Speaker 1: Let's welcome to the Armstrong and Getty Show. Long Hea Chen.
Speaker 1: He's a candidate for California State Controller for one thing,
Speaker 1: but we've been having him on for years. David and
Speaker 1: Diane Stephy fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the
Speaker 1: Hoover Institution, the director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University,
Speaker 1: which is pretty impressive. Along he welcomed to the Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show once again. It's good to be back
Speaker 1: with you, guys. Thanks. Not about the details of the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden thing, but don't you don't you think the um,
Speaker 1: if there ever was a bloom on the rose, the
Speaker 1: bloom is off the rows of the whole Joe Biden
Speaker 1: brings us back to normalcy. Grown ups are in charge.
Speaker 1: No more craziness. That's gone, right, Yeah, I mean I
Speaker 1: think there's two reasons why it's gone, guys. Number one
Speaker 1: is because of Biden's own, uh, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: his own behavior in office. Just in terms of what
Speaker 1: we're seeing from him as somebody who, um, you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes it looks like it's unclear whether he understands exactly
Speaker 1: what the nature of the challenges and whether it's because
Speaker 1: he just doesn't pay much attention or because you know,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason it might be, it does feel a
Speaker 1: little bit like sometimes he doesn't grasp the gravity of
Speaker 1: the situation on. Give you an example when he off
Speaker 1: handedly says that Vladimir Putin's got to go. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it means something when an American president says that. It's
Speaker 1: not just a throwaway comment, and so you have to wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, Joe, what's part of I think what made
Speaker 1: Joe Biden appealing at some point in his career was
Speaker 1: that he kind of just said what came to mind.
Speaker 1: But that's not really something that in this situation, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, serves him all that well. But the second
Speaker 1: reason why the bloom is off the Rose guys, is
Speaker 1: because of just the policy decisions that he's made and
Speaker 1: the various things that he has said about you know
Speaker 1: what it is that uh, you know, we have to
Speaker 1: do with respect to all sorts of different issues, right,
Speaker 1: massive economic stimulus that's resulting in big time inflation. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, various things we're seeing in domestic policy that
Speaker 1: really are far left of center. When it comes to
Speaker 1: what we expected, you know, we expected a moderate We
Speaker 1: got a far left progressive, and so I think for
Speaker 1: those reasons, people are kind of saying, Hi, this wasn't
Speaker 1: exactly what we expected. Yeah, yeah, absolutely true. And I
Speaker 1: wanted to get into policy since that's your wheelhouse. Uh,
Speaker 1: is there anything that would launch Well? I did see
Speaker 1: us up pull the other day that had immigration as
Speaker 1: the third biggest priority of American voters. It was inflation economy,
Speaker 1: which are so close to the same for one and two,
Speaker 1: and then the border. It gets so little coverage in
Speaker 1: the news. It's hard for me to know how much
Speaker 1: people care. I suppose you see these numbers from time
Speaker 1: to time. Is the border on people's minds because we're
Speaker 1: we're hearing from all kinds of different fronts that it's
Speaker 1: the worst it's been in decades? Yeah, I think, Jack,
Speaker 1: there's a There's two different things there too as well.
