dogs in public places but this all originated on x and there is an attack on x but it's not just on x there's an attack on Elon Musk but it's not just an attack on Elon Musk yeah okay it's an attack on free speech which buys an extension an attack on you but really it's an attack on your thoughts it's an attack on your mind let's get into that with story number one Jim Van de High, one of the proprietors, founders, along with Mike Allen of Axios, originally Politico, then Axios, was awarded something by the National Press Club.

I say something because I don't know the award that he received, and I don't care the award that he received. But I know they gave him a podium and a microphone, and he went off about journalists, media, and X. Listen, watch. Everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or X today saying like, we are the media, you are the media.

My message to Elon Musk is bullshit. You're not the media. You having you having a blue checkmark a Twitter handle and 300 words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on

Twitter. You don't do that by having an opinion? You do it by doing the hard work. The arrogance, the anger, the condescension, and all so nakedly unearned. I don't care how many medals you place around each other's necks. All so nakedly unearned. I don't care when you call yourself a reporter.

I care about the truth. And the people that have been the self-nighted arbiters of truth have been nothing but propagandist and liars. Let's be clear. The vast majority of you are liars in media. Do we have to rattle off the examples of what burns your credibility? You have to make a list, and I promise you it won't be exhaustive, but we can start with COVID. Masks help stop the spread. Vaccines stop helping stop the spread. Vaccines stop transmission. Vaccines have no negative health effect on children. Vaccines are a, and necessary for children when you do the statistical of risk of what COVID does to a child

versus the potentiality risk of a vaccine to a child. School closures, origins of COVID. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Let's move to another category. Trump, Russiagate, one of the biggest hoaxes perpetuated over the last decade, for which, by the way, Jim Vanda High, you guys awarded each other, Pulitzer's. You hardworking reporters awarded yourself the highest honor in quote unquote journalism for a fake story with Russia. Oh, how about Russia putting bounties on American soldiers with the thumbs up from Donald Trump? How about very fine people? How about bloodbath? How about dictator for a day? How about Kamala is the greatest thing since sliced blood? Simply three weeks after she was an incompetent vice president according to everyone.

How about Joe Biden's not senile? Oh, he's sharp as attack on top of the game. How about war? How about all wars? How about the Iraq invasion? How about what's going on in Ukraine? How about every single war? Lie, lie, lie, and more lies.

And today, what you want to do is you want to go after X? And of course, because really the only guiding light for the hardworking reporter in the media is a Democratic talking point, I give you a former sports reporter who's got her marching orders and knows how to march to the beat of the drum on CNN. Watch Kerry Champion debating Scott Jennings. Platforms are not regulated right now, which gives them carbolet shoe, whatever they want right now. Elon is not someone who likes to be regulated.

And so to buy MSN, he would go under some federal regulations. Who's regulating CNN right now? The FCC? We're not a broadcast. It's cable. I mean, I don't, I don't really think, I don't really think cable stations are under the same regulatory structure that, that, that broadcast is. It's definitely regulated more than the, the, than Facebook and Twitter. Okay, that first clip wasn't Kerry Champion. I don't know who that was.

Guys, do you know who that, that clip is? Because I have something, an observation on that part of the debate. Do you know who that is debating with Scott Jennings and Jim Garrity from National Review in that, in that clip? Anyone back there in New York? I'm not sure. It looks like a lot of people were on vacation on that panel. I do have the carry. I do have the carry champion video if you want that as well. Well, but hold on.

I'm fascinated by something even in this clip. What you have to notice what's going on here is what they have mastered is the pretense, the costume of authority. And it's in like a matter of less than a dozen words, Garrity and Jennings undress the costume of condescension and authority. They say, hey, do you realize cable channels aren't regulated under the FCC the same way that broadcast licenses are? That's NBC, CBS, and ABC. It's because those broadcast channels are over public airwaves licensed by the FCC, so you have to serve, as the regulation reads, the public

interest. But she doesn't know that. She doesn't know the difference between ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, which are cable channels. You can see it's writ all over her face. She's like, what are they talking about? I don't know what they're talking about. I'm confused here. And then she goes, well, it would be more regulated than X. I just want you to tell, I just want to tell you, the emperor has no clothes. They can give each other awards.

They can act condescending with authority, but the emperor has no clothes. Not only are they're liars, they're idiots. They don't know what they're talking about. And then a former colleague of mine at ESPN, Kerry, champion jumps into the debate with Scott Jennings. What she's saying is that there's still a little. litmus test of journalism that you have to pass. You can't come on TV and just make on things, make up things and say things. That happens on X.

Please don't give me the eyebrow furrow as if you don't know what I'm talking about. It happens often on X. I can go and say the color is blue and I will be met with so many disrespectful remarks. No one's regulating the N-word. No one's regulating the criticism. No one is regulating how people are treated or the lies. How much government regulation of the First Amendment are you for? Let me tell you something.

If I came on here and I just started calling you all kind of names, do you think the bosses would let me continue to do that? I mean, it happens to me occasionally. I don't know it doesn't happen to you, but it doesn't happen for me, and I know that I wouldn't be able to do that. There's a level of professionalism, and what we do here, because we are a journalist, and we adhere to something, at least morally, and there is no moral compass on this thing called. It's all, all a straw man. There is no moral compass on CNN or MSNBC. There's no greater obligation to the truth.

she has no understanding of the First Amendment, or if she does, she has complete antipathy towards the First Amendment. Again, perfectly undressed in less than a dozen words by Scott Jennings. How much regulation of the First Amendment do you want? And the truth is, she wants all of it for you. But the audience doesn't want that. The audience wants exposure, transparency, sunlight, and as much information as possible. And that's why you can see just alone in cable news. You can see the following of what's going on. This is last Thursday night. I just want you to see this because it's pretty stunning. For the first time that I can remember,

Fox News has 70% of the cable news audience. Let me just share with you, Jesse Waters. Jesse Waters' primetime got 3.5 million people on Thursday night, 400,000 in the demographic for all the talk of how old cable news is. And percentage-wise, that's a little over 10% of the audience. But 400,000 in the demo is a great number. All in with Chris Hayes, 74, 74,000 in the demo. M.O. 822,000 total. Anderson Cooper, 99,000 in the demographic, which, by the way, is 25 to 54 years old.

