Secretary Pete Buttigieg: The American Dream Is DEAD. We're Running Out Of Time To Fix It!

I'm really worried about where we're headed as a country. Right now, America's system is so out of whack that if you are a multi-billionaire, you probably pay a lower percentage in taxes than if you're a schoolteacher or a firefighter. You have levels of inequality that we've almost never seen. There's a rise in political violence, the collapse in trust, and the biggest thing, well, that we're facing right now, is massive debt. But it's now escalated to a level that no one can ignore. How do you think this plays out? I mean, we're on the brink of losing our democracy, and we're running out of time to do something about it. Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Trump made a lot of promises when he came into power. "Keyn to get your perspective on Iran, will." So the president can't explain why we're there. There's a lot of reasons to suspect that we're just a war because he wanted us to. And now I can't figure out how to get us out of it. Troops have lost their lives, prices are higher. You're paying more for gas, the food, or for mortgages. Because of this war. And so the next president will be doing this at a big disadvantage because so many relationships with our allies have been burned. So I am keen to get your perspective on AI, good, bad. Should we implement a wealth tax? Is there anything you respect about Trump? But also grace at Israel, for example. But what does Netanyahu want in the region? And then will you the first person in a presidential candidate to be openly gay? Definitely the first person who's considered to have a shot. And I finally made peace with this reality that I was gay, as well in my 20s. Because I wanted so bad for it not to be true. I'd like to believe we'll get to a day when it's just not it's that. No one cares. Second to repeat, Buddha Judge. Are you going to run to be president in 2028? Guys, I've got a favor to ask before this episode begins. The algorithm, if you follow a show, will deliver you the best episodes from that show very prominently in your feed. So when we have our best episodes on this show, the most shared episodes, the most rated episodes, I would love you to know. And the simple way for you to know that is to hit that follow button. But also, it's the simple, easy, free thing that you can do to help us make this show better. I would be hugely grateful if you could take a minute on the app you're listening to this one right now and hit that follow button. Thank you so, so, so much. How are you feeling about the nature of politics at the moment? But I should probably say the nature of American life at the moment. I mean, in many ways, our entire existence has been about creating a different kind of political system and introducing it to the world. That's what we're about. And now that whole project is in question. That whole project is, in my view, it's on the brink. On the brink. Yeah. What do you mean by that? I mean, we're on the brink of losing our democracy. The whole idea of this country, the whole idea of overthrowing a king was that every day life would get better. If we set up a country where the people are in charge of the government instead of the other way around. And now in this moment, where after all of the things we've gone through for decades, for 250 years, it's not clear if that's going to work out. I think it will. I believe it will, if we do what we have to do. But that means reforming, tuning up, changing that political system because the problems in that political system help to explain all of the economic problems that I think so many Americans are living with, where you've had enormous economic growth and shockingly little of it, making it into people's pockets, where you have levels of inequality that we've almost never seen in this country. And then the other thing is there's the American promise in terms of the system, the politics, the government, democracy. The America's gift to the world, creating democracy. But there's the economic version of that, which is the American dream. But the idea that no matter how you start, no matter who you are, you can come out ahead of where you started economically. That used to happen from nine out of ten Americans. Statistically, the place where you're most likely to live out the American dream right now is Denmark. And I wanted that to be America. And systemically, if we just think from a high level, what is the essence of why Denmark is about a place for the American dream? What are the systemic problems? Is it with the current administration? Is it with a perspective on what a good life looks like in America? Or is it greed? Or is it something else? Well, I wouldn't say it's just the current administration. I mean, I think the current administration isn't helping, but I think the problem is much deeper than that. A lot of it is the last 30 or 40 years. We've had policies in this country that make it harder to get ahead if you're not already starting out well off. Even just the way our taxes work, they tax work more than they tax wealth. That's really catching up to us. I believe it's created problems for decades, but you feel it in a different way now. And when inequality reaches a certain level, and when the inequality of power follows the economic inequality to a certain level, that's when I think you start to have earthquakes in the society and what it feels like to live in this country. And I think we're going through those earthquakes, not just Trump and everything he represents, but the rise in political violence, the collapse in trust in our society. All of these things I think are related to that. And we're running out of time to do something about it. Trump made a lot of promises when he came into power. He wanted a bigger than expected victory, I would say. Why does he resonate? Well, first of all, I think he speaks to a lot of people who know that the system has let them down. And even though I think he's somebody who really benefits from the system as it is, it's made him rich and kept him rich, his message was, I'm going to blow it all up. And I think he's blowing up all the wrong things. But look, if the system's let you down, you're only going to vote so many times within that system before somebody comes along, says, I'm going to blow it all up. And he said, well, I'm not even like the guy, but I'll give him a shot to see if that makes me better off. Now, I also think he lied to a lot of people. You know, some people voted for him because they believed him when he said he's not going to start a new war. Many people voted for him because they believed him when he said on day one, he was going to start lowering costs. And right now, inflation's higher than it was the day he took over. So these promises weren't true, but they spoke to something that I think a lot of people had on their mind that made a lot of people willing to burn things down. And there's a lesson for my party in that. I'm obviously passionately against many destructive things that he's doing. That doesn't mean the answer is to quote unquote reverse the damage, put everything back the way it was. Because you're right that the Democrats have a lot of responsibility here. For a lot of reasons, I think the very fact that Trump was voted into power says something about how people felt with the previous administration, which was a democratic administration. What responsibility does the democratic party have for getting the country to a place where they thought Democrats weren't a solution? Because that's kind of, I think a lot of people thought that's just like more of the same. Yeah. Maybe people are getting increasingly, I think across the Western world by the looks of it increasingly tied with like politicians saying these like cute words and like we're going to help the working people and blah blah blah blah and being very polished. And then you see this, these other figures that have come in and said, I'm not a politician. Yeah. And as you say, I'm going to burn it down. Right. And for some reason, people are choosing that. Yeah. Even though when they do, usually that person makes it worse. And so that's why the president's unpopular. But the president is unpopular. To your point, that doesn't mean people are automatically going to trust Democrats. Yeah. Right. So I mean, the answer to your question is yes, Democrats have a responsibility to present something that is better, not just better than now, but it's got to be better than before. The fact remains, a lot of these results have unfolded on, you know, kind of regardless of who's in power. I don't know. I would have to believe, and this is how I've approached every every time I've decided to run for office. It's looking at everything that the office seems like it needs, not just generally, but in that moment. And then looking at what I bring to the table and asking myself, okay, am I bringing something that's different enough from what others are bringing and that fits like that moment? Like that's what led me to run for mayor, which is a pretty unlikely move in South Bend, Indiana, when I was in my 20s. It's what led me to run for president while I did almost eight years ago now. Oh, use your own words here, secretary. You said politics often favors someone who is completely different to the current leader and that you could not be more different from Trump. I quote, an intellectual young gay mayor from the Midwest. You know, Amazon have this really interesting thing when they hire people, which we've copied. Every time you meet someone, you have to vote one of four things. You either vote strongly not inclined, not inclined, inclined, and strongly inclined. So you've got four options when you interview someone. We do the same in our company now. We took it from them. And the whole idea here is to prevent people from sitting on the fence, which is like, what is your inclination? So if I presented you with those four options, as it relates to you running for president in 2020, as things stand, and this is just a balance of probability. Are you inclined, not inclined, strongly not inclined, strongly inclined? On these podcasts, nobody ever tells the bloody truth. This is why it's difficult sometimes to interview politicians because we all have an inclination, right? Yeah. I mean, one of the reasons why you hesitate to talk in those terms is because you know, like people are going to run with it be this like news of the day thing and it'll you know kind of dominate the next couple of days when you're trying to talk about something else. But does the truth just not match to move that then the consequence of the truth in this regard? Yeah, but the truth about like what you know what I'm maybe going to do like there's a there's a level of like not even being certain some of the things I'll have to weigh like before having made a decision like this before. I can tell you that there's the read I need to be in the nation. I'm obviously not to one end or the other. Yeah, okay, so you're not those two. I think I'm like more inclined than not. Okay, I appreciate that. But there's so much we don't know. There's so much I don't even know about what's going to happen this year, let alone, you know, we need no later. This is not you know the weight of a decision like that. I don't just mean like the national political way, but just like the weight of a decision to run for office for you and your family, which frankly I did not fully understand. But until I had kids, that's changed all of my equations. It's just something that you really sit with and take seriously with you. You should. One of the big things that people are talking about at this moment in time is the Iran War. And this feeds into some of the points we were touching on around promises kept and not kept. What is going on in plain terms? Because Americans are getting lots of messages. We've destroyed everything around the military bases they're all gone and then we're back at war and American lives have been taken. Can you help us see through all of this? I think what's going on is the president has painted himself and the country and you look at him. Even though we promised that we wouldn't be even though a lot of his supporters didn't want the war and certainly the American people to hold on. But he was under a lot of heat over cost of living over the Epstein files, which was dominating the conversation every day, being proven to be as connected to an infamous pedophile as Jeffrey Epstein and then doing everything he could to cover up disclosures about it. This is something that obviously was something that was creating a ton of heat on the president. Meanwhile, there's a lot of people in his ear every day and some of them from American politicians to people around the world would really like to see him go to war. Why? Well, it's kind of the tradition of the Republican Party is to generally be more pro-war. But my coming of age was at the time of the Iraq war. In fact, a big part of what kind of told me fully into politics was being opposed to the Iraq war. One of the things that a lot of people won't know about you is that you didn't actually go and serve your country but some virtues of you here serving. I think you've got parents, I think, post-I've kind of started as well. Yeah, it's a day I'm not back. I just think it's important for people to know that you can speak to this quack really, having served your country. Yeah, man, I know what it feels like to get on a great-tail airplane that's taking into a war zone and wondering what's waiting for you there. Where we are now is a lot of troops are in that situation. They're in harm's way. And the president doesn't seem to have a plan. He can't explain why we're there. He said it's for regime change. He said it's for unconditional surrender. He said that it's to deal with their nuclear program. But last year, he said they obliterated the nuclear program. And so it does a lot of reasons to suspect that we're just at war because he wanted us to be. And it appears that any way forward leaves us worse off than we were before the war. Prices are higher. Troops have lost their lives. And it seems like the least bad options still involve Iran having more control over the state of our moves than they were asserting. But here we go. Most Americans shouldn't have to be worrying about the state of our moves. They got