Speaker 1: Number one is how much the media covers it or
Speaker 1: doesn't cover it. I think if the media wanted to
Speaker 1: cover it, they could have a story about what's happening
Speaker 1: on the border of the lack of of kind of
Speaker 1: efforts to to secure our southern border. You would probably
Speaker 1: see that, you know, pretty often. The other thing I
Speaker 1: think is that immigration is kind of a um as
Speaker 1: an issue. Interestingly enough, it tends to correlate with the
Speaker 1: state of the economy. So when the state of the
Speaker 1: economy is perceived to be unsteady for whatever reason, immigration
Speaker 1: tends to rise an issue as well, because people directly
Speaker 1: relate uh you know, let's say, for example, competition for
Speaker 1: labor supply with the state of the economy, and if
Speaker 1: the economy is relatively weak or let's just say precariously,
Speaker 1: there's the labor market is pretty strong right now. Anyone
Speaker 1: who largely wants a job can probably find one. But
Speaker 1: the problem is when you've got inflation running at levels
Speaker 1: it's running at, people have a little bit of uncertainty
Speaker 1: about the economy and about where it's headed. Some people
Speaker 1: think we're actually headed for recession, and if that's the case,
Speaker 1: then immigration becomes a more salient issue. So Jack, I
Speaker 1: think what you're seeing is people express that concern about
Speaker 1: immigration in part because of some unsteadiness we're seeing in
Speaker 1: the economic numbers. And as you said, one and two,
Speaker 1: issues one and two are the economy and inflation, So
Speaker 1: we know where people's heads are at. The Republicans will
Speaker 1: take back the House, and that's not that surprising historically
Speaker 1: in recent cycles, that's just the way it works, um
Speaker 1: And there are extra reasons that's going to be true
Speaker 1: this time around. But as far as the presidency, and
Speaker 1: I'm operating on the assumption Joe Biden is not going
Speaker 1: to be the anominee in one way or another, is
Speaker 1: there a chance for some sort of political reset of
Speaker 1: some sort where we get because Biden wasn't elected for
Speaker 1: any normal reason. He was elected because not Trump and
Speaker 1: then Hillary and and and Trump were the two most
Speaker 1: own popular candidates in our nation's history. So is there
Speaker 1: a chance for some sort of I don't know, normal
Speaker 1: like presidential election. I don't know, you know. I part
Speaker 1: of me wants to wish we could get back to that,
Speaker 1: you know, where where we actually had debates over things
Speaker 1: like tax policy or what would happen in terms of
Speaker 1: our policy around the world. I wonder if that um
Speaker 1: trains left the station on the nature of our politics. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's a guy like you, A serious guy like you,
Speaker 1: and and an optimistic guy. I haven't talked to you
Speaker 1: for several years now to say that, I find that
Speaker 1: pretty striking. So well, it's it's a function I think
Speaker 1: of who ends up running right and uh and and
Speaker 1: who ends up being sort of involved in the contest.
Speaker 1: I think if it's you know that there's a certain
Speaker 1: category of politician whom if they ran for president, and
Speaker 1: both sides kind of had nominees of that ilk, you
Speaker 1: could see things going back. But the problem is, I
Speaker 1: think as you think about, you know, who the leading
Speaker 1: contenders might be on either side, I have great doubt
Speaker 1: that you would see that, you know, sort of retro
Speaker 1: kind of campaign. I think in some ways we're moving
Speaker 1: into a new era. And by the way, it's not
Speaker 1: just because of the candidates, it's because of how people
Speaker 1: consume media now, right, And if you think about social media,
Speaker 1: social media has accelerated the way and the nature of
Speaker 1: every news cycle, and it's so much easier for stories
Speaker 1: to to catch on like wildfire than it was in
Speaker 1: the day and age when you had some major television
Speaker 1: networks and you had some big newspapers and that was
Speaker 1: about it. So it's not just because of the candidates
Speaker 1: that things have changed. It's also just because of the
Speaker 1: nature of the consumption of media and how stories kind
Speaker 1: of do or don't take off. Do you mean that
Speaker 1: train has less left the station? For now or like permanently,
Speaker 1: because I mean if I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I wish I could say it's for now,
Speaker 1: but some of these trends are are not going away
Speaker 1: anytime soon, right, I mean, do we see ourselves moving
Speaker 1: away from a social media world? I don't know, do
Speaker 1: we see ourselves? You know, candidates increasingly need to say
Speaker 1: and do things that are, you know, sort of attention
Speaker 1: grabbing in this era where people have very very short
Speaker 1: attention spans, and so that adds to the likelihood that
Speaker 1: you're gonna get candidates encouraged to run for these high
Speaker 1: offices who are, you know, kind of more sensationalistic. I mean,
Speaker 1: I you know, in my own campaign, I I really
Speaker 1: try not to go there, you know. I try to
Speaker 1: be reasonable and talk about the reasons why we need
Speaker 1: better accountability for state spending in California and at the
Speaker 1: sexiest issues. But for my kind of an office in
Speaker 1: this kind of a campaign, I can do that. But
Speaker 1: I know the pressures that are on friends and colleagues
Speaker 1: who are running for other kinds of offices, and you know,
Speaker 1: all the pressure, in my view is in the wrong
Speaker 1: directions in terms of the kind of issue that they
Speaker 1: need to engage in a win. I guarantee you would
Speaker 1: raise more money today. You would raise more money a
Speaker 1: day than you've raised in any day if you said,
Speaker 1: you know who's a war criminal Joe Biden is a
Speaker 1: war criminal. That would be retweeted I don't know how
Speaker 1: many thousand times, and you'd raise the most money of
Speaker 1: your career. Yeah. Unfortunately, my my tweet about the disability
Speaker 1: insurance scandal did not quite ah make the make the
Speaker 1: top ten list today. So no, you're you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: I think that there is a definite desire and an
Speaker 1: intention sometimes that politicians feel in need to just say
Speaker 1: wacky stuff because it's it does get a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: you know. And that's not that's not the kind of
Speaker 1: politics that I grew up in, but it is the
Speaker 1: nature of our politics today and it is what drives um,
Speaker 1: you know, uh sort of engagement and and the end
Speaker 1: of the day, that's what politicians want. They want engagement. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I've been a listener reading a lot of Sarah Isger
Speaker 1: of The Dispatch has been writing about this a lot,
Speaker 1: that the changes in Yeah, and she she's been great
Speaker 1: on this. The campaign finance reform that we thought would
Speaker 1: make politics better have made it worse. And uh, having
Speaker 1: having more small donations from people who just want to
Speaker 1: see you say something crazy on Twitter or a cable
Speaker 1: news show has not taken us the right direction. No,
Speaker 1: I agree. I agree. It's too bad. It's really too bad.
