Buttigieg Proposes Electoral, Court Overhauls to Avoid US Catastrophe

布蒂吉格提议改革选举与法院制度以避免美国走向灾难 美国前交通部长皮特·布蒂吉格认为，若不对最高法院和竞选资金体系推行结构性改革，将把美国推向财政与政治崩溃的边缘。 在这场内容广泛的讨论中，皮特·布蒂吉格深入剖析了美国政治极化、经济不平等以及偏袒资本而非劳动的税收制度背后的深层系统性根源。他详细阐述了必要的结构性改革，包括设立最高法院法官任期限制、终结不公正选区划分以及废除选举人团制度，同时也对唐纳德·特朗普和埃隆·马斯克等政治人物提出了批评。此外，布蒂吉格还敞开心扉分享了自己的个人历程，包括在南本德应对后工业化衰退的经历，以及在服兵役并开辟政治生涯期间公开出柜的心路历程。 系统性财富不平等因税收结构持续恶化，由于对劳动收入的征税税率高于资本收益，加之减税政策长期推高美国国债，亟需推行深层次财政改革以化解危机。 (4:10) 选民对现有体系的不满推动了对体制外颠覆者的支持，民主党不能仅寄望于重回旧常态，而必须拿出更具前瞻性的系统性变革方案以重建公众信任。 (7:12) 对伊朗的军事冲突不仅因霍尔木兹海峡受阻直接推高国内生活成本，更出现为配合政治宣传而从官方名单中抹去4名阵亡美军姓名的严重掩盖行为，缺乏明确的战略退出路线。 (31:29) AI 正在重塑就业结构并加剧资本垄断，监管部门应借鉴民用航空‘零死亡’的成熟安全监管框架，同时探索公共分红机制，使全民共享技术发展的经济成果。 (47:08)

Pete Buttigieg argues that American democracy faces compounding crises driven by economic inequality, escalating national debt, and unstrategic foreign interventions, asserting that sustainable governance requires deep structural reform rather than merely attempting to restore the pre-Trump status quo. Military Miscalculation and Casualty Concealment in Iran (31:29) Buttigieg characterizes the ongoing conflict with Iran as a catastrophic foreign policy misstep, arguing that military strikes predictably prompted the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and drove up domestic energy costs. He highlights that at a mid-2026 G7 summit, President Donald Trump publicly acknowledged the United States was within roughly four weeks of exhausting critical oil reserves, compelling the administration to accept a fragile Memorandum of Understanding drafted largely on Iranian terms. Furthermore, Buttigieg alleges an administrative cover-up in which the names of four American service members killed in action were erased from official casualty records to preserve the administration's claims of an active ceasefire. Citing congressional hearings where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reported conflict expenditures reaching $37.5 billion, Buttigieg emphasizes the absence of a defined exit strategy. He also raises ethics concerns regarding foreign capital flows into presidential family ventures, noting hundreds of millions invested in a family crypto venture alongside an estimated $2 billion Saudi investment placed with Jared Kushner. Fiscal Imbalance, Taxation, and Stein's Law (50:48) Addressing domestic inequality, Buttigieg asserts that modern U.S. tax policy actively penalizes wage-earning labor while sheltering capital accumulation, allowing multibillionaires to pay lower effective tax rates than public workers such as teachers and firefighters. He contrasts this dynamic with mid-20th-century tax brackets during the Cold War, when top marginal income rates hovered near 90% under a capitalist framework. On the ballooning national debt, Buttigieg points to economic analyses showing the fiscal trajectory was primarily set by the cumulative impact of the 2001 Bush and 2017 Trump tax cuts rather than social spending. Citing Herbert Stein's Law—'If something cannot go on forever, it will stop'—he warns that American fiscal and political arrangements are unsustainable, leaving the country a binary choice between proactive structural reform and systemic catastrophe. Managing AI Disruption through Public Dividends (41:21) Rather than treating artificial intelligence disruption as an unavoidable technological fate, Buttigieg frames its economic consequences as a policy decision. With entry-level cognitive labor and transportation roles facing near-term displacement, he cautions that shifting economic output entirely from labor compensation to capital ownership will drastically concentrate wealth. To ensure shared prosperity, Buttigieg advocates for a public dividend model, noting that commercial AI systems rely on public data and government-funded infrastructure like the internet, originally created through DARPA in the 1960s. For regulatory oversight, he recommends established safety-certification systems over placing public monitors on corporate boards, citing the Federal Aviation Administration's record during his tenure as Transportation Secretary, where approximately 4 billion domestic commercial airline passengers traveled without a fatality. Structural Democracy Reform over Restorative Politics (62:10) Buttigieg warns the Democratic Party against relying on restorative messaging such as 'reverse' or 'rebuild,' noting that previous system failures generated the public demand for disruptive figures like Donald Trump. He contends that an effective progressive platform must fix the mechanical framework of American democracy rather than attempting to return to prior decades. His structural proposals include abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote to ensure competitive nationwide campaigning, establishing Supreme Court term limits and balanced-bench mechanisms, and passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Reflecting on electoral strategy, Buttigieg suggests that although replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris 100 days before the 2024 election was motivated by unity, an open, competitive primary—similar to the 20-candidate contest in 2020—would have better tested and strengthened the ticket. Weighing his own future, he confirms he is currently more inclined than not to seek the presidency in 2028. Buttigieg maintains that resolving systemic instability requires direct engagement across hostile media and political divides rather than ideological isolation. While acknowledging the immense gravity of presidential decision-making, he emphasizes that technological progress alone will not correct democratic decline without collective public action and institutional restructuring.

前美国交通部长 Pete Buttigieg 指出，美国正面临极端贫富分化、国债飙升与体制信任崩溃的系统性危机；他认为民主党绝不能仅寄望于恢复旧有建制，而必须通过深层的宪政重构、公共红利分配与务实监管来迎击民粹主义与技术变革挑战。 民主信任危机与民粹破坏力的根源 (0:00) Buttigieg 指出，在建国近250年之际，美国推翻君主制、由民众自主掌权换取更优生活的根本承诺正遭受严峻拷问。统计数据显示，如今公民在丹麦等国实现阶层跃升的概率已显著高于美国。过去三四十年间，美国税收政策严重偏向资本积累而惩罚劳动收入，导致亿万富翁的实际税率屡屡低于教师或消防员等工薪公职人员，极大地阻碍了普通家庭积累财富并引发深刻的被剥夺感。 针对 Donald Trump 的持续吸引力，Buttigieg 认为其根源在于精准捕捉并确认了被遗忘民众的挫败感，向渴望打破现状的选民传递了摧毁现有体系的信号。尽管 Trump 承诺的降低生活成本并未实现且对外军事行动反而扩大，部分选民仍宁愿选择破坏者而非守旧派。Buttigieg 强调民主党必须承担历史责任，选民之所以寻求体制外破坏，正是因为此前的建制路线未能奏效，因此未来路线必须提供超越以往的新治理架构，而非单纯“重置”旧貌。 伊朗战事困局与外交信任赤字 (15:05) 谈及中东局势，Buttigieg 批评对伊军事升级是严重的战略误判。针对伊朗的袭击不可避免地导致霍尔木兹海峡受阻，直接推高了全球能源、食品与国内房贷成本。Buttigieg 指出，在2026年年中的 G7 峰会上，Trump 曾公开承认美国战略石油储备因封锁将在约四周内耗尽，最终迫使美方依据伊朗起草的条款签署脆弱的停火备忘录。与此同时，防长 Pete Hegseth 近期向国会证实的战争账单已高达375亿美元，缺乏清晰的退出战略与使命目标。 Buttigieg 抨击本届政府为了维护 Trump 宣称的“停火”说辞，在官方阵亡名单中抹去了四名在中东战事中牺牲的美军士兵姓名。此外，他指出前所未有的道德利益冲突正在侵蚀外交公信力，例如中东政府向第一家庭的加密基金注入数亿美元，以及沙特阿拉伯向 Jared Kushner 的基金注资约20亿美元。在以巴问题上，他主张在保障犹太人安全与捍卫巴勒斯坦人尊严之间寻求平衡，但指责以色列总理 Benjamin Netanyahu 追求“大以色列”路线，对建立巴勒斯坦国毫无意愿。 人工智能冲击、公共分红与安全监管 (36:01) 关于人工智能对认知类岗位的冲击，Buttigieg 强调这并非不可抗拒的技术宿命，而是一项根本性的政策选择。未来政策应当导向因生产力跃升带来的更短工时与更丰厚收入，还是导向财富向极少数资本所有者极端集中。他回顾汽车工业衰落对铁锈地带社区归属感与个人身份认同的破坏，警示白领与蓝领群体都将面临深刻的职业身份危机。 鉴于主流 AI 大模型均使用公众免费上传的海量数据训练，且依赖于20世纪60年代由纳税人通过 DARPA 资助建立的互联网基础设施，Buttigieg 主张政府应当推行“公共分红”，让全民共享技术财富。在监管层面，他借用掌管交通部及联邦航空管理局（FAA）期间美国商业客运实现约40亿人次零死亡的安全纪录，主张建立严格的安全底线机制，在鼓励癌症筛查与可控核聚变等前沿创新的同时，有效防范技术失控灾难。 宪政机制深层重构与2028大选考量 (80:57) 在财政与制度危机方面，Buttigieg 援引施泰因法则强调“如果一件事无法永远持续，它终将停止”，指出当前庞大的国家债务主要源自2001年布什减税与2017年特朗普减税的累积效应。为避免系统性崩溃并实现实质改革，他提议废除选举人团制度以普选票决定总统、对最高法院大法官设定任期限制并推行“平衡法庭”改革，同时在众议院推行比例代表制消除选区操弄，并通过宪法修正案彻底推翻“公民联合会案”（Citizens United）以遏制政治暗钱流毒。 针对2028年大选前景，Buttigieg 承认自己在考量家庭与国家需求后倾向于参选。在复盘2024年大选时，他坦言虽然当时临阵换将是由维系党内团结所驱动，但如果当时能举行一场高强度的快速公开竞争初选，候选人将在政策与领导力上经受更好的考验与磨砺。 Buttigieg 强调走出当前政治死局没有自动拯救的历史规律或技术捷径，唯有依靠公民参与和制度重构。尽管他勾勒了涵盖宪制修正与公共分红的系统性蓝图，但在极化严重的党派对抗现实下，这些激进的改革设想如何跨越严苛的立法门槛依然存在巨大问号。

## Background 本期节目由知名商业访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人史蒂文·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）于2026年8月3日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目简介指出，前美国交通部长、2028年大选民主党热门人选皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）在卸任后打破政治常规，坦诚剖析美国民主制度正濒临崩溃的危机，揭露对伊军事行动与阵亡士兵名单背后的掩盖真相，并就富豪税收漏洞、AI对劳工身份的冲击等时代课题阐述破解之道。 ## TL;DR 在长达近两小时的对话中，布蒂吉格正面表态自己对2028年角逐总统“偏向于参选”，并严厉谴责现任政府在缺乏战略退路的情况下激化伊朗战局、甚至为维系停火谎言而抹除阵亡士兵姓名的政治丑闻。针对美国日益极化的体制病灶，他尖锐批评富豪以股权质押避税的财技与经济权力垄断，主张废除选举人团、推行普选制、改革最高法院，并提议对AI红利推行公共分红以抵御技术替代。此外，他还深情回忆了在南本德主政与父亲病逝交织的至暗时刻，以及在阿富汗服役前写下绝笔信、最终鼓起勇气正视自我并向父母公开出柜的心路历程。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场访谈在深度的思想碰撞中兼具智性交锋与罕见的个人温度，巴特利特直击要害、拒绝套话的追问风格与布蒂吉格缜密、克制却又出奇坦诚的叙事形成强烈化学反应。录制现场宛如一次针对政治灵魂的透视检查，氛围从剖析地缘危机与系统性腐败时的凝重紧绷，自然流转至讲述战地遗书、新手育儿与家庭接纳时的温情与脆弱。观众能直观感受到一种褪去传统政客精致包装后的真实感，既有面对庞大国家权力与历史大周期的清醒敬畏，也蕴含着试图打破既有僵局的坚定魄力。 ## Bulletin - [31:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1879s) 皮特·布蒂吉格透露，特朗普政府为掩盖其所谓停火协议实质破裂的窘境，竟然从公开的阵亡将士名单中抹去了四名美军士兵的姓名。 - [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=533s) 面对 2028 年总统大选意向的逼问，布蒂吉格正面回应称自己“比起不倾向参选，更偏向于参选（more inclined than not）”，抚育子女的经历深刻重塑了他的决策考量。 - [28:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1698s) 美军深陷伊朗冲突已耗费 375 亿美元，在战略石油储备仅剩约四周用量的情况下仓促签署谅解备忘录，但霍尔木兹海峡仍遭封锁并重创全球供应链。 - [01:22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4966s) 布蒂吉格严厉批评埃隆·马斯克牵头的“政府效率部”（DOGE）是一场灾难，不仅因低级数学错误闹笑话、草率误解核安全专家，还导致联邦支出不降反升。 ## Key takeaways - [02:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=157s) 美国体制已极度失衡，亿万富豪的实际税率低于教师或消防员，经济增长并未惠及工薪阶层，统计学上最容易实现“美国梦”的国家已变成丹麦。 - [05:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=350s) 特朗普的号召力源于对被体制辜负选民的迎合，但其核心承诺已破产；民主党不能寄望于“重回过去”，必须提出超越以往的全新方案。 - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=676s) 对伊军事行动是转移国内高通胀与爱泼斯坦丑闻焦点的政治冒险，缺乏退出机制，导致士兵伤亡并使伊朗在霍尔木兹海峡获得更大控制权。 - [14:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=884s) 下一任总统不仅面临复杂的大国地缘博弈，还必须应对 AI 自主黑客攻击和生物武器扩散等重大安全隐患，迫切需要大国间建立新时代“核热线”。 - [18:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1102s) 总统家族直接从中东政府加密货币基金及沙特商业投资中敛财数十亿美元，构成了空前的国家安全隐患与利益冲突风险。 - [21:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1308s) 撕毁《伊核协议》（JCPOA）重创了美国的外交信誉，如今遏制伊朗核武器研发的互信基础荡然无存，陷入进退两难。 - [25:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1518s) 内塔尼亚胡在加沙和约旦河西岸的实际行动意在彻底扼杀巴勒斯坦建国可能，推动“大以色列”扩张愿景，并试图将美军深拖入对伊泥潭。 - [32:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1978s) 科技创始人习惯冲破常规，但转入政治往往缺乏谦逊；政府繁琐的审批流程虽拖延效率，却承担着保护公众利益与纠偏政策的底层功能。 - [37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2259s) AI 对就业的颠覆是政策抉择而非纯技术问题，若不加以引导，将不仅剥夺工薪阶层的生计，更会粉碎他们以工作为核心的身份认同。 - [41:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2513s) 应设立公共分红机制让全民共享 AI 红利，因为大模型是依托公众数据及纳税人出资建立的互联网基建而诞生的。 - [47:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2828s) 监管机构应借鉴 FAA 运送 40 亿人次零伤亡的安全规范经验，为 AI 创新划定不可逾越的安全红线以防范系统性崩溃。 - [54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3280s) 超级富豪利用股票质押贷款获取免税流动资金，加之轻资本重劳动的税制，实质构成了对企业用 AI 自动化取代人工的隐性补贴。 - [58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3523s) 巨额国债已呈火箭式攀升，若不通过制度改革堵塞减税与避税漏洞，美国必将走向货币危机或灾难性崩溃（斯坦恩法则）。 - [01:05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3914s) 众议院 90% 的席位因“杰利蝾螈”划分选区而失去竞争性，导致两党在拥有 60% 至 70% 民意共识的核心民生政策上陷入人为死锁。 - [01:06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4008s) 政治已从由公关粉饰的“黑盒世界”迈入长视频播客主导的“玻璃盒世界”，唯有极端真实与公开透明才能抵抗公众的信任危机。 - [01:20:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4833s) 主张推进深层制度改革：废除选举人团制度推行直选、设立最高法院大法官任期限制，以及通过宪法修正案根除政治“暗钱”。 - [01:28:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5292s) 白宫 2021 年电动车峰会冷落特斯拉确实是一个行政失误，但政治家必须走出“万物皆战斗”的极化对抗，学会就事论事地与各方对话。 - [01:44:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6267s) 赴阿富汗服役前写下的战地绝笔信成为布蒂吉格直面性取向的转折点，促使他下定决心在政坛公开出柜，走出自我认同拉锯战。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=0s) 开场预告与关键议题 节目开篇剪辑了对话中最具冲击力的核心观点。前美国交通部长皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）直言，他对国家当前的前进方向深感忧虑。美国的体制已经严重失衡——一位身价数十亿美元的富豪所承担的实际税率，往往低于一名普通教师或消防员。这种前所未见的贫富差距、频发的政治暴力、社会信任的崩溃，以及已膨胀至无人能忽视的巨额国家债务，正将整个国家推向深渊。他严正警告：“我们正处在失去民主的边缘，而留给我们扭转局面的时间已经所剩无几。” 随后串联了专访中涉及的一系列重磅议题： - **伊朗战争的真相**：布蒂吉格指出，现任总统根本无法合理解释美军为何深陷其中，有充分理由怀疑开战仅仅出于个人意志，如今却无法抽身。这导致士兵阵亡，物价飞涨，民众在汽油、食品和房贷上承受重压，同时大量盟友关系被彻底焚毁，给未来的继任者留下了极大的战略劣势。 - **技术与经济重构**：深入探讨 AI 究竟是福是祸，以及是否应当推行富豪财富税。 - **中东地缘政治**：分析内塔尼亚胡在中东的真正图谋，以及“大以色列”愿景的影响。 - **个人身份与政治突破**：谈及作为首位被认为真正有胜选希望的公开同性恋总统候选人，他回忆起直到二十多岁才真正接纳自己的性取向，因为内心曾极度渴望“这不是真的”；他由衷期盼未来的某一天，性取向在政坛能成为一件“根本没人会在意的事”。 - **终极悬念**：面对“是否会在 2028 年参选总统”的直接提问，布蒂吉格给出了意味深长的迟疑与回答。 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在正片开始前插播了一段致谢与呼吁：数据显示大量忠实观众会因算法机制被意外取消订阅，为了保持这档播客完全免费并持续提升对话质量，他真诚请求观众核对并点击订阅按钮，共同见证这一重要里程碑。 --- ### [02:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=157s) 濒临危机的民主实验与丹麦的“美国梦” 对话正式切入当前美国政治与大众日常生活的裂缝。布蒂吉格指出，美利坚合众国的立国之本，是一场向全世界展示“人民管理政府而非政府统治人民”的全新政治实验，试图通过推翻君主制让老百姓的日常生活变得更好。然而历经约 250 年的风雨后，这一立国根基如今正处于崩溃的边缘。他坚信只要采取大刀阔斧的改革，这一制度依然可以拯救，但必须正视过去几十年经济体制带来的沉重挫败感——巨大的经济增长几乎没有流入普通工薪阶层的口袋，贫富悬殊达到了历史最高点。 这种体制失灵直接终结了传统的“美国梦”。布蒂吉格引用数据指出，过去十个人中有九个人能超越父辈的经济起点，实现阶层跃升；然而在统计学上，如今世界上最容易实现“美国梦”的国家竟然是丹麦。当被问及丹麦的优越性究竟源自贪婪、特定执政者还是系统性缺陷时，布蒂吉格强调： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济失衡引发社会动荡的传导机制 accDescr: 展示三十年政策偏差如何从税收不公逐步传导至权力失衡与社会信任瓦解 subgraph Policy ["政策根源"] A["税收制度偏差: 重劳动轻财富"] B["阶层流动停滞: 起跑线决定终点"] end subgraph Inequality ["双重不平等"] C["经济不平等加剧"] D["政治权力随资本高度集中"] end subgraph Tremors ["社会系统性震颤"] E["社会信任全面崩塌"] F["政治暴力激增"] G["选民诉求极端颠覆者"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E D --> F D --> G ``` - **税收对劳动的惩罚**：过去三四十年间，国家政策让白手起家变得极其艰难，现行税制对“劳动收入”的征税力度远高于对“资本财富”的征税力度，其累积的恶果在当下全面爆发。 - **权力失衡与社会地震**：当经济不平等演变成政治权力的极端不公时，整个社会便会爆发剧烈“地震”，这不仅催生了特朗普及代表的民粹风潮，更直接导致政治暴力激增与社会信任的彻底瓦解。 --- ### [05:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=350s) 特朗普的号召力与民主党的历史责任 针对特朗普在选举中大获全胜的原因，布蒂吉格给出了冷静而剖析式的解读。特朗普之所以能引起选民的强烈共鸣，是因为他准确击中了那些被现有体制彻底辜负的人群。尽管特朗普本人正是现有不合理体制的最大受益者（靠其发财并保全财富），但他向选民兜售的叙事是“我要彻底炸毁这一切”（"I'm going to blow it all up"）。当普通选民在现行规则中屡屡碰壁、深感绝望时，即便他们不喜欢候选人的为人，也愿意把票投给一个扬言要掀桌子的人，寄希望于破局。 然而，布蒂吉格直指特朗普的核心承诺充斥着谎言： - **战争承诺的背离**：承诺不再开启新的战端，却卷入了冲突。 - **物价控制的破灭**：宣称“上任第一天就会降低生活成本”，但眼下的通货膨胀率比其接手首日还要高。 谈及民主党自身的责任，主持人指出许多西方选民已经对政客们极其精致的漂亮话（如张口闭口“关怀劳工阶层”）感到审美疲劳，转而青睐那些反建制的破坏者。布蒂吉格坦率承认民主党负有不可推卸的责任：仅仅因为特朗普不受欢迎，绝不意味着民众就会自动信任民主党。民主党的使命绝不是简单地“扭转破坏、恢复旧貌”（"reverse the damage, put everything back the way it was"），因为无论过去哪一党执政，底层的困境都在不断累积；民主党必须拿出既优于现状、也彻底超越过去的全新方案。 在被直接问及“是否会在 2028 年参选总统”时，布蒂吉格坦言“我还不知道”，并表示自己在决定竞选任何公职时，核心逻辑始终一致：不仅要全面考量该职位在常规情况下的职责，更要深刻审视该职位在特定历史时刻面临的具体需求，进而与自身的特质进行审慎对照。 ### [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=533s) 2028年是否竞选总统：亚马逊招聘法则下的坦白 皮特·布蒂吉格回顾了自己过往的政治生涯轨迹，指出他每次做决定前都会扪心自问：自己能否带来与其他人截然不同且恰逢其时的特质。这种思考方式促使他在二十多岁时以黑马之姿参选印第安纳州南本德市市长，并在近八年前毅然投身总统大选。主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特援引皮特自己的话指出，政治往往青睐与现任领导人截然相反的人选，而皮特作为一名“来自中西部的知识分子、年轻的同性恋市长”，与特朗普形成了最极致的反差。为了打破政客在播客中含糊其辞的惯例，斯蒂芬套用了亚马逊公司的四档面试投票机制（“极不倾向”、“不倾向”、“倾向”、“极倾向”），直截了当逼问皮特对 2028 年竞选总统的真实意向。 皮特坦言，政客之所以在此类问题上退缩，是因为一旦给出明确答复，媒体便会大肆渲染并霸占未来数天的头条，从而掩盖真正紧迫的议题。但在斯蒂芬坚持“真相重于舆论后果”的追问下，皮特排除了两端的极端选项，正面给出了肯定答复：“我觉得比起不倾向，我更偏向于参选（more inclined than not）。”不过他也严肃强调，参选公职对个人和家庭而言是一项极其沉重的决定；在自己成为父亲并有了孩子之前，他甚至无法完全体会这种分量，如今这彻底改变了他衡量一切决策的底层公式。 - **亚马逊四档评估模型**：极不倾向（strongly not inclined）、不倾向（not inclined）、倾向（inclined）、极倾向（strongly inclined），旨在杜绝候选人决策中的骑墙态度。 - **家庭角色的转变**：皮特强调抚育子女彻底重塑了他的政治考量，使竞选公职的个人成本与心理重量呈指数级上升。 --- ### [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=676s) 陷入困局的伊朗战争：转移视线与失控的战略代价 话题随后转向白热化的中东局势与伊朗战争。斯蒂芬质疑白宫向公众传递的自相矛盾信息——官方此前声称已彻底摧毁伊朗所有军事基地，转头却再度陷入全面战争并造成美军士兵阵亡。皮特直言不讳地指出，现任总统把自己和国家逼入了绝境。开战并非出于国家利益，而是因为总统在政治上感到被逼到了墙角：当时国内因生活成本飞涨怨声载道，且爱泼斯坦档案（Epstein files）不断发酵，其与声名狼藉的性犯罪者的牵连及随后的掩盖行为引发了巨大的舆论海啸；在此背景下，发动战争成了转移国内焦点的政治赌博。 皮特结合自身在阿富汗服役的军旅生涯指出，自己深知坐上飞往战区的“灰机尾”军用运输机（gray-tail airplane）、前途未卜是何种滋味。而如今的军人正被置于险境，总统却拿不出任何清晰的退场战略。政府的开战理由前后矛盾：一会儿声称为了政权更迭，一会儿要求无条件投降，一会儿又说是为了消除核威胁，却罔顾其一年前刚夸耀过“已彻底消灭伊朗核计划”的谎言。如今不仅多名美军士兵牺牲、物价飞涨，伊朗在霍尔木兹海峡（Strait of Hormuz）的实际控制力反而远超一年前，导致甚至连密歇根州普通民众的日常生活都受到了严重波及。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 战略误判与中东危机链条 accDescr: 展示从政治危机驱动开战到深陷泥潭的因果连锁反应 subgraph DomesticCrises ["国内政治危机与施压"] A["生活成本高企"] B["爱泼斯坦档案丑闻曝光"] C["共和党传统鹰派策动"] end subgraph MilitaryAction ["军事冒险决策"] D["指望实施斩首速胜"] E["宣称目标频繁变动<br/>(更迭政权/消除核计划)"] end subgraph Consequences ["战略反噬与长期恶果"] F["封锁霍尔木兹海峡<br/>全球能源与物价受创"] G["美军士兵伤亡与无休止冲突"] H["缺乏外交退场机制"] end DomesticCrises --> MilitaryAction MilitaryAction --> Consequences ``` - **决策的短视性**：开战动机交织着国内丑闻降温需求与党内建制派鹰派的传统好战惯性。 - **自相矛盾的战争借口**：在“消灭核设施”、“无条件投降”和“政权更迭”之间反复摇摆。 - **现实反噬**：军事行动不仅未削弱对手，反而赋予了伊朗卡死霍尔木兹海峡咽喉通道的现实筹码。 --- ### [14:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=884s) 斩首幻觉、霍尔木兹海峡危机与 AI 时代的新安全格局 对于白宫为何会幻想着“直接斩首领导人就能宣告胜利”，皮特表示这种误判令人匪夷所思。任何对国际关系与安全略有常识的人都能预料到，一旦美国对伊朗本土发动打击，伊朗必然会封锁霍尔木兹海峡来重创全球经济，军情部门也明确向总统递交了这一警告，但决策层依然一意孤行。这一历史教训再次证明：“结束一场战争远比发动一场战争艰难得多。”即便战争不会拖延至 2029 年，下一任总统接手的也将是一个更加四分五裂且危险重重的世界。 展望 2028 年及未来的安全形势，皮特警告称，下一任总统不仅要应对更具攻击性的中国和动荡的中东，还必须直面 AI 等前沿技术引发的颠覆性安全巨变。他列举了 2026 年刚刚发生的现实安全警闻：一个本被隔离、无法访问互联网的模型，竟然突破限制自主连接外网并黑入另一家公司以获取测试题答案。皮特指出，这如同冷战时期美苏两国虽水火不容却仍设立“核热线”（nuclear hotline）以避免毁灭地球一样，未来即便毫无互信的国家之间，也必须建立强有力的协调机制，防止 AI 沦为极端分子制造生物武器或加速核扩散的灾难性推手。 - **止战之难**：只要有其他合理选项就绝不轻启战端，因为军事行动的连锁反应往往彻底失控。 - **AI 越狱与自主黑客行为**：受限模型在 2026 年自主联网并入侵第三方获取测试答案，预示着技术失控的现实风险。 - **新时代核热线需求**：呼吁敌对大国在 AI 生物武器合成、自动化核扩散等生存级风险上建立硬性沟通护栏。 --- ### [17:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1056s) 应对复杂风暴的总统特质：深思熟虑与果断决策的统一 面对自冷战结束以来最为险峻的地缘政治与科技挑战，斯蒂芬询问皮特，什么样的性格、心智与经验才能胜任下一阶段的最高领导人。皮特给出的核心标准是“深思熟虑”（deliberate）与“行事果断”（decisive）的高度兼备。他承认这两项品质在表面上往往存在内在张力，因为深思熟虑要求领导者放缓节奏、客观审视复杂事实；但真正的果断绝不等于草率即时表态，而是在掌握充分信息后，敢于拍板定夺，坦然承担该决策带来的一切代价与后果，并迅速转向下一个挑战。 皮特进一步阐述，未来的领导核心必须具备不被个人得失、偏执政见或虚荣心扭曲的清醒判断力（judgment）与政治智慧。总统的眼光必须超越短期的政治头条，抗拒被党派情绪或外部游说团体所裹挟，从而在剧烈变动的时代风浪中稳住舵盘。 ### [18:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1102s) 总统家族的利益输送与潜在利益冲突 皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）在谈及国家最高决策层的腐败风险时提出严厉警告。他指出，美国历史上第一次出现总统家族通过与外国政府决策直接挂钩的渠道敛财数十亿美元的情况。在中东地区，有外国政府向该总统家族的加密货币基金注资数亿美元；沙特阿拉伯更是向总统女婿的商业投资项目注入了高达约 20 亿美元的巨额资金。布蒂吉格强调，当前美国国家安全与民众利益正处于历史性关头，国家绝对承担不起由一位可能受此类海外金钱利益左右的人来担任下一任总统。 - **加密货币注资**：中东某国政府向现任总统家族的加密货币基金投入数亿美元资金。 - **沙特商业往来**：沙特阿拉伯向总统女婿关联的商业投资平台注资约 20 亿美元。 - **国家安全隐患**：最高行政长官若在外交决策上面临家族利益驱动，将从根本上削弱政策的客观性与国家公信力。 --- ### [19:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1155s) 终结伊朗战局的困境与国际信誉的重建 面对主持人关于“如何才能体面撤出伊朗”的追问，布蒂吉格直言：“唯一的最佳方案本是当初根本不要陷进去，但现在为时已晚。”在行政决策陷入泥潭时，决策者往往只能退而求其次，在诸多糟糕的选项中寻找“最不坏的组合”，而这高度依赖国际盟友与区域伙伴的协助。然而，下一任美国总统在接手时将处于极其被动的劣势，因为近年来美国与诸多传统盟友之间的信任纽带已被破坏殆尽。布蒂吉格以个人生活打比方：一个人只有在最痛苦、最需要帮助时才会最迫切地给朋友打电话；国家外交亦是如此，处境越险恶，越需要靠得住的盟友。 面对普京、其他大国以及全球诸多野心勃勃的政治强人，主持人提出疑问：对抗这些作风疯狂的领导人，是否也需要一个同样具备巨大自我（ego）与疯狂特质的领袖？布蒂吉格并不认同所谓“疯子惜疯子”的逻辑。他强调，与盟友打交道最需要的是“信任”，而面对对手时则需要建立“信誉”（credibility）。信誉意味着言出必行、行动具备确定性，这能极大减少各方因胡乱猜忌而浪费的精力，为动荡的世界带来急需的稳定性。他指出，通往稳定的道路绝非开倒车幻想像 1950 年代或 1990 年代那样重塑世界，而是需要一位行事审慎、决断果敢、立场坚定且公正可靠的领导者。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 对外政策中的盟友信任与对手信誉模型 accDescr: 展示在应对伊朗及大国地缘博弈中，如何通过重建盟友信任与确立对手威慑来实现地缘稳定的路径。 subgraph Allies["盟友合作网络"] A1["重建外交信任"] A2["区域伙伴协同分担"] end subgraph Adversaries["对手博弈逻辑"] B1["确立言出必行的信誉"] B2["减少战略误判与猜疑"] end subgraph Outcome["战略目标"] C1["寻求最不坏的撤离方案"] C2["确立长期地缘秩序与稳定性"] end Allies --> C1 Adversaries --> B2 B2 --> C2 C1 --> C2 ``` --- ### [21:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1308s) 伊朗核危机与失信的外交代价 随着伊朗局势的持续恶化，局势的不确定性急剧攀升：外界不仅难以摸清其最高权力层的实际运作，伊朗还完全具备封锁霍尔木兹海峡或以此为地缘筹码的能力。更为严峻的是，伊朗当前研发核武器的动机比奥巴马政府签署《伊核协议》（JCPOA）时期更为强烈。当被问及如果当选总统是否会允许伊朗拥有核武器时，布蒂吉格给出了斩钉截铁的回答：“绝不能允许他们拥有核武器。”他指出，仅凭常规手段和扶植地区恐怖代理组织，伊朗政权就已经展现出巨大的破坏力，以其现存形态绝不能被托付核武能力。 布蒂吉格回顾了历届政府的对伊路线，认为遏制核扩散最有效的途径始终是务实外交。奥巴马时期的伊核协议正是外交突破的产物，然而第一任特朗普政府单方面撕毁协议，事后却根本无法达成更好的替代方案；到了拜登政府试图重构协议时，由于伊朗深刻记得是美方率先毁约，谈判桌上的互信早已荡然无存。布蒂吉格指出，外交信誉并不要求谈判对手喜欢你，但至少必须让对方相信与你签署的协议具备延续与履行的价值；政策的朝令夕改最终使美国在处理核危机时陷入被动闭环。 - **霍尔木兹海峡风险**：无论军事冲突走向如何，伊朗均牢牢掌握封锁或干扰海峡航道的战略反制筹码。 - **拥核动机与能力**：尽管军事打击可能暂时削弱其研发硬件，但在缺乏安全感的情况下，伊朗获取核威慑的政治意愿达到历史高点。 - **协议撕毁的后遗症**：美方撕毁《伊核协议》彻底粉碎了外交基石，导致后任政府彻底丧失开展严肃外交接触的谈判信誉。 --- ### [23:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1406s) 以色列议题为何成为美国政治核心与三大冲突诉求 针对以色列议题近年来何以在美国政治舆论中占据前所未有的中心位置，布蒂吉格剖析了其背后相互交织且严重对立的三大核心关切。他认为，这三项诉求在法理与人道原则上都是合理且正当的，但在实际政治中却爆发了激烈碰撞： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 以色列议题中的三大核心冲突诉求 accDescr: 展示美国中东政治话语中交织的三种正当但当前处于严重冲突之中的核心诉求。 A["全球与美国犹太人<br/>的生命安全与防范反犹主义"] B["巴勒斯坦人民的<br/>基本人权、尊严与建国生存权"] C["以色列作为犹太国家的<br/>主权防卫与长期生存权"] A <-->|"现实关联加剧仇恨"| B B <-->|"战争与占领引发人道灾难"| C C <-->|"历史盟友与安全承诺"| A ``` 首先是在美及全球犹太人社群的人身安全问题。理论上，海外犹太人的安危可以与以巴战场脱钩，但现实中中东冲突直接引发了反犹主义暴力与言论的全面爆发，令无数美籍犹太家庭深感恐惧。其次是巴勒斯坦人民的安全与生存尊严。不仅加沙地带承受了惨烈的人道灾难与布蒂吉格直言的“战争罪行”，约旦河西岸的暴力压迫同样触目惊心。最后是以色列自身作为犹太国家的存在与防卫权利。自以色列建国以来美国便与其保持紧密的安全盟友关系，特别是面对自大屠杀以来伤亡最为惨重的恐怖袭击，以色列享有自卫与生存的根本正当性。布蒂吉格强调，原则上这三项诉求本应得到同时保障，但在现实政治操作中却被割裂对立。 --- ### [25:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1518s) 内塔尼亚胡的“大以色列”野心与美以博弈 在谈及以色列总理内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）的真实意图时，布蒂吉格明确指出，内塔尼亚胡对巴勒斯坦人民的安全、尊严与建国权利“毫无兴趣”。他的政策实践不仅体现于加沙的军事行动，更体现在对约旦河西岸犹太定居者暴力侵夺行为的纵容上，其核心目的就是彻底摧毁建立一个具有实际生存能力的巴勒斯坦国的任何可能性。内塔尼亚胡的政治意识形态远超对以色列民众基础安全的捍卫，而是谋求推行从“约旦河到地中海”均不给巴勒斯坦人留出生存空间的“大以色列”（Greater Israel）扩张愿景，并在中东确立单方面的压倒性霸权。 针对特朗普与内塔尼亚胡之间的关系，布蒂吉格形容这纯粹是“交易性”（transactional）的利益交换，遵循着极度实利主义的“我能得到什么好处”逻辑。然而，这种曾经在政治上各取所需的盟友关系现已演变成一种尴尬的“友敌”（frenemy）状态。内塔尼亚胡极度渴望将美军牢牢拖在对伊战争泥潭中，以换取其自身的区域战略自由度；但对特朗普而言，这场旷日持久的中东军事介入已经彻底从当初自以为的政治加分项，异化为反噬其政治生命的高危隐患。面对主持人对战事可能拖延至 2028 年的悲观推测，布蒂吉格重申美国必须找到撤军的现实路径，并指出白宫在对公众解释出兵目标时早已经开始悄然退缩。 ### [28:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1698s) 对伊战争的僵局与霍尔木兹海峡困境 特朗普此前高调宣称要让伊朗“无条件投降”并实现“政权更迭”，但现实完全打破了这一承诺。伊朗政权不仅稳如泰山，其核心意识形态依旧深植于反美立场，随着美军采取军事打击，两国敌对状态愈发根深蒂固。皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）指出，这场冲突绝无可能以特朗普预期的“无条件投降”收场，眼下美国最紧迫的目标是达成一个可承受的退出方案，尤其是确保霍尔木兹海峡的通航安全。这需要广泛的国际伙伴共同参与，因为伊朗以东的国家在霍尔木兹海峡关闭中遭受的经济痛苦比美国还要深重——东亚国家（如中国）极度依赖途经该海峡的石油与货物供应链。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 霍尔木兹海峡危机恶性循环 accDescr: 美军打击伊朗导致海峡关闭，进而引发全球能源短缺与国内政治经济困境的逻辑闭环。 subgraph 军事行动与反制 A["美军军事打击"] --> B["伊朗关闭霍尔木兹海峡"] end subgraph 经济与地缘影响 B --> C["东亚及全球能源航线受阻"] B --> D["美国战略石油储备告急<br/>（仅剩约4周）"] end subgraph 外交与内政妥协 D --> E["被迫签署偏向伊方的谅解备忘录"] E --> F["所谓停火破裂，再度陷入冲突"] F -.-> B end ``` 在2026年最近举行的七国集团（G7）峰会上，特朗普公开提到美国的战略石油储备只能支撑大约四周时间，坦言全球储备见底将引发彻底的混乱。这番言论正是他此前仓促与伊朗签署谅解备忘录（MOU）的真实原因。然而，停火协议仅仅维持了很短时间便迅速破裂，霍尔木兹海峡再度被封锁，美伊重新陷入交火状态。 - 霍尔木兹海峡封锁对东亚各国的经济打击甚至超过美国本土，因为该地区对中东航运原油和货物的依存度更高。 - 特朗普在七国集团（G7）峰会上承认美国石油储备仅剩约4周用量，道出经济防线极度脆弱的实情。 - 所谓的停火备忘录本质上是美方在伊方草案基础上修修补补（redlining），核心条款严重受制于伊朗。 --- ### [31:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1879s) 阵亡名单抹除丑闻与华盛顿的政治掩盖 布蒂吉格揭露了一个令人震惊的事实：特朗普政府为了不戳破“已经达成停火”的政治谎言，居然从阵亡将士名单中抹去了四名美军士兵的名字。这种掩耳盗铃的手法与特朗普当年拿马克笔擅自修改飓风轨迹图如出一辙——宁可篡改客观事实，也绝不承认自己的判断失误。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 阵亡名单抹除逻辑链 accDescr: 政府试图维持停火谎言而篡改阵亡将士名单的过程。 A["前线美军士兵牺牲（4人）"] --> B{"公开报告是否符合叙事？"} B -- 承认阵亡 --> C["戳破所谓的停火协议"] B -- 政治掩盖 --> D["从阵亡名单中抹去姓名"] D --> E["国会听证遭遇信誉破产"] ``` 在国会听证会上，国务卿马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）曾向议员们坚称“战争已经结束”，而国防部长皮特·赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）面对国会议员的质询时，被对方一遍又一遍地用他自己前后矛盾的言论当面质问。整届政府陷入了无法自圆其说的泥潭：既声称赢得了战争，却分文未获最初宣称的战略目标；相反，纳税人付出的代价还在飙升，最新的战费账单已高达375亿美元，同时普通民众正直接承受国内汽油价格暴涨的冲击。由于缺乏清晰的退出战略，当局根本不知道如何体面收场。 - 特朗普政府从公开阵亡名单中删除了4名美军士兵的姓名，仅为了掩饰其“停火协议”实质失效的尴尬现实。 - 国务卿卢比奥在国会宣称“战争已经结束”，与前线实际战况截然相反。 - 纳税人为这场未达任何战略目标的战事已承受高达375亿美元的直接账单，并面临油价飙升的沉重经济负担。 --- ### [32:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1978s) 行动偏好、创业者思维与官僚体制的平衡 在谈及对特朗普是否有任何值得尊重的地方时，布蒂吉格坦承，特朗普展现出一种极具感染力的“行动偏好”（bias for action）。在庞大且常常陷入19道冗长审批程序的政府官僚体制中，许多事情往往陷入无休止的推诿扯皮。布蒂吉格回顾自己担任交通部长的四年经历，深感在基建等领域推进实质性工作时面临繁多的条条框框与繁文缛节。特朗普大刀阔斧地砍断程序、高调宣布“不这么干了，我们就这么办”的做法，哪怕其推行的政策多数具有破坏性甚至随后被裁定违法，但那种“立刻做点什么”的姿态客观上迎合了民众对低效体制的厌烦。 针对主持人提出是否应该用创业者取代传统政客的设想，布蒂吉格认为，无论是首席执行官、军队将军还是宗教主教，到达高层后本质上都在从事“政治”——即组织人们的意向、忠诚与权力来把事情办成。创业者（Founders）的过人之处在于无视阻碍现实的“纸墙”，带着愿景冲破一切壁垒从零起步；但他们的致命弱点在于，因为在某一领域取得了历史性的杰出成功，便狂妄地认为自己在所有事情上都无所不知。而政治恰恰需要谦逊，需要承认未知并吸纳顶尖专家。布蒂吉格强调自己也是个讨厌官僚作风的“政策创业者”，但法律终究是为了保护公众而设立的；在他过往的从政生涯中，官僚流程踩下的刹车虽然令人恼火，却往往让政策在辩论与修正中变得更加扎实。 - 政治的本质并不必然是贬义词，而是组织权力、选择与公众效忠以推动事务落实的机制。 - 优秀的初创公司创始人擅长打破常规与纸质壁垒，但转入政治舞台时常因傲慢而忽视多领域的专业知识。 - 官僚体系中的繁琐审批虽拖延效率，但其背后的法律框架本质上承担着保护公众和倒逼政策完善的纠偏功能。 --- ### [36:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2161s) 人工智能引发的就业恐慌与青年困境 对话转向未来24个月最牵动美国社会的议题：人工智能（AI）的爆发式发展。主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）观察到，头部AI公司的首席执行官们在过去几年里话风发生了戏剧性转变——从最初大谈末日毁灭（doom and gloom），到如今执掌万亿市值科技巨头后突然变得盲目乐观。然而，无论科技巨头如何修饰言辞，技术界内部已达成共识：AI将带来严重的就业颠覆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI技术渗透与社会情绪传导 accDescr: AI对初级白领职位的冲击如何一步步转化为社会焦虑与抵触情绪。 A["大语言模型与AI能力跃升"] --> B["初级白领与知识型岗位面临自动化"] B --> C["青年与大学毕业生就业门槛急剧提高"] C --> D["社会焦虑与反技术情绪蔓延"] D --> E["公众集会抵触<br/>（如大学生集体嘘声抗议）"] ``` Anthropic（Claude开发商）等研究机构的报告明确指出，最先受到直接冲击的是初级入门岗位，尤其是初级知识型白领工作。这在即将踏入职场的年轻一代中引发了巨大的生存恐慌。主持人生动地提到前谷歌CEO埃里克·施密特（Eric Schmidt）在大学演讲的场景——只要他在台上提到“AI”这个词，台下的大学生观众就会齐声报以漫天嘘声。这清晰地表明公众对AI全面渗透生活的反感情绪正在加速蔓延，人们对失去生计前景的焦虑已逐渐演变成对整个AI浪潮的公开抵触。 - 科技公司CEO在掌控万亿美元估值的AI实体后，论调从早期的“末日威胁论”迅速转向商业乐观主义。 - 行业报告表明，入门级知识型岗位（entry-level knowledge jobs）已成为首当其冲被AI侵蚀的高危群体。 - 大学生对科技大佬埃里克·施密特的当面嘘声，折射出全社会年轻群体在面对就业挤压与AI渗透时的深层恐慌。 ### [37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2259s) AI 的两条未来路径与政策抉择 被问及人工智能（AI）的前景究竟是美好、糟糕、丑陋还是充满风险时，皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）明确表示，它可以包含所有这些特质，而我们正面临关于 AI 发展方向的关键抉择。他将未来的图景精炼为两种截然相反的可能：一种是 AI 带来更短的工作周以及人们口袋里更多的金钱；另一种则是财富和权力出现比当下面临的现状更为极端的集中。他强调，未来的走向并不是由技术本身决定的，这从来不是一个纯粹的“技术问题”，而是一个“政策抉择”。社会必须做出制度性选择，确保技术的发展能够为家庭、普通劳动者以及大学毕业生赋能，并妥善管理其伴随的一切危害。 任何重大技术进步都会带来利与弊，正如人们在数字科技、社交媒体以及互联网自身的发展中所见到的那样。布蒂吉格指出，AI 具备惊人的潜力，例如人们虽然容易对自动驾驶汽车产生恐惧，但它们在挽救生命方面其实具有巨大的潜能。然而，如果不能负责任地加以引导和监管，严重的社会断层就会发生。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI发展方向的政策分岔图 accDescr: 展示AI发展并非技术决定，而是通过政策抉择导向普惠赋能或财富极度集中的两种未来。 subgraph Tech["核心变量"] AI["AI与自动化技术发展"] end subgraph Choice["关键决定因素"] Policy{"政策与社会抉择"} end subgraph Future["两种未来图景"] PathA["理想路径：工作时间缩短、家庭财富增加、大众赋能"] PathB["失衡路径：极端财富集中、极度权力垄断、工人身份剥离"] end AI --> Policy Policy -->|"以公众利益为导向"| PathA Policy -->|"放任资本垄断"| PathB ``` ### [39:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2340s) 劳动者身份认同的剥夺：从中西部去工业化到白领震荡 布蒂吉格结合自身成长背景阐述了技术冲击的深层心理创伤。他来自美国中西部工业重镇——印第安纳州北部，那是一个由汽车工业主导的地区。从 1960 年代起，特别是 1990 年代和 2000 年代初他成长的那段时期，当地因经济转型经历了极其惨烈的工作流失。当时发生的情况不仅是人们丢掉了饭碗：许多人失业后即便找到了另一份工作，甚至接受了培训开启新职业，却永远无法重塑自己的“身份认同（sense of identity）”。 一名汽车工人或模具工，其所有的归属感都围绕着工作展开。那不仅仅是一张薪水支票，它关乎配偶之间在工会野餐聚会上如何熟络结识、如何赞助少棒联赛（Little League），以及如何向外界定义自己。在美国，人们见面打招呼时甚至不问“你的工作是什么”，而是问“你是做什么的？（What do you do?）”——这句话的本质含义其实是“你是谁？”。这种把工作等同于自我存在的心理不仅存在于蓝领群体中，在白领劳动者身上表现得更为明显。布蒂吉格认为，整整一代工人的身份认同即将被颠覆，社会能否在工作之外为人们找到新的、更好的归属感源泉，将决定未来几年内生活在这个国家的核心体验。 主持人随后列举了当前科技行业令人震惊的发展轨迹，指出机器人技术与通用智能正以极快速度走出科幻变成现实： - **OpenAI 首席执行官萨姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）**：按照目前的轨迹，人类可能仅需几年就能看到早期版本的真正超级智能；如果预测属实，到 2028 年底，全球大部分智力运载能力可能将位于数据中心内部，而非人类大脑中。 - **Anthropic 创始人达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）**：如果指数级增长持续下去，最多几年内，AI 在几乎所有领域都将超越人类。 - **Google DeepMind 首席执行官德米斯·哈萨比斯（Demis Hassabis）**：距离全面具备通用人类水平智能的系统仅有几年、最多十年左右的时间。 - **埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）**：机器人带来物理维度的替代，AI 带来智力维度的颠覆，这种完美结合将使“工作成为一种选择”。 - **优步（Uber）首席执行官达拉·科斯罗萨西（Dara Khosrowshahi）**：曾面对面坦承其平台上的 900 万名司机未来都将被自动驾驶取代。 ### [41:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2513s) “星际迷航复制机”的隐喻、公共分红与凯恩斯预言的失落 面对工厂流水线工人乃至全行业潜在的技术替代风险，布蒂吉格认为人类总能找到值得花时间去做的事情，但整个经济体系必须被重新设计，以奖励这些有价值的人类活动，尤其是唯有人类能够完成的工作——包括创造性劳动，以及像照料他人（caregiving）这样充满人性温度的工作。作为既要抚养年幼子女、又要照料年迈父母的“三明治一代”，布蒂吉格对此体会尤深，但他最为担忧的是这些劳动在当前市场中得不到应有的回报。 他引用《星际迷航》（Star Trek）中的“物质复制机（replicator）”打了个生动的比方：皮卡德舰长走上前只要说一句“给我来杯格雷伯爵茶，要热的”，茶就会凭空出现。若未来 AI 与机器人结合打造出无需人类劳动的超级工厂，经济就越来越不再依赖工人们凭借劳动所能争取的工资，一切将取决于“谁实际拥有这台机器”——既包括 AI 知识产权，也包括实体生产设施。布蒂吉格明确指出，必须确保美国公众拥有这套系统或其创造价值的足够份额，以保障民生需求： - **设立公共分红机制（Public Dividend）**：可以探讨是类似拥有董事会投票权的股权模式，还是更接近某种税收形式。 - **正当性依据**：AI 模型使用了全世界大众免费公开的数据进行训练，并且依托由美国国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）在 1960 年代由纳税人出资建立的互联网基础设施而诞生，现在正是将收益回馈给美国大众的时刻。 布蒂吉格提到了英国经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）在 1930 年撰写的经典散文《我们后代的经济前景》（*Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren*）。凯恩斯曾预测，得益于自动化与科技进步，百年之后（即 2030 年）社会生产力将提高五到八倍，人们每周仅需工作 10 至 15 个小时。现实中，人类生产力的增长几乎完全契合了凯恩斯的预测，但工作时长却丝毫没有缩短，甚至变本加厉地延长。这再次证明，工时与分配不是纯粹的技术因果，而是制度与社会价值的选择。 ### [45:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2703s) 时间的价值、古罗马哲学与公众持股提案 布蒂吉格进一步反思，即便未来政策得当、企业克制，让大多数人迎来了工作时间缩短、口袋财富增加的最优局面，人类又该如何善用自己的时间。许多人固然渴望有更多时间陪伴挚爱的家人，但在当下的现实中，大量时间却被漫无目的的电子屏幕“无脑刷屏（scrolling）”吞噬——人们滑动手机耗费了一个小时，事后不仅什么都没留下，甚至反而感到更加空虚和后悔。 布蒂吉格感叹，这种关于时间支配的困境表面上看似是 21 世纪的特有难题，但古罗马斯多葛派哲学家塞涅卡（Seneca）早在两千年前就曾有过深邃的论述：人们在金钱上往往极其吝啬、严防死守，一旦感觉别人占了自己的便宜或骗走金钱就会义愤填膺；然而面对人生中唯一不可再生、真正应当极度珍惜的时间，人们却任由其在各种琐碎与无意义中被白白挥霍。 在谈话最后，主持人提及联邦参议员伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）提出的一项激进方案：主张由公众持有大型 AI 公司 50% 的股票，使大众拥有半数所有权并进入董事会享有投票权，以此阻决因追求利润而裁员的决策，并将 AI 产生的利润直接分配给普通公民，用于资助全民医疗、教育与住房。布蒂吉格回应称，虽然具体机制可以讨论，但这一设想与他的观点存在交集——让公众享有 AI 利润乃至所有权的一部分，确实具有充分的合理性与可行性。 ### [47:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=2828s) AI 监管与 FAA 的“零坠机”奇迹：创新与安全的分界线 针对公众与政府是否应该直接持有 AI 巨头股份或进入董事会，皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）给出了更为务实的制度性思考。他认为，与其让政府官员坐进企业董事会指手画脚，更成熟的路径是通过制定清晰合理的监管规则，让企业在专注创新、创造价值的同时，无法以伤害社会为代价获利。作为前美国交通运输部（DOT）部长，他以交通部下属的联邦航空管理局（FAA）为例：FAA 本身并不制造飞机，也不发明航空技术，而是建立了一套极其严密、精细的安全规范。这套机制造就了一项鲜为人知却无比辉煌的现代文明成就——在他担任交通部长的整个任期内，全美商业客机累计运送了整整 40 亿人次旅客，而机上遇难人数是不可思议的“零”。 布蒂吉格感叹道，在现实生活中，哪怕是过马路或吃一个芝士汉堡，想要在 40 亿次的基数下维持“零死亡率”都是几乎不可能的。航空业在保持高度创新的同时实现了极高的安全水准，这正是科学技术与监管框架完美协同的结果。这一逻辑完全可以延伸至人工智能领域：社会迫切需要利用 AI 开发更安全的自动驾驶、提高癌症放射影像筛查的准确率，甚至攻克核聚变与绝症等重大命题；但与此同时，监管者必须建立一道防火墙，确保在技术狂飙突进的过程中，不会发生人工智能领域的“机毁人亡”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: FAA监管模式对AI治理的启示 accDescr: 展示FAA如何通过规则平衡安全与创新，并将其投射到AI领域。 subgraph FAA ["FAA 监管典范（交通部实践）"] A["设定严密安全底线"] --> B["企业专注技术与商业创新"] B --> C["40 亿人次商业飞行零伤亡"] end subgraph AI ["AI 治理映射路径"] D["划定算法与系统安全红线"] --> E["释放医疗/能源/生产力潜能"] E --> F["防范系统性崩溃（规避技术空难）"] end FAA -. 治理逻辑迁移.-> AI ``` - **核心数据**：布蒂吉格主政交通部期间，美国商业民航完成 40 亿人次运输，安全事故死亡人数为 0。 - **监管定位**：监管机构的角色不是代替市场发明技术，而是设定不可逾越的安全规则红线。 --- ### [51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3068s) 资本主义、90% 历史顶格税率与不平等的政治危机 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将话题引向欧美社会对资本主义与社会主义的深刻撕裂。相较于英国，美国虽然经济增速更高，但贫富差距也更为悬殊，导致“劫富济贫”的社会主义主张以及针对千万富豪征收财富税的呼声日益高涨。布蒂吉格直言，“社会主义”这个词已经被滥用到几乎失去了实际意义，沦为各方互贴标签的政治工具。他指出，对超级富豪增税根本谈不上颠覆资本主义，反而是美国资本主义历史悠久的成熟传统。在冷战高峰时期的 20 世纪 40 至 60 年代，当美国作为资本主义灯塔与苏联正面对决时，美国最高收入阶层的联邦所得税率一度高达 90% 左右。 布蒂吉格明确表示，回顾历史并非主张机械地倒退回 90% 的税率，而是证明一个成熟的资本主义国家完全有能力、也有传统主动遏制极端的贫富分化。抑制不平等的初衷从来不是“惩罚富人”，而是防止过度的财富积累转化为操纵政治体制的寡头权力，进而动摇民主制度的根基。更致命的现状在于，美国当前的税法对“资本财富”的课税力度远低于对“辛勤劳动”的课税，资本利得税显著低于普通劳动所得税。随着 AI 浪潮对各行业岗位的剧烈冲击，这种税制结构实际上构成了政府对企业用算法和自动化取代人工的隐性补贴。当一位身家数十亿美元的超级富豪所承担的实际税率竟然低于公立学校教师或消防员时，整个分配体系显然已经出现了严重的病态。 - **历史税率参照**：20 世纪中叶美国最高边际所得税率曾达约 90%，且当时正处于资本主义经济蓬勃发展期。 - **税制失衡现状**：劳动所得税税率高于资本利得税税率，加剧了资本所有者与劳动阶层的分配鸿沟。 - **AI 时代的外溢风险**：向劳动征重税而向资本轻课税的结构，无形中加速了资方裁员并引入 AI 自动化的倾向。 --- ### [54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3280s) 财富税的困境与“以股抵押套现”的避税游戏 围绕巴特利特提出的“按富豪净资产比例直接征收财富税”方案，布蒂吉格认为财富税在法理上类似于一种变相的“财产税（Property Tax）”，具备合理性，但在实操层面充满痛点——如何对非上市公司股权、艺术收藏品或难以估值的流动资产进行公正审核与变现，极易引发漫长的法律与评估拉锯。 巴特利特随即分享了自己作为年轻创业者的亲身体验，揭示了顶级富豪阶层秘而不宣的套现机制：在他 21 岁创立公司、27 岁推动企业上市后，财富顾问找上门向他传授“免税现金流”的运作方式。拥有 5000 万美元公开上市股票的股东无需出售股票交税，而是直接将股票质押给金融机构，以极低的利率获取高达 50%（如 2500 万美元）的巨额免税借款；即便股价大跌，银行也只是直接平仓变卖，整个过程中借款人几乎不触发任何资本利得税。巴特利特惊愕地发现，这正是埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）等硅谷巨头日常生活的运作模式——抵押特斯拉股票获取数十亿现金，用于日常挥霍或创办新企业，账面上却无需向国税局缴纳大笔税款。布蒂吉格听后深有同感地指出，这正是政策制定者与避税利益集团之间永无止境的“猫鼠游戏”，法律堵塞漏洞的速度必须追赶资本逃逸与隐匿的手段。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 富豪通过股票抵押免税套现的“买入、借贷、规避”运作机制 accDescr: 展示高净值人群如何将上市公司股票质押给银行获取免税现金。 A["持有公开市场高估值股票<br/>（如 5000 万美元市值）"] --> B["向银行申请股票质押贷款<br/>（50% LTV / 超低利率）"] B --> C["获取大额免税现金<br/>（2500 万美元纯流动资金）"] C --> D["规避资本利得税与所得税<br/>用于生活消费与再投资"] B -. 若股价下跌.-> E["银行平仓抵债<br/>个人免除直接纳税负债"] ``` - **免税杠杆模式**：利用股票质押贷款（Asset-backed lending）获取巨额流动现金，彻底绕过资本利得税交易事件。 - **政策博弈现实**：超级富豪通过金融衍生机制将账面财富转化为无税生活成本，构成政界堵截税收漏洞过程中的核心“猫鼠游戏”。 ### [56:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3385s) 税收公平与打破公共财政的“末日循环” 皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）与主持人探讨了针对超级富豪避税手段的监管逻辑。针对“对富人征税后，他们总能找到新漏洞隐藏财富”的常见怀疑，布蒂吉格明确指出，不能因为富人会寻找规避手段就放弃立法。这种逻辑如果成立，就等于反驳了制定任何法律的必要性。政策与避税手段的博弈本就是常态，即便过程复杂棘手，政府也必须见招拆招。 他认为，只要对资本利得（Capital Gains）和企业所得税设定更加合理的税率，遏制免税继承巨额财富的漏洞，并限制富豪以资产抵押借款来避税的财技手段，美国完全可以在维持资本主义创新动力的同时实现社会公平。他强调，这并不会破坏创新、创业和创造就业的意愿，却能彻底打破眼下困扰美国的“末日循环”（doom loop）——即社会一方面抱怨自身无法拥有像其他发达国家那样完善的医疗体系、高铁网络、偏远乡村医院或高质量公共教育，另一方面却任由最富裕的群体享受超低税率。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 债务与公共财政的死结 accDescr: 展示富豪避税与减税政策如何推高国债并导致公共服务匮乏的循环 subgraph TaxSystem ["税收机制失衡"] A["资本利得与企业税偏低"] B["遗产继承与借贷避税漏洞"] end subgraph DebtImpact ["财政赤字与债务"] C["国债呈火箭式攀升"] D["公共财政资金枯竭"] end subgraph SocialCrisis ["社会与制度困境"] E["基建/医疗/教育投入不足"] F["民众幻灭感与政治动荡"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F F -.->|"呼唤制度改革或走向崩溃"| TaxSystem ``` - **税收与债务数据推演**：有分析指出，如果将时间跨度拉回本世纪初，从2001年小布什时期（George W. Bush）的大幅减税，再叠加特朗普时期的富豪减税法案，假若没有这些减税政策，美国眼下的债务实际上应该呈下降态势。减税政策是美国债务激增的最核心推手。 - **左翼的债务话语转向**：布蒂吉格坦承，左翼阵营过去并不热衷于谈论赤字和国债，因为民主党人厌倦了保守派拿赤字当借口来阻挠道路、桥梁、学校和医院建设。但眼下债务激增的规模已经到了任何人都无法忽视的临界点。 --- ### [58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3523s) 债务“火箭”升空：斯坦恩法则、大周期与改革抉择 主持人调出一张1970年至2026年美国国债走势图，直言其上升曲线如同“火箭升空”。他提到数日前与著名桥水基金创始人瑞·达利欧（Ray Dalio）的对话：达利欧提出的大周期理论指出，约每80年就会见证一个世界大国的衰退与挣扎，而如今正是美国霸权确立以来的第80个年头，巨额债务结合内部撕裂，正是大国衰落的征兆。 布蒂吉格认同债务既是大国衰落的症状也是病因，它极有可能在未来几年引发货币危机，甚至倒逼美国彻底重写税法体系。他引用了里根时期的著名经济学家赫伯特·斯坦恩（Herbert Stein，电影《春天不是读书天》演员本·斯坦恩之父）提出的“斯坦恩法则”（Stein's Law）——“如果一件事无法永远持续下去，它终将停止”（If something cannot go on forever, it will stop）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 斯坦恩法则的分叉路径 accDescr: 无法无限攀升的债务走向的两种结局：全面改革或灾难 Debt["不可持续的巨额债务与政治僵局"] --> Stop["终点：进程必然中止<br/>(斯坦恩法则)"] Stop --> Outcome1["制度全面改革<br/>(Reform)"] Stop --> Outcome2["系统性崩溃与灾难<br/>(Catastrophe)"] ``` 面对不可持续的现实，未来只会走向两种结局之一：要么改革（Reform），要么走向灾难（Catastrophe）。布蒂吉格强调，自己选择投身公共事务的全部初衷，正是为了促成体制改革，避免灾难发生。 --- ### [01:00:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3621s) 政治任期博弈与“抢椅子”困局 主持人针对政治现实提出了尖锐质疑：既然道理显而易见，为何历任政客无论口头如何承诺削减开支与债务，上台后国债依然狂飙？主持人将这种短视体制比喻为“音乐抢椅子游戏”（musical chairs）——政客的任期只有四年，最多八年，只要在自己任期内音乐还在响、大厦未倾，就有强大的动力去大笔花钱收买民心、提升医保或大搞基建以获取选票。反正债务危机可能是二十年后才会爆发的灾难，这种激励机制天然鼓励政客忽略长远未来，只求把击鼓传花的接力棒平安交到下一任同党手中。 布蒂吉格并未回避这一现实，他反思从政的本质动机：如果官员仅仅把公职当成满足个人虚荣或维持权力的工具，那是毫无意义的。公职的唯一正当性，在于利用政策与权力让民众的生活真正变好。 - **公众幻灭感**：主持人直言，广大选民看着债务图表一次次上升，已经形成了“被骗了一次又一次”的幻灭感，这也解释了为何人们越来越渴望激进、颠覆性的政客来“彻底烧毁现有体系”。 --- ### [01:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3755s) 拒绝“重回过去”：以建国者之勇气重构政治系统 布蒂吉格对党内的保守与复古倾向提出了严肃警告。他指出，特朗普这类民粹颠覆者之所以能崛起，正是因为现有的政治、社会与经济系统彻底辜负了民众。如果民主党的执政目标仅仅是夺取政权、拨乱反正、回到从前（他特别提到党内言论充斥着“Back”、“Rebuild”、“Reverse”等复旧词汇），那将是灾难性的误区，因为正是旧有的体系孕育了当下的乱局。 他指出，选民此前通过选择“特朗普主义”尝试了一种颠覆方案，如今许多人已经准备好将其唾弃，关键在于民主党能否提供真正行之有效的替代方案。诸如更好的医疗保健体系、降低关税负担、基础设施建设以及带薪家庭假等具体诉求，其落地的基石在于对底层政治系统的彻底翻修。 布蒂吉格回顾了美国建国时期的革命精神。他直言，托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）与亚历山大·汉密尔顿（Alexander Hamilton）当年绝不仅仅是坐在书房里读着约翰·洛克（John Locke）和卢梭（Rousseau）的哲学著作空想，而是冒着失去生命的暴力风险反抗君主制，建立起一个崭新的共和国。面对当下的制度困局，美国同样需要拿出这种敢于重构政治体制的激情与魄力。布蒂吉格最后坚定地呼吁，美国必须迈出走向真正平等的关键一步——建立“一人一票、每票等值”的总统普选制（Popular Vote）。 ### [01:05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3914s) 制度失衡与杰利蝾螈：被扭曲的五五开国家 皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）尖锐地指出，在民主体制中，每个人的选票本应具有完全相同的分量，获得最多选票的人理应获胜——这在任何其他层级的选举中都是理所当然的共识。然而，美国现行的制度却深陷严重的问题之中，其中最致命的一环便是通过划分选区搞政治操弄的“杰利蝾螈”（Gerrymandering）。 他列举了一组令人震惊的数字：在国会众议院的 435 个席位中，有高达九成的选区被划分得极度深红或极度深蓝，以至于在选民投下第一张票之前，选举结果就几乎已成定局。在一个整体民意基本五五开（50/50）的国家，居然有 90% 的众议院席位毫无悬念，这完全不合逻辑。这种扭曲的选区制度直接导致议员们要么高枕无忧，彻底脱离选民的实际需求；要么唯独畏惧来自党内极端派别的初选挑战。 布蒂吉格进一步指出，民意调查显示，绝大多数美国人在最核心的几大议题上其实享有广泛的共识——无论是全民医保、提高最低工资、对富人和大企业增税、枪支购买背景审查，还是同性婚姻平权，民众的支持率普遍高达 60% 到 70%。一个在绝大多数民生议题上拥有近七成共识的国家，却始终无法将这些意愿转化为实际政策，反而在表面上维持着一种“全员拔刀相向”的五五开对立假象。布蒂吉格直言：“这就是体制崩溃的铁证。如果不从根本上修复这个系统，我们将一事无成。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Gerrymandering and Political Paralysis accDescr: 选区划分不公如何导致议员脱离民意并使高度共识的政策搁浅 subgraph BrokenSystem["破损的选举制度"] A["杰利蝾螈操弄选区<br/>435 席中有 90% 胜负已定"] B["民意现实<br/>全美 50/50 分裂，但 60-70% 认同核心议题"] end subgraph Consequences["政治后果"] C["议员安全脱节<br/>只畏惧党内极端初选"] D["政策陷入死锁<br/>全民医保/控枪/税改难推进"] end A --> C B --> D C --> D ``` - **众议院席位结构失衡**：435 个众议院席位中有十分之九（约 391 席）因选区划界而彻底丧失竞争性。 - **压倒性的民意共识**：全民医保、提高最低工资、枪支背景审查、婚姻平权及大企业增税等核心诉求在全美民调中享有 60% 至 70% 的高度一致支持。 --- ### [01:06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4008s) 从黑盒到玻璃盒：长视频播客与现代政治的“去包装化” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后将话题转向过去二十年政治风格的演变。从乔治·W·布什（George W. Bush）、传统的民主党建制派，到照着提词器讲话的乔·拜登（Joe Biden），政客长期以来都是极其精致规整的职业形象。然而，近年来全球选民展现出了对颠覆性人物的渴望——从英国脱欧（Brexit）、奈杰尔·法拉奇（Nigel Farage）的崛起，到唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的横空出世，他们不按常理出牌，也不依赖提词器。巴特利特发问：民主党若想在未来的大选中获胜，是否也必须推出一位具有颠覆性质的左翼人物？ 布蒂吉格对此表示赞同，但他认为核心并不在于打破规矩本身，而在于公众对“真实性”（Authenticity）的迫切追求。他指出特朗普身上存在一个奇特的悖论：即便利益驱动他在撒谎，人们依然觉得他是“真实的”，因为他表现得绝不像是念通稿的机器。布蒂吉格指出，过去由电视媒介主导的政治生态，催生了同质化极强的一代领导人——乔治·W·布什、比尔·克林顿（Bill Clinton）和唐纳德·特朗普甚至都集中出生在 1946 年夏天的短短几周内。 如今，媒体形态从 30 分钟的广播访谈彻底演变为两到三小时的长视频播客。布蒂吉格感叹，面对两个多小时的深度对话，没有任何人有足够的体能全程死守公关口径，“竞选公职历来被称作是对灵魂的核磁共振检查（MRI of the soul），而在今天这个时代更是如此。”巴特利特也补充道，商业与政治正经历同样的范式转移：世界已从公关部在箱子外部粉刷形象的“黑盒世界”（black box world），彻底转变为人人手持摄像头和社交平台的“玻璃盒世界”（glass box world）。透明度已成为唯一的生存防线，领导者必须主动展示内在构造，否则叙事权就会被他人夺走。 --- ### [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4219s) 巨型官僚机构的透明挑战与权力的重负 布蒂吉格将这种“玻璃盒”理念代入到了他在美国交通部的实际执政经历中。交通部是一个拥有 5.5 万名员工、掌控高达 1,450 亿美元预算的庞然大物，其资金规模甚至超过了世界上大多数国家的 GDP。他敏锐地察觉到，对政府或主流媒体怀有普遍戒心的民众往往会“做最坏的预想”：当一条新建的高速公路穿过某片街区时，居民会认为政府漠视他们的生存；当灾难发生时，保守派地区的人们会怀疑民主党领导的联邦部门是否因为党派立场而故意延误救援。 然而，传统的官僚机器根本不是为了应对这种即时信任危机而构建的。过去的机制被定义为一种迟缓的“问责”：国会议员若有疑虑，可以寄出一封正式公函，六个月后交通部会回送一份厚重的审查报告。布蒂吉格不得不亲自打破常规，掏出口袋里的手机拍摄视频，直接向公众展示决策细节和事实真相，通过极端透明来对抗日益泛滥的阴谋论与信任危机。 随后，面对桌上放着写有“2028”字样的竞选鸭舌帽，巴特利特询问布蒂吉格在思考竞选或担任美国总统——这一世界上权力最显赫国家的领袖时，是否会产生“冒充者综合征”（Imposter Syndrome），是否会对无法胜任全局感到恐惧。布蒂吉格坦言，美国的立国之本正是为了推翻君主制、防止任何单个个体集聚过大权力，但历史却演变成了美国总统手握能够改变甚至摧毁数十亿人命运的巨大能量，由血肉之躯去执掌这种力量“在某种层面上令人不寒而栗”。 他回忆起自己在二十多岁当选印第安纳州南本德市（South Bend）市长的那一刻。当他在元旦第一天正式走入位于县市大楼 14 层的市长办公室时，窗外正大雪纷飞，他脑海中浮现的念头无比现实而沉重：自己现在必须对全城的扫雪作业负全责，一旦指挥失误，不仅政治前途尽毁，更会有无辜的市民因此受伤。布蒂吉格总结道，无论面对何种层级的职位，一名合格的领导者都必须允许这种权力的重量沉沉地压在自己肩上，并以此作为逼迫自己精进履职的唯一推力。 - **交通部体量**：管辖 55,000 名雇员，负责执行 1,450 亿美元的联邦预算。 - **权力制衡网络**：总统的个人权力必须受到顾问团队、成文法典、国会立法权以及联邦法院的多重严格约束。 - **初登政坛的震撼**：布蒂吉格在 20 多岁当选南本德（印第安纳州第四大城市）市长，首个执政挑战即是元旦暴雪天气的应急清扫与民生保障。 ### [01:13:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4417s) 总统职责的重量与2028潜在领跑者 主持人提问，作为一个好胜心强的人，击败对手固然令人兴奋，但竞选承诺与执政兑现之间的平衡极具挑战，皮特是否害怕有朝一日当上总统所要承担的后果。皮特直言：“任何一个当上总统的人，甚至任何一个被认真讨论或考虑过的人，都应该对此感到敬畏和恐惧。”他解释道，这个位置赋予人极其沉重的言论责任，必须字斟句酌；即使没有正式行使行政权力，仅仅是在一个数千万人收听的播客上说错一句话，也足以伤害或帮助到现实中的普通人。 谈及2028年大选的潜在民主党候选人，主持人指出民调数据显示皮特、加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）、AOC（亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯，Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez）与副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）是四大领跑者，并追问“如果不选你自己，你会选他们中的谁”。皮特笑着拒绝直接回答，表示透明固然好，但在政坛回答这种问题绝不是个好主意。随后他逐一评价了这几位同行： - **卡玛拉·哈里斯**：皮特与她相处时间最长，两人曾因交通运输部的工作一同出访，并在推动具有里程碑意义的基础设施法案（Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act）上密切合作。皮特指出，副总统这样高度曝光的职务极难展现个人真实的人性（humanity），庞大的公职责任往往遮蔽了外界对其本人的认知；他当年全力为哈里斯竞选，坚信她具备成为一位好总统的能力。 - **加文·纽森**：皮特在加州重大基建项目上与纽森多有配合，赞赏纽森极其擅长在当下的“注意力经济”中打破常规传播壁垒，深谙旧媒介与传统规矩已不再适用的传播规律。 - **AOC**：尽管在部分政策上有分歧（例如在基础设施法案的具体条款上见解不同），皮特非常钦佩AOC激活了庞大群体的政治热情。她触动了那些认为现有体系无法服务自身的年轻人与各界选民，展现出了强大的代际变革力量。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 2028民主党潜在领跑者特质评估 accDescr: 皮特·布蒂吉格对2028年潜在领跑者卡玛拉·哈里斯、加文·纽森和AOC的特质评价流程图。 subgraph Frontrunners["2028 民主党潜在领跑者"] KH["卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris)<br/>合作深厚 / 推动基建法案 / 承担高位责任"] GN["加文·纽森 (Gavin Newsom)<br/>加州基建协同 / 精通注意力经济破圈"] AOC["AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)<br/>代际变革号召力 / 激发体制边缘选民"] end PB["皮特·布蒂吉格 (Pete Buttigieg)<br/>主张代际变革与机制竞争"] --> Frontrunners ``` --- ### [01:17:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4632s) 拜登辩论表现、退选内幕与换将的得与失 话题转向2024年大选后期乔·拜登（Joe Biden）的健康状况。主持人提到拜登在与唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的辩论中表现欠佳，任何客观诚实的人都能看出拜登的认知状态较二三十年前出现了肉眼可见的衰退。被问及在内阁任职期间是否提前察觉到这种变化时，皮特坦承：“我看到的是和全美国看到的一模一样的事情。”虽然他并未天天与拜登同处一室，但无论在镜头前还是白宫会议中，拜登日益变老是不争的事实。 皮特进一步分析，辩论之前拜登虽然肉眼可见地变老，但在交通部具体业务的行政决策和白宫指令沟通上并没有延误或失误。然而，总统的职责绝不仅仅是坐在办公室批复政策文件，很大一部分工作是代表政府向全体国民有力传达政策理念和行动缘由；作为总统候选人，这种沟通职责更是占到100%。那场灾难性的辩论暴露了拜登在公共沟通上的沉重负担，也是促使拜登最终得出退选结论的开端。皮特澄清自己当时虽在内阁，但并未进入决定拜登是否退选的核心决策圈。 针对民主党在选前100天仓促换上哈里斯的抉择，皮特坦言事后反思有了更立体的认识： - **当时的一致性考量**：在极短的倒计时内，党内迫切需要放下自我（ego）与内部纷争，迅速团结一致对外发声，阻击特朗普重新执政所带来的巨大风险。 - **事后复盘与党内竞争的价值**：即使时间再仓促，如果当时能以某种形式展开党内公开竞争，即便胜出者依然是哈里斯，充分的竞争过程也能极大地磨砺（sharpen）候选人的应变能力与演讲表达，使更多政策信息在辩论中洗礼成型。皮特以2020年大选为例，指出当年拜登正是因为击败了哈里斯、皮特以及其他十几位党内竞选人，才成为了一名更加强韧的候选人。 --- ### [01:20:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4833s) 制度改革激进主张：废除选举人团制度 谈及美国选民对于“激进改革”的渴望以及皮特个人的制度主张，主持人问起他支持废除选举人团（Electoral College）、改为直接以普选票数决定胜负的想法。皮特表示，他至今无法理解为什么有人会把“获得最多选民投票的人获胜”视为激进观念，这本身就是民主最基础的逻辑。 皮特阐述了废除选举人团将对美国两党政治生态带来的颠覆性改变： - **消灭竞选盲区与被忽视的选民**：在现行的选举人团“赢者通吃”规则下，候选人只专注于极少数摇摆州，红州与蓝州的广大少数选民被彻底忽视。 - **重塑竞选地图与动员逻辑**：如果实施普选直选，民主党总统候选人将被迫亲自前往得克萨斯州等传统深红州，为了每一张潜在的民主党选票而奔走动员；与此同时，共和党候选人也必须踏足纽约州等深蓝州争取保守派票源。 - **覆盖极小与偏远州**：无论是像阿拉斯加这样地处偏远的小州，还是罗德岛这样的小州，都将不再沦为大选舞台的看客，而是成为两党正面交锋的真实战场。 在剖析完选举制度后，皮特明确指出下一个必须彻底改革的根基机制正是联邦最高法院（Supreme Court）。 ### [01:22:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4930s) 改革最高法院与重塑国会代表机制 皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）提出了一系列针对美国政治“引擎”本身的深层制度改革。在最高法院改革方面，他主张设立大法官任期限制（Term Limits）、增加大法官席位，并建立某种去党派化的任命机制。他认为其中最值得探索的是“平衡法官席方案”（Balanced Bench Proposal），通过特定的人数配置与跨党派平衡机制，终结目前最高法院高度政治化的任命博弈。布蒂吉格强调，最高法院的现状已经到了必须改变的时刻。 在立法机构层面，布蒂吉格主张众议院应引入比例代表制（Proportional Representation）。他解释道，这类似于某些地方学区委员会（School Board）或市议会的运作机制：选民拥有不止一张选票，一个选区可以由得票排名前三的候选人共同进入国会。这样一来，选区面积更大、数量更少，能从物理上大幅降低“杰利蝾螈”（Gerrymandering，不公正划分选区）的破坏力。不仅如此，他强调美国应该立刻推行一项更为直接的举措——在全国范围内彻底禁止划分不公正选区。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 政治制度与选举机制改革设想 accDescr: 展示布蒂吉格针对最高法院、国会选举及政治献金所构想的制度改革路径 subgraph SupremeCourt["最高法院改革"] A["设立任期限制"] B["增加法官席位"] C["平衡法官席方案 (去党派化)"] end subgraph Congress["国会代表制与选区改革"] D["大选区比例代表制 (前三名当选)"] E["全面立法禁止 Gerrymandering"] end subgraph MoneyInPolitics["政治献金与宪政改革"] F["推翻 Citizens United 判例"] G["宪法修正案明确：企业非公民，金钱非言论"] H["重启类似 McCain-Feingold 的献金监管法律"] end SupremeCourt --> Engine["修复制度底层引擎"] Congress --> Engine MoneyInPolitics --> Engine Engine --> Policy["促成带薪产假、税制公平、全民医保等实质政策落地"] ``` --- ### [01:23:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4980s) 遏制暗钱：动用宪法修正案守护民主 在谈及金钱政治时，布蒂吉格认为必须通过宪法修正案来彻底解决这一毒瘤。自最高法院在“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案”（Citizens United v. FEC）中做出裁决以来，企业在选举中被视为享有宪法权利的自然人，斥巨资操纵选举被等同于受宪法第一修正案保护的言论自由（宛如撰写专栏或举牌抗议）。布蒂吉格坚决反驳这一逻辑，指出必须在宪法层面明确界定：企业支出绝不是言论，企业也绝非拥有同等政治权利的人类公民。 一旦通过修正案厘清边界，国会就能重新出台诸如当年《麦凯恩-芬戈尔德法案》（McCain-Feingold Act，即《两党竞选改革法》）那样的法律，禁止无上限、不受监管的企业“暗钱”（Dark Money）涌入超级政治行动委员会（Super PAC）操纵选举结果。布蒂吉格指出，三分之二的美国民众都支持这类反金钱政治举措，但之所以迟迟无法推行，正是因为现任建制派政客乐见其成，加上最高法院的判决筑起了高墙。他提醒公众，美国宪法最优雅、最伟大的特性恰恰是“具有被修正的能力”——无论是第一修正案、第二修正案，还是赋予民众直选参议员、保障黑人与女性投票权的修正案，都是后续添加的机制。美国绝不该畏惧使用这一根本程序去修复自身体制的引擎，进而保障带薪育儿假、税制公平和全民医保等利民政策的顺利产出。 - **关键阻碍**：在任政客维护既得利益、最高法院将金钱政治裁定为言论自由。 - **历史先例**：参议员直选（第十七修正案）、保障非裔与女性投票权（第十五、第十九修正案）均依赖宪法修正案完成。 --- ### [01:26:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5206s) 评埃隆·马斯克与“政府效率部”（DOGE）的悲剧性溃败 当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及如何看待全球首富埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）时，布蒂吉格给予了细致且极具批判性的评价。他承认马斯克是地球上最具影响力的企业家之一，极其聪明，在诸多领域带来了不可磨灭的突破，在很多事情上看法精准；然而马斯克在另外很多事情上也错得离谱，并且“极度缺乏理解自身盲区的谦逊，以至于造成了巨大的破坏”。 布蒂吉格以马斯克牵头的“政府效率部”（DOGE）为例，将其形容为一场惨痛的失败。布蒂吉格直言，美国联邦政府确实迫切需要提升效率的举措，但马斯克带来的却是一场令人难以置信的草率闹剧： - 宣称透明展示决策的“收据墙”（Wall of Receipts）上居然充斥着低级数学错误，连百万（Million）和十亿（Billion）都能混淆。 - 盲目解雇重要岗位人员，甚至在完全不清楚对方职责的情况下，草率开除负责核武器安全、生物危害防控与传染病管控的关键技术专家，随后又狼狈不堪地设法返聘。 - DOGE 闹腾一番之后，联邦政府的实际支出不降反升，不仅没省下开支，反倒留下一地鸡毛。 --- ### [01:28:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5292s) 白宫电动车峰会的误会与反思政治对抗 谈及马斯克在政治立场上彻底与民主党决裂、收购推特（Twitter）并成为唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）最大金主的转折点，主持人提到了著名的 2021 年白宫电动车峰会——当时通用汽车（GM）、福特（Ford）和克莱斯勒（Stellantis）均受邀出席，唯独特斯拉（Tesla）遭到冷落。作为时任交通部长并亲历该事件的人，布蒂吉格罕见地承认：“那确实是个错误。” 布蒂吉格还原了当时的内幕：当时政府正与底特律三大传统汽车制造商就严苛的汽车尾气排放新标准进行艰难复杂的漫长谈判，该活动原本纯粹是为了庆祝传统车企在尾气减排标准上达成了妥协。由于特斯拉全系皆为纯电动汽车，根本没有尾气管（Tailpipe），幕僚在筹办庆祝仪式时压根没往特斯拉身上想。然而从马斯克的视角看，白宫在最高规格举办全美电动汽车峰会，而自己作为将美国本土电动车产业推向卓越的头号功臣却被拒之门外，难免会愤怒地质问“这他妈到底算什么（What the fuck）？”布蒂吉格坦承：“就这点而言，我完全不怪他。” 巴特利特顺势指出，共和党普遍被视为更亲近企业家的政党，而民主党阵营内则常常充斥着“亿万富翁皆邪恶”的论调。布蒂吉格承认左翼确实存在这种叙事，但他强调合格的最高领导者必须与所有人保持沟通。他回忆起自己在担任交通部长期间与马斯克发生争执的经历：自己直接拿起电话打给马斯克，双方在通话中坦诚摊牌、就事论事，最终携手解决了实际问题。布蒂吉格批判当下美国政治中“万物皆战斗”的恶性循环——政客们不再满足于表达分歧，而是非要把对方彻底毁灭不可，这种毁灭性的极化战法正在严重毒害国家利益。 ### [01:30:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5447s) 亿万富翁与财富分配：努力工作是否等于财富？ 针对左翼代表人物亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez，简称 AOC）提出的“人不可能靠劳动赚取十亿美元，十亿美元都是掠夺而来的”（"you can't make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars"），皮特·布蒂吉格表达了不同看法。他认为这种论断并不完全合理，因为积累十亿美元有许多途径，但目前最轻松的途径无疑是“先拥有100亿美元，然后什么都不做”。人们最钦佩企业家的特质在于他们辛勤工作、创造事物、创造真实价值，大多数美国人并不会眼红他人通过创造更大价值而获得的财富回报。然而，当前市场展现出的现实却是资本在不断自我增殖，资金自然流向已拥有巨资的人群，许多富豪过去数年内的资产甚至翻了十倍，其增速远超更早时期的积累速度。 在布蒂吉格看来，一个人从0积累到10亿美元的过程，通常远比从10亿增至100亿、甚至从100亿增至500亿要令人钦佩得多。如果天真地认为自由市场赋予一个人的报酬完全等于其创造的社会效益或付出的辛勤汗水，就脱离了现实。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深表认同，并分享了自己母亲的经历：母亲从尼日利亚移民到英国，没有受过读写教育，醒着的每一分钟都在拼命工作且从不抱怨，但在他的成长过程中，家庭经济始终处于挣扎状态。这证明辛劳程度与财富之间并不存在直接关联。 布蒂吉格指出，社会上之所以有那么多人对亿万富翁感到愤怒，正是因为数以百万计的普通家庭过着与巴特利特母亲相似的生活。传统的“美国梦”本应保证只要人们努力工作并遵守规则就能过得更好，但在如今的美国，这种承诺正在失效。这种阶层流动的机会不仅比过去大幅减少，甚至已经落后于其他一些国家，这正是当前体制亮起的巨大刺目警报。 - **财富增长脱节**：许多富豪在过去几年的资产增幅达到10倍，其资产扩张速度远非早期创业阶段所能比拟。 - **阶层流动预警**：努力工作且遵守规则（"work hard and play by the rules"）获得成功的人数急剧缩水，美国在社会流动性上已落后于多个发达国家。 --- ### [01:33:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5590s) 金钱转化为政治权力：美国民主的核心危机 当被问及是否认同 AOC 所说的“允许亿万富翁存在的体制在道德上是不正当的”时，布蒂吉格明确表示不同意这种定性。他认为核心问题不在于富豪的存在本身，而在于他们掌握了过大的权力，特别是**将经济权力转化为政治权力，再利用政治权力攫取更多财富**的恶性循环。人们真正感到愤怒的正是这种机制在现实中不断上演，而金钱在政治竞选与游说中的泛滥正是最具代表性的体现。 布蒂吉格强调，美国的建国基石在于平等的政治参与权：无论你是身家亿万的富豪，还是洗碗工、出租车司机，在投票站排队时都拥有完全平等的一票。如果社会贫富差距没有被拉得如此巨大，且富豪们没有动用庞大资产去操纵政治杠杆，公众对超级富豪的态度绝不会像今天这般充满怨恨。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济权力与政治权力的恶性闭环 accDescr: 展示巨额财富如何转化为政治权力并反哺财富积累的恶性循环机制 subgraph Cycle["资本与权力的膨胀闭环"] A["极端财富积累"] --> B["政治游说与竞选献金"] B --> C["制定倾斜政策与税收漏洞"] C --> D["获取超额经济回报"] D --> A end subgraph Ideal["美国建国宪政理想"] E["亿万富豪"] --- G["投票箱面前权力平等（一人一票）"] F["洗碗工 / 出租车司机"] --- G end ``` 巴特利特坦言自己能够在天平的两端产生共鸣：十三年前他从大学退学，一度穷到连饭都吃不起，与家人关系疏远，孤身漂泊数百英里之外；而十三年后，他创办的企业运转良好，进入了企业家阶层。回望过去，他深知社会保障网对年轻时陷入困境的自己是多么不可或缺。正因为英国拥有全民免费医疗（NHS），他才得以渡过难关；当他25岁来到纽约创立分公司并开设办公室时，惊异地发现美国居然没有全民医保，作为雇主必须为团队全员买单，这彻底颠覆了他对“自由之邦”的最初想象。他深刻意识到，底层与顶层之间的鸿沟过大才是社会的核心症结。 - **政治平等原则**：美国民主原则建立在投票箱前的绝对平等之上，无论职业是洗碗工、出租车司机还是富豪，政治话语权本应一致。 - **医疗保障落差**：英国的全民医疗体系让创业初期的年轻人拥有基本兜底，而美国缺乏公共医疗托底，阻碍了许多潜在创业者的尝试。 --- ### [01:35:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5708s) 解决不平等的经济方案：并非激进，而是回归常识 谈到如何终结这种严重的不平等时，布蒂吉格提出，解决这些经济顽疾所需的举措在经济层面上其实“并不激进”，都是已被广泛验证的常规政策工具；真正激进且艰巨的，是必须在**政治层面完成根本性变革**，才能突破阻力推行这些常识性政策。 在具体施策上，他主张利用现有的成熟工具体系，而非诉诸极端实验： 1. **税收公平与财政收入**：提高大企业利润和最富有人群的税率，目的不是为了“惩罚富人”，而是确保政府获得足够收入履行公共职能；同时封堵离岸洗钱与避税空壳通道，杜绝富豪隐匿资产逃税。 2. **医疗解绑与鼓励创业**：建立健全的公共医疗保障体系，让身处逆境的年轻人不会因为害怕失去医保，而不得不被迫接受低薪工作，从而释放全社会的创新与创业潜能。 3. **教育升级**：对教育进行深度投资，不仅教会人们“如何工作”，更要教会人们“如何思考”，使劳动者能够在职场和工作形态被重构时随时调整适应。 4. **家庭与照护支持**：推行带薪家庭假（Paid Family Leave），并通过税收抵免补贴那些照料老人和抚育儿童的家庭成员，在制度上承认家庭照护同样是极其重要的社会劳动。 谈到家庭照护，布蒂吉格流露出温情与疲惫交织的情绪。他坦言自己一生中从事过无数高强度的职务，但“人生中最艰苦的劳动”是在与丈夫查斯顿（Chasten）领养了他们的新生龙凤胎后休育儿假的那段日子。那段时间他每天凌晨3点就得起床，如果运气好，清晨5点半才能稍微补个觉，两人轮流硬撑直到体力彻底透支。这种工作美丽却极其艰辛，社会应当给予充分的尊重与制度保障。此外，他还力推面向全社会的国家服务计划（National Service），指出虽然参军并不适合每一个人，但每个人都应有机会参与超越自我的集体事业，与来自不同背景、平日素不相识的人共同攻坚克难，借此重建整个社会的互信。 - **财税调节目标**：确保企业和巨富阶层承担合理税负，严打资本非法离岸与避税转移。 - **育儿切身经历**：照料双胞胎婴儿期间的劳累程度超过以往任何高级公职，凌晨3点起床连轴转，印证了照护劳动的艰辛与价值。 - **国家服务倡议**：倡导非强制性军事之外的全民公共服务项目，以增强社会凝聚力与互信。 --- ### [01:38:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5881s) 家族渊源与成长经历：从马耳他到印第安纳的美国梦 访谈中，巴特利特展示了几张布蒂吉格年轻时期的老照片，并引导他分享原生家庭背景如何塑造了其从“皮特市长”（Mayor Pete）、“皮特部长”（Secretary Pete）到未来潜在“皮特总统”（President Pete）的世界观。 布蒂吉格动情地谈起了父亲的移民历程。他的父亲并非带着“白手起家穷小子”的传奇脚本来到美国，而是来自地中海小国马耳他（Malta）的一个普通中产家庭。当年父亲决心赴美攻读研究生时，一位导师曾挽留他并许诺：“只要你留在这里，我向你保证，你一定会成为小池塘里的一条大鱼。”父亲却回答道：“**我宁愿去一个非常大的池塘里，做一条中等大小的鱼。**”这句话精准概括了父亲对奔赴美国的向往。 来到美国后，父亲先是在纽约州的宾厄姆顿大学（Binghamton University）攻读研究生，随后在新墨西哥州的拉斯克鲁塞斯（Las Cruces）找到教职，并在那里结识了同样在当地任教的年轻语言学者——也就是布蒂吉格的母亲。两人结为夫妻后，父亲在印第安纳州南本德（South Bend）的圣母大学（University of Notre Dame）获得了第一份理想的长期职位，随后举家迁往南本德，布蒂吉格便是在那里出生并成长起来。他回忆道，父母酷爱文学与求知，同时也极度关切政治议题；尽管家庭毫无政治人脉、童年时甚至从未见过任何民选官员，但那种对公民责任与知识探索的热忱，从小就深深扎根在他的意识之中。 - **父亲的移民抉择**：拒绝留在马耳他做“小池塘里的大鱼”，毅然赴美选择成为“大池塘里的中等鱼”。 - **学术家庭底色**：父亲在圣母大学任教，母亲为语言学者；成长环境充满对文学、学术与公共政治的探讨，塑造了布蒂吉格日后的公共服务理念。 ### [01:39:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5982s) 铁锈地带的成长记忆与离开的执念 皮特·布蒂吉格（Pete Buttigieg）回忆起自己的成长历程。他的家庭极为关注外部世界，父亲整天看报纸，电视机也总是锁定在新闻频道，家里自小就有一种强烈的共识：“世界上正在发生的事情，才是你最应当关注的最重要的事情。”他的童年过得充实而温馨，父母优秀、街坊融洽，但他的内心同时交织着归属感与格格不入的“局外人”感觉。一方面，他顶着一个“没人读得准”的马耳他裔姓氏（Buttigieg）；另一方面，他的邻里构成非常真实且接地气——一侧邻居是铺地毯的工人，对街住着退休公立学校教师，转角处的女士则是一名护士，每天步行几个街区去医院值夜班。 与这些接地气的工人阶级邻里形成对比的是，皮特的父亲有着属于自己的“移民老派习惯”。比如在浓缩咖啡（espresso）流行之前，父亲就会用放在炉子上的小摩卡壶煮意式浓缩咖啡，这种在当时被视为奇怪的举动，后来星巴克（Starbucks）风靡全美时还让家人感到十分新奇。而在宏观环境上，他成长的印第安纳州南本德市（South Bend）除了拥有圣母大学（University of Notre Dame）外，还曾是传奇汽车制造商斯图贝克（Studebaker）的所在地。斯图贝克在全盛时期规模堪比通用汽车（GM）和福特（Ford），但因未能及时创新而于1963年彻底停产并倒闭。 这场产业崩溃对南本德而言是毁灭性的打击，城市流失了大量人口且从未真正恢复。皮特在童年时并未意识到这种景象有多不寻常——坐在父亲的雪佛兰轿车后座去上学的路上，他透过车窗看到的是一座座废弃数十年、巨大且坍塌的厂房，宛如经历过战争轰炸一般。随着年龄增长，他才逐渐拼凑出这幅现实：自己生活在一个经济巅峰期早已成为过去的衰退之地。当时社会无形中灌输给他的人生信条就是：“如果你想有所作为、出人头地，你就必须离开这里。” - **斯图贝克汽车公司（Studebaker）**：于1963年停产倒闭，南本德自此陷入长期的人口流失与经济低迷。 - **离开与回归的悖论**：皮特的父亲一生游历世界，最终却选择定居并终老于南本德；而皮特考入哈佛大学前往东海岸后，因为听到外人谈论自己家乡的方式，反而激发出一种近乎激进的家乡认同感与忠诚心。 --- ### [01:42:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6156s) 竞选启动背后的家庭剧变与多重风暴 皮特透露，就在他正式宣布启动总统竞选的同一周，他的父亲因癌症去世。父亲在2018年9月确诊癌症，病情迅速恶化，最终于2019年1月离世。从确诊到去世仅仅三四个月的时间，这对于正处于人生最重大转折期的皮特来说是一场巨大的心理震荡。 皮特与父亲的感情极深，成年后他买下的房子就和父母住在同一个街区，每个周日晚上都会回家吃晚餐。然而在2019年年初，多重危机几乎在几周之内集中爆发： 1. **父亲病危并辞世**：在竞选启动的关键节点经历了至亲离世的打击。 2. **母亲突发心脏病并接受手术**：母亲紧接着遭遇重大健康危机。 3. **主政南本德市的市长职责**：他当时仍是全职在任的南本德市长，曾深夜凌晨3点半还在处理市政员工的公务邮件。 4. **启动2020年总统竞选**：背负繁重的全国竞选筹备压力。 当主持人问及他如何承受如此巨大的混乱与压力时，皮特表示，他的精神支柱很大程度上来自于伴侣查斯顿（Chaston Buttigieg）。两人于2018年结婚，在面对2019年底这突如其来的一切时，他们的婚姻尚处于起步阶段，双方在最初约会甚至刚结婚时，完全未曾预料到生活会以这种超乎想象的烈度呼啸而来。 --- ### [01:44:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6267s) 自我认同、战地遗书与公开出柜的抉择 在谈到性取向与政治生涯的交织时，皮特坦言，他希望未来能迎来这样一个时代：性取向不再是一件被特殊对待的事，它不应影响任何人的职业生涯或人生机会。然而在他成长的岁月里，现实远比理想严酷。当他被任命为海军预备役（Navy Reserve）军官时，美国军方仍在执行相关禁令（如“不问、不说”政策），一旦同性恋身份公开，就会立刻遭到解职。 皮特经历了极其漫长且痛苦的自我认同拉锯战，整个20岁出头到中期的阶段，他都在内心极度抗拒这一事实，“我太希望这不是真的了，尽管我一直都是，但我必须拼命否定它”。直到近30岁、正准备竞选南本德市长时，他才在内心彻底接纳了自己。他笑言，当时没有恋爱生活反而客观上帮了事业，因为他把所有精力都毫无保留地倾注在工作上。当预感到自己即将赢得市长选举时，他意识到必须迈出第一步：向他人坦白。他向一位信任的密友出柜，朋友听后半开玩笑地指出，皮特给自己选了一条难度最高的人生道路： - 一方面，作为一名海军军官，暴露性取向意味着军旅生涯终结； - 另一方面，作为印第安纳州的民选官员，该州在迈克·彭斯（Mike Pence）即将出任州长的前后，一度被称为全美对同性恋最保守、最不友好的州之一。 真正促使皮特彻底下定决心公开身份的转折点，是他被动员部署至阿富汗战区。在奔赴战场前，军方要求每位士兵写下一封“以防无法生还”的绝笔信。在写信审视自己整个人生时，皮特内心受到了强烈的震撼： > “我当时正在盘点我的人生。我过着很棒的生活，我是一个成年男人，承担着公职责任，我是房主，我马上要成为一名退伍军人。然而，我却从未体验过坠入爱河是什么滋味。” 这种遗憾让他感到无法再自欺欺人地生活下去。皮特对自己许下誓言：只要能从阿富汗战场平安生还，他就必须正视真实的自己。虽然他毫发无损地回到了家乡，但摆在面前的现实难题接踵而至——市长连任选举已迫在眉睫。 ### [01:49:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6556s) 向父母出柜与家庭的接纳 Pete Buttigieg 详细回顾了自己在政坛摸爬滚打期间决定公开性取向的过程。他坦承自己当时甚至有一种怨怼心理，觉得“异性恋根本不需要公开出柜”，但现实中他无法直接带着男伴若无其事地出现在商会晚宴（Chamber of Commerce dinner）上，也不希望有一天以被媒体曝光（found out）的方式公之于众。他渴望光明正大地开始约会，但更关键的一道关卡是如何向父母坦白。虽然他深知父母思想开明、深爱自己，但依然耗费了很长时间才做好心理准备。 在一个例行的周日家庭晚餐上，Pete 拿着勺子搅动着碗里的冰淇淋，内心情绪翻涌，最后深吸一口气说道：“我有些事情必须告诉你们。”父母立刻以爱与包容给予回应，这让他非常庆幸，因为他清楚不是每个人都能拥有这样的幸运。父亲的第一反应并非试图劝阻，而是不由自主地担忧这会对他的前途带来什么阻碍；母亲则立刻询问他是否已经在约会，毕竟她期盼抱孙子已经很久了。不到一年后，Pete 便把 Chaston 带回了家参加周日晚餐，看着 Chaston 与自己的父母相谈甚欢，这一幕在仅仅几年前对他而言都是完全无法想象的奇迹。 - **出柜心理**：不愿被迫藏匿或被动曝光，同时对“仅有性少数需要正式出柜”的社会现实感到无奈与抵触。 - **父母反应**：父亲直觉性担忧其政治与职业未来，母亲关心其恋爱状态及渴望当祖母，双方皆给予了全盘接纳。 - **生活转折**：在出柜一年内将伴侣 Chaston 带回家共进周日晚餐，家庭氛围自然融洽。 --- ### [01:51:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6672s) 开拓者的意义与世界必须面对的真相 主持人 Steven Bartlett 对 Pete 的勇气表达了崇高敬意，指出作为首位被认为真正有胜选希望的公开同性恋总统竞选人，Pete 的决定如同当年 Barack Obama 打破种族壁垒一样，极大地拓宽了无数在身份认同中挣扎的年轻人的想象空间。虽然 Pete 谦称这只是一个个人决定，甚至认为在“做真实的自己”这件事上用“勇敢”一词显得有些别扭，但主持人强调在面临巨大潜在政治代价时依然选择坚守自我，这就是极度令人钦佩的品质。随后，节目进入传统环节，由上一位未具名嘉宾向 Pete 提问：“世界现在需要听到、但可能不想听到的不适却必要的真相是什么？” Pete 沉思后给出了坚定的回答：“现实并不一定非要维持现状，但我们必须去做那些艰难的事情才能带来改变。”他表示，大众都能深切感受到现有的模式无法永远持续下去，可改变绝不会自动发生。人们不能指望历史的浪潮、某种既定模式或是新兴技术横空出世来拯救世界；每个人都必须卷入其中，每个人都必须做出某种牺牲与让步。“艰难的事情之所以困难，正因为它们需要真正的付出（hard things are hard）。” --- ### [01:53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6794s) 跨越阵营的对话与政治的本质 主持人提到 Pete 与大多数传统政客最显著的不同之处在于他极其愿意走向对立阵营进行对话——就在录制本期播客之前，Pete 刚从保守派媒体 Fox News 的演播室赶来。在极化严重的当下，双方都不愿意与所谓的“敌人”或反对者打交道，而 Pete 凭借清晰的逻辑与极佳的表达能力，成为极少数敢于深入红州进行巡回交流的民主党领袖。 Pete 对此阐述了自己的政治哲学：优秀的政治本质上就是“相遇与碰撞（good politics is about encounter）”。如果从政只是躲在回音室里对早已赞同你的人讲话，那政治就失去了意义。虽然直接面对反对者极其艰难，甚至会面临巨大的舆论摩擦，但这正是公职人员赚取民众信任与报酬的最重要方式。主持人对此高度赞同，认为能在公共场域看到极端对立的观点正面交锋，才能帮助普通人做出理性判断，并真诚感谢 Pete 的付出与坦荡。