Half a million overall. Half a million for Anderson Cooper. It's the same at 10 p.m. Eastern Time with Gutfeld, Ingram, Hannity, 70% of the audience going to Fox News. If you double, if you combine CNN and MSNBC, triple their numbers, They don't reach the numbers of Fox News. Meanwhile, while they're debating what to be done about the media, because they can't control the narrative, here's what's happening in the real world. Donald Trump last night announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada. You put this out on truth social.

As everyone is aware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing crime and drugs at levels never seen before. Right now, a caravan coming from Mexico composed of thousands of people seems to be unstoppable in its quest to come through our country. On January 20th, as one of my first executive orders, I will sign necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States

and its ridiculous open borders. This tariff will remain in effect until such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl and illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country. He goes on in a two-part post to say, until such time, I will also be charging China an additional 10% cent tariff above any additional tariffs on any products coming into the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter. End it like a business meeting.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. New tariffs. Also, while this is happening, is military recruitment, according to Senator Bill Haggerty of Tennessee, re-enlistments on the up with the nomination of Pete Hegseth to Secretary of Defense. and oh by the way jack smith has filed to vacate all court dates for hearings when it comes to the 2020 election case and the classified documents case in florida has been dropped jack smith is soon to be a footnote in history and the prosecutions of donald trump are nakedly now exposed to be nothing but an attack on your political opponent you knowing those three things i just gave you

the dropping of all cases against Donald Trump, all federal cases against Donald Trump, military recruitment up under nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Heggseth, and tariffs imposed by Donald Trump to stop the flow of illegal aliens and fentanyl. All those three things that you now understand that I've shared with you are the reason

that they want to control Elon Musk, control X, control free speech, and control your mind. let's get into all that including what can doge do to cut fat inefficient government spending and the effects of tariffs could they replace the income tax in america coming up with professor peter st anj on the will cane show on till i 18 get excited for the summer's biggest adventure i think i just smurf my pants that's a little too excited Sorry.

Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. Would tariffs stop Mexico and Canada from allowing illegal aliens and fentanyl to flow into our borders into our United States of America? Would tariffs cause massive inflation in America? Could tariffs replace the income tax in the USA? It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com. I'm on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand, just subscribe on Apple or Spotify,

or you're joining us every Monday through Thursday on Facebook and YouTube to become a member of the Willisia. As several people today are already chiming in, Suzanne says, tinfoil pat gives me cat vibes. But tinfoil, you do, and I don't think we can bring him up right now two a days, but he does give cat vibes. And can we just ask him? I don't know if he can chime in.

He's there. We have a guest getting ready to join his. Unmute yourself, Patrick. Does he have a cat? Can you ask him tinfoil? Can you ask him for this? Oh, he does. But I don't like the cat.

Of course you don't like the cat. I don't really like. I'm not an animal guy. You don't like people, animals, cats, dogs. You don't like living creatures. What do you like? Mesigma. Do you?

I like your kids. I like my kids. You know your kids, I hope. Yeah, that's going to say. He's a. Sigma. Deb Lee says on YouTube, people have allergies, dogs just cannot be everywhere. Hold on a second, says, save a squirrel, eat a peacock. I want a pet peacock. There are a few things that I want. I want a pet peacock. I want to get some land for this to be the case, but I want a pet. My grandma used to have

peacocks in her neighborhood. It's just such a fun surprise. Hey, look, there's a peacock. And I don't want a donkey. I love donkeys. Big fan of the donkey. And then JD from South Carolina says, we're about to be in World War III and they're worried about dogs, L.O.L. I don't know if he's talking about the people on X or if he's talking about the Will Kane Show. But welcome, J.D., from South Carolina. Welcome to the Will Kane Show where we will talk about something very serious. And we will also, as you would with your friends, I hope you wouldn't dominate your Thanksgiving dinner 100% of time talking about World War III, which deserves attention. And we need to talk about what's going on in Eastern Europe. But I hope you wouldn't dominate your conversation. Every time somebody switches to, do you like stuffing or dressing? that you're like, we're about to be in World War III, this show's a little different. We have real conversations of every stripe here on the Wilcane show. But we do need to get into some of these serious things, and how about the economy? Let's get into that with Professor Peter St. Ange. He's an economist who host the Peter St. Ongch Ph.D. podcast.

He's also a visiting fellow at the Heritage Institute. Professor, prof. Peter, what's up? Peter works. How are you doing it, Will? It's good to see you again. Good to see you. Let's start with tariffs. Let's start with the news last night from Donald Trump. We have talked about this. There's been discussion, will he impose, like, wide-ranging tariffs, you know, perhaps to

supplant the income tax or become our primary form of taxation? He's actually alluded to that. Will he use them as a tool, a geopolitical tool to get policies done on the foreign stage, like what he suggested here? Mexico, control the border or you're going to be, you're going to get a big tariff. China, control fentanyl, or you're going to get a big tariff. What do you think about Trump's use of tariffs? Yeah, I think that captures it.

