Speaker 1: A guy who we've been wanting to talk to for
Speaker 1: a long time. It's Armstrong and Getty extra large, because
Speaker 1: four hours simply usn't enough. This is Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: extra large. You know him, you love him. Steve Hilton
Speaker 1: hosts The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton on Fox News.
Speaker 1: He has a brand new podcast We're Gonna tell you
Speaker 1: about His shirts have no collars and he joins us, Now, Steve,
Speaker 1: how are you. I'm great. I'm wearing a T shirt
Speaker 1: just for you. That's what I was picturing you. Hey,
Speaker 1: we we had something we wanted to play you from
Speaker 1: another cable news channel and then discuss a little bit.
Speaker 1: This was on Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning. The
Speaker 1: retail pharmacy Giant Walgreens is set to close the five
Speaker 1: stores in San Francisco due to rampant shoplifting and organized
Speaker 1: retail crime. It also makes me feel bad that things
Speaker 1: are so bad for people that they have, that this
Speaker 1: is happening. It's no, it's not incredibly sad. They're criminals. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: this has been happening for some time. But we also
Speaker 1: want to be alpened and and and and charitable and
Speaker 1: mindful that folks are out here hurting even as ninety
Speaker 1: year old men are flying into space. So Steve Hilton's
Speaker 1: new podcast is California Rebel Base and Steve, when you
Speaker 1: hear that sort of commentary from Mika Bradzynski that people
Speaker 1: are just steving stores to the point that the chains
Speaker 1: are closing because they're in need, do you have any comment.
Speaker 1: It's just insane, isn't it what. It's just so typical
Speaker 1: of the lunacy that seems to have taken over the
Speaker 1: way government works or doesn't work in California and all
Speaker 1: the cities, and the lunacy with which people comment on
Speaker 1: it and don't understand what's going on. What you've got
Speaker 1: going on up and down the state is a bunch
Speaker 1: of people in charge who are literally pro criminal. The
Speaker 1: people running the criminal justice they are on the side
Speaker 1: of the criminals. They are against actually doing what the
Speaker 1: first responsibility of government is if you should basically keep
Speaker 1: things safe, protect law and order, make it possible for
Speaker 1: people to do business. But now it's so oh, we
Speaker 1: have to understand that the criminals need to loot wal
Speaker 1: greens otherwise how they can eat by the way in
Speaker 1: a state where they spend so much on welfare, and
Speaker 1: they said, spend sake so much money in tax and
Speaker 1: waste it on all these services. And another part of
Speaker 1: their plan, they they keep going on about the billions
Speaker 1: that they're spending on homelessness. Obviously that isn't enough because
Speaker 1: you've got the owners people robbing the sort. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just lunacy, all of it. And basically, this is
Speaker 1: what you get when you have a one party rule,
Speaker 1: when you have a bunch of people in charge with
Speaker 1: no political challenge, there's no accountability, no one standing up
Speaker 1: to them. They think they can get away with anything
Speaker 1: to get then they can because that's what's been happening,
Speaker 1: and then they let the criminals get away with anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is why people are so angry. This
Speaker 1: is actually why I started the podcast us which is
Speaker 1: called California Rebel Base, and the reason for their name
Speaker 1: is that, actually, I think up and down the state
Speaker 1: there are millions and millions of people fed up with this,
Speaker 1: rebels against this one party rule. But I don't know
Speaker 1: what to do about it, because wherever you turn, the
Speaker 1: crazy people are in charge. We've got to fight back
Speaker 1: against it, and we've got to have a kind of
Speaker 1: really concerted effort. We've got to get together, and we've
Speaker 1: got to stick with it for the long term, not
Speaker 1: just a quick thing with a recall or whatever. We've
Speaker 1: got to really go for it, because you can't go
Speaker 1: on like this in such a state that there is
Speaker 1: one thing we love California. I love California. I live here,
Speaker 1: I live in the Bay Area. I'm in the middle
Speaker 1: of all this madness. But you know, we've got to
Speaker 1: fight back. I can tell by your Valley girl accent um.