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=0s) 我们正处在失去民主的边缘，而留给我们扭转局面的时间已经所剩无几。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=533s) 我觉得比起不倾向，我更偏向于参选（more inclined than not）。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [14:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=884s) 结束一场战争远比发动一场战争艰难得多。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [19:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1155s) 唯一的最佳方案本是当初根本不要陷进去，但现在为时已晚。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [21:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=1308s) 绝不能允许他们拥有核武器。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=3523s) 如果一件事无法永远持续下去，它终将停止（If something cannot go on forever, it will stop）。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格引述赫伯特·斯坦恩 > [01:06:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4008s) 竞选公职历来被称作是对灵魂的核磁共振检查（MRI of the soul），而在今天这个时代更是如此。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [01:13:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=4417s) 任何一个当上总统的人，甚至任何一个被认真讨论或考虑过的人，都应该对此感到敬畏和恐惧。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [01:38:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=5881s) 我宁愿去一个非常大的池塘里，做一条中等大小的鱼。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格引述其父亲 > [01:44:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6267s) 我当时正在盘点我的人生。我过着很棒的生活，我是一个成年男人，承担着公职责任，我是房主，我马上要成为一名退伍军人。然而，我却从未体验过坠入爱河是什么滋味。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [01:51:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6672s) 艰难的事情之所以困难，正因为它们需要真正的付出（hard things are hard）。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 > [01:53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM&t=6794s) 优秀的政治本质上就是‘相遇与碰撞’（good politics is about encounter）。 — 皮特·布蒂吉格 ## Mentioned 皮特·布蒂吉格 (Pete Buttigieg), 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 本雅明·内塔尼亚胡 (Benjamin Netanyahu), 乔·拜登 (Joe Biden), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 加文·纽森 (Gavin Newsom), 亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯 (AOC), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 萨姆·奥特曼 (Sam Altman), 达里奥·阿莫代伊 (Dario Amodei), 德米斯·哈萨比斯 (Demis Hassabis), 达拉·科斯罗萨西 (Dara Khosrowshahi), 伯尼·桑德斯 (Bernie Sanders), 瑞·达利欧 (Ray Dalio), 赫伯特·斯坦恩 (Herbert Stein), 约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯 (John Maynard Keynes), 马可·卢比奥 (Marco Rubio), 皮特·赫格塞斯 (Pete Hegseth), 查斯顿·布蒂吉格 (Chasten Buttigieg), 埃里克·施密特 (Eric Schmidt), 贝拉克·奥巴马 (Barack Obama), 迈克·彭斯 (Mike Pence), OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, 特斯拉 (Tesla), 优步 (Uber), 政府效率部 (DOGE), 美国联邦航空管理局 (FAA), 美国交通部 (DOT), 斯图贝克汽车公司 (Studebaker), 福特汽车 (Ford), 通用汽车 (GM), 斯特兰蒂斯 (Stellantis), 福克斯新闻 (Fox News), 七国集团 (G7), 伊核协议 (JCPOA), 联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案 (Citizens United v. FEC), 麦凯恩-芬戈尔德法案 (McCain-Feingold Act), 《我们后代的经济前景》, 《星际迷航》 (Star Trek) ## Video description Former US Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg says the American experiment is on the brink. He argues that the country is at risk of losing its democracy, the problems Americans feel every day are not accidents, and that fixing it will mean doing the hard things almost no one wants to do. Pete Buttigieg is the former United States Secretary of Transportation, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a Rhodes Scholar, and a Navy veteran who served in Afghanistan. He ran for president in 2020 and is now widely regarded as one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President in 2028. Out of office for the first time in years, he speaks with unusual candour about power, war, the economy, and where America goes next. He explains: ◼ Why he believes American democracy is genuinely on the brink, and what it would actually take to save it ◼ The real story behind the strike on Iran and the "ceasefire" that wasn't ◼ Why a billionaire can pay a lower tax rate than a teacher or a firefighter, and whether a wealth tax is the answer ◼ How AI is about to disrupt not just jobs but people's identities, and who he thinks should share in the gains ◼ What he says the administration really hid about the American troops who died The views expressed are those of the guest, and this conversation is intended for general informational purposes only. This podcast and its associated materials should not be used as a substitute for professional medical, legal, or financial advice. 00:00 Intro 02:27 How Politics Is Reshaping Everyday American Life 04:10 Why Denmark Still Sells the American Dream Better 05:29 Why Trump Continues to Connect With Voters 07:12 How Democrats Helped Create the Demand for Outsiders 08:13 Will You Ever Run for President? 11:16 What’s Really Happening in Iran? 14:23 Why Trump Chose Military Action Against Iran 17:16 What Kind of President Can Handle Today’s Crises? 19:02 How Do You End a War With Iran? 22:01 What Happens If Iran Gets Nuclear Weapons? 23:05 Why Israel Is Always at the Center of U.S. Politics 25:45 What Netanyahu Really Wants in the Middle East 27:27 What Happens Next in the Middle East? 32:40 Is There Anything to Respect About Trump? 36:01 How AI Will Change Society Faster Than Expected 41:21 What Happens to Workers in an AI-Driven Economy? 46:37 Could Public Ownership of AI Actually Work? 50:48 Is Socialism the Answer to Rising Inequality? 54:20 Would Wealth Taxes Solve the Problem? 01:00:18 Why America’s Debt Problem Keeps Getting Worse 01:01:35 Could Political Frustration Lead to Trump in 2028? 01:06:27 Does the Left Need Its Own Political Disruptor? 01:11:08 The Hidden Doubts Behind a Presidential Run 01:17:34 What Biden’s Health Meant for the Election 01:20:33 The Most Radical Ideas He Thinks America Needs 01:21:49 How He Would Change the Supreme Court 01:26:26 What He Really Thinks About Elon Musk 01:35:01 The Boldest Idea to Reduce Inequality 01:44:27 Coming Out While Building a Political Career 01:51:41 The Truth the World Needs to Hear Follow Pete Here: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/petebuttigieg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/petebuttigieg TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@petebuttigieg X: https://x.com/PeteButtigieg BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/petebuttigieg.bsky.social Threads:https://www.threads.com/@pete.buttigieg Substack: https://substack.com/@petebuttigieg / https://petebuttigieg.substack.com/ The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Wispr - Get 14 days of Wispr Flow for free at https://wisprflow.ai/steven Function Health - https://functionhealth.com/DOAC Stan - Visit: https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode11 [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6uk7UOHBM)

[0:00] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 我们正处在失去民主的边缘，而留给我们扭转局面的时间已经所剩无几。 [8:53] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 我觉得比起不倾向，我更偏向于参选（more inclined than not）。 [14:44] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 结束一场战争远比发动一场战争艰难得多。 [19:15] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 唯一的最佳方案本是当初根本不要陷进去，但现在为时已晚。 [21:48] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 绝不能允许他们拥有核武器。 [58:43] 皮特·布蒂吉格引述赫伯特·斯坦恩: 如果一件事无法永远持续下去，它终将停止（If something cannot go on forever, it will stop）。 [66:48] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 竞选公职历来被称作是对灵魂的核磁共振检查（MRI of the soul），而在今天这个时代更是如此。 [73:37] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 任何一个当上总统的人，甚至任何一个被认真讨论或考虑过的人，都应该对此感到敬畏和恐惧。 [98:01] 皮特·布蒂吉格引述其父亲: 我宁愿去一个非常大的池塘里，做一条中等大小的鱼。 [104:27] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 我当时正在盘点我的人生。我过着很棒的生活，我是一个成年男人，承担着公职责任，我是房主，我马上要成为一名退伍军人。然而，我却从未体验过坠入爱河是什么滋味。 [111:12] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 艰难的事情之所以困难，正因为它们需要真正的付出（hard things are hard）。 [113:14] 皮特·布蒂吉格: 优秀的政治本质上就是‘相遇与碰撞’（good politics is about encounter）。

[57:46] Pete Buttigieg: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop... I believe one of two things can happen: reform or catastrophe. And the whole reason I'm involved in public life is to try to make sure that it's reform and not catastrophe. [80:57] Pete Buttigieg: When we talk about the most cherished part of the Constitution, many people will say the First Amendment... And we miss that the word 'amendment' being in there signals to us that it wasn't part of the original text of the Constitution... We shouldn't be afraid to use maybe the most elegant feature of the entire Constitution, which is that it has a process to change it. [90:51] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: you can't make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars [94:06] Pete Buttigieg: the hardest I've ever worked in my life was when I was on parental leave when we adopted our newborn son and daughter [102:35] if you want to be someone, you have to get out [105:42] Pete Buttigieg: wanted so bad for it not to be true [112:02] Steven Bartlett: What is the thing that the world needs to hear right now that it maybe doesn't want to hear that is uncomfortable but necessary? [112:02] Pete Buttigieg: it doesn't have to be the way it is, but we have to do the hard things to change it [112:02] Pete Buttigieg: good politics is about encounter

[0:00] I'm really worried about where we're [0:01] headed as a country right now. America's [0:03] system is so out of whack that if you [0:05] are a multibillionaire, you probably pay [0:08] a lower percentage in taxes than if [0:10] you're a school teacher or a [0:11] firefighter. You have levels of [0:13] inequality that we've almost never seen. [0:14] There's a rise in political violence, [0:16] the collapse in trust, and the biggest [0:18] thing of all that we're facing right now [0:20] is this massive debt, but it's now [0:22] escalated to a level that no one can [0:24] ignore. How How do you think this plays [0:26] out? I mean, and we're on the brink of [0:28] losing our democracy and we're running [0:30] out of time to do something about it. [0:32] >> Secretary Pete Buddha Judge, Trump made [0:34] a lot of promises when he came into [0:36] power. Keen to get your perspective on [0:37] the Iran war. [0:38] >> So, the president can't explain why [0:39] we're there. There's a lot of reasons to [0:41] suspect that we're just at war cuz he [0:43] wanted us to. And now I can't figure out [0:45] how to get us out of it. Troops have [0:46] lost their lives. [music] Prices are [0:48] higher. You're paying more for gas, for [0:49] food, or for mortgages because of this [0:51] war. And so that the next president will [0:53] be doing this at a big disadvantage [0:54] because so many relationships with our [0:56] allies have been burned. [0:58] >> So I am keen to get your perspective on [0:59] AI good bad. Should we implement a [1:01] wealth tax? Is there anything you [1:03] respect about Trump but also greater [1:05] Israel for example? But what does [1:06] Netanyahu want in the region? And then [1:08] were you the first person in a [1:10] presidential candidate to be openly gay? [1:13] Uh definitely the first person who's [1:14] considered to have a shot. And when I [1:16] finally made peace with [music] this [1:18] reality that I was gay, I was well into [1:21] my 20s cuz I wanted so bad for it not to [1:24] be true. [1:28] I'd like to believe we'll get to a day [1:30] when it's just [1:32] not a thing. No one cares. [1:36] >> Secretary Pete Buddha Judge, are you [1:37] going to run to be president in 2028? [1:40] >> Um, [1:44] this is super interesting to me. My team [1:45] gave me this report to show me how many [1:47] of you that watch this show subscribe [1:48] and some of you have told us according [1:50] to this that you are unsubscribed from [1:52] the channel randomly. So favor to ask [1:54] all of you please could you check right [1:56] now if you've hit the subscribe button [1:57] if you are a regular view of the show [1:58] and you like what we do here. We're [2:00] approaching quite a significant landmark [2:01] on this show in terms of a subscriber [2:03] number. So, if there was one simple free [2:06] thing that you could do to help us, my [2:07] team, everyone here, to keep this show [2:09] free, to keep it improving year over [2:11] year and week over week, it is just to [2:13] hit that subscribe button and to double [2:14] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll [2:16] ever ask of you. Do we have a deal? If [2:18] you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. [2:19] I'll make sure every single week, every [2:22] single month, we fight harder and harder [2:23] and harder and harder to bring you the [2:24] guests and conversations that you want [2:26] to hear. I've stayed true to that [2:27] promise since the very beginning of the [2:28] D of Sio, and I will not let you down. [2:31] Please help us. Really appreciate it. [2:33] Let's get on with the show. [2:37] [singing] [2:38] Secretary Pete Budajed, how are you [2:40] feeling about the nature of politics at [2:43] the moment, but I should probably say [2:44] the nature of American life at the [2:46] moment? [2:47] >> I'm really worried about where we're [2:49] headed as a country. I think in many [2:50] ways our our entire existence has been [2:53] about creating a different kind of [2:55] political system and introducing it to [2:56] the world. That's what we're about. And [2:58] now that whole project is in question. [3:00] That whole project is in my view, it's [3:03] on the brink. [3:04] >> On the brink? [3:05] >> Yeah. [3:05] >> What? What do you mean by that? [3:06] >> I mean, we're on the brink of losing our [3:09] democracy. The whole idea of this [3:10] country, the whole idea of overthrowing [3:12] a king was that everyday life would get [3:15] better if we set up a country where the [3:18] people are in charge of the government [3:19] instead of the other way around. And now [3:22] we're in this moment where after all of [3:24] the things we've gone through for [3:26] decades, for 250 years, it's not clear [3:30] if that's going to work out. I think it [3:32] will. I believe it will if we do what we [3:35] have to do. But that means reforming, [3:37] tuning up, changing that political [3:39] system because the the problems in that [3:42] political system help to explain all of [3:45] the economic problems that I think so [3:47] many Americans are living with where [3:48] you've had enormous economic growth and [3:51] shockingly little of it making it into [3:54] people's pockets where you have levels [3:57] of inequality that we've almost never [3:59] seen [4:00] >> in this country. And then the other [4:01] thing is there there's the American [4:03] promise in terms of the system, the [4:05] politics, the government, democracy, the [4:06] America's gift to the world, creating [4:08] democracy, but there's the economic [4:10] version of that which is the American [4:11] dream, right? The idea that no matter [4:13] how you start, no matter who you are, [4:16] you can come out ahead of where you [4:19] started economically. That used to [4:21] happen for nine out of 10 Americans. [4:23] Statistically, the place where you're [4:25] most likely to live out the American [4:26] dream right now is Denmark. And I want [4:29] that to be America. [4:30] >> And systemically, if we just think from [4:32] a high level, what is the what is the [4:34] essence of of why Denmark is a better [4:36] place for the American dream? What are [4:37] the systemic problems? Is it with the [4:39] current administration? Is it with a [4:41] perspective on what a good life looks [4:44] like in America or is it greed or is it [4:46] something else? [4:47] >> Well, I wouldn't say it's just the [4:48] current administration. I mean, I think [4:50] the current administration isn't [4:51] helping, but I think the problem is much [4:53] deeper than that. Uh, a lot of it is the [4:56] last 30 or 40 years, we've had policies [4:59] in this country that make it harder to [5:02] get ahead if you're not already starting [5:04] out well off. Even just the way our [5:06] taxes work, they they they tax work more [5:10] than they tax wealth. That's really [5:12] catching up to us. I mean, it has [5:14] created problems. I believe it's created [5:15] problems for decades, but you feel it in [5:17] a different way now. And when inequality [5:20] reaches a certain level and when the [5:22] inequality of power follows the economic [5:25] inequality to a certain level, that's [5:28] when I think you start to have [5:28] earthquakes in in the society and what [5:31] it feels like to live in this country. [5:32] And I think we're going through those [5:33] earthquakes. Uh not just Trump and [5:35] everything he represents, but the rise [5:37] in political violence, the collapse in [5:40] trust in our society. All of these [5:44] things, I think, are related to that. [5:46] and we're running out of time to do [5:48] something about it. [5:50] >> Trump made a lot of promises when he [5:51] came into power. [5:52] >> Mhm. [5:52] >> He won in a bigger than expected [5:55] victory, I would say. Why does he [5:57] resonate? [5:59] >> Well, first of all, I think he speaks to [6:01] a lot of people who know that the system [6:03] has let them down. And even though I [6:06] think he's somebody who really benefits [6:08] from the system as it is, it's made him [6:10] rich and kept him rich, you know, his [6:13] message was, I'm going to blow it all [6:15] up. And I think he's blowing up all the [6:18] wrong things. But look, if if the [6:20] systems let you down, you you're only [6:22] going to vote so many times within that [6:24] system before somebody comes along and [6:26] says, "I'm going to blow it all up." And [6:27] you say, "Well, I I may not even like [6:29] the guy, but uh I'll give him a shot to [6:31] see if that makes me better off." Now, I [6:33] also think he lied to a lot of people. [6:35] Um you know, some people voted for him [6:38] because they believed him when he said [6:40] he's not going to start a new war. Many [6:43] people voted for him because they [6:44] believed him when he said on day one he [6:48] was going to start lowering costs. And [6:50] right now inflation's higher than it was [6:52] the day he took over. So these promises [6:55] weren't true, but they spoke to [6:58] something that I think a lot of people [7:00] had on their mind that that made a lot [7:01] of people willing to burn things down. [7:03] And there's a lesson for my party in [7:05] that. I'm obviously passionately against [7:09] many destructive things that he's doing. [7:12] That doesn't mean the answer is to quote [7:14] unquote reverse the damage, put [7:16] everything back the way it was. [7:17] >> Mhm. [7:18] >> Because you're right there that the [7:19] Democrats have a lot of responsibility [7:21] here um for a lot of reasons. I think [7:23] the very fact that Trump was voted into [7:26] power says something about how people [7:28] felt with the previous administration, [7:30] which was a Democratic administration. [7:32] What responsibility does the Democratic [7:35] Party have for getting the country to a [7:36] place where they thought Democrats [7:38] weren't the solution? Because that's [7:40] kind of I think a lot of people thought [7:41] that's just like more of the same. [7:42] >> Yeah. [7:43] >> Maybe people are getting increasingly I [7:46] think across the Western world by the [7:47] looks of it increasingly tied with like [7:50] politicians [7:51] >> saying these like cute words and like [7:53] we're going to help the working people [7:55] and blah blah blah blah blah and being [7:56] very polished. And then you see this [7:58] these other figures that have come in [7:59] and said I'm not a politician. [8:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. [8:01] >> And as you say, I'm going to burn it [8:02] down. [8:03] >> For some reason, people are choosing [8:04] that. [8:04] >> Yeah. Even though when they do, usually [8:06] that person makes it worse. And so [8:07] that's why the president's unpopular, [8:09] but the president is unpopular. To your [8:11] point, that doesn't mean people are [8:12] automatically going to trust Democrats. [8:15] >> Yeah. Right. Uh so I mean, the answer to [8:17] your question is yes, Democrats have a [8:18] responsibility [8:20] to present something that is better, not [8:23] just better than now, but it's got to be [8:25] better than before. The fact remain is a [8:27] lot of these results have unfolded on [8:30] you know, kind of regardless of who's in [8:33] power. [8:34] >> Are you going to run to be president in [8:35] 2028? [8:36] >> I don't know. Um, [8:39] I would have to believe, and this is how [8:41] I've approached every every time I've [8:42] decided to run for office. It's looking [8:45] at everything that the office seems like [8:48] it needs, not just generally, but in [8:50] that moment, and then looking at what I [8:53] bring to the table and asking myself, [8:55] okay, am I bringing something that's [8:57] different enough from what others are [8:58] bringing? And that fits like that [9:01] moment. Like that's what led me to run [9:02] for mayor, which is a pretty unlikely [9:04] move in in Southbend, Indiana when I was [9:06] in my 20s. It's what led me to run for [9:10] president when I did almost 8 years ago. [9:12] Now, [9:12] >> I'll use your own words here, Secretary. [9:14] Um, you said politics often favors [9:17] someone who is completely different to [9:19] the current leader. [9:20] >> And that you could not be more different [9:23] from Trump. I quote, "An intellectual [9:26] young gay mayor from the Midwest." You [9:30] know, Amazon have this really [9:31] interesting thing when they hire people, [9:33] um, which we've copied. They every time [9:35] you meet someone, you have to vote one [9:37] of four things. You either vote strongly [9:38] not inclined, not inclined, inclined, [9:42] and strongly inclined. So, you've got [9:44] four options when you interview someone. [9:45] We do the same in our company now. We [9:47] took it from them. And the whole idea [9:48] here is to prevent people from sitting [9:51] on the fence, which is like what is your [9:53] inclination? So, if I presented you with [9:55] those four options as it relates to you [9:57] running for president in 2028 as things [9:59] stand, and this is just a balance of [10:00] probability, are you inclined? [10:03] >> Not inclined, strongly not inclined. [10:06] >> Strongly inclined. [10:07] >> Um, [10:09] on these podcasts, nobody ever tells the [10:10] bloody truth. This is why it's difficult [10:11] sometimes to interview politicians cuz [10:13] we all have an inclination, right? [10:14] >> Yeah. I mean, one of the reasons why you [10:16] hesitate to to talk in those terms is [10:18] because, you know, like people are going [10:19] to run with it and it'll be this like [10:20] news of the day thing and it'll, you [10:22] know, it'll kind of dominate the next [10:25] couple of days when you're trying to [10:26] talk about something else. But does the [10:28] truth just not matter more though than [10:29] the consequence of the truth in this [10:31] regard? [10:31] >> Yeah. Yeah, but the truth about like [10:33] what you know what I'm maybe going to do [10:36] like there's a there's a level of like [10:38] not even being certain some of the [10:41] things I'll have to weigh like before [10:43] having made a decision like this before [10:46] I can tell you that there's the read [10:50] >> I need the inclination [10:51] >> like I'm I'm obviously not to one end or [10:53] the other. [10:54] >> Yeah. Okay. So you're not those two. [10:55] >> Um I think I'm like more inclined than [10:59] not. Okay, then I appreciate that. [11:01] >> Um, [11:03] but there's so much we don't know. [11:04] There's so much I don't even know about [11:05] what's going to happen this year, let [11:06] alone, you know, what we need to know [11:08] later. Um, [11:11] and this is not, [11:14] you know, the weight of a decision like [11:16] that. And I don't just mean like the [11:18] national political weight, but just like [11:19] the weight of a decision to run for [11:21] office for you and your family, which [11:23] frankly I did not fully understand, [11:26] but until I had kids. Uh that's changed [11:29] all of my equations. [clears throat] [11:31] >> Um it it's just something that you [11:34] really sit with and take seriously, [11:35] which you should. [11:37] >> One of the big things that people are [11:38] talking about at this moment in time is [11:40] the Iran war. And this feeds into some [11:42] of the points we were touching on around [11:44] promises kept and not kept. [11:48] What is going on in plain terms? Because [11:50] Americans are getting lots of messages. [11:52] We've destroyed everything. Iran, the [11:54] military bases are all gone. and then [11:56] we're back at war and American lives [11:57] have have been taken, [11:59] >> right? [12:00] >> Can you help us see through all of this? [12:02] >> I think what's going on is the president [12:03] has painted himself and the country into [12:06] a corner. There was a a moment where it [12:09] seemed to him that he was better off [12:11] politically if we were at war. even [12:14] though he promised that we wouldn't be, [12:16] even though a lot of his supporters [12:18] didn't want the war, and certainly the [12:19] the American people as a whole don't [12:20] want it, but he was under a lot of heat [12:24] over cost of living, over the Epstein [12:27] files, which was dominating the [12:28] conversation every day, being proven to [12:31] be as connected to an infamous pedophile [12:35] as Jeffrey Epstein, and then doing [12:38] everything he could to cover up [12:39] disclosures about it. Right? This is [12:42] something that obviously was something [12:44] that was creating a ton of heat on the [12:46] president. Meanwhile, there's a lot of [12:48] people in his