He's in a no-lose situation. Okay, so he can threaten the tariffs. A lot of these countries, the amount that they export to the U.S. is a huge part of their economy. Okay, so to illustrate, Canada exports about one-fifth of its GDP to the U.S. All right, we have them by the ball. We export about 1% of our GDP to Canada. Mexico is even more extreme.

Mexico exports 29% of everything they produce. So 29% of the jobs in Mexico depend on exporting to the U.S. For us, it's 1%. So every single one of these countries, when they talk about retaliation, it's a joke. They're not going to win. They're going to fold. And, you know, as Trump often talks about, there's a lot of countries in the world that mistreat us. They take advantage of us.

The traditional approach, whether it's Republican or Democrat, has been to shovel trillions of dollars at these people and somehow hope that they're going to like us again. So we've been doing that to the Europeans, with NATO, of course, with Ukraine nowadays. We saw it with Biden shoveling money to Iran and what, they were supposed to like us. So Trump is saying enough with the carrots, it's bleeding us dry. not working. We're going to flip to the sticks. And the fact of the matter is that we have much bigger sticks than any other country in the world. These countries will dance for us. It's just a question of time. And we've already seen that with Mexico. The president of Mexico has already made sounds and noises about stopping a caravan that's currently moving through Mexico.

She's already somewhat bent to the will of the promise of Donald Trump. So they work. Now, you said an interesting thing. That was fascinating what you told us about the economic comparisons exports because one of the things it's always been said is economic wars lead to real wars so tariffs are essentially what I've heard this and you may have made this argue in the past tariffs can be a form of warfare and they lead to that you know famously what not a lot of people understand is prior to Japan attacking United States at Pearl Harbor the United States had begun to place I believe economic sanctions on Japan in form of oil imports we started to really ratchet up problems for Japan on the domestic economic front, which many say

forced their hand. It really was the first domino that led to Japan's overt act of war towards America. Now, no one's worried about that with Mexico or Canada. But you notably, I heard you, Professor, left out China. Talk to me about exports and imports with China. And, you know, I imagine your stats are going to be a little different. And do you think that's a threat that leads to potential real war. Yeah, it's not as far off with China. So China exports about 19% of their GDP to us. We exported about 9% back to them.

We do actually sell a lot more stuff in China because it's huge, also because China really can't grow its own food. And so they depend on America farming, which by far, it's the highest quality. If you go out to Asia, they consider American food to be premium. so it's high in quality. It's also extraordinarily cheap. So China absolutely depends on our food, which leads to the question, a back-and-forth trade war between China and the U.S., that's kind of the worst-case scenario, right? We can live without Mexico.

We can live without Europe. They can't live without us, but we can live without them. China is the one that's tricky because we have chased off so much of our manufacturing base that almost any product you make in the world, either depends on China for its supply chain, or it's something that we've already isolated, like in the defense production chain, where it is just absurd, I mean like 10x, 28x expensive. And you can't do that for the rest of the economy. We would be completely bankrupt. So China's a little bit trickier.

And I think the Trump team is aware of this. And he's more, I think, looking at China to use these terrorists. to start pressuring them. We've been trying for a couple of years now to try to friend shore, try to bring some of that production back towards countries that are more reliable for us, countries that might treat us better on trade.

But that is a long road. That's something that you have to do gradually. Now, fortunately, you know, if we start chipping away at our dependence on China, in theory, China can see it coming and maybe they cause problems along the way, but they won't because we are one-fifth of their export. meaning, or I'm sorry, we're one-fifth of their entire economy is exports to the U.S.

Also, China has its own problems right now. So they've kind of screwed the pooch on the economy. President Xi is not the miracle boy that China used to have in its presidents. Growth is around four or five percent, which is very disappointing for a generation of Chinese who thought that they were going to catch up in another 10, 20 years. So China cannot afford trade friction with the U.S. They'll basically do what we say, and they'll constantly try to dial it. They might talk big, but they're not going to act big.

The reason is because if they do, they will get tens of thousands of really rioters running around their country because their company is folded, because they've lost their jobs. You know, last year, they had a number of bank problems where banks were not handing out money because they had problems in the loans that they had made and so they didn't have the cash. And China actually brought out the tanks. They were like driving the tanks around banks, warning people, don't get too loud here, right? China's got a lot of domestic internal problems. The people who run China right now, they're of the generation that live through the Cultural Revolution. In the Cultural Revolution, they were throwing government bureaucrats, senior bureaucrats,

out of windows. It was like BLM on steroids, just the violence that this sort of woke crowds exhibited in the culture revolution they are very afraid of their people so china is not going to pick a fight so they they don't want to get an economic trade war with america um because the real risk is on the domestic front what happens with their people if they start losing american production i'm curious you you told us the nine percent that america exports to china is it sounded like what you said is is primarily food based exports uh on our on our behalf the 19 percent that they of their economy that is exported to America.

Do you, is that primarily American companies manufacturing in China as opposed to domestic Chinese companies? In other words, even the 20% of their economy that is being exported to us, that's fed by us, I would assume, through American companies offshoring their manufacturing. Right. A big chunk of it is being exported by U.S. companies. Of course, if you've got a U.S. company that's producing everything in China, that has a relatively muted impact. I mean, the shareholders are going to be European and Japanese and

Americans. So it's not that that, you know, sort of translates it back into American production. But in terms of goods, right, what we're sending to China as food, aircraft, and industrial machinery, what they're sending to us, that's top three. Top three are electronics, machines, furniture, and bedding. Those are the top three in terms of value. Of course, anybody can walk into a Walmart, and you can see that essentially all of the consumer products are produced in China. Right. Now, almost all of those things, especially the simpler ones, those have actually been leaving China because China is getting expensive now because it's developing. So a lot of that production actually nowadays, it comes from Vietnam, India, Ethiopia is big in clothes. So it's not

as difficult to replace China as it used to be, but nonetheless, in the short term, if you, Like, if you completely stop trade between China and U.S., that would be very disruptive. It would look like the supply chain crisis that we had a couple years ago. Okay. What about the idea of inflation? There are those making the arguments. Now we're moving beyond tariffs as a tool to affect policy, like what Trump has talked about here with fentanyl and open borders and illegal aliens.