Speaker 1: So what I've been trying to figure out though, is like,
Speaker 1: does the president or the California legislature do they actually
Speaker 1: believe this nonsense or are they just play into the
Speaker 1: Twitter crowd thinking that the Twitter crowd is much bigger
Speaker 1: than it actually is. Because I just I find it
Speaker 1: so hard to believe that there are grown ups that think, yeah,
Speaker 1: the people robbing the Walgreens are just you know, they're
Speaker 1: just they're struggling because of the COVID and because of
Speaker 1: systemic racism in the the patriarchy and all the homeless people.
Speaker 1: It's just because of the bad economy. So let's let's
Speaker 1: try and be charitable, okay, And let's try and assume
Speaker 1: good intent on their partner and trying to understand what's
Speaker 1: really going on. That's underlying your question, which is they
Speaker 1: can't just be crazy. Obviously the policies are crazy and
Speaker 1: the outcomes are crazy, but these people are not literally lunatic.
Speaker 1: What is going on? What are they trying to do?
Speaker 1: I think the heart of it is that they've been
Speaker 1: completely kind of There's two things. Actually, there's the woke ideology,
Speaker 1: and that is absolutely infecting what you see happening in
Speaker 1: the schools with the curriculum and a bunch of other
Speaker 1: stuff where we see that woke ideology. I've traced the
Speaker 1: origins of it back on my show on Fox News
Speaker 1: that it goes back a hundred years. This didn't just
Speaker 1: show up with AOC and her Twitter account. That kind
Speaker 1: a way of thinking about the world that is all about, um,
Speaker 1: these kind of categories of identity that's been going on
Speaker 1: for a long time, and it originated back in the
Speaker 1: day in Europe with this Marxist school of philosophers, the
Speaker 1: Frankfurt School, who were asking themselves the question, why did
Speaker 1: the communist revolution that Marks and Angles predicted would take
Speaker 1: over the world and the workers would rise up and
Speaker 1: capitalism would be abolished. It didn't really happen, and in
Speaker 1: Russia they did it with force, but it didn't really
Speaker 1: take off anywhere else. Why was that? And their answer was, actually,
Speaker 1: it's not just about economics, as Marks argued, there are
Speaker 1: other things that keep the working class oppressed. And the
Speaker 1: three that they focused on with faith, family, and culture,
Speaker 1: and they said, those are the things that give the
Speaker 1: working people this kind of false consciousness that they could
Speaker 1: should carry on with capitalism. So we have to undermine
Speaker 1: those things. We have to attack faith and religion and
Speaker 1: organized religion. We have to undermine family because the family
Speaker 1: unit is what keeps people attached to this oppressive, working,
Speaker 1: oppressive capitalist system. And we have to seize the leavers
Speaker 1: of power in culture and make sure that that's under
Speaker 1: the control of our ideology as well. That's what they
Speaker 1: all formulated back in the nineteen twenties in Frankfurt, and
Speaker 1: over the last century that's been pushed forward and you
Speaker 1: can see the fruits of that absolutely applied today. So
Speaker 1: there's an ideology of work that says, actually, we do
Speaker 1: want to undermine family and religion and so on, and
Speaker 1: you can see that being played out there's another part
Speaker 1: of it, though. The second part of it, I would say,
Speaker 1: again trying to be fair to these democrats, is that
Speaker 1: they are so consumed by the desire to appear compassionate
Speaker 1: and be kind to people and have compassion for people
Speaker 1: who are suffering, that they totally forget that real compassion
Speaker 1: also includes an element of discipline. And you can't just
Speaker 1: give people things and not expect anything in turn, um
Speaker 1: and and not demand anything returned and expect a decent outcome.
Speaker 1: And so they just think it's all about being compassionate
Speaker 1: and kind and virtue things. We love, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't want to offend anyone. And as those two things
Speaker 1: going together to produce these insane policies, right well, as
Speaker 1: I've said many times, order without compassion is fascism. But
Speaker 1: compassion without order is chaos and the dissolution of society.