enough to worry about. And a year ago, we weren't. That was not a problem. Whatever was going on in the state of our moves did not feel like it was a problem. You know, where I live in Michigan. And now it is. Why, though? What was the domino effect that caused him to coach you? You know what? I think we can just go in there to capitate the leader. And I was victory. Obviously, this is a question for the president. But honestly, I don't fully understand why they would do something like this, especially because we know like you didn't have to be like an expert in international affairs and security studies to know that we actually attacked Iran. They were going to shut down the straight and try to cripple the world economy. Like it was literally the most obvious next thing that could happen. And yet it seems like he either didn't understand or didn't believe. Surely he was told this. We know, in fact, it's been reported that he was told this. And he did it anyway. So how does that happen? I mean, I've long given up trying to see into the mind of this president. Dare I say, if you are president in 2028, this could be your responsibility to resolve. I mean, I really hope that the next president isn't facing this war dragging on into 2029. But I mean, yeah, one thing we have learned is that it is harder to stop a war than it is to start one. Which is why if you have any other reasonable choice, you don't start one. So what are you going to do if you are president? Well, the next president will face a complicated, violent and challenging, middle-east and world map, no matter what. And the next president is going to have to deal with that while dealing with a more assertive China and a dramatically swiftly evolving security landscape, partly because of things like AI. Just as you and I are sitting here now, there's a lot of headlines about a big safety issue created by an AI model that was supposed to not even be able to access the internet, managing to get itself on the internet and hack into another company to get the answers to a test that it was told to solve. And that's as of today in 2026. The things that could be going on by 2029 are surely going to change both what we're up against and what's possible. But in the same way that there was a nuclear hotline between Washington and Moscow, because it turns out even while at each other's throats in a lot of ways, one thing that Americans and Soviets didn't want was to incinerate the planet, there's going to have to be some way for countries that do not trust each other today to coordinate on things like making sure AI doesn't lead to bio-weapons being made by rogue actors or even individual actors. Making sure that it doesn't lead to nuclear proliferation or any number of other problems right there could happen. So the security picture I think will be more challenging for the next president than it's been for any president since the Cold War. So what kind of president in terms of mentality or character experience do you think can meet those challenges? Well, he needs somebody who's deliberate and decisive. Those two things sometimes are in tension because deliberation means you slow down, you look at what's going on and you think about it. But the decisive doesn't mean you immediately make a call every time a question is put to you. It does mean that once you feel like you've got enough information, you make a decision, you own the consequences of that decision, you move on to the next decision. And I think in terms of kind of character and style, we're going to need both of those things. We're going to need wisdom, we're going to need judgment, and we're going to need judgment that is not twisted or changed or colored or biased based on corrupt reasons. And the reason I mentioned that is because right now we've got for the first time ever out of all of our presidents, a president whose family is making billions of dollars from things that are sometimes directly connected to the decision of a foreign government. Right. There was one government in the Middle East that put hundreds of millions of dollars into the family crypto fund of this president. You got Saudi Arabia investing in the first family's business interests, the tune of, I'd believe a couple of billion dollars for the president's son-in-law, right? And we just can't afford with everything that's on the line right now to have the next president be someone who could remotely be influenced by those kinds of considerations, even everything that's on the line for the American people and for American security. When you look at the picture in Iran, it's all well and good thing we have to get out of it then. How? No, the only good way to do it is to not be there in the first place. Yes. Too late for that. And so, as is often the case in difficult decisions that executives face, it will be finding the least bad combination of options, which probably means engaging a lot of other countries, a lot of regional partners, a lot of allies. Now again, the next president will be doing this at a big disadvantage because so many relationships with our allies have been burned. And it turns out you build relationships with allies not just out of friendly no-sir because it's neat. You do it because you're going to need each other someday. And the worst something is, the more difficult a problem. Just like life, you know, the times I'm quickest to call a friend are the times when I'm hurting the most or feel like I need help the most, right? Same is true for countries. The tougher your situation, the more you're going to have friends you can count on. We are in a very tough situation in Iran. We will be for a long time. We need our friends. Because you're dealing with a lot of dare I say, very large ego leaders around the world. You've got your Putin's, I don't even know who's running around at the moment, then you've got China. Does it need a leader with a ego of the same size? Because sometimes I think like, I think crazy people kind of respect crazy people in a way to, I think a lot of different ways to deal with people like that. But I think the most useful is to earn a level of credibility. And when we're talking with allies, a level of trust, when we're talking with adversaries, it's maybe not the same thing as trust, but it is credibility that when you say you're going to do something or you seem like you're going to do something, you're going to do it. It means less energy gets wasted on guesswork and it means you have just a little more stability. I think something all of us are looking for in the world right now is for it to just be a little more stable. And by the way, the way to do that is not to like rewind and imagine that we can make the world look the way it looked in the 90s or the 50s. It's not like that. We're going to have to find new ways to create a stable future. But there are as many different kinds of personalities in world leaders and presidents as there are in humanity in general. But it'll need to be somebody who like I said, is deliberate and decisive, tough and fair and credible. Yeah, the wrong situation is particularly it's particularly uncertain for many reasons. In part, because I don't know who the leadership there is anymore. In part, because it seems like they will now control the straight of who moves or at least use it as leverage really respective of what outcome takes place. And in part, because you still have this nuclear threat, but they are probably now more motivated to develop nuclear weapons than they probably wear under a banner when he signed that. Yes, I'd agree with them. Yes, they may have less capacity, but they certainly have more motivation at this point. Would you let them develop nuclear weapons if you were president? No, they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear armed Iran. I mean, look at the malevolent activities that they already have pursued with conventional means terrorist groups around the region and around the world. Like this is not a regime, certainly not in its current form or anything resembling its current form that could ever be trusted with nuclear weapons. No, different presidents. Each of the last few presidents had a way of making sure that that never happened. The best way to do that was through diplomacy. That was the whole point of the Obama deal. The first Trump administration tore up the Obama deal, but couldn't get a better deal. And then when the Biden administration was trying to get a better deal, it was very hard to work across the table to get the Iranians to negotiate because they remembered that it was Trump who tore up the Obama deal. It's part of what I mean when I talk about credibility. It doesn't mean that people across the table have to like you because they have to have some sense that it's at least worth dealing with you. And there's not a lot of that given that kind of instability, that pattern that we first. You know, I followed American politics I think since I was about 10. One of the things I've never had mentioned so much in politics is Israel. It appears to me as an objective observer that the subject of Israel is now so central to politics. No. Why? What's going on with the US's relationship with Israel and the public sentiment towards Israel? Well, it's getting a lot of attention because many very important things are at stake and they've been put into conflict with each other. Right? And each of those things is a valid thing, at least in my opinion, and then all-name-three. One, which has become very challenging for many Jewish Americans is the safety of Jews around the world and in America. Theoretically, that could be separated from what's happening in Israel and Palestine. But in the real world, there has been a relationship between what's going on there and an explosion in anti-Semitism that has many American Jewish families afraid for their safety. Another thing is the safety and dignity of Palestinian people who in Gaza, but not only in Gaza, have been subjected to horrific violence and in my opinion, war crimes. And alongside that, there is the safety and dignity of people in Israel who we have a security relationship with as a country and have since the Jewish state of Israel was founded, the future and survival of Israel as a Jewish state. And a country that is still responding to the worst day of the most violence against Jews since the Holocaust. Those three things, I believe, in principle can be honored at the same time. In fact, I believe in principle, they have to be honored at the same time. Is that what Nathaniel, he wants? No, I don't think he is remotely interested in the safety and dignity and security of Palestinian people. I think he believes that he would be better off if they didn't exist or at the very least, he doesn't want him around. Right. And so we see a policy which obviously has led to what it did in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, which gets less attention, maybe because there's been fewer deaths there, but a pretty horrific behavior and conduct and violence from settlers that is part of a project of making it impossible for there to be a secure, viable Palestinian state. So what does Nathaniel who want in the region? Well, I don't know that I'm much more capable of seeing into the mind of Netanyahu that I am seeing into the mind of Trump, but looking into his choices, it seems that he wants to be able to assert domination of any other regional player and something that is beyond just security and safety for the people of Israel, which is something that I believe in and something I think is hard to argue with, but something else, which is a project of taking over what is called greater Israel in his ideology in his world, yeah. Great space, yeah. Erats Israel, which is a vision that does not have a lot of room for Palestinians anywhere between the river and the sea. He won't say it in those terms, but if you look at his actions, it is hard to believe that he is comfortable with anything less. What's your take on how Trump has treated Netanyahu in that relationship? Is that the relationship you would have had? It's not the relationship I would add. I think like all things with Trump, it's pretty transactional, it's instrumental, it's what's in it for me. And I think part of how that is developed into a frenemy relationship now is that the relationship that maybe served him well politically is not so good for him now because among other things, Netanyahu has an interest in a continued US presence in an Iran war that has gone from being something Trump would thought would be politically useful for Trump to something that is politically dangerous for Trump. How do you think this plays out, Secretary? What would you think happens? You know, I said there, I sort of hypothesized that by 2028, this will still be dragging on because from my perspective, you're either going to kind of like the American public and say that and to class some kind of victory, or you're going to stay in there. I can't actually see a third option personally. So how do you imagine this playing out here? We just got to be ready to get out of your eye. We just cannot, first of all, the president has already backuttled a lot, even though we would never admit it, on what we're there to do because he said unconditional surrender, that's not happening. He said regime change, regime hasn't changed. We went from Ayatollah Khamenei to Ayatollah Khamenei Jr., at least on paper, who knows if the guy's alive, but the regime is alive. But the regime's entire ideology is based on hating the United States, right? And now that the United States has done this, hard to believe that's going to change, there will have to be an exit that is very unlikely to be the unconditional surrender in the Trump promise, but has to be something that is tolerable to this country, to our country, to Americans, which includes passage through the Straits of Hormones. And the only way to do that, I think, is with a lot of international partners who want the same thing to happen. Remember, anyone needs to be wrong is feeling more economic pain, even than we are, from what's happening in the Straits. China and Europe. Because East Asia relies on oil and goods that go through there more. So I think what you're going to have to have is a regional and international partnership that ensures something at least resembling free passage of goods and security without the US sending troops