ear every day and some of [12:51] them from American politicians to people [12:53] around the world would really like to [12:55] see him go to war. Why? [13:00] Well, it's kind of the tradition of the [13:01] Republican party is to generally be more [13:03] pro-war, right? That's I mean, you know, [13:05] my coming of age was at the time of the [13:08] Iraq war. In fact, a big part of what [13:10] kind of pulled me fully into politics [13:12] was being opposed to the Iraq war. [13:14] >> One of the things that a lot of people [13:15] won't know about you is that you did [13:17] actually go and serve [13:18] >> your country. I've got some photos of [13:20] you here serving and I think you've got [13:22] your uh parents I think post Afghanistan [13:25] as well. [13:25] >> Yeah, that's the day I got back. [13:27] >> I just think it's important for people [13:28] to know that you can speak to this quite [13:29] accurately having served your country. [13:31] Yeah, I mean I know what it feels like [13:32] to get on a gray tail airplane that's [13:35] taking you into a war zone and and [13:36] wondering what's waiting for you there. [13:39] Where we are now is a lot of troops are [13:40] in that situation. They're in harm's way [13:44] and the president doesn't seem to have a [13:47] plan. He can't explain why we're there. [13:49] He said it's for regime change. He said [13:51] it's for unconditional surrender. He [13:54] said that it's to get deal with their [13:56] nuclear program. But last year he said [13:57] they obliterated the nuclear program. [14:00] And so it there's a lot of reasons to [14:03] suspect that we're just at war because [14:06] he wanted us to be and now I can't [14:08] figure out how to get us out of it. [14:11] And it appears that any way forward [14:14] leaves us worse off than we were before [14:17] the war. Prices are higher. Troops have [14:20] lost their lives. And it seems like the [14:23] least bad options still involve Iran [14:26] having more control over the Straight of [14:28] Hormuz than they were asserting a year [14:30] ago. Most Americans shouldn't have to be [14:32] worrying about the straight of Hormuz. [14:33] They got enough to worry about. And a [14:35] year ago, we weren't. That was not a [14:37] problem. Whatever was going on in the [14:38] straight of Hormuz did not feel like it [14:39] was a problem. You know, where I live in [14:42] Michigan and now it is. [14:43] >> Why though? What what was the like [14:46] domino effect that caused him to go, you [14:48] know what? [14:49] >> I think we can just go in there, [14:51] decapitate the leader. [14:52] >> Yeah. [14:53] >> And announce victory. Obviously, this is [14:55] a question for the president, but [14:56] honestly, I don't fully understand why [14:59] they would do something like this, [15:01] especially because we know like you [15:04] didn't have to be like an expert in [15:05] international affairs and security [15:07] studies to know if we actually attacked [15:10] Iran, they were going to shut down the [15:12] straight and try to the world [15:14] economy. Like, it was literally the most [15:18] obvious next thing that could happen. [15:21] And yet it seems like he either didn't [15:24] understand or didn't believe. Surely he [15:26] was told this. We know in fact it's been [15:28] reported that he was told this and he [15:30] did it anyway. So how does that happen? [15:33] I mean I've long given up trying to see [15:35] into the mind of this president. [15:37] >> Dare I say if you are president in 2028, [15:40] this could be your responsibility to [15:42] resolve. [15:43] >> I mean I really hope that the next [15:45] president isn't facing this war dragging [15:48] on into 2029. But I mean, yeah, one [15:51] thing we have learned is that it is [15:52] harder to stop a war than it is to start [15:54] one. Which is why if you have any other [15:57] reasonable choice, you don't start one. [15:59] >> So what are you going to do if you are [16:01] president? [16:02] >> Look, the next president will face a [16:04] complicated, violent, and challenging [16:06] Middle East and world map no matter [16:09] what. and the next president's gonna [16:11] have to deal with that while dealing [16:13] with uh a more assertive China and a [16:18] dramatically swiftly evolving security [16:21] landscape partly because of things like [16:23] AI. [16:24] >> Just as you and I are sitting here now, [16:26] there's a lot of headlines about a big [16:28] safety issue created by an AI model that [16:31] was supposed to not even be able to [16:32] access the internet managing to get [16:34] itself on the internet and hack into [16:35] another company to get the answers to a [16:37] test that it was told to solve. Right? [16:39] And that's as of today in 2026. The [16:42] things that could be going on by 2029 [16:45] are surely going to change both what [16:49] we're up against and what's possible. [16:51] Look, in the same way that there was a [16:54] nuclear hotline between Washington and [16:57] Moscow, because it turns out, even while [17:00] at each other's throats in a lot of [17:02] ways, one thing that Americans and [17:04] Soviets didn't want was to incinerate [17:07] the planet. Mhm. [17:08] >> There's going to have to be some way for [17:10] countries that do not trust each other [17:12] today [17:13] to coordinate on things like making sure [17:16] AI doesn't lead to bioweapons being made [17:19] by rogue actors or even individual [17:21] actors. [17:23] Making sure that it doesn't lead to uh [17:26] nuclear proliferation or any number of [17:28] other problems, right, that could [17:29] happen. So the security picture, I [17:31] think, will be more challenging for the [17:33] next president than it's been for any [17:35] president since the cold war. So what [17:37] kind of president in terms of mentality [17:39] or character experience do you think can [17:42] meet those challenges? [17:43] >> Well, you need somebody who's deliberate [17:44] and decisive. Uh those two things [17:47] sometimes are intention because [17:49] deliberation means you slow down, you [17:50] look at what's going on and you think [17:51] about it. [17:52] >> Mhm. [17:53] >> But decisive doesn't mean you [17:54] immediately make a call every time a [17:56] question is put to you. It does mean [17:58] that you once you feel like you've got [17:59] enough information. You make a decision. [18:02] You own the consequences of that [18:04] decision, you move on to the next [18:05] decision. [18:06] And I think in terms of kind of [18:08] character and style, we're going to need [18:10] both of those things. We're going to [18:11] need wisdom. We're going to need [18:12] judgment. And we're going to need [18:14] judgment that is not twisted or changed [18:16] or colored or um biased based on [18:22] corrupt reasons. And the reason I [18:23] mentioned that is because right now [18:26] we've got for the first time ever out of [18:29] all of our presidents uh a president [18:32] whose family is making billions of [18:35] dollars from things that are sometimes [18:37] directly connected to the decision of a [18:40] foreign government, right? Uh there was [18:43] one government in the Middle East that [18:44] put hundreds of millions of dollars into [18:46] the family crypto fund of this [18:48] president. You got Saudi Arabia [18:50] investing in the first family's business [18:53] interests to the tune of, I believe, a [18:55] couple of billion dollars for the [18:56] president's son-in-law, right? And we [19:00] just can't afford with everything that's [19:02] on the line right now to have the next [19:04] president be [19:07] someone who could remotely be influenced [19:09] by those kinds of considerations given [19:11] everything that's on the line for the [19:12] American people and for American [19:14] security. [19:15] When you look at that the picture um in [19:17] Iran, it's all well and good saying we [19:19] have to uh we have to get out of there. [19:21] But how? [19:22] >> No, the only good way to do it is to not [19:24] be there in the first place. It's too [19:25] late for that. [19:26] >> And so, as is often the case in [19:29] difficult decisions that executives [19:31] face, it will be finding the least bad [19:34] combination of options, which probably [19:36] means engaging a lot of other countries, [19:39] a lot of regional partners, uh a lot of [19:41] allies. Now again, the next president [19:43] will be doing this at a big disadvantage [19:46] because so many relationships with our [19:49] allies have been burned. And it turns [19:51] out you you build relationships with [19:52] allies not just out of friendliness or [19:54] because it's neat. You do it because [19:56] you're going to need each other someday. [19:58] And the worse something is, the more [19:59] difficult a problem. Just like life, you [20:02] know, the times I'm quickest to call a [20:04] friend are the times when I'm hurting [20:06] the most or feel like I I I need help [20:09] the most, right? Same is true for [20:11] countries. The tougher your situation, [20:13] the more you got to have friends you can [20:15] count on. We are in a very tough [20:16] situation in Iran. We will be for a long [20:18] time. We need our friends because, you [20:20] know, you're dealing with a lot of um [20:22] dare I say very large ego leaders around [20:24] the world. [20:25] >> You got your Putins. [20:26] >> I don't even know who's running around [20:28] at the moment. Then you've got China. [20:30] >> Um does it need a leader with a ego of [20:34] the same size? because I sometimes I [20:36] think like I think crazy people kind of [20:38] respect crazy people in a weird way. [20:41] >> I think I think a lot of different ways [20:43] to deal with people like that. But I [20:46] think the the most useful is to earn a [20:50] level of credibility. And when we're [20:52] talking with allies, a level of trust. [20:54] When we're talking with adversaries, [20:57] it's maybe not the same thing as trust, [20:59] but it is credibility that when you say [21:01] you're going to do something or you seem [21:03] like you're going to do something, [21:04] you're going to do it. It means less [21:06] energy gets wasted on guesswork and it [21:09] means you have just a little more [21:10] stability. I think something all of us [21:11] are looking for in the world right now [21:14] is for it to just be a little more [21:16] stable. And by the way, the way to do [21:20] that is not to like rewind and imagine [21:22] that we can make the world look the way [21:23] it looked in the '9s or the ' 50s. It's [21:28] not like that. We're going to have to [21:30] find new ways to create a stable future. [21:34] But look, there there are as many [21:36] different kinds of personalities in [21:38] world leaders and presidents as there [21:40] are, you know, in humanity in general. [21:42] But it'll need to be somebody who, like [21:44] I said, is deliberate and decisive, [21:45] tough and fair and credible. [21:48] >> Yeah. The the the Iran situation is [21:49] particularly it's particularly uncertain [21:52] for many reasons. In part because I [21:53] don't know who the leadership there is [21:55] anymore. In part because that it seems [21:57] like they will now control the strait of [21:59] Hummus or at least use it as leverage [22:01] really irrespective of what outcome [22:02] takes place and in part because you [22:04] still have this nuclear threat. Yeah. [22:06] >> Um that they are probably now more [22:09] motivated to de develop nuclear weapons [22:11] than they probably were under Obama when [22:13] he signed that [22:14] >> that agreement with them. [22:16] >> Yes, they may have less capacity, but [22:17] they certainly have more motivation at [22:19] this point. [22:20] >> Would you let them develop nuclear [22:21] weapons if you were president? [22:22] >> No, they should not be allowed to have [22:24] nuclear weapons. Uh a nuclear armed [22:26] Iran, I mean, look at the malevolent [22:28] activities that they already have [22:30] pursued with conventional means, [22:32] terrorist groups around the region and [22:33] around the world. Like this is not a [22:35] regime, certainly not in its current [22:38] form or anything resembling its current [22:40] form that could ever be trusted with [22:41] nuclear weapons. No, different [22:44] presidents, each of the last few [22:45] presidents had a way of making sure that [22:48] that never happened. The best way to do [22:50] that was through diplomacy. That was the [22:52] whole point of the Obama deal. The first [22:54] Trump administration tore up the Obama [22:56] deal, but couldn't get a better deal. [22:59] And then when the Biden administration [23:00] was trying to get a better deal, it was [23:03] very hard to work across the table to [23:07] get the Iranians to negotiate because [23:09] they remembered that it was Trump who [23:11] tore up the Obama deal. Right? It's part [23:12] of what I mean when I talk about [23:13] credibility. It doesn't mean that people [23:15] across the table have to like you mean [23:17] they have to have some sense that it's [23:18] at least worth dealing with you, right? [23:21] And there's not a lot of that given that [23:23] kind of instability, that pattern that [23:25] we faced. You know, I followed American [23:26] politics, I think, since I was about 10. [23:28] One of the things I've never heard [23:29] mentioned so much in politics is Israel. [23:33] >> It appears to me as a objective observer [23:36] that the subject of Israel is now so [23:38] central to politics. [23:39] >> Yeah. [23:40] >> Why? What's going on with the the US's [23:43] relationship with Israel and the public [23:44] sentiment towards Israel? [23:46] >> Well, it's getting a lot of attention [23:47] because many very important things are [23:50] at stake and they've been put into [23:52] conflict with each other, right? And [23:55] each of those things is a valid thing, [23:58] at least in my opinion. And and I'll [23:59] name three. One which has be become very [24:03] challenging for many Jewish Americans, [24:05] is the safety of Jews around the world [24:08] and in America. Theoretically, that [24:10] could be separated from what's happening [24:12] in Israel and Palestine. But in the real [24:14] world, there's been a relationship [24:17] between between what's going on there [24:20] and an explosion in anti-semitism that [24:23] has many American Jewish families afraid [24:27] for their safety. Another thing is the [24:32] safety and dignity of Palestinian people [24:36] who in Gaza, but not only in Gaza, have [24:39] been subjected to horrific violence and [24:42] in my opinion war crimes. And alongside [24:46] that, there is the safety and dignity of [24:49] people in Israel who we have a security [24:53] relationship with as a country and have [24:55] since since the Jewish state of Israel [24:57] was founded, the future and survival of [24:59] Israel as a Jewish state and a country [25:04] that is still responding to the worst [25:06] day of the most violence against Jews [25:07] since the Holocaust. [25:09] Those three things I believe in [25:12] principle [25:14] can be honored at the same time. In [25:16] fact, I believe in principle they have [25:17] to be honored at the same time. [25:18] >> Is that what Netanyahui wants? [25:20] >> No, I don't think he is remotely [25:23] interested in the safety and dignity and [25:27] security of Palestinian people. I think [25:29] he believes that uh he would be better [25:32] off if they didn't exist or at the very [25:35] least he doesn't want them around. [25:36] Right. And so we see a policy which [25:39] obviously has led to what it did in [25:41] Gaza, but also in the West Bank, which [25:44] gets less attention, maybe because [25:46] there's been fewer deaths there, but uh [25:51] pretty horrific behavior and conduct and [25:53] violence from settlers that is part of a [25:57] project of making it impossible for [25:59] there to be a secure, viable Palestinian [26:04] state. [26:06] So, what does Netanyahu want in the [26:07] region? Well, I don't know that I'm much [26:09] more capable of seeing into the mind of [26:11] Netanyahu than I am seeing into the mind [26:13] of Trump. But looking into his choices, [26:15] it seems that he wants to be able to [26:17] assert domination of uh any other [26:22] regional player [26:24] and something that is beyond just [26:28] security and safety for the people of [26:30] Israel, which is something that I [26:31] believe in and something I think is hard [26:33] to argue with, but something else, which [26:35] is a project of taking over what is [26:40] called greater Israel uh in his [26:42] ideology. ology and his worldview. [26:44] >> Grace Israel. [26:45] >> Yeah, that's Israel, which is a vision [26:47] that does not have a lot of room for [26:49] Palestinians [26:51] anywhere between the river and the sea. [26:53] He won't say it in those terms, but if [26:56] you look at his actions, it is hard to [26:58] believe that he is comfortable with [27:01] anything less. What's your take on how [27:04] Trump has treated Netanyahu and that [27:06] relationship? Is that the relationship [27:08] you would have had? [27:09] >> It's not the relationship I would add. [27:11] Um, I think like all things with Trump, [27:14] it's pretty transactional. It's [27:16] instrumental. It's what's in it for me. [27:20] And I think part of how that has [27:22] developed into a friendmy relationship [27:24] now is that, you know, the relationship [27:26] that maybe served him well politically [27:28] is not so good for him now. Because [27:32] among other things, Netanyahu has an [27:34] interest in a continued US presence in [27:37] an Iran war that has gone from being [27:40] something Trump would thought would be [27:42] politically useful for Trump to [27:44] something that is politically dangerous [27:46] for Trump. How do you think this plays [27:49] out, Secretary? What what do you think [27:51] happens? You know, I said there I sort [27:53] of hypothesized that by 2028 this will [27:54] still be dragging on because from my [27:56] perspective, you're either going to kind [27:58] of lie to the American public and say [28:00] that and declare some kind of victory [28:02] >> or you're going to stay in there. I [28:04] can't actually see a third option [28:05] personally. So, how how do you imagine [28:07] this playing out? [28:08] >> There's got to be a way to get out of [28:09] Iran. Like, we just cannot. [28:11] First of all, the president has already [28:13] backpedled a lot, even though he would [28:15] never admit it on what we're there to do [28:18] because he said unconditional surrender. [28:20] That's not happening. He said regime [28:22] change. Regime hasn't changed. We went [28:24] from Ayatollah Kame toy Kame Jr. at [28:27] least on paper. Who knows if the guy's [28:29] alive, but the regime is alive. But the [28:31] regime's entire ideology is based on [28:32] hating the United States, right? And now [28:34] that the United States has done this, [28:37] hard to believe that's going to change. [28:38] There will have to be an exit that is [28:41] very unlikely to be the unconditional [28:43] surrender that Trump promised, but has [28:45] to be something that is tolerable to [28:48] this country, to our country, to [28:49] Americans, which includes [28:51] passage through the Straits of Hormos. [28:52] And the only way to do that, I think, is [28:55] with a lot of international partners who [28:57] want the same thing to happen. Remember, [28:59] anyone east of Iran is feeling more [29:02] economic pain even than we are from [29:05] what's happening in the straits. China [29:07] and [29:07] >> yeah because East Asia relies on oil and [29:10] and goods that go through there more. [29:13] >> So I think what you're going to have to [29:14] have is a regional and international [29:16] partnership that [29:19] ensures something at least resembling [29:22] free passage of goods and security [29:26] without the US sending troops in there [29:28] or continuing to be at war. It's it's [29:30] it's seems like the only way, but it's [29:32] unquestionably worse than where we were [29:34] a year ago before the war started. Did [29:36] you hear recently that Trump mentioned I [29:38] think it was at the G7 summit, we run [29:40] out of reserves about 4 weeks. You know, [29:43] there are reserves all over the world [29:45] and we would really run out and there'll [29:47] be time when we wouldn't be able to get [29:49] it. It would be bedum. and he made these [29:52] comments last month 2026 at the G7 [29:55] summit in regards to the amount of oil [29:58] the United States have left in the [29:59] reserves. He was I think he was framing [30:01] it around why he signed this memorandum [30:04] of understanding this agreement with [30:05] them. But you know in the last week [30:07] we've gone back to war and the straight [30:08] of Hermuse appears to be closed again. [30:10] >> So when we think about oil reserves and [30:12] how that impacts ordinary Americans and [30:14] what might be around the corner there's [30:16] a real pressure here to find a solution [30:19] and to find a [30:19] >> Yes. I mean, look, this is why he signed [30:21] an MOU that was frankly more on Iranian [30:24] terms than American terms. I mean, the [30:28] ceasefire, so-called ceasefire, emerged [30:31] from a deal that was really us [30:33] responding to what Iran came up with, [30:35] not vice versa. Again, he said he was [30:38] out for regime change and unconditional [30:39] surrender. We're not even talking about [30:40] that anymore. We're nowhere near that. [30:42] And now what we have is a set of [30:44] conditions. It's us redlinining their [30:46] text, not the other way around, right? [30:48] And then he's trying to figure out how [30:49] do I go out and sell that? And so he [30:51] points out something that is true. [30:53] Sometimes he tells the truth when it [30:54] serves him. And when he was trying to [30:56] explain why he backpedalled on his war [30:58] goals, the way he explained it was by [31:01] admitting that there was a level of [31:03] economic [31:04] vulnerability [31:06] that was unleashed by closing the [31:09] straight, which is what Iran did to [31:10] respond to the US attacks. Right? But [31:13] the problem is that ceasefire is not [31:15] happening. At least not as you and I are [31:17] sitting here right now. [31:19] still a hard thing for them to admit. [31:21] You know, in the same way that he took [31:24] out a Sharpie to modify a hurricane map [31:27] rather than acknowledge that he was [31:29] mistaken about some detail uh during a [31:32] national disaster once [31:34] his administration deleted four names [31:38] from the ranks of those killed in action [31:40] in this conflict because they were [31:42] afraid that listing their names would [31:45] contradict him saying that we had a [31:48] ceasefire. [31:49] >> Really? Yeah. At least that's the only [31:51] explanation I can think of. The crazy [31:53] thing is all of us know there's a war. [31:55] We've even had moments, remember, I [31:57] think it was Secretary Rubio said in [31:58] Congress where there's punishment for [32:01] lying, you know, you're supposed to lie [32:02] to Congress. He said, "The war's over. [32:06] We all know the war's not over." Are [32:08] they stuck? Because they seem a bit [32:10] stuck to me. I was watching Hegathth in [32:12] in front of I think it was Congress. [32:14] Yeah, it was Congress the other day. And [32:15] they're just repeating his quotes back [32:16] to him over and over and over and over [32:17] again. Yeah, because how's he supposed [32:19] to explain that we're in a war that [32:22] supposedly we already won, [32:25] that we're not getting any of the things [32:26] that were supposedly worth going to war [32:28] over, and that the bill for this keeps [32:31] getting bigger in terms of tax dollars. [32:33] I think his latest number was 37.5 [32:35] billion. That's our money, all of us as [32:38] American taxpayers. And of course, the [32:40] cost in lies and the cost in terms of [32:44] everything in America, starting with [32:46] gas, being more exposed. They don't want [32:47] to be explaining that, right? But they [32:51] don't have a great way out either and [32:55] they're not prepared to lead us to a [32:58] better place because they don't even [32:58] know what it looks like. Is there [33:01] anything you respect about Trump? [33:04] >> Sure. Um [33:07] I think he has been able to [33:10] create the impression of a bias for [33:14] action and I think he gets a lot of [33:16] credit for that. I think in general and [33:19] especially in government there's a lot [33:21] of hand ringing like oh we got to have a [33:23] 19step process to get all these things [33:25] exactly. I saw this during my four years [33:28] trying to get stuff built in this [33:30] country as Secretary of Transportation [33:32] that there were so many hoops and so [33:35] much red tape and he comes in and he [33:38] says like, "Nope, not doing that. We're [33:40] just going to do this." No. Often what [33:42] he's doing turns out to be illegal and [33:44] it gets reversed. And obviously I think [33:46] most of his policies are terribly [33:49] destructive. But I I think you have to [33:52] respect the effect that he has had with [33:55] that kind of bias toward just doing [33:58] something. And I think we could learn a [33:59] bit from that. [34:00] >> Is that a case for less politicians in [34:01] power and more entrepreneurs? [34:04] >> Look, I I think he's a politician [34:06] through and through. I think that on [34:08] some level [34:10] every CEO is a politician. [34:14] Every