Speaker 1: And and that's what we're seeing, you know, just a
Speaker 1: dovetail to that thought. We at the Arms Starring Getty Show,
Speaker 1: we have never spent a lot of time talking about
Speaker 1: the Koch brothers Boogatie Bogaty and George Soros Boogatie Bogaty,
Speaker 1: because those aren't arguments. That's not a policy argument, it's
Speaker 1: just citing a boogeyman. But it is worth observing that
Speaker 1: George Soros and types like him, who are very smart,
Speaker 1: hardcore far left idealogues, are very very good at manipulating
Speaker 1: well meaning left leaning voters and people to the extent
Speaker 1: that they get as Boordine elected as the d A
Speaker 1: in the San Francisco area or what's his face in
Speaker 1: l A, George Gascon exactly, thank you. Yeah. Um. These
Speaker 1: people are hardcore Marxists. But there's nothing in the Carl
Speaker 1: Marks or the modified Marks point of view that you
Speaker 1: were describing that says we must at all times be
Speaker 1: perfectly honest about what we're trying to accomplish. No, quite
Speaker 1: the contrary. They're open with each other about we have
Speaker 1: got to dupe the well meaning suburban bourgeoisie and to
Speaker 1: going along with our plans. That's exactly right. And they
Speaker 1: know that they can do that because that that's not
Speaker 1: who they're going to for their votes. And as you say,
Speaker 1: they're funded by people with unlimited amounts of money who
Speaker 1: don't live in those places. They don't have to experience
Speaker 1: any of this. This is what its enraging about all
Speaker 1: of this. If you look at someone like George Soros,
Speaker 1: for example, you know, we we talked about it on
Speaker 1: my podcast, you know, the other the other week. He
Speaker 1: lives in probably some mansion somewhere. He doesn't actually encounter
Speaker 1: the consequences of this UM, this pro criminal ideology that
Speaker 1: he is funding UM. And that's what's so offensive about it. Actually,
Speaker 1: the people who suffer most, and this is true most
Speaker 1: of this lunacy you see being pushed by the by
Speaker 1: the Democrats in California, UM, the people who suffer the most,
Speaker 1: the exact same people that they say they are standing
Speaker 1: up for the poorest, the most vulnerable people who are
Speaker 1: recent immigrants, black people and Latinos and Asian America. These
Speaker 1: are the people who actually end up having to suffer that,
Speaker 1: you know, the worst public schools, the worst impact from crime.
Speaker 1: And that's what I find so offensive about it. And
Speaker 1: that's why, you know, it's time we said that clearly,
Speaker 1: and don't let them paint people who reject these policies
Speaker 1: as people who some are uncaring or cruel or not
Speaker 1: interested in social justice. It's the exact opposite. They're the
Speaker 1: ones who are cruel because it's their policies who hurt
Speaker 1: with that hurt the most vulnerable. But enjoying your commentary
Speaker 1: for a while, I think first became aware of you
Speaker 1: whenever you'd be a guest on like the panel on
Speaker 1: Brett Bear Show. But how did you come to your
Speaker 1: political beliefs? Do you do you have any sense of
Speaker 1: why you're this direction as opposed to the other direction? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. I mean, you know, I grew up in
Speaker 1: the UK. My parents are both Hungarian. Um, my stepfathers
Speaker 1: also Hungarian, So that's my family background. And obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: and most of my family still is back in Hungary,
Speaker 1: which obviously no longer has to suffer the oppression of
Speaker 1: the communist regime. But I certainly grew up aware of
Speaker 1: that and traveling to Hungary and seeing my family and
Speaker 1: just being told that. I remember as a kid, it's
Speaker 1: the weird memory that sticks in your mind. I'm running
Speaker 1: around on the street. I didn't really know what I
Speaker 1: was doing with my two cousins, And as a kind
Speaker 1: of joke as a young kid, I remember um yelling
Speaker 1: on the street the name of the lead yo car.
Speaker 1: Dad was the was the Communist leader of Hunger at
Speaker 1: that point. It wasn't, but it was. It was the
Speaker 1: sort of softer end of the communist spectrum. It wasn't.