in there or continuing to be a war. It seems like the only way, but it's unquestionably worse than where we were a year ago before the war started. Did you hear recently that Trump mentioned, I think there's at the G7 summit, we run out of reserves about four weeks, you know, there are reserves all over the world and we would really run out and there'll be time when we wouldn't be able to get it. It would be Bedlam. And he made these comments last month, 2026 at the G7 summit in regards to the amount of oil the United States have left in the reserves. I think he was framing it around why he signed this memorandum of understanding, this agreement with them. But in the last week, we've gone back to war and the Strait of Hormones appears to be closed again. So when we think about oil reserves and how that impacts ordinary Americans and what might be around the corner, there's a real pressure here to find a solution and to find it. Yes. I mean, look. Look, this is why he signed an MOU that was, frankly, more on Iranian terms than American terms. I mean, the ceasefire, so-called ceasefire, emerged from a deal that was really us responding to what Iran came up with, not vice versa. Again, he said he was out for regime change and unconditional surrender. We're not even talking about that anymore. We're nowhere near that. And now we have as a set of conditions, it's us redlining their texts, not the other way around, right? And then he's trying to figure out how do I go out and sell that. And so he points out something that is true, sometimes he tells the truth when it serves him. And when he was trying to explain why he backpedaled on his war goals, the way he explained it was by admitting that there was a level of economic vulnerability that was unleashed by closing the strait, which is what Iran did to respond to the U.S. attacks. But the problem is that ceasefire is not happening, of least not as UNI are sitting here right now. Still a hard thing for them to admit. You know, in the same way that he took out a sharpie to modify a hurricane map rather than acknowledge that he was mistaken about some detail during a national disaster once. His administration deleted four names from the ranks of those killed in action in this conflict because they were afraid that listing their names would contradict him saying that we had a ceasefire. Really? Yeah. At least that's the only explanation I can think of. The crazy thing is all of us know there's a war. We even had moments, remember I think it was Secretary Rubio said in Congress where there's punishment for lying. You know, it's a lot of Congress. He said the war's over. We all know the war's not over. Are they stuck? Because they seem a bit stuck to me. I was watching the Hegseth and for everything, I think it was Congress yet, it was Congress yesterday and they just were beating his quits back to him ever and ever and ever and ever again. Yeah. Because how is he supposed to explain that we're in a war that supposedly we already won? Then we're not getting any of the things that were supposedly worth going to war over. And that the bill for this keeps getting bigger in terms of tax dollars. I think his latest number was 37 and a half billion dollars. That's our money. All of us as American taxpayers. Of course, the cost in lies and the cost in terms of everything in America starting with gas being more supposed. They don't want to be explaining that, right? But they don't have a great way out either. And they're not prepared to lead us to a better place because they don't even know what it looks like. Sure. I think he has been able to create the impression of a biased for action. And I think he gets a lot of credit for that. I think in general and especially in government, there's a lot of hand-wringing. I'm like, oh, we got to have a 19 step process to get all of these things exactly. I saw this during my four years trying to get stuff built in this country as Secretary of Transportation that there were so many hoops and so much red tape. And he comes in and he says, don't do that. We're going to do this. Often what he's doing turns out to be illegal and it gets reversed. And obviously, I think most of his policies are parably destructive. But I think you have to respect the effect that he has had with that kind of biased for just doing something. And I think we could learn a bit from that. Is that a case for less politicians empowering Moran Chikunas? Look, I think he's a politician through and through. I think that on some level, every CEO is a politician. Every general is a politician. Every bishop is a politician. You just reach a certain level where part of what you're doing, if you're being honest with yourself, is what is considered politics. Which by the way, I don't mean it a pejorative way. I mean, it's organizing people's choices, loyalties. Organizing power, nor do we get things done. I think the difference, I understand what you're saying. I think the difference, especially with founders, is founders got from started at zero and got somewhere because they had to be highly, have a high bias to action, believe that walls were made of paper and be disruptive. And the reason they are like, that's what is because of disruption. Yeah. The best thing about founders is they see something that could be. And the way things are just doesn't even bother them. They just see that vision and they just go after it and they blow through every wall between that and getting it done. That's the best thing about founders. The worst thing about founders from a political perspective is that sometimes because they were so good at one thing, like uniquely sometimes world historically good at one thing, they imagine that they're good at everything. Yeah. Now, that's not just a problem with founders. That's probably lots of smart people. But politics requires you to be a little bit humble about how much you don't know and surround yourself by people who are smarter than you at whatever it is they're in charge of and not imagine that you've got all the answers. Found his hate bureaucracy. Yeah. This is why they often, look, I'm pretty impatient with bureaucracy too. I believe in the idea of a policy entrepreneur who can recognize, here's the problem. Here's a whole bunch of solutions and here's the window of opportunity unless you just like line it all up and make it happen. Also, the laws exist in order to protect people. And we were talking about bureaucracy, like we're really talking about laws. Now sometimes those laws need to be changed, simplified, stripped down to the most important things. I learned this very early on in my time in office, where sometimes I was trying to get something done as a policy entrepreneur and somebody tapped the brakes on me and used a bureaucracy to do it. Sometimes they were right. Sometimes they made me better. They may be sharpened what I was trying to do by fighting me. The other issue you mentioned a second ago that I think is going to be really potent and over the next 24 months. It was increasing in interest amongst Americans. I'd say especially young Americans that are thinking about getting a job and going into the workforce is the subject of artificial intelligence. I talked to a lot of AI experts from my show over the last couple of years and I've also reflected a lot on the different types of comments that the CEOs of the big AI companies have made through time and how those quotes have changed. If you go back a couple of years, it was doom and gloom. And but now that they are running trillion dollar companies, the quotes seem to be a bit more optimistic all of a sudden. One thing that I think they do agree on is that there's going to be significant job disruption, especially if you look at some of anthropics reports which are the maker of Claude. They already show that entry level positions are at risk first, especially entry level knowledge jobs. And people are scared. First time I saw that Eric Schmidt speech where the crowd's the audience are booing every time he says the word AI. This is presumably going to accelerate this sentiment towards AI and in part because people are going to find it harder to get jobs and beggin of experience more of AI sort of peveating through their life. How do you feel about all of this? What is the balance of AI? Good, bad, ugly risks? I think it can be all of those things and we've got some decisions to make about where AI goes. And the simplest way I put it is this. Either we're looking at a future where because of AI we have a shorter work week and more money in our pocket or we're looking at a future where there is even more extreme concentration of wealth and power in this country than we've already got. And which way it goes, which of those things happen? It's actually not something that's in the technology. It's not a tech question. It's a policy choice. It's about whether we make sure these technologies unfold in a way that is empowering for families and workers and college graduates and manage all of the harms that could come from it. Every technology brings good and bad things. And we've certainly seen that with digital technology. We've seen it with social media. We've seen it with the internet itself. Good and bad things always. AI has incredible capabilities. I think a lot about something that's not usually in the top 10 thing people talk about but it's self-driving vehicles. Easy to be freaked out by them. They actually have enormous potential to save lives. That's just one example of how we could be better off if we responsibly develop these technologies. But if we don't, I'll tell you what I think could happen. And I comment this based on where I grew up. I'm from the industrial Midwest, Northern Indiana, a place dominated by the auto industry. It's starting in the 60s, but definitely in the 90s when I was growing up in the early 2000s. There's a huge amount of job loss because the economy was changing. What happened was there were a whole lot of people who didn't just lose their jobs. Often they would lose their jobs, maybe find another job, maybe be trained to find a new career even, but never recovered their sense of identity. You're an auto worker, you're in a tool in die shop and it's your whole sense of belonging revolves around your job. Not just your paycheck. It's how your spouse is know each other from the union picnics. It's how your sponsor and little league, it's what you explain. You know, at least in the US, we don't even say like, what's your job? We say, what do you do? Right? What we mean is what do you do professionally, but we say what do you do? Basically, it's a way of saying, who are you? And that's true for blue collar workers. That's even more true for white collar workers. And so I think that there is a generation of workers who are about to have their identity, not just their job, their identity disrupted. Whether we can come up with new sources or better sources of belonging, then what you're job is, could decide everything about what it feels like and is like to live in this country within the next few years. And I just think about what you said there about growing up in the Midwest. People working in the auto industry, making cars, and you also use the example of full self-driving vehicles being a net positive. But when I put those two things together, I thought, okay, so the people in the factories are at risk of being replaced by robotics now, huge acceleration and robotics, both humanoid but just generally intelligent machines, which is right here. It's not theoretical, it's not sci-fi anymore. They're building them right now. And Sam Altman said, on the current trajectory, we believe we may only be a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence. If we are right, by the end of 2028, more of the world's intellectual capacity could reside inside of a data center than outside of them, Daria, who's also the founder of Anthropic said, if the exponential continues, then it cannot possibly be more than a few years before AI is better than humans, at essentially everything. And the quotes go on and on, and on, Demis from Google said, "We're only a few years maybe within a decade away from systems that have general human level intelligence across the board." And Elon Musk at an interview this week talked about how, with robots being physical and disruption and AI being intellectual disruption, you know, have the perfect combination where work will become a choice. What does that mean for those people in the Midwest? Because Daria, the CEO of Ubisoft, Aaron Vendemy, and said the 9 million drive-as-y had would be replaced. But also, now, you know, if I think about the production line, the people making the cars as well, theoretically could be at risk. There's always going to be something worth doing with our time. When you do a range in economy that rewards things that are worth doing with our time, especially things that only people can do, some of that is creative work, some of that is very human work like caregiving. I'm thinking about this more and more because I belong to this sandwich generation that's taking care of kids and aging parents at the same time. But whether those kinds of things are rewarded or not is what I worry about. I mean, imagine a world where just for the sake of imagination, you've got a machine that can make more and more things. It's like the replicator from Star Trek. You know, I love Star Trek as a kid. Captain Picard goes up to him and he just says like, give me a cup of tea or all gray hot and like, "Mmm, it happens." Right? Imagine some combination of artificial intelligence and robotics that leads to factories where you can kind of do that. Over time, you need fewer and fewer people in them. And that means that less and less in the economy depends on the wages that those workers can command because you need fewer of them. That means more and more is going to depend on who actually owns the machine by which I mean both the intellectual property, the AI and the physical plant. Right? And that's where we've got to make sure that the American people own enough of this or at least own enough of the value that's being created that people's needs can be met. How? Well, there's a lot of ways you can do it. I think some version of a dividend makes sense. What I mean by that is there's some public share. We can argue about whether it should come with like a vote like being on a board or