The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie

Latest Episodes:

Justice Neil Gorsuch: 'Aspirations for Power Need To Be Checked' May 04, 2026

Show notes

This week, Nick Gillespie sits down at the U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Neil Gorsuch to discuss his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence, co-authored with Janie Nitze. Gorsuch and Gillespie examine why the United States is a creedal nation built on shared ideas rather than ethnicity or religion, and why those ideas require constant effort and courage to sustain. They discuss originalism, equal justice under law, the risks of government overreach, and the growing complexity of federal and state regulation. Finally, Gorsuch considers what it will take for the American experiment to endure another 250 years, from learning history to cultivating the courage needed to defend freedom. 0:00—America's 250th anniversary 3:24—Unsung heroes of 1776 4:43—Why America is not an ethnostate 8:00—Originalism and equal justice under the law 11:29—Is America a libertarian project? 13:33—What constitutes government overreach? 14:31—Does America have too many laws? 21:41—Federal bureaucracies and state legislatures 24:03—Political polarization and the judiciary 30:54—What will allow America to have another 250 years? 34:06—How can younger people cultivate courage? Producers: Paul Alexander & Natalie Dowzicky Director of Photography: Kevin Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser Transcript This transcript has been edited for style and clarity. Nick Gillespie: This is The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. My guest today is Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author with Janie Nitze of the new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. Justice Gorsuch, thanks for talking to Reason Justice Neil Gorsuch: Oh, delighted to be here. Thank you. Let's start with Heroes of 1776, which is in time for the upcoming 250 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The book is about ordinary men, women, and children doing something totally extraordinary, which is overthrowing a repressive and distant government in the name of freedom and liberty. What's the main lesson that you think America needs to be thinking about as we celebrate our 250th birthday? Well, I know we're going to have a lot of fireworks, and there are going to be some good barbecues and parades, but I hope maybe we take a moment too to reflect on the gift we've been given and the challenge we face. And what I mean by that is the Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal, that each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government, and that we have the right to rule ourselves. Our nation is not founded on a religion. It's not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It's based on those ideas. We're a creedal nation. And I hope we take a moment to reflect on that and to recommit ourselves to that. One more thing, one more thing. The courage it takes to defend those ideas. They were not inevitable. And the stories of the men, women, and children in the book, I hope will inspire children to realize the courage it takes to carry those ideas forward in their own time. Talk a little bit about that lack of inevitability, because the way American history gets done, especially to kids, it's like, "Well, this happened, then this happened, and, of course, here we are." How do you focus on the idea that this wasn't inevitable? Well, there are a bunch of things in the book we point to. A couple I'll start with. One, those three ideas, we point out what was Europe like at the time. It was monarchies. The notion that all people are created equal? No, there are kings and serfs. The notion that you have rights from God, from your creator? No, everything came from government. And self-rule certainly was a very dangerous proposition in the world of the declaration, right? You're right. We take it as the air we breathe. Fish in the water don't even realize. But those things were dangerous and inevitable, and they were traitors for declaring them. The British said that Americans had declared for themselves an alienable right to talk nonsense. And we walked through how the vote originally wasn't going to go through unanimously- So this is at the Continental Congress— At the Continental Congress—- —and they're deciding we can be brave, we can kind of fudge it or whatever. So there was huge debate over it. And you have to remember, only about 40% of colonists actually supported the Patriot cause. Another 20, 30% were Loyalists. And a whole bunch of people were undecided, right? Much as our own age. They were divided, right? Right. People were divided. So there was nothing inevitable about it. Absolutely nothing. And you talk about a couple of people, and maybe you can tell a story or two who actually either changed their vote or were like, "Okay, I'm going to change because this cause makes sense." There are two fun stories in the book about that. One is Caesar Rodney. So the Delaware delegation was tied. They couldn't vote definitively. So Caesar Rodney was called back from… He was on military service in Delaware. He rode 80 miles through the night in a thunderstorm, suffering cancer of his face. John Adams called him the oddest man he'd ever seen. He could have gone to Britain for a cure, but he was too much of a patriot. He wanted to stick around, and he broke Delaware's tied vote. Another man, Edward Rutledge, South Carolina. He had voted against independence on July 1st, the first time they voted. When the resolution was first introduced in June, they couldn't agree on whether to even proceed on it. So they tabled it for weeks. They brought it to a vote on July 1st and Rutledge voted against it. And, again, the delegates were divided. He though that night said, "I'd like to take the vote again the next day." And he realized that it was more important that we stand united in whatever decision we made than for his own personal views to prevail. He changed his vote. When you say we are a creedal nation, it's not the product of a particular religion. A lot of people in contemporary America today say, "No, that's wrong." And, in fact, there's a lot of politicians and a lot of people, influencers or people in the press who say, "No, actually all of the people who signed the declaration were of a very specific kind of ethnic stock." With one exception, we'll get into him in a second, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who's the only Catholic signer, they're all Protestants. How do you respond to people who say, "You're full of it." It's like they were all Scots, Irish and English, basically. So this is an ethno-state of some meaning. Well, I would say I'd push back on that. There's no doubt that the Revolution, the Constitution and our country have always had challenges living up to the declaration. I think of the declaration as sort of our mission statement. The Constitution, our how-to manual. But look at the mission statement. The mission statement is all of us are equal, that we all have an inalienable rights, and that we have the right to self-rule. Those ideas are perfect ideas. They exclude no one. Now, have we had to work on realizing them? We talk about this in the book, of course, but we could point to that mission statement. Lincoln in the Civil War was able to say, "How can you possibly justify slavery when you say all men are created equal?" The women in Seneca Falls during the suffrage movement said, "You're absolutely right. All men are created equal, women as well." Martin Luther King before Lincoln's memorial in 1963 called the declaration a promissory note that had come due. And those ideas— How do you live with how long it takes? I mean, because Seneca Falls is what, 1848, I think. Arguably, the civil rights movement doesn't end until 1965. How do you live in that moment where it's like it's beautiful language, but the reality just isn't there? I don't think the civil rights movement ended in 1965. I think we've been in a civil rights movement since 1776. And I think one way for me to think about it is we call this the semiquincentennial. What does that actually mean? I have no idea. Exactly, right? It means halfway to 500. Right. It's a journey, right? Yeah. And those ideas are not self-perpetuating. They're not inevitable. The torch passes to each new generation. You got to grab the baton. It can be dropped. What is the next big expansion of rights that currently we're like, "Well, rights for Blacks and women, yeah, but not for what?" And I mean, you've even ruled on certain things, right? I've ruled on lots of things. So what is the next frontier? I think that's part of the challenge of the book is to the kids at the end. I've got a little message to them saying, "That's for you. You decide. You have this mission statement, right? Make it real in your time." This may seem like an odd follow-up, but let's talk a little bit about originalism, which is the judicial philosophy that you kind of follow. And the Declaration of Independence, it's not a law per se in the way that some of the things that come before you on the Supreme Court are, but how do you stay true to the text or the meaning of the declaration without them just saying, "Okay, you know what? Everybody, I can just assert rights and say, 'Well, it's in the declaration, and if I have the right number of guns or the right number of votes, I can just make that happen.'" How do you anchor an understanding of the American project in a text and a particular time? So if you think again of the declaration as kind of our mission statement or ideals, and the Constitution is the how to manual, right? Well, the Constitution is all about dividing power, isn't it? Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again. And so, how do we set up our system of government? Three branches, and that's just at the federal level. That's horizontally, separated vertically too. States have powers, and the people have powers that are reserved to them as well. So what's my role in it? My role is as a judge, right? Judge is an important role, but a modest station at the end of the day. My role's not to make war. I'm not the commander-in-chief. My role is not to make the laws. They do that across the street in Congress. My job is to make sure that anybody who comes to court in a dispute has equal justice under law. That is to say the rich and the poor, as our judicial oath says, come to us equally. So you may be very unpopular, but if you have a good winning legal argument, that's my job to vindicate it. And that legal argument is bounded by what's actually on the page, and then like an understanding of you try….Is it getting into the heads of the people who pass the legislation, or how do you know you're not just projecting your fantasy onto a particular law? So I forgot the first part of your question about originalism. I'm sorry, but I'm kind of getting to it oddly enough which is, okay, once you realize what your goal is, not to make law and certainly not to change the Constitution, we, the people, do that through the amendment process. You've got an important job, but it's a modest job. How do you go about doing that? And for me, not for everybody, but the way I see it is my job is to apply the law as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time it was enacted. And that way I'm making sure I'm not projecting my hopes and dreams onto the legal text. The text was passed with bicameralism and presentment across the street or through the amendment process and the Constitution itself. And if I start changing with that and tinkering with that or evolving it, if you will, based on what I like, who elected me to do that? Right. That's not my job. Well, you're appointed, right? And you get a life appointment to- But to do a job, and the job is not to be a philosopher king. It's not to assert Congress's role. It's certainly not to assert the amendment process of the Constitution. It's to ensure that the people who come before me get the promises of the Constitution and the laws. That's it. That's my job. Are there limits to, you say, okay, there's the federal government, there's state governments, and then there's the rights of the people. How do you decide, okay, well, the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction here, but then maybe the states do or when do the people? How do you make that distinction? I guess I'm particularly interested in unenumerated rights that reside with the people, because it's not so good, right? If like the federal government says, "Okay, we can't do this." But then a state government says, "We can ban this, or we can force you to worship the way that you want." How do you know what, at the end of the day, is America a libertarian project more than a conservative or liberal project? I think it is a very tolerant project, right? I mean, look at the First Amendment. You have a right to speak and worship freely. Those ideas were not, again, inevitable. They were not popular in a lot of Europe. They're popular much today. Yeah, less and lesser, if you ask me. That worries me. But it's a tolerant idea. It's an idea that you have a right to make your way and your life and pursue happiness and so do I. And we can do that together. And so when I'm asking, "Hey, what rights can government not touch?" The Bill of Rights is your starting place. That's absolutely your starting place. And most of the things we care about are there. I mean, look at what the First Amendment covers. The press, the right to petition your government for grievances, the right to assemble. Right. And that's a very important right if you think about it. What's the point of a right to speak if you can't… But it also, it took about a hundred years for those, for the states to be bound by that, right? Yeah. The 14th Amendment effectively did that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And one can argue about whether it did it through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but we'd all agree it did that. Yeah. So then with something like, do states have a right to ban alcohol? And so as an individual, I don't get to consume alcohol if I live in a state that has voted not to. In the end, how do we know when a government at any level has gone too far? Well, I'm not going to get into things that might come before me, but I will tell you on alcohol, if you told the framers that they couldn't drink, they would have had something to say about it. They would have really revolted. They might very well… I mean, they threw all the tea into Boston Harbor. I don't know what they would have done if you told them… At the end of the Constitutional Convention as George Washington is being sent off, there's a party held and 56 men gathered in a tavern, and the list of alcohol, their consumption… I mean, it was 50 bottles of Madeira and port. It's like Led Zeppelin times a thousand. It was epic. Yeah. With Janie Nitze, you previously authored a couple of books, but including one called Over Ruled, which was explicitly about how there are just too many laws in America, like governing people's behavior. How do we know when… Follow through with that a little bit. Sure. When is a law… It just shouldn't be there. Can I start with an ode to Janie and Chris Ellison…