Speaker 1: Any chance that changes, any chance we go back to
Speaker 1: some people are calling for the return of the smoke
Speaker 1: filled rooms. You don't let the parties decide candidates and
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. Well that you know that that
Speaker 1: wasn't so great either, right, because it wasn't the kind
Speaker 1: of process that we would hope, you know. I think
Speaker 1: in America we would pride ourselves on transparency, on processes
Speaker 1: where you understand kind of who comes out of it
Speaker 1: and and and public voices can be heard and considered.
Speaker 1: I do think if we had stronger political party and
Speaker 1: that may sound strange because but the kinds of parties,
Speaker 1: you know, the party at labels identifications are strong, But
Speaker 1: the institutions of the political parties aren't strong anymore. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's whoever whoever gets the nomination, all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you adopt their policies. That's not the way it's supposed
Speaker 1: to work. And it used to be that the party
Speaker 1: stood for things and and candidates kind of you know,
Speaker 1: would either adhere to that or not. But nowadays you
Speaker 1: don't have that strength of association of the party anymore.
Speaker 1: If you had a stronger political party mechanism, stronger Democratic
Speaker 1: and Republican parties that might have more control, for example,
Speaker 1: over presidential primary processes, you wouldn't have these long drawn
Speaker 1: out primary fights that you know. Unfortunately many times end
Speaker 1: up devolving into who can be the most liberal, who
Speaker 1: can be the most most conservative, And I don't think
Speaker 1: that generates presidential candidates at the end of the day
Speaker 1: who are going to govern from from the middle out.
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately that's probably what we need as
Speaker 1: a country to get back to the kind of normalcy
Speaker 1: you're talking about. Lanhe Chen knows what he's talking about
Speaker 1: for all kinds of different reasons, including being involved at
Speaker 1: the highest levels of major campaigns, and he's a candidate
Speaker 1: for California State Controller. You were endorsed by the Chronicle,
Speaker 1: Is that right? I wasn't endorsed by the Chronicle. I
Speaker 1: had there was a column we read from. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: was an opinion writer He basically said, hey, listen, one
Speaker 1: position where you need where you need a watchdog. You know,
Speaker 1: in government in California is a controller, and that's why
Speaker 1: you probably want to think about electing a Republican. So
Speaker 1: as I like to say, Jack, we need a we
Speaker 1: need a watchdog in this office, not a lap dog.
Speaker 1: There you go. That's pretty often, too often we've had that.
Speaker 1: That's pretty awesome when somebody in the chronicle San Francisco
Speaker 1: Chronicle says, this is a Republican you need long each
Speaker 1: and hey, thanks for your time today, appreciate it. That's
Speaker 1: the most interesting thing I've heard today. A serious guy
Speaker 1: like that, who doesn't say crazy stuff, just you know,
Speaker 1: for fun. That train has left the station of us
Speaker 1: having serious discussions. Wow, Armstrong one podcast, Jack. This is
Speaker 1: roughly the equivalent of carrying around two honored in twenty
Speaker 1: four slices of Bacon in your Body. Well wait, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, regular, what bacon ways of majurement that we
Speaker 1: all use? The Armstrong and Getting podcast. Here it on
Speaker 1: the I Heart app wherever you listen to podcasts.