But instead, tariffs as a primary form of taxation, the counter argument, which right now is being made by the left, but if you and I are being intellectually on, honest, consistent, and fair has been made in the past by conservatives and libertarians is that that's inflationary, that a tariff tax goes to the corporation, the corporation passes that along to the consumer in the form of rising prices. They will raise the price of whatever it is, those consumer goods you just rattled off, betting, clothes. If we impose tariffs, we're just going to see the price of betting and clothes and electronics go up 25%. Yeah, so you've got two mechanics going on in inflation, you've got what's happening in the short run, and then you've got what's happening

the long run. In the short run, if you slap a, let's say, 20% tariff on something, and if that thing is only imported from that country, then it'll go up roughly 20%. It was a little bit special in Trump 1.0, where China actually compensated the tariffs to exporters because they wanted to hold on the market share. Right. So there's estimates of that's something like up to 80% of the tariffs were actually paid by China. which is very nice to them. But they're not going to continue that in long run because it's very expensive. So in the short run, yes, you get a boost. In the real world, there are other countries that produce the thing. You can produce it domestically. You might be looking at a 5% or 10% boost

depending on the product. The thing is that when you zoom out from that, that's going to be inflation, in other words, a higher price for that specific product. But when you zoom out to the entire economy, inflation across the entire economy is a function of how much money is in existence. So how many goods are there and how much money is chasing those goods? So that five or 10 percent in Sox is going to be overwhelmed by what's happening over on this other side with the Fed, with government spending, with Doge. So if those things, you know, if we're bringing down how much the federal government spends, therefore how much the Fed is creating, that is going to absolutely overwhelm whenever it's happening in tariffs okay we're going to get to doge in just

one moment but one more question on tariffs trump has made the argument that for a full embrace of tariffs and even you know at least toyed around this is what he does though he brainstorms out loud uh about replacing income tax with tariffs first of all that would take an act of congress right it would take income tax as a constitutional amendment as well so it would it would take an alteration of the I believe isn't it the 19th Amendment where we put in place the powers of the federal government

to institute an income tax that doesn't mean they have to by the way I don't think I think it just gives them the power to do so but I don't know the math on that I don't know you couldn't tariff your way out of the income tax in terms of what we need to pay for what we spend

now you can say and we'll get to this you and I in a minute let's reduce what we spend but is there any realistic path. We've done this for like a day. I mean, when I first got into this, it was like, there was Herman Kane, 9-99, right? There's been simple tax, fair tax. Rick Perry used to say Governor Texas, when he ran for president the first time around, your tax return should fit on a postcard, right? And I agree with that. The complexity of the income tax is obscene. But is there anything to be said here for a different form of taxation over income tax?

Yeah. So as you say, the 16th authorized an income tax, but of course it didn't require it. There's also a fun detail that, you know, so the government can pass a tax on bubble gum wrappers in your car. Okay. They're allowed to do that. However, you don't have to tell the government how many bubble gum wrappers are in your car. Right. So the government is free to pass an income tax. It's an open question. Do you have to tell the government how much money? you made. So that's kind of a fascinating question. That deals with the Fourth Amendment, that, you know, you have the right to privacy unless they have a probable cause of a crime, also the Fifth Amendment on self-incrimination. But that's sort of a fun aside. You know, fundamentally, if we're looking at a situation where you are reducing the income tax or getting rid of it all together in trying to replace that with tariffs, so the income tax currently collects about $2.5 trillion. And tariffs, given what we're currently importing, those might collect $600 or $900 billion, right? So you've got about a $1.5 trillion gap.

Now, I think that's fantastic. We should just stick with that and cut government spending by a trillion and a half. But if you were to do that, a couple interesting things happen. So first of all, the income tax is very, very destructive in terms of how much it destroys for every dollar it collects. So when you raise the income tax, like if you've got a small business and you're paying 40% of everything you earn, remember, if you lose money, the government's not pitching in. You lose a loan in the dark. If you gain, the government's going to come and grab half of that. People dial it down. They don't open a second restaurant. They don't take on more work. If you're a consultant, you say, I'm just going to work 20 hours a week. This is good enough.

If you're facing a 40% tax rate, a lot of economic activity does not happen. And the estimates of is that for every $1 they collect in taxes, they destroy, they light on fire, another $3 worth of economic activity. So the income tax is extraordinarily destructive. It's not, it's taking $2.5 trillion, yes, but it's also destroying $7.5 trillion on the way out. It's like if you sell a piece of furniture and they come and collect the furniture with a backhoe, knock out your entire front of your house to come collect it. On the other hand, a tariff, looks a lot like a sales tax. It's a sales tax that targets foreigners. You don't have incentive effects. You have some distortion in the economy. It's nowhere near one for three. So you put those

together. And if you were to take $2.5 trillion income tax and replace that with a with tariffs that are one-third as big, so $900 billion, you'd be looking back of the envelope, just on those numbers, you'd be looking at about a 20% jump in GDP. If you translate that into regular household, the median household in the U.S. makes $75,000 a year. They would get a $15,000 raise. They would be paying, remember, they wouldn't be paying income tax. So they would save $18,000 in the income tax. And then they'd be paying maybe three or six in the tariffs.