Full show notes at the publisher

Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny Apr 29, 2026

Show notes

Today's guest is the legendary actor and director Andy Serkis, who has played everyone from Gollum to proto-punk icon Ian Dury to King Kong to Marvel villain Ulysses Klaue. His latest project is a controversial animated adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which he directed and is out on May 1 from Angel Studios.

He talks with Nick Gillespie about the new movie; what, if anything, ties together some of his signature roles; and whether technology advances or undermines art.

0:00—Why Serkis wanted to direct Animal Farm

4:30—The corrupting nature of power

7:35—Are we in a better place than we were 100 years ago?

10:34—Serkis' signature acting roles

18:31—The legacy of Ian Dury

25:42—Does technology enhance creativity

31:12—The fragility of democracy

The post Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think Apr 22, 2026

Show notes

This week, guest host Billy Binion is joined by Jennifer Doleac, an economist whose research focuses on crime and public safety. She is executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures and author of the recent book The Science of Second Chances.

In their conversation, Doleac delves into some of her more counterintuitive findings—many of which surprised even her. Perhaps most notably, she explains why long prison sentences do far less to deter crime than many assume. She instead makes the case that solving more cases should be a top priority, and explores why clearance rates are shockingly low.

Binion and Doleac also examine the evidence behind second chances—a radioactive topic in recent years—including research showing that crime decreases when first-time defendants are offered leniency. They discuss why some well-intentioned policies have counterproductive results, what the data say about rehabilitation and reentry programs, and how policymakers can make better use of economics to align incentives and improve outcomes in the criminal justice system.

Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:
https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/
https://reason.org/jobs/producer/

0:00—The relationship between economics and criminal justice

6:28—Have people become less willing to give second chances?

15:46—The far left and criminal justice reform

18:50—What isn't working in the criminal justice system?

26:01—Why are clearance rates so low?

31:35—Leniency for first-time offenders

38:48—The "ban the box" movement

47:58—Why economics is a useful framework for criminal justice

55:42—Should prisons be made more comfortable?