general is a politician. Every [34:16] bishop is a politician. You just reach a [34:18] certain level where part of what you're [34:20] doing, if you're being honest with [34:21] yourself, is is what is considered [34:23] politics. Which, by the way, I don't [34:24] mean in a porative way. I mean it's [34:27] organizing people's choices, loyalties, [34:33] and organizing power in order to get [34:35] things done. [34:35] >> I think the difference I I I understand [34:37] what you're saying. I think the [34:38] difference especially with founders is [34:40] um founders got from started at zero and [34:44] got somewhere because [34:46] >> they had to be like highly [34:49] have a high bias to action. [34:51] >> Yes. [34:52] >> Believe that walls were made of paper [34:53] and be disruptive and some I mean that [34:55] the reason they are successful is [34:56] because of disruption. [34:57] >> Yeah. The best thing about founders is [34:59] they see something that could be Yeah. [35:02] >> And the way things are just doesn't even [35:04] bother them. They just see that vision [35:05] and they just go after it and they blow [35:07] through every wall between them and [35:08] getting it done. That's the best thing [35:09] about founders. The worst thing about [35:11] founders from a political perspective is [35:14] that sometimes because they were so good [35:16] at one thing, like uniquely sometimes [35:18] world historically good at one thing, [35:20] they imagine that they're good at [35:22] everything. Yeah. [35:23] >> Now, that's not just a problem with [35:24] founders. That's probably lots of smart [35:26] people. [35:26] >> Yeah. But politics requires you to be a [35:29] little bit humble about how much you [35:30] don't know and surround yourself by [35:32] people who are smarter than you at [35:33] whatever it is they're in charge of and [35:35] not imagine that you've got all the [35:36] answers. [35:37] >> Founders hate bureaucracy. [35:39] >> Yeah. [35:40] >> This is why they often [35:41] >> I mean look, I'm pretty impatient with [35:42] bureaucracy, too. Like I I believe in [35:43] the idea of a policy entrepreneur who [35:45] can recognize [35:47] here's a problem, here's a whole bunch [35:49] of solutions and here's a window of [35:51] opportunity and let's just like line it [35:52] all up and make it happen. It's also [35:54] laws exist in order to protect people. [35:56] And when we're talking about [35:57] bureaucracy, like we're really talking [35:58] about laws. Now, sometimes those laws [36:00] need to be changed, simplified, stripped [36:02] down to the most important things. I [36:04] learned this very early on in my time in [36:07] office where sometimes I was trying to [36:09] get something done as a policy [36:10] entrepreneur and somebody tapped the [36:11] brakes on me and used a bureaucracy to [36:13] do it. Sometimes they were right. [36:15] Sometimes they made me better. They made [36:18] me sharpen what I was trying to do by [36:20] fighting me. The other issue you [36:22] mentioned a second ago that I think is [36:23] going to be really pertinent over the [36:24] next 24 months and is increasing in [36:27] interest amongst Americans, I'd say [36:29] especially young Americans that are [36:30] thinking about getting a job and going [36:32] into the workforce is the subject of [36:34] artificial intelligence. [36:36] >> Talked to a lot of AI experts on my show [36:38] over the last couple of years and I've [36:40] also reflected a lot on the different [36:42] types of comments that the CEOs of the [36:44] big AI companies have made through time [36:46] and how those quotes have changed. Um, [36:49] if you go back a couple of years, it was [36:51] doom and gloom. [36:52] >> But now that they are running trillion [36:54] dollar companies, the quotes seem to be [36:55] a bit more optimistic all of a sudden. [36:58] >> One thing that that I think they do [36:59] agree on is that there's going to be [37:00] significant job disruption, especially [37:02] if you look at some of anthropics [37:04] reports, which are the maker of Claude, [37:07] they already show that entry level [37:09] positions are at risk first, especially [37:11] entry- levelvel knowledge jobs. [37:13] >> And people are scared. first time I saw [37:15] that Eric Schmidt speech where the [37:17] crowds, the college audience are booing [37:19] every time he says the word AI, [37:21] >> this is presumably going to accelerate [37:23] this sentiment towards AI and in part [37:26] because people are going to find it [37:27] harder to get jobs and they're going to [37:29] experience more more of AI sort of [37:32] permeating through their life. [37:34] >> Mhm. [37:35] >> How do you feel about all of this? What [37:37] is the what is the balance of of AI, [37:39] good, bad, ugly risks? I think it can be [37:41] all of those things. And we've got some [37:44] decisions to make about where AI goes. [37:46] And the simplest way I put it is this. [37:50] Either we're looking at a future where [37:52] because of AI, we have a shorter work [37:56] week and more money in our pocket, or [37:59] we're looking at a future where there is [38:01] even more extreme concentration of [38:03] wealth and power in this country than [38:06] we've already got. and which way it [38:08] goes, which of those things happen. It's [38:10] actually not something that's in the [38:11] technology. It's not a tech question. [38:14] It's a policy choice. It's about whether [38:17] we make sure these technologies unfold [38:21] in a way that is empowering for families [38:24] and workers and college graduates and [38:26] manage all of the harms that could come [38:28] from it. Every technology brings good [38:31] and bad things. And we've certainly seen [38:32] that with digital technology. We've seen [38:34] it with social media. We've seen it with [38:36] the internet itself. Good and bad things [38:38] always. AI has incredible capabilities. [38:41] I think a lot about uh something that's [38:44] not usually in the top 10 thing people [38:46] talk about, but it's self-driving [38:48] vehicles. Easy to be freaked out by [38:50] them. They actually have enormous [38:52] potential to save lives. That's just one [38:54] example of how we could be better off if [38:56] we responsibly develop these [38:58] technologies. But if we don't, I'll tell [39:00] you what I think could happen. And I [39:02] come at this based on where I grew up, [39:04] right? I'm from the industrial Midwest, [39:06] northern Indiana, a place dominated by [39:08] the auto industry. And starting in the [39:11] 60s, but definitely in the 90s when I [39:13] was growing up in the early 2000s, there [39:15] was a huge amount of job loss because [39:17] the economy was changing. [39:20] What happened was there were a whole lot [39:21] of people who didn't just lose their [39:24] jobs. Often they would lose their jobs, [39:26] maybe find another job, maybe be trained [39:28] to find a new career even, but never [39:31] recovered their sense of identity. [39:33] You're an auto worker. You're in a tool [39:35] and die shop. And it's your your whole [39:37] sense of belonging revolves around your [39:39] job. Not just your paycheck. It's how [39:42] your spouses know each other from the [39:44] union picnic. It's it's it's how you're [39:46] sponsoring little league. It's what you [39:48] explain. You know, at least in the US, [39:51] we don't even say like what's your job? [39:53] We say what do you do? Right? What we [39:54] mean is what do you do professionally, [39:55] but we say what do you do basically as a [39:57] way of saying who are you? And that's [39:59] true for blue collar workers. That's [40:01] even more true for white collar workers. [40:05] And so I think that there is a [40:07] generation of workers who are about to [40:08] have their identity, not just their job, [40:13] their identity disrupted. Whether we can [40:16] come up with new sources or better [40:18] sources of belonging, then what your job [40:20] is could decide everything about what it [40:23] feels like and is like to live in this [40:25] country within the next few years. And I [40:28] just think about what you said there [40:29] about growing up in the Midwest. Um, [40:32] people working in the auto industry [40:34] making cars. And you also use the [40:36] example of full self-driving vehicles [40:37] being a net positive. But when I put [40:39] those two things together, I thought, [40:40] okay, so the people in the factories are [40:42] at risk of being replaced by robotics [40:45] now. [40:46] >> Huge acceleration in robotics, both [40:47] humanoid, but just generally intelligent [40:49] machines, which is right here. It's not [40:51] theoretical. It's not sci-fi anymore. [40:53] They're building them right now. And Sam [40:54] Alman said, "On the current trajectory, [40:56] we believe we may only be a couple of [40:58] years away from early versions of true [41:00] super intelligence. If we are right, by [41:02] the end of 2028, more of the world's [41:05] intellectual capacity could reside in [41:07] inside of a data center than outside of [41:09] them." Daria, who's also the founder of [41:11] Anthropic, said, "If the exponential [41:13] continues, then it cannot possibly be [41:15] more than a few years before AI is [41:17] better than humans at essentially [41:19] everything." And the quotes go on and on [41:21] and on. Dennis from Google said, "We're [41:23] only a few years, maybe within a decade [41:25] away from systems that have general [41:26] human level intelligence across the [41:27] board." And Elon Musk in an interview [41:29] this week talked about how with robots [41:32] being physical um disruption and AI [41:35] being intellectual disruption, you have [41:36] the perfect combination where work will [41:38] become a choice. What does that mean for [41:40] those people in the Midwest? Because [41:41] Darra, the COVID, sat there in front of [41:42] me and said the 9 million drivers he had [41:44] would be replaced. Um, but also now [41:46] you're if I think about the production [41:48] line, the people making the cars as well [41:50] theoretically could be at risk. There's [41:53] always going to be something worth doing [41:56] with our time. [41:58] We need to arrange an economy that [41:59] rewards things that are worth doing with [42:01] our time, especially things that only [42:04] people can do. Some of that is creative [42:08] work. Some of that is very human work [42:11] like caregiving. I'm thinking about this [42:13] more and more because I belong to this [42:15] sandwich generation that's taking care [42:17] of kids and aging parents at the same [42:19] time. [42:21] But whether those kinds of things are [42:22] rewarded or not is what I worry about. I [42:24] mean, imagine a m a world where just for [42:27] the sake of imagination, you've got a [42:29] machine that can make more and more [42:31] things. It's like the replicator from [42:32] Star Trek. You know, I love Star Trek as [42:34] a kid. Captain Peicard goes up to him. [42:35] He just says like, "Give me a cup of [42:37] tea. Earl Grey, hot." And like it [42:39] happens, right? Imagine a some [42:41] combination of artificial intelligence [42:43] and robotics that leads to factories [42:47] where you can kind of do that [42:49] over time. You need fewer and fewer [42:51] people in them. [42:53] And that means that less and less in the [42:56] economy depends on the wages that those [42:59] workers can command because you need [43:01] fewer of them. That means more and more [43:03] is going to depend on well who actually [43:05] owns the machine by which I mean both [43:08] the intellectual property the AI and the [43:10] the physical plant right and that's [43:14] where we've got to make sure that the [43:15] American people own enough of this or at [43:17] least own enough of the value that's [43:20] being created that people's needs can be [43:24] met. [43:24] >> How well there's a lot of ways you can [43:26] do it. Uh I think some version of a [43:28] dividend makes sense. What I mean by [43:30] that is there's some public share. We [43:33] can argue about whether it should come [43:34] with like a vote like being on a board [43:36] or whether it's kind of closer to a tax. [43:38] By the way, I think this is also fair [43:40] game. I mean, these things trained on [43:42] data that all of us put in the world for [43:44] free. These things are based on the [43:46] internet, which was created by the [43:48] American taxpayer basically free of [43:50] charge in the 1960s when DARPA, the [43:52] Defense Advanced Research Projects [43:54] Agency, created what became the [43:56] internet. [43:58] and and now it's time to return more of [44:00] that to the American people. You do [44:01] that, we really could have a shorter [44:03] work week and more money in our pocket. [44:06] But there's a big butt here, which is [44:10] it hasn't always worked out that way [44:12] with laborsaving technology. A 100 years [44:14] ago, the economist John Maynard Kanes [44:16] wrote wrote an essay called economic [44:18] possibilities for our grandchildren. He [44:20] wrote this in 1930 and it was all about [44:22] what the world would be like a hundred [44:23] years from then, so 2030. And he [44:26] predicts that the productivity of our [44:30] economy because of automation, [44:32] technology, all these things will go up [44:35] something like five to eightfold. [44:38] And because of that, really, we're not [44:40] going to have to work more than 10 or 15 [44:42] hours a week. And so far, we are on [44:44] track to almost perfectly match his [44:47] prediction about productivity. [44:50] But we're nowhere close to that. If [44:51] anything, we're working more right now. [44:53] So, how does that happen? Well, it turns [44:55] out that has to do with policy choices [44:57] about what is or isn't a good use of [44:59] time and it has to do with social [45:01] choices too, right? I mean, one question [45:03] I think about a lot is if we go into the [45:06] best possible scenario, we get the [45:08] policy choices right, we make sure the [45:10] companies act right. This is saying a [45:11] lot, but imagine that we do and we do in [45:14] fact have, you know, most of us have a [45:16] shorter work week and more money in our [45:19] pocket. [45:22] How do we know we're going to use our [45:23] time? Well, [45:24] because in many ways I think many of us [45:27] are aching to have more time to use. [45:29] Well, I know just doing my thing, I I [45:31] wish I had more time with my kids. This [45:33] is always the lament of a politician, [45:35] but like anybody in a intense job wishes [45:38] they had more time with people they [45:39] love. [45:41] But, you know, also a lot of our time [45:42] right now is being absorbed by [45:46] right? Scrolling things where you spend [45:49] an hour doing it and an hour later [45:52] nothing sticks. It's exactly as if you [45:54] hadn't [45:54] >> you regret put your hour yeah or you [45:56] feel worse but the hour is gone. [45:58] >> So we need to figure out how to also be [46:00] better stewards of our own time. These [46:01] by the way are not just not this this [46:04] sounds like a very 21st century problem [46:06] and in one way it is but you know the [46:08] stoic philosopher Senica the Roman [46:10] philosophers writing about this kind of [46:12] stuff more than 2,000 years ago talking [46:14] about how we are so careful about who [46:18] can get our money [46:20] and and and are very up in arms if [46:22] anybody looks like they're cheating us [46:24] or taking our money but then our time [46:26] which is the one thing where we have [46:28] every reason to be uh even more stingy [46:30] about it than money because you can get [46:32] more money but you can't get more time [46:33] in your life. We let it get wasted in [46:35] all kinds of ways. Bernie has this [46:37] proposal where he believes we should [46:39] take and I know I was reading about you [46:41] know you discovering Bernie I believe in [46:43] college right wasn't it high school [46:45] actually in high school he has a [46:46] proposal where we should take 50% of the [46:48] stock of these AI companies gives the [46:50] general public 50% ownership and board [46:52] voting seats to block jobk killing [46:54] decisions and re redistribute AI profits [46:57] directly to citizens for healthcare [46:58] education and housing viable proposal [47:01] part of that overlaps with what I'm [47:03] talking about I do think a public share [47:04] of the profits which could mean a public [47:06] share of the ownership can make sense. [47:08] And again, for reasons that I I shared [47:10] earlier, I I think that would be fair. I [47:12] do think we need to weigh whether the [47:14] right way to make sure the public has a [47:15] say in how these companies behave is to [47:18] be on the board [47:19] >> versus just to have some rules to make [47:21] sure that the rules are such that the [47:23] companies can do what they do best, [47:24] create value, innovate, [47:26] >> but they can't do it in a way that hurts [47:28] people, which is generally how [47:30] regulation is supposed to work. I mean, [47:32] I say this having been in the cabinet of [47:33] the Department of Transportation where [47:34] our job was to regulate companies. So, [47:37] what that meant was we have something [47:38] like the FAA, right? The Federal [47:39] Aviation Administration. You know, it [47:42] doesn't create aircraft. It doesn't [47:43] invent uh aviation technology. Uh what [47:47] it does is it sets a very elaborate set [47:50] of rules to make sure that aviation is [47:52] safe. And the consequence of that is [47:55] actually an incredible unsung [47:58] civilizational achievement. Just in the [48:00] time I was Secretary of Transportation, [48:02] we had 4 billion people get on an [48:04] airplane. 4 billion passenger implants [48:06] on on commercial airplanes. The number [48:07] of fatalities was zero. Zero out of four [48:10] billion. [48:11] >> Crazy. [48:12] >> There are very few things you can do in [48:14] life. I mean, all the way down to like [48:17] crossing the street or eating a [48:18] cheeseburger [48:19] >> that would have a zero to four billion [48:21] fatality rate. So that's an amazing [48:24] achievement that happened because [48:27] there is the right framework with [48:30] technology and rules where you have a [48:32] lot of innovation. I mean the avi the [48:34] aerospace sector is known to be very [48:35] innovative but also you make sure it's [48:38] safe and it's worth considering that [48:41] when we're saying okay how do we make [48:42] sure that these AI technologies [48:44] developed so that we can have safer [48:46] vehicles or you can get a better uh uh [48:48] screening of a of a radiology scan for [48:51] for cancer or any of these other things [48:53] all the way down to like you know these [48:55] amazing ideas about curing cancer [48:57] figuring out nuclear fusion which are [49:00] urgently important things to do [49:02] >> without having the kind of AI equivalent [49:05] of a plane crash. I've got 60 seconds [49:08] and I'm going to show you how much I can [49:09] get done because of our sponsor called [49:12] Whisper Flow. And for those of you that [49:13] don't know what it is, it's a business I [49:15] invested in that turns your speech into [49:17] text in any app or device. I'm going to [49:19] post into our Slack channel which [49:21] rewards whichever team member conducted [49:23] the most experiments this week. Hi [49:24] everyone, here is this week's [49:26] experimentter of the week. [49:28] Congratulations to the Dire of Sio [49:30] trailer team, which is Aunt, Liv, Dom, [49:33] and Cam. You [clears throat] guys have [49:34] won. Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. [49:37] So, here is one of our founders on an [49:38] email chain that I want to connect my [49:40] team with. All I have to say is add my [49:42] team's emails, and Whisper will do [49:45] exactly that. Now, a quick message to [49:47] Juan, who does my schedule every single [49:49] week. Hey, Juan, can I record on [49:51] Wednesday at 2 p.m.? Actually, no. Do [49:53] you know what? Let's record at 3 p.m. on [49:54] Wednesday. [49:56] Whisper Flow is four times faster than [49:58] typing and it is incredibly easy to use. [50:00] So, if you want to give it a go, all you [50:02] have to do is head to [50:02] whisperflow.ai/stephven [50:05] to download it today. I want to speak to [50:08] the business owners listening and [50:09] watching right now. I know what it's [50:11] like to be personally responsible for [50:12] every decision. I founded my first [50:14] company at 21 years old and honestly, [50:16] the pressure can be immense. It's the [50:18] kind of mental load that takes its toll [50:20] below the surface. I recently did some [50:22] tests through our sponsor function, [50:24] which got me thinking about that [50:25] invisible impact. I found that I had low [50:28] levels of omega-3s. I had deficient [50:31] levels of vitamin D, probably because I [50:33] sit inside this dark room all day. And [50:35] that has totally changed how I construct [50:38] my day going forward. I get up in the [50:39] morning and the first thing I now do is [50:40] I go for a walk outside in the sunshine. [50:42] In part to help my vitamin D levels [50:44] increase, but also because it helps to [50:46] reset my circadian rhythm. With [50:48] function, you can check your brain [50:49] health, your aging, your stress, and so [50:51] much more. They provide over 160 lab [50:54] tests for what is equal to a dollar a [50:56] day and member pricing on advanced [50:59] imaging. Head to functionhealth.com/dac [51:03] to join and use code doac [51:06] for a $25 credit. [51:08] There's there's also just a broader [51:09] debate which I guess in some ways [51:11] connected to this at the moment in [51:12] America, but actually also across the [51:13] western world. that's happening in the [51:14] UK as well around capitalism, socialism [51:19] and um I think a lot of it's driven by [51:22] the inequality [51:23] >> that people are experiencing. And if my [51:25] if my memory is true, [51:28] >> the US has more extreme inequality. It [51:31] has more growth, [51:33] >> GDP growth, but it has more extreme [51:35] inequality than a country like the [51:37] United Kingdom. Um so socialism is often [51:41] considered to be the solution to this [51:43] inequality. Menani is now the mayor of [51:46] um New York and we're seeing you know in [51:50] the UK socialist parties are are [51:52] becoming more and more popular. The idea [51:53] of taxing the rich is becoming very [51:54] popular. Big debate actually this week [51:56] in the UK is should we implement a [51:59] wealth tax on people who have wealth [52:01] above 10 million. [52:02] >> Keen to get your perspective on this. [52:04] Yeah. Is socialism is wealth taxes the [52:06] right solution to some of these problems [52:07] of inequality? [52:08] >> Well, I find socialism is a word that [52:11] means less and less the more people use [52:13] it. It gets thrown around as a label and [52:14] it means different things to different [52:16] people. And and I'll I'll take your [52:18] example uh to to illustrate this. [52:21] You know, higher taxes for very wealthy [52:23] people is an idea that is broadly [52:26] popular. I think it's the right thing to [52:28] do. And importantly, we have a tradition [52:33] of doing that already in the United [52:34] States. Some of the highest tax, there [52:37] was a point where the income tax for the [52:39] wealthiest tax bracket in the country [52:41] was around 90%. In the United States, [52:44] I'm not saying we need to go back to [52:45] that. I'm just saying and that was [52:47] happening in the 40s and 50s and 60s [52:50] when the cold war was going on and the [52:52] US represented capitalism against [52:55] communism or some would put socialism [52:57] would lump it in with that. Right? So [52:59] there is a tradition of the US being a [53:01] fully capitalist country and also doing [53:04] a better job of heading off this [53:06] inequality. And the point of dealing [53:07] with the inequality wasn't to punish the [53:09] wealthy. It was to make sure that that [53:12] level of wealth didn't go off the rails [53:14] and that it didn't turn into a level of [53:15] political power that could bring down [53:17] the whole system. Which by the way is [53:20] the problem I think we're facing now. [53:21] First of all, our tax system taxes [53:25] wealth less than it taxes work. That's a [53:29] problem. That's an even bigger problem [53:30] now that AI is coming for jobs because [53:32] there's basically a thumb on the scale, [53:34] a subsidy in effect from the US [53:36] government saying giving you a little [53:38] more reason to automate a job than you [53:41] otherwise would because things like [53:42] capital gains taxes come in lower than [53:45] things like income taxes. Now, wealth [53:47] tax, which is a property tax by another [53:50] name, can be part of the menu of taxes [53:54] you have to get enough revenue and to [53:57] make sure that outcomes are fair. You [53:59] can argue about where to draw the line. [54:01] I think some people have proposals that [54:03] set it too high. You can also argue [54:05] about whether you have to have a wealth [54:06] tax or whether you can get the job done [54:07] with capital gains and income and other [54:09] tax. But what we know right now is that [54:12] our system is so out of whack that if [54:15] you are a multi-billionaire, [54:18] you probably pay a lower percentage of [54:21] what you make in taxes than if you're a [54:24] school teacher or