whether it's kind of closer to a tax. By the way, I think this is also a fair game. I mean, these things trained on data that all of us put in the world for free. These things are based on the internet, which was created by the American taxpayer. Basically free of charge in the 1960s when DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency created what became the internet. And now it's time to return more of that to the American people. We do that. We really could have a shorter work week and more money in our pocket. But there's a big button here, which is it hasn't always worked out that way with labor saving technology. A hundred years ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay called Economic Possibilities for Our Grand Children. He wrote this in 1930 and it was all about what the world would be like a hundred years from then. So 2030. And he predicts that the productivity of our economy, because of automation and technology, all these things will go up something like five to eight fold. And because of that, really, we're not going to have to work more than 10 or 15 hours a week. And so far, we are on track to almost perfectly match his prediction about productivity. But we're nowhere close to that. If anything, we're working more right now. Well, it turns out that has to do with policy choices about what is or isn't the good use of time. And that's to do with social choices too, right? I mean, one question I think about a lot is if we go into the best possible scenario, we get the policy choices right, we make sure the companies act right. This is saying a lot, but imagine that we do. And we do in fact have, you know, most of us have a shorter work week and more money in our pocket. How do we know we're going to use our time well? Because in many ways, I think many of us are aching to have more time to use well. I know just doing my thing, I wish I had more time with my kids. This is always the lament of a politician, but like anybody in a intense job wishes they had more time with people they love. But, you know, also a lot of our time right now is being absorbed by bullshit, right? Scrolling. Things where you spend an hour doing it and an hour later, nothing sticks. It's exactly as if you hadn't. You regret. Put your hour, yeah, or you feel worse, but the hour is gone. So we just figure out how to also be better stewards of our own time. These by the way are not just not, this, this sounds like a very 21st century problem. And in one way it is, you know, the stoic philosopher, Senica, the Roman philosophers writing about this kind of stuff more than 2,000 years ago, talking about how we are so careful about who can get our money. And our very up and arms, if anybody looks like they're cheating us or taking our money, but then our time, which is the one thing where we have every reason to be even more stingy about it than money because you can get more money, but you can't get more time in your life. We let it get wasted in all kinds of ways. Bernie has this proposal where he believes we should terminate. I was reading about, you know, you discovering Bernie, I believe in college, right? High school, actually. In high school. He has a proposal where we should take 50% of the stock of these AI companies. It gives the general public 50% ownership and board voting seats to block job killing decisions and redistribute AI profits directly to citizens for healthcare, education and housing. Vible proposal. Part of that overlaps with what I'm talking about. I do think a public share of the profits which could mean a public share of the ownership can make sense. And again, for reasons that I shared earlier, I think that would be fair. I do think we need to weigh whether the right way to make sure the public has a say in how these companies behave is to be on the board versus just to have some rules to make sure that the rules are such that the companies can do what they do best, create value, innovate, but they can't do it in a way that hurts the people, which is generally how regulations supposed to work. I mean, I say this having been in the cabinet, the Department of Transportation, where our job was to regulate companies. So what that meant was we have something like the FAA, right, the Federal Aviation Administration. You know, it doesn't create aircraft, it doesn't invent aviation technology. What it does is it sets a very elaborate set of rules to make sure that aviation is safe. And the consequence of that is actually an incredible unsung civilizational achievement. Just in the time I was Secretary of Transportation, we had four billion people get out on their plane, four billion passenger replacements on concommercial airplanes. The number of fatalities was zero. Zero out of four billion. Crazy. There are very few things you can do in life. I mean, all the way down to like crossing the street or reading a cheeseburger that would have a zero to four billion fatality. So that's an amazing achievement that happened because there is the right framework with technology and rules where you have a lot of innovation. I mean, the AVH Aerospace sector is known to be very innovative, but also you make sure it's safe. And it's worth considering that when we're saying, okay, how do we make sure that these AI technologies develop so that we can have safer vehicles or you can get a better screening of a radiology scan for cancer? Or any of these other things all the way down to like, you know, these amazing ideas about curing cancer, figuring out a nuclear fusion, which are urgently important things to do without having the kind of AI equivalent of a plane crash. I've got 60 seconds and I'm going to show you how much I can get done because of our sponsor called Whisper Float. And for those of you that don't know what it is, it's a business I invested in that turns your speech into text in any app or device. I'm going to post into our Slack channel, which rewards whichever team member conducted the most experiments this week. Hi, everyone. Here is this week's experimenter of the week. Congratulations to the Diode of CEO, trailer team, which is Ant, Liv, Dom and Cam. You guys have one. Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. So here is one of our founders on an email chain that I want to connect my team with. All I have to say is add my team's emails and Whisper will do exactly that. Now a quick message to Juan, who does my schedule every single week. Hey, Juan, could I record on Wednesday at 2 p.m. Actually, no, let's record at 3 p.m. on Wednesday. Whisper Flo is four times faster than typing and it is incredibly easy to use. So if you want to give it a go, all you have to do is head to whisperflow.ai/diven to download it today. I want to speak to the business owners listening and watching right now. I know what it's like to be personally responsible for every decision. I founded my first company at 21 years old and honestly, the pressure can be immense. It's the kind of mental load that takes its toe below the surface. I recently did some tests through fast bonster function, which got me thinking about that invisible impact. I found that I had low levels of omega-3s. I had deficient levels of vitamin D, probably because I sit inside this dark room all day. And that has totally changed how I construct my day going forward. I'll get up in the morning and the first thing I now do is I go for a walk outside in the sunshine. In part to help my vitamin D levels increase, but also because it helps to reset my circadian rhythm. With function, you can check your brain health, your aging, your stress, and so much more. They provide over 160 lab tests for it is equal to a dollar a day and member pricing on advanced imaging. Head to functionhealth.com/doac to join and use code DAC25 for a $25 credit. There's also just a broader debate, which I guess in some ways connected to this at the moment in America, but actually also across the Western world, it's happening in the UK as well, around capitalism, socialism, and I think a lot of it's driven by the inequality that people are experiencing. And if my memory is true, the US has more extreme inequality. It has more growth, GDP growth, but it has more extreme inequality than a country like the United Kingdom. So socialism is often considered to be the solution to this inequality. Mendani's now, the mayor of New York. And we're seeing in the UK, socialist parties are becoming more and more popular. The idea of taxing the rich is becoming very popular. Big debate that actually this week in the UK is, should we implement a wealth tax on people who have wealth above 10 million, keen to get your perspective on this? Is socialism, is wealth tax is the right solution to some of these problems of inequality? Well, I find socialism as a word that means less and less the more people use it. It gets thrown around as a label. It means different things to different people. And I'll take your example to illustrate this. You know, higher taxes for very wealthy people is an idea that is broadly popular. I think it's the right thing to do. And importantly, we have a tradition of doing that already in the United States. Some of the highest tax, there was a point where the income tax for the wealthiest tax bracket in the country was around 90 percent. In the United States, I'm not saying we need to go back to that. I'm just saying, then that was happening in the 40s and 50s and 60s when the Cold War was going on and the US represented capitalism against communism, or some would put socialism would lump it in with that. Right? So there is a tradition of the US being a fully capitalist country and also doing a better job of heading off this inequality. And the point of dealing with the inequality wasn't to punish the wealthy. It was to make sure that that level of wealth didn't go off the rails and that it didn't turn into a level of political power that could bring down the whole system. Which, by the way, is the problem I think we're facing now. First of all, our tax system taxes wealth less than it taxes work. That's a problem. That's an even bigger problem now that AI is coming for jobs because there's basically a thumb on the scale of subsidy. And in fact, from the US government, saying, giving you a little more reason to automate a job than you otherwise would because things like capital gains taxes are coming lower than things like income taxes. Now, wealth tax, which is a property tax by another name, can be part of the menu of taxes you have to get enough revenue and to make sure that outcomes are fair. You can argue about where to draw the line. I think some people have proposals that set it too high. You can also argue about whether you have to have a wealth tax or whether you can get the job done with capital gains and then come another tax. But what we know right now is that our system is so out of whack that if you are a multi billionaire, you probably pay a lower percentage of what you make in taxes than if you're a schoolteacher or a firefighter. We even in percentage terms generally tax billionaires less than we tax millionaires because again, this system, the kind of favors wealth so the more you have, the more you make and the less it's taxed. Surely we can do better than that. So you supportive of wealth taxes and I'm defining that as not taxing income, but looking at the net worth of somebody and taking a percentage of their net worth. Yeah, again, to me, that's just a variation on the idea of a property tax. I think it's legitimate. There are some problems with doing it in practical terms. Yeah, this is why it's hard, right? Or like how do you test like somebody's art collection or there are things that can make it tricky? One of the things that I learned when I had this company and it was a public company, so I had public stock and someone came along and said, Stephen, you know with your public stock that you have. So start this company when I was 21 does well by 27, the stock that I have is public stock, which means it's on a stock market. Someone came to me and at 27 and said, Stephen, you know, you can just take a loan against your public stock. Now what? You can just get a tax free loan. So if your stock is worth $50 million right now, they will give you a 50% loan without paying tax on that stock. So they will praise you. Well, interesting. Like not almost nothing. They will just transfer you today $25 million in cash and you will have to pay no tax. And guess what? If the stock comes down, they will just sell it. So you will never really have a real sort of tax liability there. I can't believe this was possible. This was like, is this what all the rich people do? And they told me, yes, this is what how works. This is what Elon's doing. Elon is taking a tax free, pretty much tax free loan against his Tesla stock and they are transferring him a billion dollars in cash and he can live off that, start new companies with that and never have to have a tax transaction. So why don't politicians tax that? There's always going to be a cat and mouse, right? Whenever we figure out a way to make sure you can't hide all of your wealth or all of your income from being fairly taxed, very wealthy people will figure out some other place to hide it. And then we'll have to develop a new policy to deal with that. Well, I guess my point is that's okay. Too often we have just hesitated to do anything refuse to do anything because it might be hard or because it might not last. But if the idea that somebody will figure out a way around this law meant that you shouldn't have the law, that would be an argument against having any law. So it's messy. It's hard, but I am sure that if we had a more reasonable rate of taxation on capital gains and on corporate income, and if we made it harder to pass along wealth without, especially inherited wealth without paying any taxes on it, or some of these other maneuvers like this borrowing thing you're talking about, we would have a fairer country because we'd still have capitalism. There would still be lots of motivational, lots of reason to innovate and build the business and create jobs and do all the things that very wealthy people have done. And also we would be out of this doom loop, and we're saying, well, we can't possibly have as good healthcare as other countries. We couldn't possibly do some like, I don't know, fast trains here in the United States. We couldn't possibly have