1:01:38—Doleac's political and economic views

The post Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Afroman on Becoming the 2028 Libertarian Presidential Nominee Apr 20, 2026

Show notes

This week, Andrew Heaton is joined by Grammy-nominated rapper Afroman, who recently turned a police raid on his home and the lawsuit that followed into an unlikely free speech victory and a new chapter in his career. Afroman explains how officers raided his house, damaged his property, seized cash, and then sued him after he used the security footage in his music videos to mock them. He argues that the real issue was not just the raid itself, but the lack of accountability that followed, and says the verdict was a win for ordinary Americans who want the right to criticize public officials without getting dragged into court. Heaton and Afroman also discuss a possible presidential run, smaller government, patriotism, and why his unifying message could break through in a divided country. Along the way, they talk about Flavor Flav as a possible running mate, Lemon Pound Cake, and how this viral comeback can become something even bigger than his music. Plus, Heaton asks what fans have wondered for years: Does Afroman feel pressure to always be high? 0:00—Teaser 0:39—Introduction 1:42—What should the police have done following the raid? 3:20—The inspiration for Lemon Pound Cake 5:20—The defamation suit against Afroman 11:15—Afroman's stolen money and "crooked cops" 14:46—Afroman's court win as a victory for free speech 17:15—Presidential aspirations 21:37—Patriotism and the American identity 24:23—Does Afroman feel pressured to be high? 25:02—Who would be Afroman's running mate? 27:11—The effects of the trial on Afroman's music career Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Andrew Heaton: Hey, Afroman, good to have you on. Afroman: Yes, sir. Good to be on, good to be on. Ok, so I've been watching bits of the trial. Congratulations, by the way. Thank you. I've been watching bits of the trial, and it seems like the whole thing got out of hand multiple times. So I'm curious: If I think you've kidnapped somebody and I break into your house, but I apologize and I fix the door, would we be ok? Where is the bright line with the cop? What could they have done to make the situation ok? Treated me like an American citizen. I'm a black man in America, and a lot of times another black man is doing something wrong, possibly, and a cop may get me and him confused. So he may put me through some unfair treatment, let's say. But once they find the other guy or realize I'm not that guy, an apology is the first humane step. It's ok to make mistakes in this lifetime. It's not ok to not apologize for making those mistakes. They put erasers on the end of pencils because they expect you to make mistakes. I expect a human being to make a mistake, but when a human being knows they made a mistake and they're unapologetic and they're arrogant about it, then that takes you down a whole nother road. It's a whole different feeling toward a person that's not apologetic about the wrong they have done. So how much of the album that you made was to try to recoup monetary damages for the gate and for having cash seized versus just being angry at how you were treated and the attitude they had when they did it? Well, it was all for the same purpose, you know. It was all, for one. I got freedom of speech, so I had to say whatever I wanted to say about the cop and make it funny and entertaining. At the same time, I was selling this, and it was about them. It was inspired by them, and it was a way that I could monitor the financial progress I was making off of their inspiration. So they break down your door, they seize some of your assets, it causes like $20,000 worth of damages, that's what I've heard. You do your album, but they end up suing you. What were they suing for? What was their claim? Several things I may or may not remember. I'll name as many as I can: humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputation. And there were like, like seven or eight more titles like that. Like, because I'm not an attorney, even though I sometimes dress like one. So it wasn't just straight-up defamation and libel? It was like emotional damages and, "I feel bad, I'm embarrassed," like that was the bulk of it? Yeah, they had all kinds of stuff. They had emotional distress. They had humiliation, loss of reputation, defamation of character. And yeah, it was a few more that I can't quite remember. So with those, like most of them seem like they'd be very easily dismissed. We can go into some of the other specifics, like one or two of them. I'm like, "that's a serious accusation." But like calling somebody Beatle Bailey or Gomer Pyle or whatever, like that's obviously nonfactual opinion. Like, why do you think that they thought this would work? I would assume the threshold for this is so high that it was very unlikely they'd pull it off. Yes, I believe they live in a small world. Being government officials, they control that small world. The police department is inside of the courthouse. They all meet up at the snack machine and laugh, and they got ongoing relationships with each other. They are accustomed to bullying the civilians of Adams County. They are accustomed to influencing the jury with intimidation or just the whole—the police are always right every single time under every single circumstance. They are accustomed to those types of people. So they figured that they could violate me and then sue me and then win. I think they're very small, and they're accustomed to getting their way in that little county. All right, so when the trial concluded, I've seen photos of you coming out. You're resplendent. You're wearing your American flag suit. I think maybe you even had a white coat, but you look like you're thrilled, you're happy. This is a victory for freedom of speech. What did they look like? Like, what was their reaction? Did you get to see the expression on their faces? You know what? There's a side of me that's a sport. And after basketball games, I was taught to shake people's hands. I know they didn't wanna shake my hand. I held the bathroom door open for their lawyer. He didn't say thank you or nothing, he whisked by me. And I picked up on the fact that he was a poor sport. And they're all poor sports. I couldn't be one like them. After I won, I didn't look at him. I bowed my head and I thanked God that he didn't let him take my money from me. I told God that I thought what I did was my best-case-scenario, financial, peaceful solution. And I didn't look at him. I didn't want to be that type of dude. And I know I should've. In the cardinal realm, to the average human being, I should have went like, "Ah, yeah, ah." But I know I come off as a dirty rapper and I don't come off as a gentleman and a sport, but I thought it would be unsportsmanlike to look at them and intimidate them. Yeah, to gloat. I think that that's a very honorable position. You got what you wanted, and don't—be the bigger man. I really like that. Yeah, they say, kick a man while he's down. Like, you know, like, I didn't, I wanted to be class. I try to be a classy person, whether people know it or believe it or not. Like, I try to be a classy guy. I try to be a gentleman. And I didn't think it was classy, sportsmanlike, or gentleman-like to, you know, to stare him down or to look at him and to, you know, do them like they would have done me. You know, I think they're unsportsmanlike, I think they're unclassy. So I didn't wanna match them to a third degree. Yes, sir. Well, can we go over some of the accusations you have? So like, they broke down your door, probably