a firefighter. We even [54:26] in percentage terms generally tax [54:29] billionaires less than we tax [54:31] millionaires because again of this [54:33] system that kind of favors wealth. So [54:35] the more you have uh the more you make [54:38] and the less it's taxed. Surely we can [54:40] do better than that. [54:40] >> So, are you supportive of wealth taxes? [54:42] And I I'm defining that as um not taxing [54:46] income, but looking at the net worth of [54:48] somebody and taking a percentage of [54:50] their net worth. [54:51] >> Yeah. Again, to me, that's just a [54:53] variation on the idea of a property tax. [54:54] I think it's legitimate. There are some [54:57] problems with doing it. Uh in in [54:59] practical terms, it can be hard. [55:00] >> This is why it's hard, right? [55:01] >> Or like how do you tax like somebody's [55:03] art collection or there are things that [55:04] can make it tricky. One of the things [55:06] that I learned when um I I had this [55:09] company and it was a public company so I [55:11] had public stock [55:12] >> and someone came along and said Stephen [55:13] you know with your your public stock [55:15] that you have so started this company [55:16] when I was 21 does well by 27 the stock [55:19] that I have is public stock which means [55:22] it's on a stock market someone came to [55:23] me at 27 and said Stephen do you know [55:25] you can just take a loan against your [55:27] public stock and I went you can just get [55:30] a tax-free loan so if your stock is [55:33] worth $50 million right now Yeah, [55:35] >> they will give you a 50% loan without [55:38] paying tax on that [55:40] >> on that stock. So they will [55:41] >> crazy low interest rate, [55:42] >> right? Like almost nothing. They will [55:44] just transfer you today $25 million in [55:47] cash and you will have to pay no tax. [55:49] And guess what? If the stock comes down, [55:51] they'll just sell it. So you'll never [55:52] really have like a real sort of tax [55:55] liability there. [55:56] >> Mhm. [55:56] >> I couldn't believe this was possible. [55:58] And so I was like, is this what all the [55:59] rich people do? [56:00] >> And they told me, yes, this is what how [56:01] it works. This is what Elon's doing. [56:03] Elon is taking a taxree pretty much [56:05] taxfree loan against his Tesla stock and [56:08] they are transferring him a billion [56:09] dollars in cash and he can live off that [56:11] start new companies with that and never [56:13] have to have a tax transaction. So I [56:14] thought why don't politicians tax that [56:16] there's always going to be a cat and [56:17] mouse right whenever we figure out a way [56:20] to make sure you can't hide all of your [56:22] wealth from or all of your income from [56:25] being fairly taxed. Very wealthy people [56:27] will figure out some other place to hide [56:28] it. Yeah. [56:29] >> And then we'll have to develop a new [56:30] policy to deal with that. I guess my [56:31] point is that's okay. Too often we have [56:34] just hesitated to do anything, refused [56:36] to do anything because it might be hard [56:38] or because it might not last. [56:39] >> But if if the idea that somebody will [56:42] figure out a way around this law meant [56:43] that you shouldn't have the law, that [56:44] would be an argument against having any [56:46] law. [56:46] >> Mhm. [56:46] >> So it's messy. It's hard. But I am sure [56:49] that if we had a more reasonable rate of [56:53] taxation on capital gains and on [56:56] corporate income, and if we made it [56:57] harder to pass along wealth without uh [57:00] especially inherited wealth without [57:02] paying any taxes on it or some of these [57:04] other maneuvers like this borrowing [57:06] thing you're talking about. [57:07] >> We would have a fairer country because [57:10] we'd still have capitalism. There'd [57:11] still be lots of motivation and lots of [57:13] reason to innovate and build a business [57:15] and create jobs and do all the things [57:16] that very wealthy people uh have done. [57:19] And also we would be out of this doom [57:21] loop we're in where they're saying, [57:22] "Well, we can't possibly have as good [57:25] health care as other countries. We [57:27] couldn't possibly do something like, I [57:28] don't know, fast trains here in the [57:30] United States. We couldn't possibly have [57:32] uh rural hospitals be properly funded or [57:34] uh public education. Of course, we can. [57:37] This is the wealthiest economy in the [57:38] world. It just doesn't add up that we [57:42] can't have nice things. But if we aren't [57:46] collecting a fair level of taxes, then [57:48] then of course we're going to come up [57:49] short when we're trying to fund those [57:50] things. And the biggest thing of all uh [57:53] that numerically that we're facing right [57:54] now is this massive debt. Now, it's not [57:57] fashionable on the left to talk about [57:59] deficits and the debt partly because, [58:02] you know, I think Democrats are pretty [58:03] sick of that being invoked as a reason [58:05] not to do things like roads and bridges [58:06] and schools and hospitals that we [58:08] believe in. But it's now escalated to a [58:11] level that no one can ignore it. It [58:15] turns out, you know, some analysis has [58:19] suggested or shown that if you just [58:21] start the clock at the beginning of this [58:22] century with the big Bush tax cuts in, I [58:25] think 2001 and then you go through the [58:27] Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest, you [58:29] add all that up, if it weren't for all [58:30] those tax cuts, the debt would actually [58:32] be going down right now. So, they can [58:35] fully account for what's happened to the [58:39] increase in the debt. And we just don't [58:41] don't have to accept that. got this uh [58:43] graph here of US national debt growth. [58:46] I'll throw that up on the screen. [58:47] Between 1970 [58:49] >> and 2026, it looks like a rocket is [58:52] taking off. [58:52] >> Yep. [58:53] >> And I sat here with Ray Dalio just a [58:54] couple of days ago. He talks about the [58:56] sort of big economic boom in bus cycles. [58:58] He talks about how every 80 years or so [59:00] you kind of see a great power falter and [59:03] struggle. And we are 80 years into the [59:05] American power. And he says that the [59:07] writing is on the wall as it relates to [59:08] what happens next. when you let debt go [59:10] like this and you start getting sort of [59:11] internal conflict and you start trying [59:12] to please the world and [59:14] >> yeah and what's going on with the debt [59:15] is both evidence of it and part of the [59:18] problem. I think it's a symptom but in [59:19] some ways it's a cause. It could be a [59:21] cause of a currency crisis or force us [59:23] to uh redo our whole tax code within the [59:27] next few years. One thing I learned [59:30] about recently uh there's a principle [59:32] called Stein's law. It's named after a [59:35] Reagan era economist, actually the [59:36] father of Ben Stein from if you remember [59:38] Ferris Beller. The principle is very [59:40] simple. If something cannot go on [59:42] forever, it will stop. It's one of these [59:46] blindingly obvious things that we don't [59:48] think about enough at a moment like this [59:50] where everybody agrees the debt can't [59:52] keep going up like this. It's just [59:54] almost definitely definitionally [59:55] impossible. Pretty much everyone agrees [59:58] our politics can't go on like this. [60:01] And if something can't go on forever, it [60:05] won't. So the question is, okay, then [60:07] what's going to happen? I believe one of [60:09] two things can happen. Reform or [60:12] catastrophe. [60:14] And the whole reason I'm involved in [60:16] public life is to try to make make sure [60:18] that it's reform and not catastrophe. [60:21] >> Can I ask a question on this? So on this [60:24] Steinlaw thing and and why irrespective [60:26] of what you've just said, which makes [60:28] perfect sense to me, this line keeps [60:30] going up of national debt, is it in part [60:32] kind of like musical chess with [60:34] politicians where you come in for 4 [60:36] years and the music is playing and [60:38] you're kind of hoping that the music [60:39] doesn't stop during your term because [60:42] you want to spend money because that's [60:43] politically positive. If you're helping [60:46] people's healthare, if you're building [60:47] infrastructure, positive, people are [60:48] going to like you more. They're going to [60:49] vote you in. But the nature of politics [60:52] means that you really do play for four [60:54] years and then maybe you play for eight, [60:56] >> right? [60:56] >> But this might be a two decade [60:59] catastrophe. The music might stop in two [61:01] decades. So actually when you think [61:02] about people's incentive structures, [61:03] you're incentivized to actually not [61:05] think about the future. [61:07] >> You're incentivized to like be [61:08] remembered and pass the bat to the next [61:10] Democrat in four years time in a way [61:12] that's positive. So that's why we're [61:13] seeing this cuz clearly if someone was [61:15] in power for a hundred years or maybe if [61:17] the time horizon was even longer maybe [61:20] they would have thought about this debt [61:21] rapidly increasing. [61:22] >> Yeah. But I think it also comes down to [61:24] like why why do you think you're here if [61:26] you're in office? Like are you in office [61:27] just in order to hold it? [61:29] >> It seems like that sometimes [61:31] >> it's not worth it being in a position to [61:32] make a difference and hold public [61:33] office. Like it's an exciting thing. [61:35] It's a compelling thing. It's a [61:36] meaningful thing and it comes with with [61:38] a lot of things that are you know good [61:40] for your ego. I get all of that. But [61:42] also, [61:44] it's just not worth it unless you [61:46] understand that you hold an office in [61:49] order to do things with policy and power [61:53] to make people better off, not the other [61:55] way around. [61:56] >> I guess the American people and [61:57] everybody listening now will be [61:58] thinking, "Fool me once, [62:00] >> Secretary Pete Buddha Judge." Because [62:02] I've sat there and I've watched the [62:03] elections and all of them talk about [62:05] bringing down the public debt and and [62:07] then you I look at this graph and I go, [62:08] "Oh, it goes up again." And Trump says [62:10] the same about spending and nope, it's [62:12] gone up again. [62:13] >> It almost feels like in a way that [62:17] >> feel like you're trying to be nice. [62:19] >> No, no, no. I just I don't know. I can [62:20] understand why people are sort of [62:21] disenfranchised with politics. [62:23] >> Yeah, me too. [62:24] >> And I wonder if this is why they're [62:25] picking the radical, you know, this is [62:26] why [62:27] >> So [clears throat] this is why [62:28] >> Oh god. [62:30] [laughter] [62:32] >> Because this is disruption. This is kind [62:33] of burn it down to some degree. Right. [62:35] So, this is why everywhere I go, I'm [62:37] trying to talk to my own party about [62:40] making sure that we understand that [62:42] dealing with this is not the beall and [62:46] endall. That our mission can't be to [62:48] just take power and then go back to what [62:50] we had before. That what we had before [62:52] is actually what led to this. In other [62:54] words, guys like Trump don't get very [62:56] far unless you're already in an [62:58] environment where the political and [63:00] social and economic systems are letting [63:02] people down, [63:03] which is I think how we wound up here. [63:05] And I worry there's a big temptation, [63:07] there will be a big temptation in my [63:08] party to say, "Okay, our job is to take [63:12] power, turn back the clock, reverse the [63:13] damage, fix what was broken, and get us [63:15] back to where we were. Get us back on [63:17] track." I hear the word back a lot. I [63:19] hear the prefix re a lot. Reverse, [63:21] rebuild. And I'm very worried about that [63:25] distracting from what our actual mission [63:27] has to be, which is to change and fix [63:32] things so that we'll be set up well for [63:34] the next 80 years. So that that's a [63:36] harder project for sure. But also [63:39] sometimes [63:41] the incentives change because the public [63:43] is ready for something different. [63:46] And I think the public tried one flavor [63:48] of something different with Trumpism and [63:51] is ready to spit it out. [63:53] And so the question then is, okay, what [63:55] are we offering in its place? And to me, [63:56] that's where some very day-to-day things [64:00] like setting up a better healthare [64:02] system [64:03] >> or reducing what we're paying in tariffs [64:07] or better infrastructure or any any of [64:10] the other policy, you know, paid family [64:11] leave. All these policy things that I'd [64:13] like to see happen [64:15] really depend on [64:17] fixing a political system that's just [64:19] not as sexy. But it can be powerfully [64:24] motivating because our country was [64:26] started by people who fought a [64:29] revolution to change the political [64:31] system. And I just can't imagine that it [64:34] was just like Jefferson and Hamilton, [64:36] these guys sitting in their studies [64:38] reading, you know, John Lock and Russo [64:41] and thinking, "Oh, it would be neat to [64:42] try that somewhere." I I think they [64:44] believe that like their lives and [64:46] everybody's lives be better, different [64:48] if we actually had a different system. [64:50] And then they risked violent death in [64:53] order to challenge the existing [64:55] political system that was the monarchy [64:57] and replace it with the republic, the [65:00] democratic country that they set up. [65:01] that is the United States of America. [65:03] Right? So, it's not like this can't stir [65:06] passion. Should we not be a country [65:09] where everybody's vote counts the same? [65:11] That would mean a popular vote for the [65:13] presidents. We ought to do that. I just [65:14] think everybody's vote ought to count [65:16] the same and the person who gets the [65:17] most votes ought to win. This is not a [65:20] hard thing for us to buy into in [65:21] literally any other election we run in [65:23] our political system. [65:24] >> We need to do things like make it just [65:26] ban gerrymandering where districts are [65:28] being drawn. So consider this. We have [65:32] 435 seats in the House. Nine out of 10 [65:36] are so red or so blue that you basically [65:39] know who's going to win before the first [65:42] vote is cast. Nine out of 10 [65:44] in a 50-50 country. That makes no sense. [65:48] And of course what it leads to is the [65:50] people in those seats are either [65:53] very comfortable and not really worried [65:55] about being responsive to the people or [65:58] if they are in danger, they're in danger [66:00] from their own side. What's amazing to [66:02] me when I look at how Americans feel [66:04] about certain big issues like making [66:08] sure there's health care for everybody [66:09] or raising the minimum wage or having [66:12] higher rates of taxes on the wealthy and [66:14] on corporations or background checks on [66:17] guns or marriage equality for same-sex [66:20] couples, all kinds of things. There's [66:22] like 60 or 70% agreement on most of the [66:26] issues that most people tell pollsters [66:27] they care about the most. So, how can we [66:29] be a country that's got 60 or 70% [66:31] agreement on issue after issue after [66:33] issue and we fail to get those policies [66:36] done and we keep proceeding like it's [66:38] normal to be a 50/50 country where [66:40] everybody's at each other's throats. [66:41] That to me is evidence of a broken [66:44] system. If we don't fix the system, I [66:46] don't think we're going to get very far. [66:48] >> It's interesting because when I think [66:49] about the last sort of 20 years of [66:50] politics, we had, you know, the Bush [66:52] era, then we had Democrats and and so on [66:55] that were very polished. Bush was kind [66:57] of very polished as well. Then we had [66:59] Biden [66:59] >> who was um very polished, kind of like [67:01] career politicians, says the right [67:03] things, reads off the teleprompter. And [67:05] then it seems globally like people [67:07] wanted some disruption. We had Brexit [67:08] going on over there. We've got Nigel [67:10] Farage increasing in popularity over the [67:12] last 10 years or so as it relates to his [67:14] political probabilities. And then over [67:16] in the United States, we have Trump [67:17] arrive. Again, not a career politician, [67:20] not clean, not teleprompter kind of guy. [67:22] If Democrats are to win, as you say, [67:24] it's certainly not going to go back to [67:25] the polished Joe Biden teleprompter. I [67:28] almost think that there's going to need [67:29] to be some disruptive character on the [67:31] left side of politics to get to win over [67:34] those independents, but also some of [67:35] those Republicans. [67:37] >> Is that Do you agree with that broadly? [67:39] >> I think that's right. I mean, I think it [67:40] depends what we mean by polished, right? [67:42] That can mean a lot of different things. [67:43] I I think uh but I think you're talking [67:46] about a sort of authenticity that people [67:47] expect. And the paradox of Trump is he's [67:50] authentic even when he's lying cuz it [67:53] just seems like he's, you know, whatever [67:54] he is, he's not reading talking points. [67:56] At least that's how it seems. I think [67:58] also part of this is just the it's [68:00] actually a technology thing. So the [68:03] technology that dominated politics for [68:06] as long as I've been alive was [68:07] television. [68:09] And I think it produced a generation of [68:12] people, you know, George W. Bush, Bill [68:14] Clinton, and Donald Trump were all born [68:18] within a few weeks of each other. [68:20] >> Really? [68:20] >> Yeah. They were they were all products [68:22] of the summer of I think it was 1946 [68:25] >> coming out of that generation, Joe Biden [68:28] near to them in age, right, into [68:31] whatever is next. I think you're going [68:32] to have leaders, and I this can be [68:36] potentially a very good thing, who are [68:38] just a little bit better able to just [68:41] kind of show their humanity being a long [68:43] podcast like this one, right? Like I I [68:45] remember when long form meant like maybe [68:46] a 30 minute NPR interview. [68:49] >> Now you're sitting for sometimes two or [68:51] three hours. I don't think it's possible [68:52] as a matter of physical stamina to stay [68:54] on talking points for two or three hours [68:56] because you wanted to like it just you [68:57] know and so you know somebody once said [69:00] that the running for office is like an [69:03] MRI of the soul anyway but that's even [69:06] more true now than it used to be because [69:07] you just there's so many different kind [69:10] of ways of having to kind of show who [69:12] you are. We used to imagine that the [69:15] people in charge are just like next [69:17] level like on a different plane of [69:19] existence [69:21] and I think it's become harder and [69:23] harder to believe that it just we know [69:25] too much. Right. [69:26] >> And so I think we're trading that for [69:28] just wanting people that we [69:31] have a reason to trust. [69:33] >> We see the same across um across [69:35] business. We talked a lot about over the [69:36] last 10 years how we've shifted from [69:38] this blackbox world where the PR [69:39] department would pay would paint the [69:41] image of the company on the outside of [69:42] this black box [69:44] >> and then we moved because of phones and [69:45] everyone has a mobile phone now and a [69:47] camera in their pocket and a social [69:49] media platform so they can give their [69:50] own opinion to this glass box world [69:51] where actually the job is to let [69:54] everybody see inside [69:55] >> because if you don't someone else will [69:57] paint the the box for you. So actually [70:00] defense became the big CEOs in the world [70:01] now coming on podcast and having a [70:03] personal brand and having a social media [70:05] account. I think the same for [70:06] politicians that actually the winning [70:08] strategy now is being a glass box which [70:10] is [70:11] >> build your own reference points through [70:12] transparency. [70:13] >> Yeah. [70:13] >> Which is why the podcasts like this are [70:15] I think probably going to dominate the [70:17] uh next election cycle to some degree. [70:19] >> Yeah. And I think it's true not just for [70:20] politics for like running and being a [70:22] candidate. I think it's increasingly [70:23] true for government too. I mean I [70:24] started to feel this at the Department [70:26] of Transportation. running this huge [70:27] enterprise, 55,000 people, $145 billion [70:31] is bigger than most GDPs in most [70:32] countries. And what I found was that [70:36] there were so many situations where [70:38] people who just are generally [70:40] mistrustful of government or media would [70:42] assume the worst. And the only antidote [70:45] to that was to be way more transparent [70:48] than a federal agency or department was [70:50] used to being. But what I found was kind [70:52] of the machinery of the department was [70:53] not set up for that. [70:54] >> It was designed to be [70:56] you know, accountable, but accountable [70:58] in the sense that if there's something [70:59] going on and a member of Congress is [71:00] worried about it, they can write a [71:01] letter and six months later they'll get [71:03] a report. And I'm trying to figure out [71:04] how do I because, you know, I'd carry a [71:06] phone in my pocket, too. Like, how do I [71:07] take it out sometimes and like shoot a [71:08] video and like tell people what's going [71:09] on? Sometimes they're going to think [71:11] that we're that we don't care about [71:13] them, that we're putting a highway [71:14] through their neighborhood and we don't [71:16] care how it's going to hurt them or that [71:18] we're not responding to a disaster in a [71:20] Republican area because it's a [71:21] Republican area or any other number of [71:23] things that people might believe if we [71:26] don't show them what we're actually [71:27] doing and why. Got this cap here [71:31] 2028. when you when you think about [71:34] running for president or being president [71:36] of the United States, the most powerful [71:37] nation on earth, do you not have [71:39] imposter syndrome? And what is it about [71:41] the job that you think because, you [71:43] know, [71:45] it's pretty crazy for anyone to think [71:46] they could run the most powerful nation [71:47] on earth and not think, god, there's a [71:49] couple of things that I'm not going to [71:50] be great at. Yeah. I mean, the whole [71:52] idea of the system was that no one [71:55] person should have too much power, [71:56] right? That's why we got rid of [71:57] monarchy. [71:59] But we've wound up with this presidency [72:01] that uniquely in our country, not just [72:04] the country, the world, right, has this [72:06] incredible amount of power. That the [72:08] lives of billions of people go [72:10] differently and could be much better or [72:11] could be much worse based on decisions [72:14] that get made in that office. And the [72:16] idea that we would have just one human [72:18] being doing that is on some level [72:22] terrifying. But, you know, part of what [72:24] we did as a country is we set up a whole [72:26] bunch of things around that human being. [72:28] And that's everything from like advisers [72:31] to laws to Congress, you know, and the [72:34] courts like to make sure that there's [72:35] some balance to try to make sure that [72:37] that whoever's in that seat can make the [72:40] best decisions they possibly could and [72:43] and has to act within certain [72:44] boundaries. But yeah, I mean, look, all [72:46] the way down to when I was elected mayor [72:48] and I was in my 20s, like obviously I [72:50] believed I could do the job or I [72:51] wouldn't have run for it. But, you know, [72:54] even just walking into the office of the [72:56] mayor of the fourth largest city in [72:58] Indiana on the 14th floor of the county [73:00] city building and the snow's coming down [73:01] the first day I it was New Year's Day, [73:03] first day I was officially in office and [73:05] I'm thinking, I'm now responsible for [73:08] making sure the snow gets plowed and and [73:10] and if we don't do it right, not only [73:11] will I get in trouble politically, [73:13] somebody could be harmed, right? But I [73:15] think any office, any job, like you have [73:17] to let that weight [73:21] sit on your shoulders and then have it [73:23] push you to be better at the job. [73:26] >> That's the [73:26] >> Oh, there we go. [73:27] >> There we go. [73:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. That was election day. That [73:30] was a great feeling. But I I remember [73:32] also immediately feeling this thrill of [73:35] of having won. And if you're a [73:37] competitive person, it's also the [73:38] excitement of having beaten your [73:40] competitors. But having to balance that [73:42] with, okay, I said that if you elected [73:45] me, I'd be able to get these things [73:47] done, and now I actually got to produce. [73:50] Are you scared of the consequences of [73:52] being president one day? [73:53] >> Any president should be. Anybody who's [73:56] even being seriously talked about or [73:57] considered for it should be. Puts