rural hospitals be properly funded or public education. Of course we can. This is the wealthiest economy in the world. It just doesn't add up that we can't have nice things. But if we aren't collecting a fair level of taxes, then of course we're going to come up short when we're trying to fund those things and the biggest thing of all, the numerically that we're facing right now is this massive debt. Now it's not fashionable on the left to talk about deficits and the debt. Partly because you know, I think Democrats are pretty sick of that being invoked as a reason not to do things like roads and bridges and schools and hospitals that we believe in. But it's now escalated to a level that no one can ignore it. It turns out, you know, some analysis has suggested or shown that if you just start the clock at the beginning of this century with the big bush tax cuts in I think 2001 and then you go through the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest, you add all that up. If it weren't for all those tax cuts, the debt would actually be going down right now. So they can fully account for what's happened to the increase in the debt. And we just don't have to accept that. I've got this graph of US national debt growth off of that on the screen between 1970 and 2026. It looks like a rocket is taking off. And I sat here with Ray Dalio just a couple of days ago. He talks about these sort of big economic boom and bus cycles. He talks about how every 80 years or so, you kind of see a great power, full time and struggle. And we are 80 years into the American power. And he says that the writing is on the wall as it relates to what happens next. When you let that go like this and you start getting sort of internal conflict and you start trying to place the world. And yeah. And what's going on with the debt is both evidence of it and part of the problem. I think it's a symptom. But in some ways, it's a cause. It could be a cause of a currency crisis or force us to redo our whole tax code within the next few years. One thing I learned about recently is a principle called Stein's Law. It's named after Reagan era economist. Actually, the father of Ben Stein from a few member Ferris Bueller. The principle is very simple. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. It's one of these blindingly obvious things that we don't think about enough at a moment like this where everybody agrees the debt can't keep going up like this. It's just almost definitely, definitely impossible. Pretty much everyone agrees our politics can't go on like this. And if something can't go on forever, it won't. So the question is, okay, then what's going to happen? 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 then knock. - I could ask you a thing. - Can I? - Ask a question on this. So on this Stein's law thing and why irrespective of what you've just said, which makes perfect sense to me, this line keeps going up of national debt. Is it in part kind of like musical chairs with politicians where you come in for four years and the music is playing? And you're kind of hoping that the music doesn't stop during your term because you want to spend money because that's politically positive. If you're helping people's healthcare, if you're building infrastructure positive, people are gonna like you more, they're gonna vote you in. But the nature of politics means that you really do play for four years. And then maybe you play for eight, but this might be a two decade catastrophe. The music might stop in two decades. So actually when you think about people's incentive structures, you're incentivized to actually not think about the future. You're incentivized to like be remembered and pass the buttons to the next Democrat in four years time in a way that's positive. So that's why we're seeing this. Because clearly if someone was in power for a hundred years, or maybe if the time horizon was even longer, maybe they would have thought about this that rapidly increasing. - Yeah, but I think it also comes down to like, "Why do you think you're here if you're in office?" Like are you in office just in order to hold it? It seems like that sometimes. - That's not worth it. Being in a position to make a difference in the whole public office, like it's an exciting thing. It's a compelling thing. It's a meaningful thing. And it comes with a lot of things that are good for your ego. I get all of that. But also it's just not worth it. Unless you understand that you hold an office in order to do things with policy and power to make people better off, not the other way around. - I guess the American people and everybody listening now will be thinking, "Full me once." Secretary Pete Buttigieg, because I've sat there and I've watched the elections. And all of them talk about bringing down the public debt. And then I look at this graph and I go, it goes up again and Trump says the same about spending and nope, it's gone up again. It almost feels like in a way that, I feel like you're trying to be nice. - No, no, no, I just, I don't know. I can understand why people are sort of disenfranchised with politics. - Yeah. - And I wonder if, this is why they're picking a radical, you know, this is why, so, I said, "Why?" Oh God. Because this is disruption. This is kind of going down to some degree. And so this is why everywhere I go, I'm trying to talk to my own party about making sure that we understand that dealing with this is not the be all and end all. There are mission can't be to just take power and then go back to what we had before. That what we had before is actually what led to this. In other words, guys like Trump don't get very far unless you're already in an environment where the political and social and economic systems are letting people know, which is, I think, how we wound up here. And I worry there's a big temptation. There will be a big temptation in my party to say, okay, our job is to take power, turn back the clock, reverse the damage, fix what was broken, and get us back to where we were, get us back on track. I hear the word back a lot. I hear the prefix we a lot, reverse rebuild. And I'm very worried about that, distracting from what our actual mission has to be, which is to change and fix things so that we'll be set up well for the next eight years. So that's a harder project for sure, but also sometimes the incentives change because the public is ready for something different. And I think the public tried one flavor of something different with Trumpism and is ready to spit it out. And so the question then is, okay, what are we offering in its place? And to me, that's where some very day-to-day things like setting up a better healthcare system or reducing what we're paying in tariffs or better infrastructure or any of the other policy, you know, paid family leave, but all these policy things that I'd like to see happen really depend on fixing a political system. That's just not as sexy, but it can be powerfully motivating because our country was started by people who fought a revolution to change the political system. And I just can't imagine that it was just like Jefferson and Hamilton and these guys sitting in their studies reading, you know, John Locke and Rousseau and thinking, oh, would be neat to try that somewhere. I think they believe that like their lives and everybody's lives would be better, different if we actually had a different system. And then they risked violent death in order to challenge the existing political system that was the monarchy and replace it with the Republic, the democratic country that they set up that is the United States of America. Right? So it's not like this can't stir passion. Should we not be a country where everybody's vote counts the same? That would mean a popular vote for the presidents. We ought to do that. I just think everybody's vote ought to count the same. And a person who gets the most votes, but a win. This is our hard thing for us to buy into in literally any other election we run in our political system. We need to do things like make it just ban gerrymandering where districts are being drawn. So consider this, we have 435 seats in the house. Nine out of 10 are so red or so blue that you basically know who's going to win before the first vote is cast. Nine out of 10 in a 50/50 country. That makes no sense. And of course what it leads to is the people in those seats are either very comfortable and not really worried about being responsive to the people. Or if they are in danger, they're in danger from their own side. What's amazing to me when I look at how Americans feel about certain big issues, like making sure there's health care for everybody or raising the minimum wage or having higher rates of taxes on the wealthy and on corporations or background checks on guns or marriage equality for same-sex couples, all kinds of things. There's like 60 or 70% agreement. On most of the issues, the most people tell posters they care about the most. So how can we be a country that's got 60 or 70% agreement on issue after issue after issue. And we fail to get those policies done and we keep proceeding like it's normal to be a 50/50 country where everybody's at each other's roads. That to me is evidence of a broken system. If we all fix the system, I don't think we're gonna get very far. - It's interesting 'cause when I think about the last sort of 20 years of politics, we had the Bush era, then we had Democrats and so on. That were very polished. Bush was kind of very polished as well. Then we had Biden, who was very polished, kind of like career politician, says the right things, reads off the teleprompter. And then it seems globally where people wanted some destruction. We had Brexit going on over there. We've got Nigel Farage increasing in popularity over the last 10 years or so as relates to his political probabilities. And then over in the United States, we have Trump arrive, again, not a career politician, not clean, not teleprompter kind of guy. If Democrats are to win, as you say, it's certainly not gonna go back to the polished Joe Biden teleprompter. I almost think that there's gonna need to be some disruptive character on their left side of politics to win over those independence, but also some of those Republicans. Is that, do you agree with that broadly? I think that's right. I mean, I think it depends what we mean by polish. I think it made a lot of different things. I think, but I think you're talking about a sort of authenticity that people expect. And the paradox of Trump is he's authentic even when he's lying. 'Cause he just seems like he's, you know, whatever he is, he's not reading talking points. At least that's how it seems. I think also part of this is just the, it's actually a technology thing. So the technology that dominated politics for as long as I've been alive was television. And I think it produced a generation of people. You know, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. We're all born within a few weeks of each other. - Really? - Yeah, they were all products of the summer of, but I think it's 1946. Coming out of that generation, Joe Biden, near to them in age, right? Into whatever's next, I think you're gonna have leaders and I just can be potentially a very good thing. Who are just a little bit better able to just kind of show their humanity. Being a long podcast like this one, right? Like I remember when Longform meant like maybe a 30 minute NPR interview. Now you're sitting for sometimes two or three hours. I don't think it's possible as a matter of physical stamina to stay on talking points for two or three hours because you want to, you know. And so, you know, somebody once said that running for office is like an MRI of the soul. Anyway, but that's even more true now than it used to be because you just, there's so many different kind of ways of having to kind of show who you are. We used to imagine that the people in charge are just like next level, like on a different plane of existence. And I think it's become harder and harder to believe that because we know too much, right? And so I think we're trading that for just wanting people that we have a reason to trust. We see the same across business. We talked a lot about it for the last 10 years how we've shifted from this black box world where the PR department would paint the image of the company on the outside of this black box. And then we move, because of phones and everyone has a mobile phone now and a camera in their pocket and a social media platform so they can give their opinion to this glass box world where actually the job is to let everybody see inside. Because if you don't, someone else will paint the black the box for you. So actually defense became for big CEOs in the world now coming on podcasts and having a personal brand and having a social media account. And I think the same for politicians that actually the winning strategy now is being a glass box, which is build your own reference points through transparency, which is why the podcasts like this are I think probably going to dominate the next elections I call to some degree. Yeah, I think it's true. not just for politics, like running and being a candidate, I think it's increasingly true for government too. I mean, I started to feel this at the Department of Transportation who are running this huge enterprise, 55,000 people, $145 billion, is bigger than most GDPs in most countries. And what I found was that there were so many situations where people who just are generally mistrustful of government or media would assume the worst. And the only antidote to that was to be way more transparent than a federal agency or department it was used to be. But what I found was kind of the machinery of the department was not set up for that. It was designed to be, you know, accountable, but accountable in the sense that if there's something going on and a member of Congress is worried about it, they can write a letter and six months later they'll get a record. And I'm trying to figure out how do I, because you know, I'd carry a phone in my pocket too, like how do I take it out sometimes and like shoot a video, like tell people what's going on. Sometimes they're going to think that we don't care about them, that we're putting a highway through their neighborhood and we don't care how it's going to hurt them or that we're not responding to a disaster in a Republican area because it's a Republican