You net that out, and they'd be looking at something like $30,000 raise. So about $2,500 a month. Interesting. Interesting. So that means to me you, so Phil Kirpin, who's a writer, he tweeted this out to Elon and Vivek. He said, of potential interest, a few years ago, the economists at law and economics estimated

that the average full-time employee in a federal regulatory agency destroys 135 private sector jobs per year. You just told us about what a government spending, what government spending does to the private sector. Now we're getting to kind of the role of Doge, exactly what it can do in terms of reducing federal workforce. And according to law and economics here,

as quoted by Phil Kirpin, and this is focused on regulatory jobs, right? A regulatory job, one, full-time, destroys 135 private sector jobs. Does that make sense to you, Professor Peter St. Ange? It does. I love that number. I'm doing a video on that next week. Well, that's fantastic. You are?

Okay. We need to make sure we check that out. That's exactly the point. So, like, when we're talking about getting rid of government workers, I don't care about their salaries. I mean, I do. It's Sun Joss, you know, it costs a lot of money. It's not their six-figure salaries that bother me.

It's exactly what you say. They are like a nuclear weapon for jobs. Interesting. Okay, I want to share this as well. You put this out. You corrected yourself, so we'll get to your correction here in just a second. But you said, talking about the potential for Doge, right, to make government cuts. Speaking of where you put out your videos, you put them out on X, everyone can check them out.

They get a lot of views. They get retweets from Elon Musk and so forth. You can check them out at Prof Saint-Ange, O'N-G-E on X. So you tweeted out, you posted on X. They're handing Trump a lit fuse on a $36 trillion debt crisis. The Biden administration added 12 trillion of debt. Interest payments now consume one in four dollars collected. Under Trump, it was half of that.

Doge has a deep hole to dig out of. You issued a correction. I think you were community-noted, or must jump to. in that the 12 trillion was a little high, but you addressed it, which I appreciate, which I also found enlightening. It turns out that the Biden administration is responsible for about nine trillion in growth over the last four years. Trump did jump it up, is it roughly three trillion or so in the last year, year and a half, basically COVID. And we all remember, you know, there's a stimulus checks, COVID checks, that kind of thing. I have it up on my screen here

in the Will Can Show Studios. This is the federal. debt to total public debt. And let's just go back to 2020 pre-COVID. It was at about $23, $23 trillion, right? Is that what it is at that point? And now we're sitting at $35. Is that where we are? About $35 trillion. So it is a $12 trillion jump. And you can see the quick jump during COVID. But you're pointing out two things. This is a ticking time bomb. One in four dollars going to interest. on the federal debt and also like leads us to the conversation of doge what can actually be done by musk and ramoswami yeah so i've there's a long history of trying to get rid of waste and fraud in washington it's sort of what politicians go to when they run out of ideas so al gore was going to have the waste commission uh you know he kept bringing out props of like ashtrays that cost $10,000. It's got a long history. And it never goes anywhere because they identify a bunch of stupid spending. Everybody has a good laugh. They get rid of that. They cut like 0.1% of the budget

and everybody calls it a day. What I think is interesting about Doge is that Elon and Vivek are two of the smartest people in the entire country, but certainly in public service, where low IQs are normal. And they've identified what I'm calling the, what is it, the exhaust vents on the Death Star, okay, the exact way to go after this. Now, back up for a sec, Doge has enormous public support. So it's got over 70% support. This was a recent poll out just a couple of days ago. 63% of Kamala voters support Doge. All right, there's an absolute consensus in this country, that government is out of control? How do you not, in theory? Yeah. Yeah. Every American always thinks, in theory, supports the idea of more efficient government.

Right. Yeah. There's been polls from Gallup where the on average Americans think that 51 cents on their tax dollar goes to either waste or fraud. I mean, there is a deep national consensus that the federal government is broken. It's way too big. It needs to shrink. So Elon has flowed $2 trillion in spending, that would be about one-third of the budget. The easy parts are there's between $300,500 billion in waste. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's Congress's bookkeepers. Heritage Foundation has estimated another $300 billion in corporate welfare, including the Inflation Reduction Act. That was pure corporate welfare. It was actually rebranded. Like, you can literally see it on Congress's website. It was called Build Back Better

and then they called it inflation reduction. And they can get away with that, of course, because the lapdog media played along. But anyway, pure corporate welfare. So about a trillion of that is pretty easy to cut. Now, what do you do with the rest of it? And here's where the cleverness comes in. So Supreme Court had a couple decisions last year, Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA. And those two decisions basically said that you've got all these tens of hundreds of thousands

of rules that the federal government imposes on us, almost. none of them have been passed by Congress. Now, it's very, very clear in the Constitution. Every law has to be passed by Congress. And these rules have the force of law. They will put you in a cage if you violate them. They are laws, by all accounts. And so the Loper Bright and EPA said, no, these are legitimate. Now, at that point, you know, people on the right, conservative groups, they started launching lawsuit by lawsuit, challenging these rules one by one. Well, what, Elon and Bebeck are saying is, you know what, we're going to fulfill the will of the Supreme Court. We're not going to disregard them like Joe Biden did. We're going to go ahead and do just

what the Supreme Court told us, which is that we are going to nullify. We're going to pause every single regulation that was not passed by Congress, which in theory, there's at least 4,000 rules passed a year. 50, an estimated 50 are actually passed by Congress. That's 99% of the control they have over the economy. They say, we're going to nullify those. We are going to then look at the ones that are more complicated, and we're going to see whether to get rid of them forever. Now, what happens if you do that is that you shrink entire agencies.