Speaker 1: It wasn't as bad as you got in some other countries,
Speaker 1: but you know, it's still pretty bad. And and the
Speaker 1: name of this lead. I yelled it out and said, oh,
Speaker 1: he's an idiot. He's an idiot, and my most totally
Speaker 1: to my cousins day, I don't say that. And then
Speaker 1: I got back home and my aunt gave me this
Speaker 1: stern lecture about how you can't say things like that, Um,
Speaker 1: your cousins will get in trouble, will be punished as
Speaker 1: a family. It was really interesting. I didn't know anything
Speaker 1: back in those days about obviously these these concepts we
Speaker 1: talk about now, like councel culture or whatever, but it's
Speaker 1: stuck in my mind. There's this kind of absence of freedom.
Speaker 1: You couldn't just say what you wanted. I think they are.
Speaker 1: The really formative thing in my life was the fact
Speaker 1: that my my stepfather was was you know, he run
Speaker 1: a small business. He was in construction. He did house
Speaker 1: repairs and built small house and so and I spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time with him on construction sites. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, we grew up in a kind of you know,
Speaker 1: we weren't poor, but it's kind of a sort of
Speaker 1: classic kind of middle class family. And that that idea
Speaker 1: of working hard and doing an honest day's work and literally,
Speaker 1: you know, working that kind of blue college job that
Speaker 1: so many people depend on. I think that really stuck
Speaker 1: with me. Um And for example, when I you know,
Speaker 1: I was lucky enough to get to Oxford University, but
Speaker 1: before I went there, I took a year out and
Speaker 1: I actually worked for a construction company in London and
Speaker 1: learned skills as a project manage and so on. But
Speaker 1: I think that whole notion of really understanding that kind
Speaker 1: of basic hard work mindset. I think those two things,
Speaker 1: the Hungarian background and then that culture of you know,
Speaker 1: like working hard and climbing the ladder of opportunity that
Speaker 1: in which I've been able to do. I feel so
Speaker 1: lucky and privileged to be able to have done that myself,
Speaker 1: and now you just see it being taken away for
Speaker 1: so many other people by these terrible policies. I think
Speaker 1: that's where it comes from. We talk a fair amount
Speaker 1: about whether it's possible to roll back some of the
Speaker 1: policies and entitlements that are growing. You were director of
Speaker 1: strategy for British Prime Minister David Cameron for a handful
Speaker 1: of years, and it's so difficult to get an honest,
Speaker 1: even handed account of Britain's journey through postwar socialist uh.
Speaker 1: Growth of those programs and then the Margaret Thatcher era. Um,
Speaker 1: of course, you know, all of the media and the
Speaker 1: pop stars and all portray hers far worse than the
Speaker 1: wicked Witch of the West, just an oppressive, evil person
Speaker 1: who was, to my mind, just trying to recapture great
Speaker 1: Britain's greatness and agility as opposed to a giant, bloated
Speaker 1: welfare state. Growing up, how did you see that that
Speaker 1: rise and fall? Uh? What's your honest assessment of the
Speaker 1: Thatcher years? Oh, I mean, I I couldn't be more
Speaker 1: of I mean, I was so proud that I actually
Speaker 1: got to meet her and and and and work work
Speaker 1: in the for for while I was had a junior
Speaker 1: researcher job in the Conservative Party when she was Prime Minister. No,
Speaker 1: I I mean, and I actually growing up that was
Speaker 1: part of that whole story for me because I remember,
Speaker 1: you know, and I guess I absorbed this at the
Speaker 1: kind of kitchen table or whatever. You know, my stepfather
Speaker 1: and my family know, we it was very interesting. Again,
Speaker 1: it's these things you remember, like Thatcher was on our
Speaker 1: side because she was for working people and the Labor Party,
Speaker 1: the socially equivalent Democrats. I remember this phrase that was
Speaker 1: used all the time in our household there for the layabouts,
Speaker 1: you know, which is a pretty kind of aggressive word
Speaker 1: and whatever. I probably wouldn't use it now, you know,
Speaker 1: But that's that's people are going to call layabouts for
Speaker 1: the rest of my life. Now, the lay abouts maybe
Speaker 1: that's the you know, the lay about. So look, she
Speaker 1: did she I mean, she saved the country, there's no
Speaker 1: question about that. And stop what was looking like a
Speaker 1: really terminal decline for for Britain. And it was and
Speaker 1: it was and it was focused on two things, which
Speaker 1: is getting the government the government. I mean, it's an
Speaker 1: insane level of central centralization of government power where the
Speaker 1: government owned and ran pretty much everything in the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the airline, the railways, the phone company,
Speaker 1: either all the utilities, energy, everything It was owned by
Speaker 1: the government and run by the government and delivered with
Speaker 1: no petition, no private sector investment. And everything was falling apart.