area. Or any other number of things that people might believe if we don't show them what we're actually doing and why. Got this cap here. I've got Pete Bidgege, 2028. When you think about running for president or being president of the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, do you not have imposter syndrome? And what is it about the job that you think? Because you know, it's pretty crazy for anyone to think they can run the most powerful nation on earth and not think, "God, there's a couple of things that I'm not going to be great at." Yeah, I mean, the whole idea of the system was that no one person should have too much power, right? That's why we got rid of monarchy. But we've wound up with this presidency that uniquely in our country, not just the country, the world, right? Has this incredible amount of power that the lives of billions of people go differently and could be much better or could be much worse based on decisions that get made in that office? And the idea that we would have just one human being doing that is on some level, terrifying. But you know, part of what we did as a country is we set up a whole bunch of things around that human being. And that's everything from like advisors to laws to Congress, you know, and the courts, like to make sure that there's some balance to try to make sure that whoever's in that seat can make the best decisions they possibly could and has to act with uncertain boundaries. But yeah, I mean, look all the way down to when I was elected mayor and I was in my 20s. Like, obviously, I believed I could do the job right. It wouldn't run for it. But, you know, even just walking into the office of the mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana and the 14th floor of the county city building and the snow's coming down the first day. I was New Year's Day, first day I was officially in office and I'm thinking I'm now responsible for making sure the snow gets plowed. And if we don't do it right, not only will I get in trouble politically, somebody could be harmed, right? But I think any office, any job like you have to let that weight sit on your shoulders and then have it push you to be better at the job. That's the, oh, there we go. Yeah, yeah, that was a election day. That was a great feeling. But I remember also immediately feeling this thrill of having won. And if you're a competitive person, it's also the excitement of having beaten your competitors, but having to balance that with, okay, I said that if you elected me, I'd be able to get these things done. And now I actually got to produce a scan if the consequences of being president one day. Any president should be anybody who's even being seriously talked about or considered for it should be puts you in a position where you have a responsibility to say things that make sense and think about what you have to say and know that your words, even if you have no official power, but that's still things that you do or say could help or hurt people just by just by talking, just by going on a podcast and millions of people listen to. And there's really four frontrunners and according to the date of it I saw, which is yourself Gavin Newsom, AOC and Kamala Harris. I've now interviewed three of them, which one I haven't even got to. AOC, I think this thing isn't the one that works. Very different candidate, I'd say. That's individuals. If not you, then which one of them is just a bad idea to answer that question. I'm sorry, I want to be transparent, but you must have an answer though. I don't know. Let the truth set you free secretary. I'm not out of it. Like Matt, she was lovely. Gavin's nice. Which one of you closest friends with? I mean, the one I've spent most time with is her because she was vice president and I was working in transportation with there were times we traveled together. She was very involved in trying to get the infrastructure bill done, which is kind of the biggest thing that I worked on. The legislation did to get roads and bridges and airports. She didn't send a std. I think anybody at that level was misunderstood. And there's just I don't know that I can, I don't know if I'm qualified to evaluate kind of more than more or less than other people in that job. I think anybody, the vice presidency or any job with that visibility puts you in a position where it's hard for people to see your humanity when you're bearing the responsibility that you have. And even at other levels of government, I think this is true. I think high office does that. I think office that high, especially doesn't. Do you think she could be a good president? Sure. I mean, I campaigned for her very energetically when she was running for president. I went all over the country trying to convince America to elect her. And I did that because I thought she'd be a very good president. I'm not Gavin, Nuson. Yeah, he's been he's not someone I know as well as as her, but he's somebody I've worked with a lot. Obviously, California was the place where we're doing a lot of our best infrastructure work. And he's somebody who I think he understands how to break through in this kind of attention of world that we're in, where you know, the old formats and the old norms just don't cut it anymore in terms of getting your message across. And AFC. I think she is spoken to so many people who understand that the system is letting them down. I might not agree with her on every policy. For example, on the infrastructure block that I worked with the vice president on and worked with Gavin on. She didn't see that the way we did. Yeah, I respect that she has activated a lot of young people, not just young people. She's actually had a lot of people who were looking around saying the way things work doesn't serve me. And there's the generational thing. And when I ran for president, I was running on largely on a message of generational change. I didn't win. Obviously. Jay Biden won. You got behind him. Near the end of his time as president, he saw him go out and do those debates against Trump. And I think it was obvious to anyone who's been intellectually honest with themselves an objective. That Joe Biden wasn't the same Joe Biden that we've seen over the last 20, 30 years. And that something had changed quite considerably with his cognitive performance. Were you aware of that? Because you were in his, part of his team at that time. Were you aware that something was different? I saw the same thing that America saw. I saw it in a room with him every day, but whether it was in front of cameras or whether it was, I was invited to be in a meeting at the White House. I saw what America saw, which is that he was getting older. I mean cognitive performance is pretty important for the most powerful job on earth. Were you concerned? I was definitely concerned when I saw the debate. I mean, you won't consent at any point before the debate. Up until that moment, I saw that he was visibly growing older, but there's never some moment where I saw him make a different decision or at least in terms of anything that I was involved with, the transportation that I thought was going different or worse or I couldn't get what I needed from him or from the White House because of his age. But of course, the job is not just policy guidance, that the job is also to convey and communicate to the American people of what your administration is doing and why. That's the job of a president. In some ways, 100% the job of a candidate. There was no watching the debate not realizing how much of a burden that was. You just said then that you're even conscious of, like even in this medium, every sentence counts. You say one sentence, that's the wrong sentence theoretically. It could have consequences. That and you just said, this is a someone that doesn't currently have a job. The president of the United States, Joe Biden, muddling up his sentences in front of the nation like he did in that today is probably not good enough to be in that position. That was the beginning of course of the process that led him to reach the same conclusion. Do you have a private conversation with him? No, I was in the cabinet, but that doesn't mean I was invited to rooms when they were talking about things like whether he's going to run through president again. Did the Democrats make the right decision there? 100 days until the election to swapping common hours at that point? I can hand it aside. If you're honest with yourself. Yeah, I thought about the lot because I think in the moment it felt like, oh, we have very little time. We've all got to pull together. We got to put ego aside. We got to put kind of internal politics aside and we got to quickly speak with one voice. Partly because I knew and we all knew what could happen to this country if Donald Trump was elected again and I've weaved all of those harms and then some have come to pass. But the other side of the coin is if there had been some way to have a competition, even with that very short timeline, I think that even if the candidate had still been Kamala Harris, I think she likely would have been a better candidate. I think in 20. 2020, Joe Biden was a better candidate because he had to compete with Kamala Harris and me and like 18 other Democrats before winning that process. And I think that in general, we know the competition sharpens you, we know the competition gets more information out. And I'm not saying I have it all solved in my head how that could have been done on the timeline that we faced or what it would have been like. But I think with the hindsight that we have now, I think it's pretty clear that we would have been better off if we had that. You know, which was about rap maybe people are looking for something a little bit more radical this time around. What are your most radical ideas as it relates to policies you would be in favor of? I know you would you keen to remove the electoral college and do it based on numbers that the quantity of votes for either presidential candidate. And I still can't believe that anybody considers this radical. Like to me, it's there's nothing radical about thinking the person who gets the most votes ought to be the winner. But I think people haven't thought through how much benefit would come from that because we did that. There are so many votes in red and blue states that you couldn't ignore anymore. Like if you were running for president as a Democrat, you'd have to go to Texas. Yeah. And even if Texas is still going to vote mostly for Republicans, you'd have to turn out every Democratic vote you could in Texas. And I just think we'd be so much better off if a Republican and Democratic candidate were competing over Texas. And by the way, New York, even if New York is definitely going to vote more for Democrats, a Republican candidate would have to come to New York and states from Alaska to Rhode Island. So it's small states too, they get ignored now would finally be part of this competition. So yeah, Electro College for sure. Spring court needs to change. What would you do to the Supreme Court? I would have term limits, more justices and some process that makes it less partisan, who the justices are. Some different ways to do that. The one I think is most interesting is called the balanced bench proposal. We have a mix. But anyway, the point is it needs to change. Yeah. How's the representatives? Like I said earlier, should be proportional. What does that mean? It means that I was saying earlier how to work for like school board or city council, where sometimes you get more than one vote and more than one person wins. We can do that for Congress. The people get the top three votes, not just one. Get to go to Congress. So you'd have bigger districts, fewer districts, harder to Jerry Mander. By the way, an easier change than I think we should do right away is ban Jerry Mander. Look at full things. Let me give you one more constitutional amendment to deal with money in politics. If the Supreme Court said in the citizens United decision that a corporation is the same thing as a person for these purposes and that's spending money to manipulate an election is the same constitutional, we protected behavior as writing an op-ed or carrying a sign at a protest. We need to clarify that corporate spending is not speech and corporations are not citizens, people on the same way that a human being is. And we can do that with a constitutional amendment. And sorry, what would that mean? It would mean that you couldn't just a company couldn't just pump money into a political country. But Congress could then you could actually have laws, which we used to have like the McCain fine gold law, which was struck down in citizens United. But we could get to where Congress can once more have laws saying that you can't put unlimited unaccountable corporate dark money into a super PAC to manipulate how an election is going to go. And it's one more of these things like two thirds of the people think we ought to do. Why doesn't it happen then? Because so many people were already in office like the system just the way it is. And because of the Supreme Court, I actually think you could get it to Congress, but the Supreme Court won't let you because their interpretation of the Constitution is that you can't have these kinds of rules. So what do you do? If necessary, amend the Constitution. People forget the best thing about the Constitution is its capability to be amended when we talk about the most cherished part of the Constitution. Many people will say the First Amendment, right? That's the one that gives us free speech. 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. It's an amendment. It's something they had to add on after. So is the Second Amendment. I mean, all of them by definition, right? So we shouldn't be afraid of that kind of thing. It was only by an amendment that we got to pick who our senators are. Before that, it was the legislature. Same thing for making sure that black voters and the women could be voters. 