freaked your kids out, I believe they were there. They took money, but they didn't give all of it back. These are very serious things. Makes total sense that you'd want restitution and an apology. I was trying to figure out who were the people walking around in my house. So with my camera, I zoomed in on their faces and I took snapshots. I posted the snapshots on the internet, and people began telling me who those people were. When I posted Brian Newland's face, his brother, William Newland, is a convicted pedophile that got fired from the Peebles Police Department. It's a town, it's in Adams County also. It's a town, there's all, there's like four or five towns in Adams County. It's four or five little towns. So, you know, his brother is a pedophile, convicted, registered sex offender. So you know all that stuff, you know, birds of a feather flock together, the apple don't fall far from the tree, you know. Here again I'm just trying to figure out what kind of man is walking around in my house, stealing my money, reading my bank statements. I watched your album on YouTube and I just, you know, saw bits and pieces. And so I had sort of thought it was just you're making fun of him in general. He looked like a pedo or something like that. Everytime, it would come up, the judge would magically jump in the conversation and save him. If you go back and watch the court footage, you know, every time my attorney is about to say, "Hey, you don't know your brother's a pedophile? You know, oh, this," that, the judge would jump in and save him, and he'd sit there with that little smirk on his face. You talk about them being crooked cops multiple times. I read that they took $4,000 from you, they returned $3,600. Is it the $400 that were missing, that's why you call them crooked, or is there more to it? There's more to it now. You know, it hit me, it didn't hit me till I was on the stand, that I actually had $5,000 in my pocket and I never spent none of that money because I forgot it was in there. You see what I'm saying? Like, when they handed it to me at the Red Rocks, I took it and I put it in my pockets. I got drunk and had a good time and I forgot it was there. Now they reported $4,600. They said they found $4,600, right? Then they said $400 from the $4,600 came up missing. Are you still with me? Yes, so they, that's, you have $5,000. I got $5,000. $4,600 and they lost an additional $400. So there's $800 you're out. $800. They actually stole $800. I thought it was $400 this whole time. They admitted to coming up missing $400, but I remembered I had $5,000 in my pocket. So now I'm knowing not only did he take the $400 that the sheriff said they had, he took that invisible $400 that I had in my pocket, because I had, it was $5,000. So they said they got $4,600. They didn't pay me $4,600 at Red Rocks. They paid me $5,000. So before he sealed the bag, he took $400. And then he must've took $800 and wrote $46 on there because $400 was missing from what they said they had. And I know I got $5,000, so I'ma put another $400 on top of the $400 that they didn't know was missing and all that. So it was actually $800 he took from me. Just to, yes, sir. Yeah, yeah, no, no… No, no. At the end of my investigation, that's what I realized he took… Wait, dumb question. If they lose 400—ok, if I like got ahold of your wallet or something, right? And I called you and I was like, "Hey, Afroman, I got your wallet. Oh, I lost $20." I would give you $20 of my dollars to make up. It's not like the bills themselves are nostalgic. It is the subtotal, right? So do they just literally say, "We lost the 400, we can't do anything about it"? No, they're just tapping their—they're just playing dumb. They're just looking up in the air, acting like I don't exist. They still owe me right now. They haven't given me my $400 yet. And the judge, Jackass Jonathan, he's making me pay half of the court costs. Can he hold you in contempt of court for calling him a jackass, or is that just when you're in court that they can do that? Contempt of court? I have freedom of speech. I'm allowed to ridicule and criticize public officials. Makes sense to me. I mean, like, that is kind of the point of your case, right? Like, this is all on First Amendment grounds from your perspective and from the case that your attorney pushed, yeah? Yes. We the people, the government is for the people, by the people. The people supervise the government. I am the government supervisor. I have the right to criticize, critique my government, my employees. Right, yeah. Do you think this is going to be emboldening for people in terms of free speech in general? Like, do you think that this is gonna have positive impact beyond your own life? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But, you know, it's nothing that I gave the people. It was something that the Founding Fathers of America gave the people hundreds of years ago. I just microwaved it and reinstated it. You know what I mean? Just reminded people about it. You know what I'm saying? Is there anything about your trial that people don't understand? Like, everybody's celebrating this, everybody loves you, you've become like a national icon and everybody loves Afroman, but we're all getting bits and pieces. Is there some part of the story that we're not getting correct that you want to set straight? I don't think so. I think everybody get it. The police raided my house. Didn't find nothing, was sarcastic, ornery, and unapologetic about the damages they did. I did the most peaceful, positive thing I could do, made songs about them to raise money for the damages they caused. They had the arrogance and the audacity to try to sue me. I told them that I had freedom of speech. They lost. And you won, as did the First Amendment… Beautiful American story. Beautiful American story! 100 percent. Can I ask you a couple of questions about the album, like not the trial itself? Yes, sir. So I went through the album in preparation for this. It looks to me like you had two parts to it. There was probably, you were working on something prior to getting your house broken into and all of that. And then you had the other stuff. So like "Sign My Titties," "Wet Tight Energy," and "H.A.D.," "Hard Ass Dick." I watched that and I'm like, are there really ladies hanging around your house all the time, or is that just a persona thing? A little bit of both, you know what I'm saying? Sometimes girls, so I got some girlfriends, sometimes they come over, you know what I'm saying? And then sometimes there's nobody at my house. Are you married? I am not. Oh, ok. Oh, so you can have ladies just come hang out with you and have that kind of cool, hot person party lifestyle. Yes, sir. Ok. All right. Did you run for president in 2024? Did I miss that? Like you… Yes, yes, yes, 20-20 Fro. My slogan was "Weed Shall Overcome." My main platform was medical cannabis, and I wanted to get it recreational in all 50 states in America. I think that that would be a very winning strategy. Are you going to run again next time? I'm getting some good vibes. I don't know. I'ma, you know, I'm gonna talk to everybody. If America—if I can help my country and America feels like I can help my country, I'll step up and do the best I can. I don't know. I gotta, you know, I'm going to talk to some more people and see if I could help, you know? I think you should, man. Easiest to get on the ballot, Louisiana. If you wanted to go down there, you could do that. Here's what I'm thinking: You can reconstitute the Whig Party, like that is name recognition, it kind of fits in with the Afro, and get on ballot. Or if you ran in Maine, if you got on the ballot up there, they do i…