Speaker 1: And so the great innovation was the privatization program to
Speaker 1: take those assets, put them back in the public sector,
Speaker 1: sell them to the people so people could be become
Speaker 1: shareholders and get invested in the success of the economy.
Speaker 1: Is an incredible transformation. The second part was the union reform,
Speaker 1: the trade union reform, and you basically you couldn't do
Speaker 1: anything in the UK without the permission of the unions,
Speaker 1: not just the government unions, but unions in the private
Speaker 1: sector as well. So she enabled people who started and
Speaker 1: run businesses as I have. You know, I've been an
Speaker 1: entrepreneur in the UK and here in California, and you know,
Speaker 1: like that just that freedom to start your business and
Speaker 1: and employ people, and and find a customer and find
Speaker 1: customers for your your product or service, and that that
Speaker 1: that whole enterprise culture is what she created and revived
Speaker 1: the the economy and society in this in the process.
Speaker 1: So she was a complete savior for the country as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned. That's not to say we think
Speaker 1: she said or did was perfect, but overwhelmingly, shoot, I mean,
Speaker 1: she saved the country. I think that's the simplest way
Speaker 1: of putting it. Enterprise culture. That's interesting case again back
Speaker 1: to where do we get our world views? And I
Speaker 1: don't even know where I got mine, really, But the
Speaker 1: back when I was starting out in you know, after
Speaker 1: college or whatever, and struggling like so many people doing.
Speaker 1: I had three jobs and I was broken. I was
Speaker 1: sleeping on the floor in this sublet apartment because I
Speaker 1: didn't have a bed. I mean I didn't, But it never,
Speaker 1: it never crossed my mind that there should be some
Speaker 1: government program or something, and just it never occurred to me.
Speaker 1: And so we got you were somehow being cheated. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just thought I've made some bad decisions, which I had,
Speaker 1: and uh, and I needed to make some better ones
Speaker 1: or get a better job. And so we got this
Speaker 1: five trillion, another five trillion dollars worth of programs staring
Speaker 1: us in the face here in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: And how do you get people out of the mindset
Speaker 1: that it's the government's got to fix my current woes
Speaker 1: as opposed to me. I just I don't even know
Speaker 1: how you do it. Well, there's a couple of answers
Speaker 1: to that. I mean, first of all, and this this
Speaker 1: is something that maybe isn't such a comfortable conversation for
Speaker 1: conservatives or people on the right to have, but it's
Speaker 1: important we have it. Why is there such an appetite
Speaker 1: for this far left lunacy, as as we could characterize it.