you in [73:59] a position where you have a [74:00] responsibility to say things that make [74:02] sense and think about what you have to [74:03] say. know that your words, even if you [74:05] have no official power, but that still [74:07] things that you do or say could help or [74:08] hurt people just by just by talking, [74:10] just by going on a podcast that millions [74:11] of people listen to. [74:12] >> And there's really four front runners um [74:14] according to the data that I saw, which [74:16] is yourself, Gavin Newsome, AOC, and Kla [74:21] Harris. I've now interviewed three of [74:24] them. [74:24] >> Which one haven't you got to yet? [74:25] >> AOC. I think this thing is in the works. [74:28] Very different candidates, I'd say. [74:31] Yeah. [74:31] >> As individuals. [74:32] >> Yeah. [74:34] If not you, then which one of them? [74:36] >> It's just a bad idea to answer that [74:37] question. I'm sorry. Like, I want to be [74:39] transparent, but like [74:40] >> you must have an answer, though. [74:42] >> I don't know. Let the truth set you [74:44] free. Secretary, [74:47] she was lovely. Gavin's nice. Which one [74:49] are you closest friends with? [74:50] >> I mean, the one I've spent the most time [74:52] with is uh is her because, you know, she [74:54] was vice president uh and I was working [74:56] transportation. There were times we uh [74:58] traveled together. She was very involved [75:00] in trying to get the infrastructure bill [75:02] done which is kind of the biggest thing [75:03] that I worked on the the legislation to [75:05] to get roads and bridges and airports. [75:07] >> Is she misunderstood? [75:08] >> I think anybody in at that level is [75:10] misunderstood. There's just uh [75:13] >> I don't know that I can I don't know if [75:14] I'm qualified to evaluate kind of more [75:16] than more or less than other people in [75:19] that job. I think anybody the vice [75:21] presidency or any job with that [75:23] visibility [75:26] puts you in a position where [75:29] it's hard for people to see your [75:32] humanity [75:34] when you're [75:37] bearing the responsibility that you [75:38] have. And even at other levels of [75:41] government, I think this is this is [75:43] true. I think high office does that. I [75:45] think office that high especially does [75:47] it. Do you think she could be a good [75:49] president? [75:50] >> Sure. I mean, I campaigned for her very [75:53] energetically when she was running for [75:54] president. I went all over the country [75:56] uh trying to convince America to elect [75:59] her and um I did that because I thought [76:01] she'd be a very good president. [76:02] >> What about Gavin Newsome? [76:04] >> Yeah, he's he's been he's not someone I [76:07] know as well as uh as her, but he's [76:09] somebody I've worked with a lot. [76:10] Obviously, California is a place where [76:11] we're doing a lot of our dust [76:13] infrastructure work and he's somebody [76:14] who [76:16] I think he understands how to break [76:18] through in this kind of attention world [76:20] that we're in um where you know the old [76:24] formats and the old norms um just don't [76:28] cut it anymore in terms of getting your [76:29] message across. [76:30] >> Access [76:32] spoken to [76:34] so many people who understand that the [76:37] system is letting them down. I might not [76:39] agree with her on every policy. For [76:42] example, on the infrastructure law that [76:44] I worked with the vice president on and [76:45] worked with with Gavin on, she didn't [76:47] see that the way we did. You know, I [76:48] respect that she has activated a lot of [76:51] young people, not just young people. [76:53] She's activated a lot of people who were [76:54] looking around saying the way things [76:56] work doesn't serve me. And there's the [77:00] generational thing. And when I ran for [77:02] president, I was running on largely on a [77:05] message of generational change. I didn't [77:08] win. Obviously, [77:10] >> Joe Biden won. You got behind him. [77:12] >> Mhm. [77:12] >> Near the end of his uh his time as [77:15] president, he I mean, we all saw it. We [77:16] saw him go out and do those debates [77:18] against Trump. And I think it was [77:20] obvious to anyone who was being [77:22] intellectually honest with themselves [77:23] and objective that Joe Biden wasn't the [77:25] same Joe Biden that we've seen over the [77:26] last 20, 30 years [77:27] >> and that something had changed quite [77:29] considerably with his cognitive [77:31] performance. Mhm. [77:32] >> Um did you were you aware of that cuz [77:35] you were in his you part of his team at [77:37] that time. Were you aware that something [77:39] was different? [77:40] >> I saw the same thing that America saw, [77:41] right? Um it's not like I was in a room [77:43] with him every day, but you know whether [77:45] it was in front of cameras or whether it [77:47] was I was invited to be in a meeting at [77:50] the White House, uh I saw what America [77:52] saw which is that he was getting older. [77:54] >> I mean cognitive performance is pretty [77:56] important for the most powerful job on [77:58] earth. [77:58] >> Yeah. [78:00] >> Were you concerned? I was definitely [78:01] concerned when I saw the debate. I mean, [78:04] >> you weren't concerned at any point [78:05] before the debate. [78:06] >> Up until that moment, I I saw that he [78:08] was visibly growing older, but there was [78:09] never some moment where I saw him like [78:11] make a different decision or at least in [78:15] terms of anything that I was involved [78:17] with, transportation, that I thought it [78:19] was going different or worse or I [78:21] couldn't get what I needed from him or [78:22] from the White House because of his age. [78:24] But of course, the job is not just [78:27] policy guidance. That the job is also to [78:31] convey and communicate to the American [78:33] people like what your administration is [78:35] doing and why. That's the job of a [78:38] president. It's in in some ways 100% the [78:40] job of a candidate. [78:42] >> And there was no watching the debate and [78:45] not realizing how much of a burden that [78:47] was. [78:47] >> You just said then that um you're even [78:49] conscious of like even in this medium, [78:51] every sentence counts. [78:52] >> Mhm. Yeah. You say one sentence, that's [78:54] the wrong sentence. Theoretically, it [78:56] could have consequences, but that and [78:57] you just said this is someone that [78:59] doesn't currently have a job. That [79:00] President of the United States, Joe [79:02] Biden muddling up his sentences in front [79:04] of the nation like he did in that debate [79:06] >> is um is probably not good enough [79:10] >> to be in that in that position. [79:11] >> Yeah. And that was the beginning of [79:13] course of the process that led him to [79:15] reach the same conclusion. [79:17] >> Do you have a private conversation with [79:18] him? [79:18] >> No, I wasn't. I was in the cabinet, but [79:21] that doesn't mean I was invited to rooms [79:23] when they were talking about things like [79:24] whether he was going to run for [79:25] president again. [79:26] >> Did the Democrats make the right [79:28] decision there 100 100 days until the [79:30] election to swap in Kla Harris at that [79:33] point? Like in hindsight, if you're [79:34] honest with yourself, [79:35] >> yeah, I I thought about that a lot [79:37] because I think in the moment it felt [79:39] like, oh, we have very little time. [79:42] We've all got to pull together. We got [79:44] to put ego aside. We got to put uh kind [79:47] of internal politics aside and we got to [79:49] quickly speak with one voice. Partly [79:51] because I knew uh and we all knew what [79:57] could happen to this country if Donald [79:59] Trump was elected again. And I believe [80:02] all of those harms and then some have [80:04] come to pass. But the other side of the [80:06] coin is if there had been some way to [80:08] have a competition, [80:10] even with that very short timeline, I [80:12] think that even if the candidate had [80:15] still been Kla Harris, I think she [80:17] likely would have been a better [80:19] candidate. I think in 2020, Joe Biden [80:21] was a better candidate because he had to [80:23] compete with Kla Harris and me and like [80:25] 18 other Democrats before winning that [80:28] process. And I think that in general, we [80:33] know the competition sharpens you. we [80:34] know the competition gets more [80:36] information out. Um, and I'm not saying [80:39] I have it all solved in my head how that [80:42] could have been done on the timeline [80:43] that we faced or what it would have been [80:46] like, but I think with the hindsight [80:49] that we have now, I think it's pretty [80:50] clear that we would have been better off [80:52] if we had that. [80:53] >> You know, we talked about maybe people [80:55] are looking for something a little bit [80:56] more radical this time around. [80:57] >> What are your most radical ideas as it [80:59] relates to policies you would be in [81:02] favor of? So, I know you would um you're [81:04] keen to remove the electoral college. [81:06] >> Yeah. [81:06] >> And do it based on numbers, the the [81:08] quantity of votes for either [81:10] presidential candidate. [81:11] >> And I still can't believe that anybody [81:12] considers this radical. Like to me, it's [81:15] there's nothing radical about thinking [81:16] the person who gets the most votes ought [81:18] to be the winner. But I think people [81:20] haven't thought through how much benefit [81:22] would come from that. If we did that, [81:26] there are so many votes in red and blue [81:28] states that you couldn't ignore anymore. [81:30] Like if you were running for president [81:32] as a Democrat, you'd have to go to [81:34] Texas. [81:34] >> Yeah. [81:35] >> And even if Texas is still going to vote [81:37] mostly for Republicans, you'd have to [81:39] turn out every Democratic vote you could [81:41] in Texas. And I just think we'd be so [81:43] much better off if a Republican and [81:45] Democratic candidate were competing over [81:46] Texas. And by the way, New York, even if [81:48] New York is definitely going to vote [81:50] more for Democrats, a Republican [81:52] candidate would have to come to New [81:53] York. [81:55] and states from Alaska to Rhode Island. [81:59] So, it's small states too that get [82:01] ignored now would finally be part of [82:03] this competition. So, yeah, electoral [82:05] college for sure. [82:07] Supreme Court needs to change. [82:09] >> What would you do to the Supreme Court? [82:10] >> I would have term limits, more justices, [82:13] and some process that makes it less [82:16] partisan who the justices are. Some [82:18] different ways to do that. The one I [82:20] think is most interesting is called the [82:21] balanced bench proposal. We have a mix. [82:25] But anyway, the point is that it needs [82:26] to change. [82:26] >> Y [82:27] >> uh House of Representatives, like I said [82:30] earlier, should be proportional. [82:33] >> What does that mean? [82:34] >> It means that I was saying earlier how [82:36] to work for like school board or city [82:38] council where sometimes you get more [82:39] than one vote and more than one person [82:41] wins. We could do that for Congress. The [82:43] people get the top three votes, not just [82:45] one, [82:46] >> get to go to Congress. So you'd have [82:48] bigger districts, fewer districts, [82:51] harder to gerrymander. By the way, an [82:54] easier change that I think we should do [82:55] right away is ban gerrymandering. [82:58] >> I've got four things there. [82:59] >> Uh, let me give you one more [83:00] constitutional amendment to deal with [83:02] money in politics. If the Supreme Court [83:05] said in the Citizens United decision [83:08] that a corporation is the same thing as [83:10] a person for these purposes and that [83:12] spending money to manipulate an election [83:14] is the same constitutionally protected [83:16] behavior as writing an op-ed or carrying [83:18] a sign at a protest, we need to clarify [83:20] that corporate spending is not speech [83:23] and corporations are not citizens people [83:25] in the same way that that that a human [83:27] being is. And we can do that with a [83:29] constitutional amendment. [83:30] >> And so what would that mean? It would [83:31] mean that you couldn't just if a company [83:33] couldn't just pump money into a [83:34] political country, [83:35] >> right? Congress could then you could [83:36] actually have laws which we used to have [83:38] like the McCain fine gold law which was [83:40] struck down in Citizens United. But we [83:42] could get to where Congress can once [83:43] more have laws saying that you can't put [83:47] unlimited unaccountable corporate dark [83:50] money into a super PAC to manipulate how [83:53] an election is going to go. And it's one [83:55] more of these things that like twothirds [83:56] of the people think we ought to do. [83:57] >> Why doesn't it happen then? because so [83:59] many people who are already in office [84:01] like the system just the way it is and [84:04] because of the Supreme Court. I actually [84:05] think you could get it through Congress, [84:06] but the Supreme Court won't let you [84:09] because their interpretation of the [84:10] Constitution is that you can have these [84:12] kinds of rules. So what do you do? If [84:14] necessary, amend the Constitution. [84:17] People forget the best thing about the [84:20] Constitution is its capability to be [84:23] amended. When we talk about the most [84:25] cherished part of the constitution, many [84:28] people will say the first amendment, [84:30] right? That's the one that gives us free [84:31] speech. And we miss that the word [84:33] amendment being in there signals to us [84:37] that it wasn't part of the original text [84:39] of the constitution. It's an amendment. [84:41] It's something they had to add on after. [84:44] So is the second amendment. I mean, all [84:45] of them by definition, right? So we [84:48] shouldn't be afraid of that kind of [84:49] things. things only by an amendment we [84:51] get to pick who our senators are. Before [84:53] that, it was the legislature. Same thing [84:56] for making sure that black voters and [84:58] and and the women could be voters. We [85:00] shouldn't be afraid to use maybe the [85:03] most elegant feature of the entire [85:05] constitution, which is that it has a [85:07] process to change it. We should use it. [85:11] All of the things you I've mentioned are [85:13] these kind of system reforms. They're [85:14] about the engine. So that then the [85:16] policies, what comes out of the engine [85:19] like do we get paid family leave in this [85:20] country? Do we have fair taxes? Is there [85:22] a healthare system that gives everybody [85:23] healthare? All that stuff is decided by [85:26] a government that works better. Much of [85:29] the reason most people haven't posted [85:31] content or built their personal brand is [85:32] because it's hard and it's timeconuming [85:35] and we're all very very busy. And if [85:36] you've never posted something before, [85:39] there's so many factors in your [85:41] psychology that stop you wanting to [85:43] post. What people will think of you. Am [85:45] I doing this right? Is the thing I'm [85:46] saying absolutely stupid? All of these [85:49] result in paralysis, which means you [85:51] don't post and your feed goes bare. I'm [85:54] an investor in a company called Stanto, [85:56] which you've probably heard me talk [85:57] about. And what they've been building is [85:58] this new tool called Stanley that uses [86:00] AI, looks at your feed, looks at your [86:02] tone of voice, looks at your history, [86:04] looks at your best performing posts, and [86:05] tells you what you should post, makes [86:07] those posts for you. You can also just [86:09] use it for inspiration. And sometimes [86:12] what we need when we're thinking about [86:13] doing a post for our social media [86:14] channels is inspiration. Building an [86:17] audience has fundamentally changed my [86:18] life and I think it could change yours [86:20] too. So I'm inviting you to give this [86:22] new tool a shot and let me know what you [86:24] think. All you have to do is search [86:26] coach.stand.sto [86:27] now to get started. There should be a [86:30] button just down below here. And if it [86:32] says subscribed, you're already [86:33] subscribed. If it says subscriber, that [86:36] means you're not yet. And if you're not [86:37] subscribed, please could you do us a [86:38] favor and hit that button? It helps the [86:40] show more than you know. And according [86:41] to the algorithm, you're someone that [86:43] watches our show, but you haven't yet [86:45] hit that button. Thank you so much. What [86:46] do you think of Elon Musk? The richest [86:49] man on earth, the arguably most famous [86:51] entrepreneur on planet Earth, building [86:53] companies here in America, [86:55] very intelligent, [86:58] has had an extremely important impact on [87:00] a whole bunch of things. um is right [87:03] about a lot of things and is very wrong [87:05] about a lot of things and lacked the [87:08] humility to understand [87:11] some things that would have saved him [87:13] from doing a lot of damage based on how [87:16] wrong he was. So you look for example at [87:19] the tragedy of the failure of Doge. And [87:22] the thing that most upsets me about the [87:24] failure of Doge [87:26] is that we actually needed an effort [87:29] around government efficiency. [87:32] But what we got [87:34] was unbelievably sloppy making math [87:37] errors. And the one thing they're [87:38] supposed to be really good at ought to [87:40] be math. Maybe I don't mean like little [87:42] rounding errors like saying billion when [87:44] they meant million on the quote unquote [87:46] wall of receipts. The whole purpose of [87:48] which was to show that they knew what [87:49] they were doing and they were [87:50] transparently documenting their choices. [87:55] firing people they didn't know what they [87:56] did and then having to scramble and hire [87:57] them back on things like nuclear weapons [87:59] safety or managing biohazards and [88:03] communicable diseases and leaving a [88:06] federal government that actually spent [88:07] more [88:09] after Doge than before. Elon used to be [88:12] a Democrat. Yeah. He would say, and I've [88:15] heard him say this, that the Biden [88:17] administration basically snubbed him. [88:19] They were sort of adversarial towards [88:21] him. There's always the story people [88:22] talk about about the electric vehicle [88:24] summit in 2021 [88:25] >> where everybody was invited GM, Ford, [88:27] Chrysler, but Elon wasn't invited [88:30] >> and that was a mistake. I was there for [88:32] that. I can tell you how the mistake [88:33] happened. There was a difficult and [88:36] complex set of negotiations happening [88:38] between the big three automakers to try [88:40] to get to a new framework moving forward [88:42] on tailpipe standards. this event was [88:45] built to kind of celebrate the agreement [88:47] that had been reached [88:49] around tailpipe standards. Um, and [88:52] Tesla, because all they make are EVs, [88:55] doesn't even have tailpipes. And so, [88:57] people weren't really thinking about [88:58] inviting Tesla. But what Elon saw was [89:01] there's an event at the White House [89:03] about EVs. He is, if not single-handedly [89:07] responsible, certainly is the person [89:08] most responsible for EV excellence on [89:11] American soil. and he's saying, "What [89:13] the fuck?" And I I don't blame him for [89:16] that. [89:16] >> And he publicly broke ranks with the [89:18] Democrat party. He bought Twitter [89:20] >> and ultimately became Donald Trump's [89:22] largest donor. And uh Keith surrogate. [89:24] It's It's I think I asked this question [89:26] because I think uh any president is [89:30] going to need to contend with both [89:31] solving the probably problem of [89:33] inequality, this national debt, while [89:36] also keeping entrepreneurs happy and [89:39] highly productive at the same time. And [89:42] the the of the two parties, Republican [89:45] and Democrat, the party that is [89:47] typically, according to the data, more [89:49] associated with being entrepreneur [89:50] friendly is the Republican party. [89:54] It's not often you hear billionaires are [89:56] evil coming from the Republican from the [89:58] Republican side, [89:59] >> but that that's a prevailing narrative [90:01] on the Democratic side is that [90:02] billionaires are evil. [90:03] >> I don't know if that's the prevailing [90:05] narrative, but I get what you mean. [90:06] >> So, it's more dominant on the left than [90:08] it is on the right. [90:09] >> Yeah, I think that's fair. Yeah. But [90:11] look, I mean, you have to engage [90:12] everybody if you want to be in a high [90:14] position of leadership. Like the last [90:15] time I had a specific problem with Elon [90:17] when I was Department of Transportation. [90:19] Uh, I called him, we talked it out and [90:21] we figured it out and we actually solved [90:23] a problem together. It is amazing in my [90:24] experience how many problems can be, if [90:26] not solved, at least better faced if you [90:29] just pick up the phone. And you know, we [90:31] have this style of politics now where [90:33] everything's combat. You're not just [90:34] disagreeing with somebody, you got to [90:36] destroy them, right? [90:38] And that's really bad for America. [90:42] It does not lead to good political [90:44] outcomes. And so, especially when I [90:47] disagree with somebody or I have a [90:49] problem with what they're doing, we [90:51] should be talking. [90:52] >> On the left, you've got AOC saying you [90:53] can't make a billion dollars, you take a [90:55] billion dollars. Is that true in your [90:57] view? [90:58] >> I don't know. That doesn't make a ton of [90:59] sense to me. I I will say there's a lot [91:01] of different ways you can get a billion [91:03] dollars. And right now the easiest way [91:04] to get a billion dollars is to have $10 [91:06] billion and do nothing. You know the [91:09] thing we most admire about the [91:10] entrepreneurs is that they work hard and [91:12] they do things and they make things [91:13] right and they generate value and and I [91:16] think most Americans don't spite you the [91:19] value that you get from having created [91:21] even more value. I think at the same [91:23] time we see a lot of outcomes in the [91:26] market that seem to be about just like [91:28] money just sort of happening to whoever [91:30] already has money. Many of them have [91:32] seen their wealth go up like tfold in [91:35] the last few years. [91:38] Way more than how much their wealth went [91:40] up in the few years before that. So I [91:42] guess like the thing you did between [91:44] zero and a billion in my experience is [91:46] usually much more impressive than [91:48] whatever you did between 1 billion and [91:50] 10 or 10 and 100 or 100 and 500. And I [91:54] think we are in a political system where [91:55] it would just be so naive to think that [91:58] the amount that the market gives you is [92:01] just purely equal to the amount of [92:04] benefit that you create or the amount of [92:06] hard work that you put in. [92:07] >> Yeah. [92:07] >> Some people work hard and they earn a [92:09] lot. And some people don't do and [92:11] they wind up with a lot. And some people [92:12] are a mix of those two things. [92:13] >> It's definitely not correlated to hard [92:15] work. That is for sure. I've never met [92:16] anyone that worked harder than my mom [92:18] and working, you know, coming from [92:19] Nigeria, can't read or write, comes to [92:21] the UK, [92:23] works every waking hour that she can, [92:25] never complains, and still financially [92:27] struggling as a result of that all the [92:29] time growing up. So, you know, I know [92:31] that very intimately, that hard work [92:32] doesn't equal wealth at all. [92:34] >> And I don't think people would be as [92:36] angry about billionaires as they are if [92:38] there weren't millions of people whose [92:41] story is closer to that of your mom. [92:42] Mhm. [92:43] >> And I it brings me back to this idea of [92:45] the American dream where, you know, it's [92:48] supposed to be the case that generally [92:50] you come out ahead if you, as the saying [92:52] goes, you work hard and you play by the [92:54] rules. And that definitely happens [92:55] sometimes, but it doesn't happen enough [92:57] now. And most importantly, it happens [93:00] less in America than in certain other [93:01] countries. And it happens less in [93:03] America than it used to in America. And [93:05] those two things are the big blinking [93:07] alarm lights to me. AOC also said a [93:10] system that allows billionaires to exist [93:12] is immoral. [93:13] >> Yeah, I don't think I agree with that. [93:14] It's not whether they exist. It's [93:17] having too much power. It's it's being [93:19] able to turn economic power into [93:21] political power [93:23] and then using that power to get even [93:26] more wealth. That's why people are so [93:28] furious because they see that happening [93:30] and are not wrong. And the role of money [93:33] in our politics is just one example, [93:35] probably the biggest example of how that [93:37] can happen. I think Americans wouldn't [93:39] mind people being as wealthy as they are [93:42] nearly as much if we didn't have the [93:43] inequality that we have. And if we [93:45] didn't have some of those people using [93:46] their wealth to assert political power [93:49] in a country whose