Full show notes at the publisher

How the Iran War Could Backfire Apr 15, 2026

Show notes

Today's guest is Stimson Center Senior Fellow Emma Ashford, a foreign policy analyst who has written widely on post–Cold War strategy, the Middle East, and the limits of American power. An adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, a columnist at Foreign Policy, and a former Cato Institute staffer, Ashford is the author of First Among Equals: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World.

She talks with Nick Gillespie about the incoherence of President Donald Trump's Iran strategy and the surprising and disturbingly ineffective continuity of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Previous appearance:

"Did Bombing Iran Make America Safer?" June 24, 2025

0:00—What is the U.S. objective for war in Iran?

5:32—Is Vice President J.D. Vance an anti-interventionist?

7:21—Trump's foreign policy rhetoric and history

13:26—Is there a continuity in post–Cold War foreign policy?

19:56—Was President Joe Biden an outlier on foreign policy?

22:16—U.S. involvement in Ukraine

24:13—Are we sending messages to China and Russia through Iran?

30:05—Does Trump have a de-escalation strategy in Iran?

The post How the Iran War Could Backfire appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Rise of the Information State Apr 08, 2026

Show notes

This week, guest host Zach Weissmueller is joined by Jacob Siegel, a journalist and author of The Information State, a sweeping examination of how power has shifted in the digital age from traditional democratic institutions into a new system of governance shaped by technology, media, and elite coordination.

Siegel traces the emergence of what he calls the "information state," where control is exercised not primarily through laws or elected bodies but through digital infrastructure, platform moderation, and public-private partnerships between government agencies and tech companies. He argues that this system took shape in the aftermath of the war on terror, accelerated during the Obama era through the alignment of Silicon Valley and the political class, and expanded in response to populist movements under the banner of combating disinformation. Along the way, Siegel connects concepts like hybrid warfare, mass surveillance, and the "whole-of-society" approach to the way information is now managed domestically.

Weissmueller and Siegel discuss how these dynamics played out during Russiagate and the COVID-19 pandemic, why attempts at information control often backfire, and how the collapse of traditional media has given rise to a chaotic new information ecosystem. They also explore the limits of technocratic governance, the role of platforms like X in disrupting centralized control, and what the next phase of the information age might mean for democracy, expertise, and individual autonomy.

0:00—What is the information state?

10:11—Technocracy and the Obama administration

21:07—The "whole-of-society" approach

27:26—War and technocracies

37:32—Limitations of information control

50:41—Russiagate

1:02:39—Alternative media

1:12:18—Mitigating the effects of information state

Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:
https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/
https://reason.org/jobs/producer/

The post The Rise of the Information State appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Ro Khanna: Congress Has Surrendered on War Apr 06, 2026