Speaker 1: Why is it even being discussed? Why is it so
Speaker 1: the norm actually for a lot of younger people to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course we need this. Of course we need the
Speaker 1: government to to help me with, you know, buying a
Speaker 1: house or rent or whatever it may be, and and
Speaker 1: and every aspect of my life to be subsidized and
Speaker 1: supported by the government. One of the reasons for that
Speaker 1: is that they look around and their experience of the
Speaker 1: free market, free enterprise capitalist system over the last couple
Speaker 1: of the last decade or so it has not been
Speaker 1: very positive. And they said, well, hang on a second,
Speaker 1: why should I buy into the market approach? Because the
Speaker 1: market approach means that there's absolutely no chance are ever
Speaker 1: earn enough, will be able to save enough to own
Speaker 1: my own home. That's completely out of reach. Most of
Speaker 1: these jobs that you look at, you know, they don't
Speaker 1: pay enough to live on with all the taxes, and
Speaker 1: and so they what's been going on, and they say, actually,
Speaker 1: there's no opportunity, that's all just bs this idea that
Speaker 1: if you work hard, you get on and so on,
Speaker 1: and that also feeds into these terrible social trends, like
Speaker 1: people thinking, I can't afford to have kids, So what's
Speaker 1: the point of actually thinking about starting a family because
Speaker 1: it's never going to be possible. So we've got to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that actually there are things that have gone wrong
Speaker 1: with the way capitalism has worked. And this is actually
Speaker 1: one of the things I argue in my in my
Speaker 1: book Positive Populism was actually there is there is something
Speaker 1: to that populous critique, um. And we've got to do
Speaker 1: something about the fact that a lot of the rewards
Speaker 1: in the pre enterprise system have gone to people at
Speaker 1: the top, which I don't begrudge for a second. As
Speaker 1: you know, if you start a business and you you
Speaker 1: people love it and want to buy your stuff, then great,
Speaker 1: you know you're meeting a need. That's fantastic, and you
Speaker 1: should get rich in the process as an incentive. No
Speaker 1: problem with that. But we need to actually look at
Speaker 1: the policies that, for example, have made housing so unaffordable,
Speaker 1: um that people look at that and thing, I'll never
Speaker 1: be able to afford a house. You've got to do
Speaker 1: something about that. However, the answer to a lot of
Speaker 1: these points is not to go in the kind of
Speaker 1: government control left wing direction, but actually more in the
Speaker 1: in the opening things up direction. And then the kind
Speaker 1: of phrase that comes to my mind because I talked
Speaker 1: about it all the time, is what to me, the
Speaker 1: populist thing is all about is putting power in people's hands,
Speaker 1: and that means taking it away from the government to
Speaker 1: centralize and control and regulate everything. And a good example
Speaker 1: in relation to housing is actually, the way you deal
Speaker 1: with the problem of affordable housing is not to give
Speaker 1: people more money so that you're subsidizing it, but actually
Speaker 1: to to reduce the amount of regulation that makes it
Speaker 1: so expensive to build a house in the first place,
Speaker 1: and to get rid of some of these zoning regulations
Speaker 1: that mean that it's impossible to to to create enough
Speaker 1: housing to meet the demand. So the answers will often
Speaker 1: be more conservative and libertarian, but we've got to at
Speaker 1: least acknowledge that you know why there's this appetite for
Speaker 1: this incredible march to the left, and give positive solution
Speaker 1: and not just I mean I always condemn it as
Speaker 1: craziness because it is, but you've also got offer something
Speaker 1: positive this says, here's our plan to help you earn
Speaker 1: a decent living and afford a home and so on,
Speaker 1: not not massive compulsory government centralization and regulation. There's a
Speaker 1: better way of doing I don't think the right has
Speaker 1: been very good at that. I don't think Republicans have
Speaker 1: been very good at that. They haven't been offering offering solutions.
Speaker 1: And we need to get into that business as well.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, I think the right has been very lazy
Speaker 1: about advocating for liberty. We've just assumed for many generations
Speaker 1: that people understand it and value it about Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a good point, you know, I was, Steve, I was
Speaker 1: actually going to bring up a different book, Years More
Speaker 1: Human from back in twenty something like that. But I
Speaker 1: know you're you're pretty critical about certain aspects of capitalism.
Speaker 1: We've often made the ship the point on our show
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of aspects of capitalism that
Speaker 1: people point to and say this is bad, this is ugly,
Speaker 1: that are the opposite of the free market, the chronic capitalism.