You lay off potentially tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats who don't have anything to do anymore. Trump has something called force, he's got authority to force reduce, to lay off government workers if they're not needed. He can't go after them because they tweeted something about him. That's retaliation. Maybe he can. That's yet to be litigated.

That's a constitutional issue. But if he doesn't need them anymore, that's well established. You can get rid of them. You can get rid of them, and then you got a bunch of money left over. And so then there's a question that's something called impoundment. Does that money revert back to Treasury? And they're going to definitely litigate that. But the end result is that if you can get rid of, you know, 50,

or 80 or 90% of the regulations, and that then takes out a huge chunk of bureaucrats, that money goes automatically to the Treasury, but more important what it does, what you're saying about the one regulator killing 135 jobs, it takes those people out, right? Those are the super spreaders of economic catastrophe. Those are the specific ones that it takes out. It's not necessarily going after mail carers. It's going after EPA regulators who, you know, harass, you know, a small machine shop in Wisconsin because it's got a pond in front of it. Those are the people who it gets rid of. So you get this massive economic boost that gives us a fighting chance of getting out of the Biden recession before it even begins. To your point, they did this during the Reagan administration. Tom Coburn,

Senator, former Senator from Oklahoma used to do this on a yearly basis, talk about ways to reduce government spending. It never did amount to much. We hope that Doge will. I appreciate you bringing up The Chevron deference case from the Supreme Court, which says that what you pointed out, that so many laws and regulations aren't even things approved by Congress, but it's deference to powers of the administrative state, truly the deep state to regulate everything in our country. This is the opportunity. This is the opportunity for Doge. All right.

You go enjoy your vape, Professor Peter Saint-Ange. You didn't sneak that. How could you tell? I was doing it in secret, Will. Because doing this and not coughing is very, very suspect. trust me from a nicotine addict uh i got all the tells down um you go enjoy your vape the rest of you can enjoy his videos on x uh or his his show the peter st anj phd podcast always fascinating love having you on the show peter saint hodge thank you professor all right thank you will

all right uh by the way rani over on uh youtube i believe could have been on facebook says to all the cat ladies that are republican thank you for staying a cat lady maybe a cat man will walk in to your life. Or Ronnie, we appreciate you being a part of the Will Cain Show. You should hang around because I've got somebody coming up that says,

you may not be. You may be on the left and we appreciate you watching the Will Cain Show. But you might be on the right. And if you're a cat lady on the right, well, you are a unicorn. That's coming up on the Will Cain Show.

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-year-old. hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com.

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. The Democratic Party left as predicted by J.D. Vance with nothing. but cat ladies it's the will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news youtube channel and the fox news facebook page that's where you find us every monday through Thursday 12 o'clock eastern time live but as we've seen and mentioned uh audience growing exponentially you can always catch the will cane show whenever you want you go over to youtube and subscribe

to the show you can catch us half the fact because a lot of people a lot of people are watching um i don't know i don't know what we are a good half of the audience continue to watch throughout the day here on the Wilcane show. Same thing on Spotify and Apple, if you're listening on Terrestrial Radio. It's just a massive community that we're building here. By the way, the community's chimed in two days. We asked at the outset of the show, something about dogs in this whole debate of dogs in public spaces. What did you ask the audience what they have to say?

It's created quite the debate in the chat on both sides. But we did a poll question, should dogs be allowed in public spaces? Public meaning where the public are, not exactly private, you know, everywhere. And people said, yes, dogs should be allowed in public spaces. 63% said yes. 37% said no. We're a dog society. We're a dog society.

We're a dog society. It's comforting to hear. We're going away for Thanksgiving. I told you my Thanksgiving is like 20, 25 people, step sisters, brothers and sisters, significant others. Imagine the political combos. I'm going to Oklahoma. No, I told you yesterday.

Or maybe I didn't tell you I was yesterday. on fearless. Tommy Laren is fearless on Outkick. And because this whole thing about it, like, will the libs in your family decline Thanksgiving? Out of 25, I think, I said two and a half. Two, two on the left, one, I don't know, kind of maybe on the left. They're all coming, but you know what's not allowed to come to Thanksgiving? Pets. My mom put the rule out. We're going to southern Oklahoma. We're all staying like in the mountains up there, you know, mountains of Oklahoma. but no pets are allowed and one thing that surprised me

is why would a cat person even need that instruction you don't travel with your cat like a dog yeah okay but you haven't met the right cat people some do like that what do you do put it on a leash yeah I have friends that go hiking with their cat on a leash

get out of here I swear I'll send you a picture like a Tasmanian devil on the end of a string that's what that feels like that's that's how do you even discipline or train a cat i don't know um speaking of cats let's talk about cat ladies con carroll has a book out it's entitled sex and the citizen how the assault on marriage is destroying democracy he also has a column up at the washington examiner where he talks about um j d vance's infamous con saying what everyone said oh this could

cost him the election that the left is populated by childless cat ladies. You dug into it. You dug into the election results. And you're saying he was right, Jady Vance. Of course he was right. How could he not be? No, but look, if you look at the exit polls, it's very clear. Married men went for Trump, 60 to 38 percent. Married women went for Trump, 51 to 48 percent. And this is all married women, not just married white women, all married women went for Trump, 51 percent to 48 percent. Unmarried men went for Trump, 49% to 47%. The only demographic that went for the Democrats and Kamala Harris were unmarried women.

And they went, they went for Kamala Harris plus 21. So the numbers you just gave us married men for Trump plus 22, married women plus three, unmarried men plus two, but unmarried women. This is your point about the childless cat lady, plus 21 for Kamala Harris. Yep. And then the reason why it's so close on top of that is because traditionally, and it was just true this year, unmarried women go to the polls in much larger numbers than unmarried men.