Show notes

Today's guest is Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), a self-styled "progressive capitalist" who represents such major Silicon Valley cities as San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino in Congress but who also supported the independent Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders for president. He has shown an increasingly rare willingness to work across the aisle, cosponsored with the libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) a war powers resolution aimed at President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran. He also joined forces with the Massie last fall to push disclosure of the Epstein files. In this interview, Nick Gillespie talks with the five-term congressman about the need for Congress to reassert its control over the initiation of military force. They also discuss whether high taxes and regulations are why California was one of just five states to lose population last year. They argue the merits of California's proposed wealth tax that some say pushed Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, the founders of Google, and other ultra-wealthy people to leave the Golden State. They also discuss the role of government in spurring and regulating AI and other technologies, the meaning of the Epstein files, and whether the United States can redefine itself in a way that reduces polarization without reducing pluralism. 0:00–What is the biggest problem with the Iran War?3:00–Did Trump start the Iran War to distract from domestic policy?4:36–What should Congress do about the Iran War?6:59–What is progressive capitalism?9:10–Does Khanna support the proposed California wealth tax?12:23–Are taxes and regulations causing California's population loss?19:21–The role of environmental policy in California housing21:03–Do billionaires weaken democracy?24:19–The track record of wealth taxes25:50–Will federal spending ever be reduced?27:47–Artificial intelligence and impacts on the labor force33:09–Assessing the New Deal40:54–Is there a need for a national purpose?46:24–The next attorney general and the Epstein files51:19–What defines us as Americans? Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: Hello everybody. This is The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie, and my guest today is Ro Khanna. He's a representative, a Democrat from California, who represents Silicon Valley cities like San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino. He's known for working across the aisle with people like libertarian Republican Thomas Massie. They cosponsored legislation to force a vote on the Iran war, as well as pushing to release the Epstein files. And Rep. Khanna calls himself a progressive capitalist, and he's a big Bernie Sanders fan. We're going to talk about that and what we have as common ground and where there might be some issues about that. So, Ro Khanna, thank you for talking to Reason. Ro Khanna: Appreciate it. Thank you for having me on. Let's start with the Iran war. You've been outspoken against the Iran war. As I mentioned, you co-sponsored a War Powers Resolution, a call for a resolution about Iran, with Thomas Massie. What is the biggest problem you see with the Iran war as it's being prosecuted? It's both a moral and a strategic blunder. It's a strategic blunder for two reasons. First, we're not making America any safer. We have replaced Khamenei with his son, Khamenei Jr. Khamenei at least had a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Khamenei Jr. does not. If we replaced Khamenei Jr. by assassinating him, we would have the IRGC, the military, which is even more hard-line. They oppose the JCPOA. And at this point, Iran has leverage with the bombing in the Strait of Hormuz. When we stop bombing, which we should, along with Israel and Iran, we've actually given Iran more leverage in any deal that's going to come from it. So that's a… It's kind of amazing that somehow we start this war and then the Strait of Hormuz is gatekeepered in a way that it had never been before. Not going well. You said recently Trump should just declare victory and get out. Do you think realistically there is any chance of that? Yes, because he keeps going back and forth. I think Trump instinctively understands the American people don't want a long, drawn-out war. Unfortunately, today we had a plane shot down. One of the people was rescued. We're still waiting to see what happened to the second service member. We've seen 13 casualties already. Seven thousand of our troops are at risk. We've seen gas prices explode. Trump gets the risks, but he's got other people in his ear saying that he can somehow destroy the Iranian regime and bring about a new regime. And he's been, you know, made a terrible decision. But my hope is he can understand and recognize the longer we escalate, the more risk there is to the country and to his own legacy. You mentioned people whispering in his ear. Two kinds of questions related to that. Why do you think Trump started the Iran war when he did? If you look back at somebody like Bill Clinton, to take a Democratic president, he bombed Kenya and Afghanistan. He bombed Kosovo when domestic politics got very messy for him. And it was very uncomfortable to witness that. Trump seems to respond to—when something is going bad for him in one place, he starts something new. Do you think Trump started the Iran war to take the focus off domestic policy failings? It has taken the focus off of Epstein. I mean, the search results are down, but I don't believe that is the only reason. He, in my view, saw the Maduro capture and a more client leader coming there. I was opposed to that, but he saw that as a success and they thought, "Well, I can do this around the world." Of course, there've been three famous great American presidents, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR. People said, "Wow, they all won wars, so what are you going to do, Donald Trump, to have your military glory?" I mean, the State of the Union was all about the regalia of military achievement. So I believe that he's been talked into saying, "Well, you're going to be the one who gets rid of bad guys around the world." He thought it was simpler than it is, given what he did with Soleimani in his first term and Maduro, and has made a mistake of hubris. What can Congress do, or what should Congress do? This is something that is beyond partisanship. The president has been dictating foreign policy and when wars start and kind of when they stop for decades now. Is there anything that Congress can or should be doing that it is not? First, we should be showing up. I don't mean this rhetorically, but we're in one of the major wars that we've been in in many years. And the Congress is out for two weeks. Like, I'm not saying that members of Congress are having a vacation. Some of them are doing district work. Well, some of them are vacationing, right? We saw those horrific images of Lindsey Graham at Disney World, for instance. And Lindsey has been the biggest cheerleader of the war. But even if they're working in their districts or doing things, I mean, don't you think that when we're engaged in a war where Americans are dying and where the president is saying, "I want 400 billion more dollars," that we should be every day debating that from the House floor? That we should be voting on War Powers Resolutions? Is that a failure of Speaker Johnson, essentially? Yes, but he's not the only one. We've had these speakers, candidly, who've given up an assertion of our authority. One of the things that Massie and I, when we succeeded with the Epstein Transparency Act, is we were relentless. People could have said, "Oh, they're going to ignore a discharge petition. Oh, Donald Trump will ignore you. They'll never sign the law." But we said, "No, we're going to speak about this night and day and we're going to push it." If you have an executive branch, which is taking maximalist power when it comes to war and peace, and we've seen this obviously with Trump, but we've seen this, as you alluded to, with other presidents, Democrats and Republicans, and you have a Congress which is basically silent, then who's going to win that fight? Obviously the executive branch. We haven't seen Congress stand up and say, "No, we're going to push back" in a meaningful, assertive way, where then you really have a conflict between two branches. And that's why the Federalist Papers aren't working, is because we've got a pliant branch of government on war and peace, because many members of Congress are fine not having to deal with these complicated, controversial issues. But you guys, you've got a lot to do, right? You've got to get reelected. So, you know, we all have different priorities. Let's talk about an area that I find very fascinating about you. You call yourself a progressive capitalist. What do you mean by that? I mean that I believe in entrepreneurship, I believe in markets, but I don't believe in unfettered capital going wherever it wants. For too long, we've had capital basically dictating to the state with deregulation and allowing for the free flow of capital. Before we get to the progressive part of this equation, who are some of your favorite capitalists? Because I want to talk to you about kind of tax policy and your take on tariffs and things like that. But, you know, are there capitalists who are—you're like, "These are the people we need more of"? You know, who are your favorite businessmen or women heroes? Well, Bill Knudsen, he came in FDR's government and basically helped industrialize America to win World War II, off the top of my head. That's one person. But, you know, Warren Buffett is someone who has talked about having more fairness for billionaires and having economic development—I mean, there are other people. Andy Grove is someone who talked about…. Intel. Long-time head of Intel, yeah. You know, David Packard and Bill Hewlett were people who built HP, but had a sense of ethics, of contributing back to the… Are there any billionaires today who fit that bill for you, you know, a kind of Hewlett-Packard model, or are they all… I'm having a fireside chat with Jensen Huang of NVIDIA. I don't want to put him on a pedestal, not knowing all his views, but certainly he's, for example, said that, "Well, if I have to pay a tax, a billionaire tax, so be it." And he is really focused on how do we make sure that the economic development in this country is more even. I'm not saying he's a saint, but he's in a direction, I think, more of economic development and building an economy that works for everyone. So you've come out in favor of a billionaire tax, you know, generally, and you've worked to introduce things. You've said recently, if Bernie Sanders were 15 years younger, he'd be the next president of the United States… I believe that. Yeah, and that kind of encapsulates the progressive element of this. Let's talk about billionaire taxes. I have read kind of differing, or I have a surmise of your view, on the proposed ballot initiative in your home state of California for a one-time 5 percent wealth tax on billionaires. That would be retroactive. Do you support that initiative? I support the idea of a one-time 5 percent tax to pay for health care and to pay for child care. I've had issues which I'm hoping get clarified, which is that it should not be a tax on founders' voting shares and it should not tax illiquid assets of paper billionaires. It shouldn't be on unrealized gains, basically. Well, it could still be on a— I don't want to, you know, if you had public stock, for example, that still may be a tax on unrealized gains. But I'm talking about people who have totally illiquid assets and some startup that's valued at a billion dollars, but really haven't—could go down the other day. And— How do you feel about the retroactive nature of the tax? This seems also kind of, it's a little bit different than usual, that if it passes in California in the fall, it would tax all of 2026. Is that good constitutional lawmaking or is that problematic? Well, it's retroactive just to the first of the year. I think that was to disincentivize people leaving and exiting California. My view is that people who did it looked carefully at the law and thought that would be constitutional to do it within the year so people don't leave. But obviously, I assume people will challenge that. But I think at a federal level, it is much harder for folks to leave because we tax, as you know, by nationality, we don't tax by territory. Yeah, for a long time it was the U.S. and Libya were the only two regimes that did that, and now it's kind of just the U.S. So it's not a great club to be part of, Congressman. But so talking about people leaving California, billionaires leaving California, this is part of the problem, right? If you say, "Ok, we're going to start taxing billionaires," last fall Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, left California. Others did just over the threat of this. Are they wrong to leave California if you say, "You're a billionaire and we're just going to take more of your money because you can afford it?" Yes, because we live in a democratic society and 99.9 percent of Americans can't just get up and leave if their city council or state governments pass laws that they don't like. They say, "Yeah, I'm part of a democratic society and I'll work to elect someone else or I'll live with the laws that we pass." But California also last year was one of five states that actually lost people, and it started doing that for the first time in 2020, partly because of COVID deaths as well as people moving. But, you know, does tax and regulation policy in California, is that one of the reasons why California is losing people—not just, you know, Steven Spielberg? No. I'll tell you why. And I'm trying to give a fair critique and assessment of California. My district is producing 25 percent of the wealth of the country. We have $20 trillion in my district. It is the heart of the AI revolution. We're going to produce more wealth over the next five years than any place in human history. The argument that somehow California is having an exodus of wealth generation is just contradicted by… No, no, but it is having an exodus of people. It's working-class people, middle-class people. Yes. But that's not because our policies aren't good enough for entrepreneurship or our policies aren't enough for innovation or wealth generation. That's because we've had bad housing policy in California. We have not been building enough housing. We've had too much NIMBYism. And so the cost of housing is much higher than the cost of housing in other parts of the country. That's a genuine issue in California. We have had not sufficient investment in our public schools after Prop. 13 and have not had an education system that has delivered results like New Jersey or Massachusetts or other places and that's… New Jersey schools are not—I'm wearing a Rutgers T-shirt, I grew up in New Jersey—their schools are not delivering for anybody except for teachers and bureaucrats, I must say… But they're number one. Massachusetts and New Jersey are number one in student achievement… B…

Full show notes at the publisher

How Capitalism Lost the Working Class Apr 01, 2026

Show notes

Today's guest is the Niskanen Center's Brink Lindsey, whose connection to Reason magazine goes back decades and who for years worked at the Cato Institute.