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. We should use it. All of the things I've mentioned are these kind of system reforms. They're about the engine. So then the policies, what comes out of the engine? Like, do we get paid family leave in this country? Do we have fair taxes? Is there a healthcare system that gets everybody healthcare? All that stuff is decided by a government that works better. Much of the reason most people haven't posted content or built their personal brand is because it's hard and it's time consuming and we're all very, very busy. And if you've never posted something before, there's so many factors in your psychology that stop you wanting to post. What people will think of you? Am I doing this right? Is the thing I'm saying absolutely stupid? All of these results in paralysis, which means you don't post and your feed goes better. I'm an investor in a company called Stanstorch. You've probably had me talk about and what they've been building is this new tool called Stanley that uses AI, looks at your feed, looks at your turn of voice, looks at your history, looks at your best performing posts and tells you what you should post makes those posts for you. You can also just use it for inspiration. And sometimes what we need when we're thinking about doing a post for our social media channels is inspiration. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life and I think it could change yours too. So I'm inviting you to give this new tool a shot and let me know what you think. All you have to do is search coach.stanbotsdoor now to get started. There should be a button just down below here and if it says subscribe, you're already subscribed. If it says subscribe, that means you're not yet and if you're not subscribed, please could you do us a favor and hit that button. It helps to show more than you know and according to the algorithm, you're someone that watches our show but you haven't yet hit that button. Thank you so much. What do you think of Elon Musk? The richest man on earth, the arguably most famous entrepreneur on planet earth building companies here in America. Very intelligent, has had an extremely important impact on a whole bunch of things, is right about a lot of things and is very wrong about a lot of things and lacked the humility to understand some things that would have saved him from doing a lot of damage based on how wrong he was. So you look for example at the tragedy of the failure of doge and the thing that most upsets me about the failure of doge is that we actually needed an effort around government efficiency. But what we got was unbelievably sloppy making math errors and the one thing they're supposed to be really good at ought to be math. I don't mean like little rounding errors like saying billion when they met million on the quote unquote wall of receipts. The whole purpose of which was to show that they knew what they were doing and they were transparently documenting their choices. Firing people they didn't know what they did and then having to scramble and hire them back on things like nuclear weapon safety or managing bio hazards and communicable diseases and leaving a federal government that actually spent more after doge than before. Even used to be a Democrat. Yeah. He would say and have had him say this that the Biden administration basically snubbed him. They were sort of adversarial towards him. There's always the story people talk about the electric vehicle summit in 2021 where everybody was invited. GM Ford Chrysler but Elon wasn't invited. And that was a mistake. I was there for that. I can tell you how the mistake happened. There was a difficult and complex set of negotiations happening between the big three automakers to try to get to a new framework moving forward on tailpipe standards. This event was built to kind of celebrate the agreement that had been reached around tailpipe standards. And Tesla because all they make are EVs doesn't even have tailpipes. And so people weren't really thinking about inviting Tesla. But what Elon saw was there's an event at the White House about EVs. He is if not single handedly responsible. Certainly is the person most responsible for EV excellence on American soil. And he's saying what the fuck? And I don't blame him for that. And he publicly broke ranks with the Democrat party. He bought Twitter and ultimately became Donald Trump's largest donor and Keith Soragot. It's essentially I think I asked his question because I think any president is going to need to contend with both solving the problem in a vina quality, this national debt while also keeping entrepreneurs happy and highly productive at the same time. And the of the two parties Republican and Democrat, the party that is typically according to the data more associated with being entrepreneur friendly is the Republican party. It's not often you hear billionaires are evil coming from the Republicans from the Republicans right. But that's a prevailing narrative on the Democratic side is that billionaires are evil. I don't know if that's the prevailing narrative, but I'll go watch me. So it's more dominant on the left than it is on the right. I think that's fair. But look, I mean, you have to engage everybody if you want to be in a high positional leadership. Like the last time I had a specific problem with Elon when I was department of transportation. I called him. We talked it out and we figured it out and we actually solved a problem together. It is amazing in my experience how many problems can be, if not solved, at least better faced if you just pick up the phone. And we have the style of politics now where everything's combat. You're not just disagreeing with somebody. You got to destroy them, right? And that's really bad for America. It does not lead to good political outcomes. And so especially when I disagree with somebody or I have a problem with what they're doing, we should be talking. On the left, you've got AOC saying you can't make a billion dollars, you take a billion dollars. Is that true in your view? I don't know. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me. I will say there's a lot of different ways you can get a billion dollars. And right now the easiest way to get a billion dollars is to have 10 billion dollars and do nothing. You know, the thing we most admire about the entrepreneurs is that they work hard and they do things and they make things, right? And they generate value. And I think most Americans don't spite you, the value that you get from having created even more value. I think at the same time, we see a lot of outcomes in the market that seem to be about just like money just sort of happening to whoever already has money. Many of them have seen their wealth go up like 10 fold in the last few years. Way more than how much their wealth went up in the few years before that. So I guess like the thing you did between zero and a billion in my experience is usually much more impressive than whatever you did between one billion and 10 or 10 and a hundred or a hundred and 500. And I think we are in a political system where it would just be so naive to think that the amount that the market gives you is just purely equal to the amount of benefit that you create or the amount of hard work that you put in. Yeah. Some people work hard and they earn a lot. And some people don't do shit and they wind up with a lot. And some people are a mix of those two things. It's definitely not correlated to hard work. That is for sure. I've never met anyone that worked harder than my mom and working, you know, coming from Nigeria, Conorito, Wright comes to the UK, works every waking hour that she can never complains and still financially struggling as a result of that all the time growing up. So I know that very intimately, that hard work doesn't equal wealth at all. And I don't think people would be as angry about billionaires as they are if there weren't millions of people whose story is closer to that of your mom. And it brings me back to this idea of the American dream where, you know, it's supposed to be the case that generally you come out ahead if you, as the saying goes, you work hard and you play by the rules. And that definitely happens sometimes, but doesn't happen enough now. And most importantly, it happens less in America than in certain other countries. And it happens less in America than it used to in America. And those two things are the big blinking alarm lights to me. And you see also, she said, a system that allows billionaires to exist is a moral. Yeah, I don't think I agree with that. It's not whether they exist. It's having too much power. It's being able to turn economic power into political power. And then using that power to get even more wealth. That's why people are so furious because they see that happening and are not wrong. And the role of money in our politics is just one example, probably the biggest example of how that can happen. I think Americans wouldn't mind people being as wealthy as they are nearly as much if we didn't have the inequality that we have. And if we didn't have some of those people using their wealth to assert political power in a country whose whole founding principle is that the millionaire or I guess a billionaire stands in line next to the dishwasher and the taxi driver in the voting booth and they all have the same political power. Yeah, it's interesting because I can weirdly relate to both sides of the spectrum. If you go back, I don't know, 13 years, I am broke. Found out speaking to me because I've decided to drop out university and I am, I can't feed myself to put it in a nice way for a long period of time, living many hundreds of miles away from home in terms of around trip. And then you jump 13 years forward and I'm running these businesses and the businesses are going well. So I can't it's weird, I oscillate between these two worlds of entrepreneurship and being very pro-unsched at entrepreneurship. But then falling back into that 18, 19, 20 year old me who really needed society to catch and to be completely honest. Thankfully, I lived in the United Kingdom where we have healthcare. But when I moved here at 25 years old to launch the business here in New York City and run the office here, I discovered that you guys don't offer like health and that I had to ask the employer to pay for all of my team members' healthcare. It was just really, what the hell is going on? I thought this was the land of the free and all those kinds of things. So I kind of understand the terms of the spectrum and it makes me realise that actually it's the inequality. It's the people at the sort of bottom of the ladder per se being so far from the top of the ladder that is the central issue. So what is the radical idea that you bring forward to end inequality? I mean, presumably it's not just tax wealth. Well, here's the fact you lift people. I actually think the ideas for fixing those economic problems aren't that radical. The weird thing is in order to get what I think of as very reasonable economic ideas through, you have to have radical change on the political side economically, we can do this mostly with tools that are very familiar to us. Make sure that there are higher tax rates not to punish the wealthy but to get enough revenue to do so government can do its job. Make sure there are higher tax rates on the, not on all Americans compared to today, but on the corporate profits and on the wealthiest individuals. Make sure that it is harder to hide and move around money so that you never have to pay taxes on it at all. And then what do you do with that money? You make sure there's a healthcare system where, for example, somebody in the situation you are in still gets to be an entrepreneur because they don't actually have to worry that they won't have healthcare if they don't just take the next low-age job available to them. Invest in education enough that we are preparing for people who know not just how to work but how to think so that when work changes they're ready. Make sure that we make it easier to have a family. Things like paid family leave and using tax credits to compensate people who give care to their parents and/or children can have a huge freeing effect on people and I think it's the right thing to do. And it's a way to respect that that's work too. Yeah, I've had roles and jobs where I have worked very, very hard but the hardest I've ever worked in my life was when I was on parental leave when we adopted our newborn son and daughter, our twins. That was the only time they're there. Yeah, I mean that was the only time that I was routinely getting up at three in the morning. If I was lucky I could get a nap at 530 in the morning and was just working until I physically couldn't work anymore and then tapping out and then Justin trying to, my husband trying to, you know, we'd alternate and help each other and that work was a beautiful work, very hard work. It's work. I think we also need to invest in things like national service so everybody has an experience. Military is not for everybody but everybody should notice like to be part of something bigger than yourself and to work on something that is hard with people you don't already know. I think if we have that we'll have more trust. Where do you find this one? It's like these are some photos of a much younger Pete. I'm really curious, you know, I sat with Kumbler a lot about her by just understanding where she'd come from. Yeah. And her parents and her early context. What is it about your early context that shapes your world view as Mayor Pete would also secretary Pete and potentially someday President Pete? Ha. Well, my dad came to this country because he thought he could have a better life here. Not exactly in a rags to riches sense. He came from a middle class family in the tiny country of Malta. And the way he tells the story is that he knew that he wanted to come to the US and go to grad school here and he had a mentor who said, look if you stay here I can promise you that you will be a big fish in a small pond. And he said I'd rather be a medium sized fish in a very big pond. There's a great way to think about coming to America. And that's exactly what he did. He came, he went to grad school in Binghamton, New York. And then he got a job in New Mexico, lost Crucist New Mexico. He met my mother who was teaching there to the young linguist. They got married. And then the first good job he got was at University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. They moved there pretty soon after that. I was born. And so I grew up with parents who cared a lot about literature and learning. And they cared a lot about politics. We weren't like politically connected. I don't think I ever met an elected official while I was a child. But I grew up with the sense that it was very important to know what was happening