So, for example, in this year, only 20% of the electorate was unmarried men compared to 27% to the electorate that was unmarried women. That was 2024, Kahn? Yeah, that was this year. That was this year. And what was it in the past? Like, what was the gulf between unmarried women and unmarried men at the polls and the polls and the polls and the polls? past. It's always about the same. Unmarried women have for decades outperformed men at the polls. What was different this year, and it's quite striking, kind of feeds into the topic of my book

on the decline to marriage. This was the first year ever that more unmarried women went to the polls than married women. So that was a change, and that unmarried woman actually outnumbered married women for the first time, which reflects the continued decline of marriage. As I point out in my book, you know, from the very first sentences up until 1960, 80% of all households in the nation were led by a married couple. That number hit 50% in 2010. We've still been shrinking. It's down to 45% today. So unfortunately, the married family is disappearing. 80% of households were married in 1960 were down to 45% today. Yep. It's a huge cultural change that is often ignored, is not talked about, which is part of the

reason i wrote the book yeah i mean is a met like that is um foundational that's that's earthquake that's shattering that's what that is to see a society's marriage rates drop almost by 50% yeah i totally agree it's changing every part of our society and in a lot of people just don't realize yet that the data's there when when you look at you know literally any problem whether it's income inequality wealth equality crime, polarization, isolation, loneliness. These are all being driven by the decline of marriage. Why have we seen marriage crater like this? By the way, we're not alone, are we?

Like, this has happened in Japan, I believe. I know that at least anecdotally that's happened in Japan. So there are other countries that have problems with declining fertility. Okay. But the United States leads the league in the decline of marriage, unfortunately. The other thing we lead the league in is mostly partner fertility. So, you know, it's very rare to other countries for there to have an unmarried mother in the first place. But then once you have that, for then her to have multiple fathers for multiple children.

We are by far the leaders in the world on that. Why is this happening, Con, in America? Sure. Well, as I detailed my book, the book itself is actually a centuries spanning, millennia, spanning history of marriage, going back to really the dawn of humanity and then the dawn and civilization up through Christianity, the re-adoption of monogamy, the founding of the nation. And, you know, as I said before, you know, from the first census up until the 1960s, marriage is the foundational union of. of civil society. There was an American family consensus that ruled in this country for, you know, almost 200 years. But then what you haven't, what happened is you had this intellectual drift from the understanding that monogamy was essential. And so, you know,

this started with I detail Jean-Rocousseau and John Stuart Mill, but then you get Margaret Mead, an anthropologist coming in and Alfred Kinsey. And you just get this cultural relativism building so that, you know, in the 1870s, you had the Supreme Court say that we are a Christian nation in Congress as absolute authority to smack down the Mormon church and take their property and, you know, completely outlaw them in order to maintain monogamous marriage. Fast forward to 1940 and all of a sudden you have a Democratic appointed member of the Supreme Court saying, you know, monogamy, they're both different lifestyles, it's fine. And that was in the dissent at the time. But then as you

reached the late 1960s into the 70s, then you have the Supreme Court in three specific cases, just totally casting aside marriage as the foundation of society and going with, you know, the individual and the 14th Amendment and protecting just individual rights as a foundation, not the married family. And so from there, you have the rest of family law falling apart. Well, that's family law. You're focusing there on the role of the law in the Supreme Court. but to me you know the the cultural shift is also important in there and obvious and it may be a correlation but i've got to think and at least be a curious person and explore the idea that well the rise in starting in the 1960s and 70s is also the rise of the feminist movement

and look i i want everybody to make their career choice what they want but when women started it seemed to be that career became as important as family building for many women and i can draw those lines that you just said, like, that, those two things are basically direct correlations direct line right there. The rise of women in the workforce and the decline of family, probably, I mean, I'm just picturing that graph in my head, Con, that's got to be lockstep. So I would say you're half right. Yes, there has been a increase of women's workforce participation, and especially when it comes to professions that require education that does push marriage backwards for a lot of women. But when you look at the marriage rates for a college

educated, they're pretty much living in the 1950s. Okay. Yes, they're getting married. What? Yes, they're getting married. I said, is that right? So, so yeah. Go ahead. Working women are still building families. Well, um, college is working college educated women are still building founders. They're doing it later, which, which does, you know, reduce their, uh, fertility rates, but they're still forming families. What you saw. in the late 1960s into the 1970s was just a complete collapse among non-college educated women with non-college educated workers and those and that kind of family formation. So the first Supreme Court case I talk about is King versus Smith. And so this is a case out of Alabama that

got rid of so-called man in the house rules. So before this, states could go in and say, look, if you are sleeping with a man, okay, you are disqualified, you know, from this program. And the Supreme Court said, no, no, no, you can't do that anymore. You can't disqualify a child from this program just because it's out of a wedlock or the mom is sleeping with someone else, which meant that the only way a mother could be disqualified from the program is if she actually married the man she wanted to be with. So you have two equal couples, you know, one that is just cohabitating and not married. They would qualify for welfare. And after this decision in King v. Smith, the married couple would not. So this created marriage penalties for the entire welfare system.