Speaker 1: They are giant corporations which right the very laws which
Speaker 1: paved the way for them to become a dominant and
Speaker 1: ugly and abusive exactly I called them, I think I
Speaker 1: can't remember now, but kind of private sector bureaucracy, that's
Speaker 1: what they are. They're like government bureaucracies. They happen to
Speaker 1: be in the private sector, and they're very cozy with
Speaker 1: the the people who make the laws and and and
Speaker 1: in fact, you know, that's why I'm so I've been
Speaker 1: so focused on the corruption that we see in our
Speaker 1: system because actually you literally have, but it pitly at
Speaker 1: the state level, where there's less scrutiny. You have the
Speaker 1: businesses who buy up the legislatures they give that you
Speaker 1: don't need to give that much money. Actually a state
Speaker 1: legislator doesn't require that much money for their campaigns. You know,
Speaker 1: it's pretty cheap to buy them up. And then you
Speaker 1: get in the room with them and you literally send
Speaker 1: around what they call model legislation and then they and
Speaker 1: they and they implement it. But of course we can't
Speaker 1: be one sided about this, I mean, particularly in California.
Speaker 1: I mean that's also happening from the left. Never talk
Speaker 1: about this. They love attacking the Koch brothers and and
Speaker 1: and big business and dirty you know, dart money and
Speaker 1: politics and all this stuff, but they never talk about
Speaker 1: the fact that you've got exactly the same going on
Speaker 1: with the government unions. System is such a desert. They
Speaker 1: own the state because of the government unions. That's no different.
Speaker 1: All of it is corrupt. That's why coming back to
Speaker 1: what I've argued, you know, you put power in people's
Speaker 1: hands so you get rid of all this corruption and
Speaker 1: cronyism wherever it comes from, whether that comes from big
Speaker 1: business or from the big unions, because no one should
Speaker 1: have too much power. It's the concentration of power that's
Speaker 1: there's the argument I'm made in more human and positive populism.
Speaker 1: When you have too much power in too few hands,
Speaker 1: that's when you get problems, whether that's in the economy
Speaker 1: or with government and politics. You've got to take the
Speaker 1: power away and put it in people's hands. And that's
Speaker 1: the that's the thing I've always I shout want to
Speaker 1: make this point. I think it's really important for people
Speaker 1: who hear the word populist. And you see commentators constantly say, well,
Speaker 1: you've got left wing populism and right wing populism, and
Speaker 1: you've got the other kind of trump be right wing populism.
Speaker 1: And then you've got Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren an
Speaker 1: AOC and their populist of the left. I don't think
Speaker 1: you can be a populist on the left because what
Speaker 1: they're all about is taking power out of people's hands
Speaker 1: and putting it in the government's hands and centralizing power there.
Speaker 1: And actually the most incoherent on this is Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: who actually I think makes a pretty good case about
Speaker 1: how there's too much monopoly power in the private sector.
Speaker 1: We've got to break up big tech and so on.
Speaker 1: I agree with her about that, but in the same
Speaker 1: breath she goes on about centralizing power in the public
Speaker 1: sector and having a federal government in Washington start controlling
Speaker 1: everything childcare and family policy and housing and you name it.
Speaker 1: So she's all for breaking up power in the private sector,
Speaker 1: and I'm with her on that, but in the public sector,
Speaker 1: she wants to centralize power. And I think we should
Speaker 1: be consistent and say we want to put power in
Speaker 1: people's hands right across the board. Steve Hilton's podcast is
Speaker 1: California Rebel based. Steve, you've been generous with your time,
Speaker 1: Talget or a couple of guys. We couldn't get into
Speaker 1: Oxford unless we were there to clean the toilet, so
Speaker 1: but really enjoy the conversation. I hope we can do
Speaker 1: it again. Fantastic was a great pleasure season. It is
Speaker 1: remarkable the extent to which people who grew up under communism,
Speaker 1: or are the children of people grew up under communism.
Speaker 1: Are there practically a hundred percent conservatives. I think that
Speaker 1: speaks volume. Is there a name for that accent? I
Speaker 1: mean we all just called an English accent, but in America,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got all kinds of different accents, Northeastern, southern, Midwest.
Speaker 1: I don't know if there's a name for it, but
Speaker 1: I would describe it as educated London. Yeah, probably something
Speaker 1: like that. Huh. I mean he's not like a Manchester
Speaker 1: Fisher anything like that. Right now? No, not, what are
Speaker 1: you doing? No extra large