His new book is called The Permanent Problem: The Uncertain Transition from Mass Plenty to Mass Flourishing, and it raises important questions about life in the 21st century. Thanks to capitalism, he argues, we've essentially conquered poverty, but are progress and growth slowing down? People in advanced economies are increasingly pessimistic about the future, populism is on the rise, and many social indicators are trending in a negative direction.

Nick Gillespie talks with him about how to restore economic and cultural dynamism, his intellectual journey, and what a brighter future might look like.

0:00—Introduction

0:56—Mass abundance and prosperity

6:20—The effects of globalization

12:05—Mass affluence and pessimism

15:01—Slowing rates of innovation

24:10—Capitalism and its cultural contradictions

31:06—Fears of conformism and elites

39:42—Declining fertility rates

48:52—Religion and community

59:08—Does Lindsey consider himself a libertarian?

Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:
https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/
https://reason.org/jobs/producer/

The post How Capitalism Lost the Working Class appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Taylor Lorenz: Is Social Media Responsible for Bad Parenting? Mar 27, 2026

Show notes

In a precedent-setting verdict this week, a Los Angeles jury held Meta and YouTube responsible for addicting a young woman to their services and exacerbating her mental health struggles. The jury recommended the two companies pay $6 million to the plaintiff, now 20, identified in court documents as Kaley or KMG. The verdict came a day after a New Mexico jury found that Meta harmed the mental health of children, failed to protect them from sexual predators, and violated state law.

In this special bonus episode of The Reason Interview, Nick Gillespie talks with tech journalist Taylor Lorenz, founder of User Mag, who covered the Los Angeles trial. She recounts testimony from Kaley's deposition describing physical and psychological abuse from her parents. Lorenz argues that Kaley's unstable home life was a more significant factor in her mental health issues than social media use. Kaley even used Instagram to complain about her mother, who at one point would communicate with her daughter only through the app.

Lorenz and Gillespie discuss rising cultural and political calls for regulation of social media, pending legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), and how Meta and other major players are simultaneously defending themselves in court while pursuing regulation that may benefit them at the expense of free speech.

Previous appearance:
"Taylor Lorenz Makes Sense of Online Culture for the Rest of Us," February 26, 2020

0:00—Observations from the trial

1:56—The plaintiff's mental health and history of abuse

6:34—Mark Zuckerberg's testimony

7:04—Is social media becoming the cultural scapegoat?

10:19—The impact of this verdict on setting legal precedents

13:15—KOSA

14:47—How sexual content drives regulation efforts

16:33—Are companies liable for not enforcing age verification?

17:56—What are the privacy threats with age verification?

19:05—Why more regulation stifles competition

21:48—Do younger generations value free speech?

Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:
https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/
https://reason.org/jobs/producer/

The post Taylor Lorenz: Is Social Media Responsible for Bad Parenting? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Adam Carolla: Why No One Under 30 Trusts Legacy Media Mar 25, 2026