Now, Democrats will come back and say, yeah, Democrats come back and say, look, AFDC, which is now TANF, is such a small program. Very few people actually get direct way of four payments. And that's true. However, what they leave out is the tremendous expansion of the rest of the social safety net. Food stamps, sectioning housing, Medicaid, Obamacare subsidies. All of those are means tested and have marriage penalties included. in them. All total, the federal government, combined with state governments, spent over a trillion dollars every year punishing marriage. And so in the decade after that 1968, King v. Smith

decision, that is when you saw the bottom just fall out of African-American households first. And the reason why that is, is because black women were, you know, like everyone else, forced to choose between a man who had a job or a government check. And unfortunately, you know, because of racism, because of, I mean, we're talking about 1960s. America, African-American men were just a less likely bet to be a stable provider than government. So that's why you saw the marriage rates fall off for that community first. But then as you've had illegal immigration, as you've had China and chate strokes, then you've had wages for the rest of the unskilled workers, white and Hispanic, also fall. And then you've

seen marriage fall accordingly. So there's definitely a cultural element here, but a lot of this is being driven by both the marriage welfare policies and the economics of men not being able to provide, being able to out-compete government as a marriage partner. Fascinating. Okay, so first of all, on the cultural front, what you said shouldn't come as a surprise to me now. What's his name? His name is escaping my attention, but, you know, the guy who is famously canceled for writing the bell curve.

What's the author's name? Oh, Charles Murray, yes. Charles Murray wrote about this in coming apart, a later book that he wrote, talking about that, you know, the whole image of the 1980s divorce, and we talk about the divorce rate. It is actually wealthy people put out an image of, you know, careerism and divorce and so forth, but it was not them who adopted it. They continued to live, like you said in the 1950s, while poorer sections of our country. And he focused on that book, not on African Americans, but he focused on, you know,

like the book I was talking about earlier, like Demon Copperhead, like Appalachia Lower Class Whites, adopted those social moors. they adopted what was put out by Hollywood in popular culture of, no, you don't need to be married or whatever. But what you're saying about replacing the head of the household from a man to a government is pretty fascinating through the expansion of the welfare state, because that's a correlation as well. We can see the expansion of the social safety net starting in the 1960s forward, and that correlates directly to the destruction of the family. Now, yeah, and that line's going to be a lot more. Go ahead. And that line's going to be a lot more clear than women

employment. The expansion of the, of the safety net and so and meanscessant program is much more causational than than women working. Has that now been, look, I don't think, I truly don't think, but I haven't read in, if we rewound history and I dug deep into the 1960s and 70s, there was a conspiratorial effort on behalf of Democrats or whoever was pushing the war on poverty, you know, which is launched there by LBJ and then you have the social safety net. I don't think there was like, let's destroy the family. But I do think that Democrats moving forward have seen what you pointed out, unmarried women plus 21 Kamala Harris. They've seen that the family is a dividing line. Do you think there's an overt antagonism among modern day Democrats, either culturally or

policy-wise, or pure Machiavellian for electoral politics of antipathy towards the family? The short answer is no on the politics, on the politics front. I don't think. think that they're trying to purposefully get more single women so they can dominate politically. You know, I do think that there is definitely a feminist line of thinking that the decline of marriage is good for women. As I quote in my book, there's a book called by a feminist named Hannah Rosen. It's called, I swear to God, I did not make this up, her book is titled The End of Men. And she talks about how essential the decline of marriages for the professional success of women. Okay. Because when you have marriage decline, women feel freed her to have temporary relationships, as she called, to meet their, you know, physical intimacy needs while they can go out and get an education and then a career. And so for her, the decline of marriage and the rise of hookup culture, the whole chapter in the book is defending hookup culture is about how wonderful it is and how women need that in order to live their best professional lives, which, of course, as we've seen, is bad for the rest of us.

do you finally on this so you know when i see these stats and i see about the unmarried women you know going heavily to comma trump but every other demographic going toward including unmarried men going towards trump it does make me think about all right you're a targeting something here and maybe of inadvertently or maybe overtly you're you're targeting something that is foundational not to america but to human civilization that's the creation that's the of the family. But it seems to with this election con run into the divide between status and aspiration. So in other words, even though there's these people that are unmarried, they don't have

this antipathy towards marriage like you just pointed out in that feminist book. They're still aspirational towards marriage. Like, I don't know. There's something, like no matter how much you shake the snow globe and you rock the foundations, There's something innate in us as human beings that want to build this. And as long as you're tapping into that aspiration, those are people that want to build families. And if that means voting for a Republican, that's what they'll do in terms of policies that help you

build a family. No, I mean, I think you're exactly right. I think that's why Trump was able to do so well with historically well, with Hispanic men and black men, right? Because the Democratic Party has no place for these men. It doesn't offer them anything. Only the Republican Party says, look, we want you to be the best provoked. and protectors you can be for your family. We want you to get married. We want you to be the leader

of your household to provide and protect for your wife and your children. And that's what black and Latino men want is they want to be good husbands to their wife and child. And, you know, it's only the Republican Party that is saying, yeah, look, you know, we are going to try to create the jobs necessary to give you the ability to provide and protect for a woman and for, for so she can be your wife and you can have children with her. It's absolutely fascinating. The book is Sex and the Citizen, How the Assault on Marriage is Destroying Democracy. The author is Con Carroll. He has a column up. You can read it at least in part or condensed, very, very condensed version at the Washington Examiner. But I encourage you to check out the book, Sex and the Citizen.

Con, what an awesome discussion. Thanks for jumping on today on the Will Kane show. Thank you so much, Will. All right. It's been a long time. I've known Con for a long time. We used to appear together on The Blaze. It's good to see him again. I think if I I remember correctly, he has something like, I don't know, 10 kids, which puts him in the Rachel Campos Duffy range of procreation. Who, by the way, will be on our show tomorrow as a special Thanksgiving edition of the Will Kane show. We'll get you set up with traditions, games, things to be thankful for.

Also, by the way, college football, we've got to get all that in tomorrow. So you get your drive to Thanksgiving dinner all set here with the Will Kane Show. I'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gatti 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. other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.