in the world. My dad was always reading the newspaper. The TV was always tuned to the news. It was just a sense like that's the most important thing. Whatever's happening in the world is the most important thing that you ought to be paying attention to out there. I don't know. It was a great upbringing with great parents and good neighborhood and good friends. You know, I felt both a sense of belonging and a sense of being an outsider kind of at the same time. And I had this name that nobody could pronounce. And we're in this great neighborhood. People did all kinds of different things. Our neighbor to one side laid carpet, family of crusts from us were retired public school teachers. Lately on the corner was a nurse and I'd see her walk down to the night. I shifted the hospital a couple of blocks away every day. And I felt like the texture of that neighborhood really belonged to me. But at the same time, I also felt and knew that I was different. This is before it was trendy to drink espresso, for example. That was like a weird immigrant thing that my dad did. He had this little thing he would put on the stove and make espresso. And I remember them being kind of bewildered when Starbucks became a thing. And then the surroundings of it all, the city of South Bend, which people know that the University of Notre Dame is there. But the other thing that was there was Studebaker. This was as big a car company as like GM or Ford in its day. But it stopped making cars in 1963. They just couldn't quite innovate and keep up in the company collapsed. That was a catastrophic thing for the city. The city lost a big chunk of its population and never really recovered it. And when I was a kid, I didn't really know any different. I didn't realize it was unusual that factories that hadn't been operating for decades, in some cases, that looked like they'd been hit in a war. It was like collapsing, big giant structures falling apart all over this city. I'd see them, you know, at the window of my dad's Chevy on the one he was driving me to school. And gradually as I grew up, I kind of put the pieces together of what it meant to live in a place whose best economic days had been behind it. And the message that I got, the kind of lesson that I was given was, I don't know if anybody said this to me in a sentence, but what the world kind of said to me was if you want to be something, you're gonna be someone, you have to get out, you have to move out. Did your dad say that? Not that I remember. I mean, that's the irony. He's this very worldly man, you know, been all over the world, but he chose to live in South Bend. He died in South Bend in the end. That was where he lived his life. But I don't know, you just get this sense that that was what you were supposed to do. And then I did, I got into Harvard, got to the East Coast to go to college. And then immediately began to understand that I was like, front somewhere in a way that I didn't understand when I was growing up and started to feel this kind of loyalty. It's kind of like almost militant attachment, partly because I heard the ways people talked about where I was from. He passed away while you were running for president? Yeah, I was just right about the moment that I was announcing the beginning of the campaign. Yeah, like literally the same week. Unexpectedly. He had been diagnosed with cancer in September. And we knew that it was pretty rough and he passed away in January. So yeah, I mean, there was, you know, not overnight, but three or four months. The stabilizing and the lead up to the most consequential decision in period of your life. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, this is really big, important part of your world. And we were close. You know, I moved into a house that was on the same block as where my parents lived in South Bend, home for dinner every Sunday night. I mean, to have him become ill and then to have him pass away just at the moment that we were starting to launch. Sometimes I look back on it. I don't actually don't know how it work. I was trying to remember something and I looked back at my emails and I saw some email. I sent it like three, 30 in the morning to my, someone on my staff, like it was normal. I think I'm the city staff, 'cause I was still mayor, right? So I was running the city facing my father's death. During that period, my mother had a heart attack and heart surgery. And then launching this campaign, like all within a few, really few weeks with each other. It's a lot, it's a lot at once. It's not for one person to say, how do you deal with all of that? It annoys the family stuff at home that lots of you find out what it was, what's the strategy for heart strategies or what? But my way of dealing with it, first of all, I had a lot to do with Chaston. So all this happened. Yeah, we got married in 2018. And all of this happened toward the end of 2019. So we had been married for long. And he never guessed when, neither one of us guessed on our first date or even when we got married that this was happening. What is the, you know, I've got lots of friends who have been on the journey of sort of discovering their sexual orientation at a young age and then going through the process of being comfortable enough in their environment to announce it to the world. Yeah. How does that, what's the sort of the journey of you, knowing who you are, and then feeling comfortable enough to announce it? And what was the, how do I put together the picture of like, how your parents understood that, how the world understood that, how you understood that? And also, I guess the other question that I have is like, American politics. Yeah. How does that understand it? You know, you've got to write the left. How do you think about what if that at the moment? Yeah, I mean, I'd like to believe we'll get to a day when it's just not a thing. No one cares. And it doesn't affect your career. It doesn't affect your opportunities in life. It just is what it is. That's how I feel it should be. But you know, that's not how it was or how it is. I mean, when I was commissioned into the Navy Reserve, it was still the law of the land that if I was known to be gay, I'd be fired, right? In fact, when I finally made peace with this reality that I was gay, couple of age, I was well into my 20s because I wanted so bad for it not to be true. That even though, obviously, I was the old time, I just needed it not to be true. And working through that took most of my 20s. And then when I finally kind of came to terms with it, it was also around the time that I was running for mayor. And maybe because not being able to come terms with it meant that I didn't have really dating life, maybe it's always that helped professionally because I had nothing else to do with my energy, you know? But I remember when I realized I was going to win, I realized it was important that I kind of finished the process of coming out to myself, which meant I had to come out to somebody else. That was what kind of marked it, you know? And so my conversation was a close and trusted friend. And I remember part of his reaction was to say, to joke that like, you didn't exactly make it easy on yourself because my whole professional life had two parts. One was being a Navy officer when that could be career ending. And the other was being an elected official in Indiana, which had was well on its way to getting a reputation as maybe the most anti-Gay state in the country, like Pence hadn't yet become governor, but he soon would. On one level, I was a piece with this fact, but also knew it could be a career limiting fact. Sorry, I kept it to myself for a long time. And then I just hit a point where I couldn't do that anymore. And then I was time to come out because while the thing that really pulled me over the edge was when I was getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan, I was already in May, but like a lot of people in the reserve, you leave your day job to go when you get called up. So when you deploy into a war zone, they tell you to write a letter. Just in case you don't come back, which I did. And in that process, you're kind of taking stock of your life. You're thinking about what you want to say to the people you love most if you don't come back. And that was kind of the moment that really is the final moment where I just thought, if I, here I am, I'm taking stock of my life, I have a great life. But I'm a grown man in a position of responsibility. I'm a homeowner. I'm going to be a veteran. I don't know what it's like to be in love. And I just thought that's not that's untenable. And so I promised myself that if I came home safe, I would deal with this. And I came home physically safe. And the problem was there was a re-election coming up, but I didn't want to wait until I'd been re-elected. So I figured out a way to come out. And I was kind of resentful of the idea that I even had to like straight people don't have to come out. But I knew that if I just tried to just like show up at some chamber of commerce dinner and my date was a dude, that night, like that was just not, I couldn't do it that way. And I didn't want to be like, quote unquote, found out. Like I definitely didn't want to be hiding it. But I wanted to start data. What about your parents? I remember it was weird because again, I knew that they were forward thinking, I knew they were accepting, I knew how much they loved me. But it took me a while to be ready to come out to them. And I did, you know, like I said, I used to go home for Sunday dinner every night. And so I was home for Sunday dinner one night and kind of pushing my ice cream around with the spoon in the bowl and just thinking about, and then I just took a deep breath. And it's just like, I got to tell you something. And, yeah, as I expected, like they responded with love and acceptance, and I know not everybody gets to expect that, so I'm thankful for that. My dad was immediately worried about what it might mean for my future. I'm not a way that he was trying to like talk me out of anything. He just bought about that and talked about it. My mom wanted to know if I was dating somebody. I think she had had her eyes on, you know, maybe becoming a grandma for a long time. I wasn't dating anybody, but, you know, I was probably within a year or that that I brought Chaston home for Sunday dinner for the first time and watched him hit it off with my parents, which is just like everything about that. Everything about that scene at dinner was just not a thing that I could have thought would have been possible just a few years before it was happening. By the way, I just want to say that's really beautiful. I think you probably don't realize the net impact that decision had on many, many people who are contending with their insectuality by being both a politician. I think you were also the. Were you the first person in a presidential candidate to be openly gay as well? Definitely, the first person who's considered to have a shot. Yeah. I mean, not that I was considered to have a shot when I started it. Yeah. I think in the same way that a bomb paved the way for lots of other people to expand their minds as to what was possible for them because of their identity. I think you've certainly done that. I think it's a weird word to say courageous or brave as it relates to just being yourself. Yeah. It was a personal decision, but I think that when there's consequence and there's obvious consequence and you do something in respect to what I do consider to be very admirable in that regard, we have a closing tradition where the last guest leaves a question for the next, not knowing who they're leaving it for. The question left for you is what is the thing but the world needs to hear right now that it maybe doesn't want to hear that is uncomfortable but necessary. Hmm. I think it's that it doesn't have to be the way it is, but we have to do the hard things to change it. But people can feel that things can't go on like this. And I go around all around the country reminding people that it doesn't have to be like this, but it's not going to change on its own. Well, you can't just sit back and let some pattern or some wave of history or some technology just like come save the day. It doesn't work that way. Everybody's got to be part of it. And I think that's always going to have to give a little something up and if we do it, it'll be great. But hard things are hard. One of the things that's quite different between you and other politicians as well is I think you are most willing to go and talk to the other side. Yeah. But just before you arrived here, you were actually over at Fox News. And I think that's also something that, gosh, both physical sides haven't always wanted to do. If we're talking about the things that are not nice to hear is you actually have to go talk to your quote unquote enemies or adversaries or those that are totally against you. And I applaud you for really leaving the way that. And you do a remarkable job of it because you're so bloody articulate and smart. But I think that's something important as well in this moment in time. I think it's like politics. Good politics is about encounter. Like it's about encountering people. What's the point of doing this if you're only surely talking to people who already agree with you? So yeah, to me, it's a very natural part of the job. I get why it's hard. I get why not everybody does it. But to me, it's one of the most important ways to earn my keep. Thank you for doing that because it's so wonderful to see the. I'd say conflict of ideas in public. It's wonderful to see you going to the other side. And they've been on a bit of a tour of red states recently doing exactly that. I wish more politicians would do that because that's we get to see those ideas that often exist on extreme polls and collide. And we get to make our mind up and please keep doing what you're doing. I think it's really really remarkable. And the values that you have also respect a huge amount. So thank you for being here and I appreciate your generosity. Come on. Thanks for having me. You do have this new crazy algorithm where they know exactly what video you would like to watch next based on AI and all of your viewing behavior. And the algorithm says that this video is the perfect video for you. It's different for everybody looking right now. Check this video out. I bet you you might love it. [BLANK_AUDIO]