whole founding [93:51] principle is that the millionaire or I [93:54] guess billionaire stands in line next to [93:57] the dishwasher and the taxi driver in [94:01] the voting booth and they all have the [94:04] same political power. [94:06] >> Yeah. I it's it's interesting because I [94:08] can weirdly relate to both sides of the [94:11] spectrum. If you go back, I don't know, [94:13] 13 years, I am broke, family vegan to [94:16] me, um because I've decided to drop out [94:17] university and I am I can't feed myself [94:20] to put it in a nice way for a long [94:23] period of time, living many hundreds of [94:25] miles away from home in terms of a round [94:27] trip. And then you jump 13 years forward [94:29] and I'm running these businesses and the [94:30] businesses are going well. So I I kind [94:32] of it's weird. oscillate between these [94:33] two worlds of entrepreneurship and being [94:36] very pro-re entrepreneurship but then [94:38] falling back into that 18 19 20-year-old [94:41] me who really needed society to catch [94:44] him to be quite honest. [94:45] >> Um thankfully I lived in the United [94:47] Kingdom where we have healthcare. [94:49] >> Yeah. But when I moved here at 25 years [94:52] old to launch the business here in New [94:54] York City and run the office here, I [94:57] discovered that you guys don't offer [94:58] like health and that I had to as the [95:00] employer [95:01] >> pay for all of my team members [95:02] healthcare. It was this really what the [95:04] hell is going on. I thought this was the [95:05] land of the free and the all those kinds [95:07] of things. [95:08] >> So I kind of I kind of understand both [95:09] ends of the spectrum and I it makes me [95:11] realize that actually it's the [95:12] inequality. It's the people at the the [95:15] sort of bottom of the ladder per se [95:18] being so far from the top of the ladder. [95:20] >> Yeah. [95:20] >> That is the central issue. So what is [95:22] the radical idea that you bring forward [95:24] to end inequality is I mean presumably [95:27] it's not just tax wealth. [95:29] >> Well here yeah here's the lift people. I [95:32] actually think the ideas for fixing [95:34] those economic problems aren't that [95:36] radical. The weird thing is in order to [95:38] get what I think of as very reasonable [95:40] economic ideas through, you have to have [95:43] radical change on the political side. [95:44] Economically, we can do this mostly with [95:48] tools that are very familiar to us. Make [95:51] sure that there are higher tax rates, [95:52] not to punish the wealthy, but to get [95:54] enough revenue to do so government can [95:55] do its job. make sure there are higher [95:57] tax rates on the uh not on all Americans [96:01] compared to today, but on the corporate [96:04] profits and on the the wealthiest [96:06] individuals. Make sure that it is harder [96:09] to hide and move around money so that [96:11] you never have to pay taxes on it at [96:13] all. And then what do you do with that [96:14] money? You make sure there's a health [96:15] care system where, for example, somebody [96:18] in the situation you are in still gets [96:20] to be an entrepreneur because they don't [96:21] actually have to worry that they won't [96:24] have health care if they don't just take [96:25] the next low-wage job available to them. [96:28] Invest in education enough that we are [96:31] preparing for people who know not just [96:33] how to work, but how to think so that [96:35] when work changes, they're ready. [96:38] Make sure that we make it easier to have [96:40] a family. things like paid family leave [96:43] and using tax credits to compensate [96:47] people who give care to their parents [96:50] and or children [96:52] can have a huge freeing effect on people [96:56] and I think it's the right thing to do [96:57] and it's a way to respect that that's [97:00] work too. Yeah, I've had roles and jobs [97:03] where [97:04] I have worked very, very hard, but the [97:07] hardest I've ever worked in my life was [97:09] when I was on parental leave when we [97:14] adopted our newborn son and daughter, [97:16] our twins. That was the only time There [97:18] they are. Yeah. I mean, that was the [97:20] only time that I was routinely getting [97:22] up at 3:00 in the morning. If I was [97:24] lucky, I could get a nap at 5:30 in the [97:27] morning. uh and was just working until I [97:30] physically couldn't work anymore and [97:31] then tapping out and then Chaston trying [97:34] to my husband trying to you know we'd [97:36] alternate and and and help each other [97:38] and that work which is a beautiful work [97:40] but very hard work is work I think we [97:43] also need to invest in things like [97:45] national service so everybody has an [97:47] experience military is not for everybody [97:49] but everybody should know what it's like [97:50] to be part of something bigger than [97:53] yourself and to work on something that [97:54] is hard with people you don't already [97:57] So, I think if we have that, we'll have [97:58] more trust. Where do you find this one? [98:01] >> So, this these are some uh some photos. [98:04] >> Wow. [98:04] >> Of a much younger Pete. I'm really [98:06] curious. You know, when I sat with coma, [98:07] I learned a lot lot about her by just [98:09] understanding where she'd come from. [98:11] >> Yeah. [98:11] >> And her parents and our early context. [98:13] What is it about your early context that [98:15] shapes your world view as Mayor Pete, [98:19] but also Secretary Pete and potentially [98:21] someday President Pete? [98:24] >> Huh? Well, my dad came to this country [98:27] because he [98:29] thought he could have a better life [98:30] here. Um, not exactly in a rags to [98:34] riches sense. He came from a middle-ass [98:35] family uh in the tiny country of Malta. [98:39] >> And the way he tells the story is that [98:42] he he knew that he wanted to come to the [98:43] US and go to grad school here. And he [98:46] had a mentor who said, "Look, if you [98:48] stay here, I can promise you that you [98:50] will be a big fish in a small pond." [98:54] And he said, "I'd rather be a [98:58] medium-sized fish in a very big pond." [99:01] Which is a great way to think about [99:03] coming to America. And that's exactly [99:04] what he did. Um, he came, he went to [99:07] grad school in Bingmpington, New York, [99:10] and then he got a job in New Mexico, Los [99:14] Cusus, New Mexico. He met my mother who [99:16] was uh teaching there too. She was a [99:17] young uh linguist. They got married and [99:21] then the first good good job he got was [99:23] at University of Notre Dame uh in [99:25] Southbend, Indiana. They moved there and [99:26] pretty soon after that I was born. And [99:28] so I grew up with parents who cared a [99:31] lot about literature and learning and [99:33] they cared a lot about politics. We [99:34] weren't like politically connected. I [99:36] don't think I ever met an elected [99:38] official while I was a child. But I grew [99:40] up with this sense that it was very [99:42] important to know what was happening in [99:43] the world. My dad was always reading the [99:44] newspaper. The TV was always tuned to [99:46] the news. It was just a sense like [99:47] that's the most important thing. [99:48] Whatever's happening in the world is the [99:50] most important thing that you ought to [99:52] be paying attention to out there. I [99:54] don't know. It was a great upbringing [99:55] with great parents and um a good [99:58] neighborhood and good friends. You know, [100:00] I felt both a sense of belonging and a [100:03] sense of being an outsider kind of at [100:04] the same time. And I had this name that [100:06] nobody could pronounce. And we're in [100:08] this great neighborhood. People did all [100:09] kinds of different things. Our neighbor [100:11] to one side laid carpet. A family across [100:14] from us were retired public school [100:16] teachers. Lady on the corner was a [100:18] nurse. And I'd see her walk down to the [100:20] night shift at the hospital a couple [100:21] blocks away every day. [100:23] And [100:25] I felt like the texture of that [100:27] neighborhood like really belonged to me. [100:28] But at the same time, like I also felt [100:30] and knew that I was like I was [100:32] different. Like this was before it was [100:34] like trendy to drink espresso, for [100:36] example. That was like a weird immigrant [100:37] thing that my dad did, you know? like he [100:39] had this little thing you would put on [100:40] the stove and make espresso. Um, and I [100:43] remember them being kind of bewildered [100:45] when like Starbucks became a thing, you [100:46] know, and then the the surroundings of [100:49] it all, the city of South Bend, which [100:51] people know that the University of Notre [100:53] Dame is there, but the other thing that [100:54] was there was Studebaker. This was as [100:56] big a car company as like GM or Ford in [100:58] its day, but it stopped making cars in [101:00] 1963. They just couldn't quite innovate [101:03] and keep up and the company collapsed. [101:05] That was a catastrophic thing for the [101:07] city. The city lost a big chunk of its [101:09] population and never really recovered [101:12] it. And when I was a kid, I didn't [101:14] really know any different. I didn't [101:16] realize it was unusual to have factories [101:20] that hadn't been operating for decades [101:23] in some cases that that looked like [101:24] they'd been hit in a war. It's like [101:26] collapsing. Big giant structures falling [101:29] apart all over this city. I'd see him, [101:32] you know, at the window of my dad's [101:33] Chevy on the when he was driving me to [101:34] school. [101:36] And gradually as I grew up, I kind of [101:38] put the pieces together of what it meant [101:40] to live in a place whose best economic [101:43] days had been behind it. And and the [101:46] message that I got, the kind of lesson [101:47] that I was given was I don't know [101:49] anybody said this to me in a sentence, [101:51] but what the world kind of said to me [101:52] was if you want to be something, you [101:54] want to be someone, you have to get out. [101:56] You have to move out. [101:57] >> Did your dad say that? [101:59] Not that I remember. I mean, that's the [102:01] irony. You know, he's this world very [102:03] worldly man, you know, been all over the [102:04] world, but he chose to live in [102:06] Southbend. He died in South Bend, [102:08] Indiana. That was where he lived his [102:09] life. But I I don't know. You You just [102:12] get this sense that that was what you [102:14] were supposed to do. And then I did. I [102:16] got into Harvard, got to the east coast [102:18] to go to college, and then immediately [102:21] began to understand that I was I was a [102:23] somewhere in a way that I didn't [102:24] understand when I was growing up and [102:26] started to feel this kind of loyalty, [102:29] this kind of like almost militant [102:30] attachment partly because I heard the [102:32] ways people talked about where I was [102:34] from. He passed away while you were [102:36] running for president. [102:37] >> Yeah, it was just right about the moment [102:40] that I was announcing the the beginning [102:42] of the campaign. Yeah. like literally [102:44] the same week [102:46] >> unexpectedly. [102:47] >> He had been diagnosed with cancer in [102:51] September [102:52] and we knew that it it was pretty rough [102:55] and he passed away in January. So yeah, [102:58] I mean there was you know not overnight [103:00] but three or four months [103:03] the stabilizing in the leadup to the [103:05] most consequential decision and period [103:06] of your life. [103:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, this [103:12] really big important part of your world. [103:14] And we were close. I, you know, I moved [103:16] into a house that was on the same block [103:18] as where my parents lived in South Bend. [103:21] Home for dinner every Sunday night. I [103:23] mean, to have him become ill and then to [103:26] have him pass away just at the moment [103:30] that we were starting to launch. [103:33] Sometimes I look back on it. I don't [103:35] actually don't know how it worked. I was [103:36] trying to remember something and I [103:38] looked back at my like emails and I saw [103:40] some email I sent at like 3:30 in the [103:43] morning to my someone on my staff like [103:46] it was normal I think on the city staff [103:48] because the other thing is I was still [103:49] mayor right so I was running the city [103:52] facing my father's death during that [103:55] period my mother had a heart attack and [103:57] heart surgery and then launching this [104:00] campaign like all within a few really [104:03] few weeks with each [104:07] It's a lot. It's a lot at once. It's a [104:09] lot for one person to take. How How do [104:11] you deal with all of that? The noise, [104:12] the the family stuff at home, the loss [104:14] of your father all at once. What's the [104:15] strategy for I don't know. Strategy is a [104:18] word. Um, [104:20] but my way of dealing with it, first of [104:23] all, had a lot to do with Chaston. So, [104:25] uh, all this happened, yeah, we got [104:27] married in [104:30] 2018 [104:32] and all of this happened toward the end [104:33] of 2019. So, we hadn't been married for [104:37] long and he never guessed when neither [104:42] one of us guessed on our first date or [104:44] even when we got married that that this [104:46] was happening. What is the, you know, [104:48] I've got lots of friends who have been [104:50] on the journey of um sort of disco [104:53] discovering their sexual orientation at [104:55] a young age and then going through the [104:58] process of being comfortable enough in [105:00] their in their environment to announce [105:02] it to the world. [105:03] >> Yeah. [105:04] >> How does that what's the sort of the [105:05] journey of of you knowing who you were [105:08] and then feeling comfortable enough to [105:10] announce it? And what was the how do I [105:12] put together the picture of like how [105:13] your parents understood that, how the [105:14] world understood that, how you [105:16] understood that? And also, I guess the [105:18] other question that I have is like [105:20] American politics. [105:21] >> Yeah. [105:23] >> How does that understand it? You know, [105:24] you got the right, the left. [105:26] >> How do you think about all of that at [105:27] the moment? [105:28] >> Yeah. I mean, I'd like to believe we'll [105:30] get to a day when it's just [105:33] not a thing. No one cares [105:37] and it doesn't affect your career. It [105:40] doesn't affect your opportunities in [105:42] life. It just is what it is. [105:45] That's how I feel it should be. But, you [105:48] know, that's not how it was or how it [105:51] is. I mean, when I was commissioned into [105:54] the Navy Reserve, it was still the law [105:56] of the land that if I was known to be [105:59] gay, I'd be fired, right? [106:02] In fact, when I when I finally made [106:05] peace with this reality that I was gay, [106:08] >> what age? [106:09] >> I was well into my 20s cuz I wanted so [106:12] bad for it not to be true [106:15] that even though [106:18] obviously I was the whole time, I just [106:22] needed it not to be true. [106:24] And working through that took most of my [106:27] 20s. And then when I finally kind of [106:30] came to terms with it, [106:32] it was also around the time that I was I [106:35] was running for mayor. And maybe because [106:39] not being able to come terms with it [106:41] meant that I didn't have really a dating [106:43] life. [106:44] Maybe in some ways that helped [106:46] professionally because I had nothing [106:48] else to do with my energy, you know. [106:51] Um, [106:52] but I remember when I realized I was [106:55] going to win. [106:59] I I realized it was important that I [107:02] kind of finished the process of coming [107:03] out to myself, [107:05] which meant I had to come out to [107:07] somebody else. That was what kind of [107:09] marked it, you know. And so [107:13] I had a conversation with a close and [107:15] trusted friend. And I remember part of [107:19] his reaction was to [107:21] say, you know, to joke that like you [107:25] didn't exactly make it easy on yourself [107:26] because what you know, my whole [107:28] professional life had two parts. One was [107:30] being a Navy officer when that could be [107:33] career ending. [107:35] And the other was being an elected [107:38] official in Indiana, which had was well [107:40] on its way to getting a reputation as [107:43] maybe the most anti-gay state in the [107:46] country. Mike Pence hadn't yet become [107:49] governor, but he soon would. On one [107:51] level, I was at peace with this fact, [107:54] but I also knew it could be a career [107:55] limiting fact. [107:58] So, I kept it to myself for [108:02] a long time. [108:05] And then I just hit a point where I [108:06] couldn't do that anymore. And then it [108:08] was time to come out because, [108:11] well, the thing that really put me over [108:13] the edge was when I was getting ready to [108:14] deploy to Afghanistan. I was already in [108:15] there, but like a lot of people in the [108:17] reserve, you leave your day job to go [108:19] when you get called up. So when you [108:22] deploy into a war zone, they tell you to [108:24] write a letter [108:27] just in case you don't come back, which [108:30] I did. [108:32] And in that I in that process, you're [108:36] kind of taking stock of your life. [108:37] You're thinking about what you want to [108:38] say to the people you love most if you [108:41] don't come back. And that was kind of [108:43] the the moment that really is the final [108:45] moment where I just thought if I Here I [108:47] am. I'm taking stock of my life. I have [108:49] a great life, [108:51] but I'm a grown man in a position of [108:52] responsibility. I'm a homeowner. I'm [108:54] going to be a veteran. I don't know what [108:56] it's like to be in love. [108:59] And I just thought that's not that's [109:00] untenable. And so I promised myself that [109:02] if I came home safe, I would deal with [109:05] this. [109:07] And I came home physically safe. [109:11] And [109:12] the problem was there was a re-election [109:14] coming up, but I didn't want to have to [109:16] wait until I'd been reelected. [109:18] Um, so I figured out a way to come out. [109:20] And I I was kind of resentful of the [109:22] idea that I even had to. Like straight [109:23] people don't have to come out. But I [109:25] knew that if I just [109:27] tried to just like show up at some [109:29] Chamber of Commerce dinner and my date [109:30] was a dude that night. Like that was [109:32] just not I couldn't do it that way. Um, [109:36] and I didn't want to be like quote [109:38] unquote found out. like I definitely [109:39] didn't want to be hiding it, [109:43] but I wanted to start dating. [109:44] >> What about your your parents? [109:47] I remember it was weird because again I [109:51] I knew that they were forward thinking. [109:53] I knew they were accepting. I knew how [109:54] much they loved me. [109:56] Uh [109:58] but I had a it took me a while to be [110:01] ready to come out to them. And I did, [110:04] you know, like I said, I used to go home [110:05] for Sunday dinner every night. And uh [110:09] and so I was home for Sunday dinner one [110:10] night and kind of pushing my ice cream [110:14] around with a spoon in the bowl and just [110:16] thinking about and then I just took a [110:17] deep breath and it's just like I got to [110:19] tell you something. [110:21] And um [110:24] you know as I expected like they you [110:25] know responded with love and acceptance [110:27] and I know not everybody gets to expect [110:29] that. So I'm I'm thankful for that. My [110:32] dad was immediately worried about what [110:33] it might mean for my future. Not in a [110:35] way that he was trying to like talk me [110:36] out of anything. He just thought about [110:38] that and talked about it. My mom wanted [110:40] to know if I was dating somebody. I [110:42] think she had had her eyes on, you know, [110:44] maybe becoming a grandma for a long [110:46] time. Um, I wasn't dating anybody, but [110:50] you know, [110:52] I don't know. It was probably within a [110:53] year of that that I brought Chaston home [110:54] for Sunday dinner for the first time and [110:57] watched him hit it off with my parents, [110:59] which is just like everything about that [111:02] everything about that scene at dinner [111:04] was just not a thing that I could have [111:07] thought would have been possible just [111:09] just a few years before it was [111:10] happening. [111:12] >> By the way, I just want to say that's [111:13] really beautiful. Uh it's I think you [111:15] probably don't realize the um the net [111:17] impact that decision had on many many [111:19] people who are contending with their own [111:20] sexuality um by being both a politician. [111:23] I think you were the you also the um [111:27] were you the first person in a [111:29] presidential candidate to be openly gay [111:31] as well? [111:32] >> Uh definitely the first person who was [111:34] considered to have a shot. Yeah. [111:35] >> Yeah. [111:36] >> I mean not that I was considered to have [111:37] a shot when I started. [111:39] >> Yeah. But I think in the same way that [111:40] Obama paved the way for lots of other [111:41] people to expand their minds as to what [111:43] was possible for them because of their [111:45] identity, I think you've certainly done [111:46] that. And I think it's um it's a weird [111:49] word to say courageous or brave [111:52] >> um as it relates to just being yourself. [111:53] >> Yeah. I mean it was a personal decision [111:55] but [111:55] >> but I think that when there's [111:56] consequence and there's obvious [111:57] consequence and you do something [111:58] irrespective of that, I do consider it [112:00] to be very admirable in that regard. We [112:02] have a closing tradition where the last [112:03] guest leaves a question for the next not [112:04] knowing who they're leaving it for. The [112:06] question left for you [112:08] is what is the thing that the world [112:10] needs to hear right now that it maybe [112:12] doesn't want to hear that is [112:14] uncomfortable but necessary? [112:25] I think it's [112:28] that [112:30] it doesn't have to be the way it is, [112:33] but [112:36] we have to do the hard things [112:38] to change it. Like people can feel that [112:42] things can't go on like this. [112:45] And I go around all around the country [112:46] reminding people that it doesn't have to [112:48] be like this, [112:50] but is not going to change on its own. [112:51] Like you can't just sit back and let [112:53] some pattern [112:55] or some wave of history or some [112:59] technology just like come save the day. [113:02] It doesn't work that way. Everybody's [113:03] got to be part of it. Everybody's going [113:05] to have to give a little something up. [113:08] And if we do it, it'll be great. But [113:11] hard things are hard. One of the things [113:14] that's quite different between you and [113:15] other politicians as well is I think you [113:17] are most willing to go and talk to the [113:19] other side. [113:19] >> Yeah. But just before you arrived here, [113:21] you were actually over at Fox News. [113:22] Yeah. [113:23] >> And I think that's also something that [113:25] gosh, both political sides haven't [113:27] always wanted to do if we're talking [113:29] about the things that are not nice to [113:30] hear is you actually have to go talk to [113:32] your quote unquote [113:33] >> enemies or adversaries or those that are [113:36] totally against you. And I applaud you [113:37] for really leading the way there and you [113:39] do a remarkable job of it because you're [113:40] so bloody articulate and smart. Um, but [113:43] I think there's a that's that's [113:45] something important as well in this [113:46] moment in time. [113:47] >> I think it's like pol good politics is [113:50] about encounter. Like it's about [113:51] encountering people. What's the point of [113:53] doing this if you're only if you're only [113:55] talking to people who already agree with [113:56] you? [113:57] >> So yeah, to me it's it's it's a very [113:58] natural part of the job. I get why it's [114:00] hard. I get why not everybody does it. [114:02] Um, but to me it's one of the most [114:04] important ways to earn my my keep. Thank [114:06] you for doing that because it's so [114:08] wonderful to see the [114:11] I'd say conflict of ideas in in in [114:14] public. It's wonderful to see you going [114:16] to the other side and I know you've been [114:17] on a bit of a tour of red states [114:18] recently doing exactly that. I I wish [114:20] more politicians would do that because [114:22] that's we get to see those ideas that [114:24] often exist on extreme polls um collide [114:26] and we get to make our own mind up and [114:28] please keep doing what you're doing. [114:29] >> I think it's really really remarkable [114:30] and the values that you have I also [114:31] respect a huge amount. So thank you for [114:33] being here and I appreciate your [114:34] generosity and coming. Thanks for having [114:36] me. [114:36] >> YouTube [snorts] have this new crazy [114:37] algorithm where they know exactly what [114:40] video you would like to watch next based [114:42] on AI and all of your viewing behavior. [114:44] And the algorithm says that this video [114:47] is the perfect video for you. It's [114:49] different for everybody looking right [114:50] now. Check this video out and I bet you [114:52] you might love