Show notes

In a recent interview with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, veteran news anchor Katie Couric asked him whether he "had a Zoolander" problem, fretting that being "so ridiculously good looking" might make it hard for him to be taken seriously. That exchange set off today's guest, podcaster Adam Carolla, who saw in it a microcosm of much of what's wrong with contemporary media and politics. Couric's fawning betrays a clear political bias, he said, and it overlooks Newsom's longstanding incompetence as a governor who has overseen a decline in people and businesses since taking office in 2019. In a wide-ranging conversation with Nick Gillespie, the former construction worker and Comedy Central host lays into how legacy media has traded in its watchdog role for access and skepticism toward power for affirmation. Carolla talks about how the Golden State's regulatory dysfunction makes everything more expensive and time-consuming, squeezes tax-paying and law-abiding residents, and has created a place that puts "safetyism" and the status quo at the center of every policy decision. They also discuss the rise of independent journalism and podcasting—a field Carolla helped pioneer in the late aughts—and why, compared with President Joe Biden in 2024, President Donald Trump successfully appealed to people who wanted to build homes, businesses, and a future in the United States. 0:00—Softball interviews 4:41—Legacy media monocultures 9:53—Why Carolla started his own podcast network 11:35—Why are people leaving California? 16:24—Overregulation in California 25:33—The importance of meritocracy 28:39—How Carolla developed his work ethic 38:15—Why Carolla likes Trump 41:40—California high-speed rail 44:09—Is Carolla optimistic about the future? Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ Transcript This is an AI-generated, AI-edited transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: Adam Carolla, thanks for talking to Reason. Adam Carolla: My pleasure, Nick. Let's start this interview talking about Katie Couric. Recently, you went to town on her. She was interviewing Gavin Newsom, the wonderful, fresh-smelling governor of California, next president of the United States and maybe Canada. She was great. She was like, "Gavin, is your dick too big for porn?" She literally said, like, "You may have a Zoolander problem," but not meaning you might be so fucking stupid… Right. That you won't be able to find your way out of your car door, get out of your car to the election booth, but that you're too good looking for politics. Why did that set you off? OK, here's what I sort of realized with journalism. There's this sad tacit agreement, which is you can't ask tough questions or follow-up questions because then that person would never come back. Right? And so that's, you know, Gavin Newsom did my show 13 years ago, and he's never come because I asked follow-ups, you know, and… And you even had, I mean, that was not, it was a tough interview, but it was not a hostile one. No, it was not hostile at all. I just kept asking. And so people don't do it now because Katie wants to get Gavin again down the road after he announces he's running for president. But that's not journalism. Journalism is asking the questions. And so if everyone just did it at once, then they wouldn't have a choice because there'd be no friendly confines for them to go. If all journalists just started acting like journalists and we all did it at once, then they'd still have to come back to you. They just have to answer your questions. Katie Couric, in this case, is a kind of standing for the legacy media. What we're calling it. And I don't have anything against her personally. My feeling is, and here's my beef with her. She is the legacy media and all these people are, you know, they're all, you know, Don Lemon is right down the middle of everything. As soon as they get off the reservation they're all hard leftists, which is who they were the whole time. So it's sort of like you're sitting around going, "I'm not vegan, I'm not vegan, I'm not vegan." And as soon as you quit your job, "Meat is murder." Right? Well, that's how you were thinking the whole time. So now I don't really believe that you were doing a sort of fair and balanced… Do you think…was Katie Couric's famously televised colonoscopy, was that part of a left-wing agenda for America? That was a rear wing agenda. Who else in the media do you, either people who have recently left or are currently there that you are like, "Come on, just be honest for a minute." Any time somebody interviews Gavin Newsom or Barack Obama and I see the hard deep leg cross of the person which is inviting them in going, "No tough questions from this fella, I got a deep leg," it's the deep leg crossers that I never trust. If you watch Obama and if you watch Newsom, Newsom gets into positions that they don't get into in hot yoga. Getting those deep leg crosses then Obama does the same, but the guys interviewing them do the same too. Whereas Trump makes a diamond with his thumb and forefinger that accentuates his nutsack It's something from like a 1970s pick-up manual or something. Right, right. He learned that. I just want people…I don't want there to be safe places to go to be interviewed, you know what I mean? Like I want all interviewers to do their job. And that's particularly with politicians, but also with celebrities or anybody. You know, look, I don't care, if you're a celebrity, who you're having an affair with. That's not policy. But you're interviewing a politician to find out what their policy is and so they come on your show and then you ask what their favorite ice cream is. And then there's also a trait that bothers the hell out of me where they… at some point, everyone caught on to these people, right? So they go, "You didn't even ask them about the border. You didn't even ask about the border." So they go, "OK, so they caught on." So they go, "And Mr. Biden, what about the border?" And he goes, "The border's secure", and they go, "OK. Now, I hear you have a birthday coming up." And it's like, "I asked about the border." Yeah, you asked about the border. He gave a bullshit answer, and you left it. You let it go. Do you feel like more right-coded media outlets, something like Fox News or One America News Network, stuff like that, do they do the same thing? Do they kind of shield their people? I think everybody does it to an extent, you know, like, OK, this is your team and the coach of your team is coming on for an interview. But I feel like the right still asks, you know, "It's fourth and seven and you're on your own 40 and you went for it, Coach. I mean, you didn't think about punting." And I'll tell you why I know this and I think this is true or I think this is proof of being intellectually honest. I said to Tucker Carlson once, several years ago, I said, "Why don't you break off and form your own media company, bringing in all the people from the right, all the conservative people to be under the umbrella — under your umbrella." And he said, "None of them get along." And I said, "What do you mean?" He goes, "They all disagree with each other." And I was like, you go to CNN, COVID comes out, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, they know everything. They're all on the same page. No one at CNN or MSNBC went, "Well, hold on a second. Wet market? I don't think so. Maybe it came from a lab. Come on, use your brain." No, they were all on the same page, But amongst the right, Ben Shapiro feuding with— Candace Owens Tucker Carlson. Everyone's going at it. And you can say, "He's right, she's right. They're wrong." But they're intellectually being honest. Let's say they're being honest. I'm not sure that Candace Owens is being intellectual. Yeah, I don't know about intellectually. Yeah, and I'm not going to vouch for Candace Owens. But what I'm saying is, they did not get their talking points because they're going at it in five different directions on everything from vaccines to Iran. The rapture versus Jews versus Christians. They're all over the place, right. So at least, here's my thing. I at least believe they believe what they're saying. There are really popular and far-reaching outlets or things that have been created like the Daily Wire, you know, what Ben Shapiro has done, and obviously there's a range of opinions. Do you feel like that's a good solution to kind of legacy media monocultures? Is it enough? And obviously your whole career has kind of been moving out of what was legacy media, or kind of like mainstream entertainment to running your own empire. Is it enough to counter the media? I think it's, all right, let's look at it this way. In 1972, the big three American auto manufacturers had 85 percent of the market. And then someone goes, "These Japanese cars, is that enough?" It's like, well, not enough in 1972, it was 12 percent. But fast forward to 1980. And it's starting to add up a little and then smash cut to 2020. And Big Three are trying to catch up to the Japanese imports. So it's like if you went back pre-COVID, you'd kind of go, "Hmm." But after COVID, with the rise of a lot of podcasts and these independent networks and things like that, it's there. And it's going to…my son's 19, he doesn't watch CNN or TV… He doesn't even watch cable, right? I mean, it's just something might come on a TV, but more likely it's a phone or a computer screen, right? You're right, right, they talk about Joe Rogan or this comedian or that comedian and you know so… Which is kind of fascinating, we're about the same age and it is like the idea that you're not even talking about cable anymore, it's just like this stuff shows up in my hand and I know who I trust and not. Yeah, I know who I trust. I trust this guy, I trust that guy, I don't trust that guy. I'm harking back on a weird conversation. I could probably date it about 10-years-ago. I moved into a house and the house didn't have a landline working or something. And I was saying to my assistant, "We gotta get the landline, we gotta get the phone working." And he's like, "What do you need a land line?" I said, "What you mean? You need a phone. How are you not going to have a phone?" He's like, "Well, you could use your cell phone." I'm like, "Yeah, for some stuff. But you need a landline. Don't be stupid. Call the phone company. Arrange it, whatever. And wait for the guy to show up in a van." And it's like I look back on that and it's like, oh my gosh, he was 100 percent right. He was 26 at the time saying, "Hey, old man." You started your, what has become a podcast empire, in like 2008-2009? Yes. What prompted you to do that because I mean you actually were one of the first people, not necessarily to podcast per se, but to kind of create this—"OK, this is a system or a kind of related shows that are going to go big"—I mean, where did that come from? I've been kicking around in this system for a long time and had a radio background and kind of understood what that world was. Also I had a radio job and I lost my radio job and I was kind of at this crossroads where I had like nine or 10 months left on my contract, so I was sort of getting paid to stay home. Were you allowed? I mean, you couldn't appear on other networks, but were you allowed to? Well, I could appear, but I couldn't. But couldn't host, yeah. I mean, I couldn't take another job, or I could take another job, I'd stopped being paid when I took the other job. But could you podcast and that's…? Yeah. Really? That's fascinating. Well, yeah, because who knew and who cared? I don't know if they didn't know what a podcar was, you know, "Like go to your den and have fun with your friends." Yeah, like then it was what the Big Three did with Datsun, you know what I mean? Like little pea shooters. Who wants that Jap shit? "You know, let's buy that shit." You know what I mean? So they were sort of that way. But, you know, they're that way about everything. So, let's go back to Katie Couric for a second. What should she have asked Gavin Newsom? Like what would — you interviewed him years ago on, you know, on a wide variety of issues, including how difficult it is to just do anything in California, business-wise, housing-wise but also about, marijuana legalization. What should she have been asking? It's not just that the legacy media is kind of soft on people, but what are the questions they need to be asking somebody like Newsom? Well there's a kind of a bottom line which is, "People are leaving California, why?" And then he'd go, "We have the fourth largest economy" and they go, "OK, well then there's a perception about California, and maybe they're all wrong, but they're still packing up U-Hauls and leaving. So what is it that they think is going on even if… You're telling me it's the greatest place in the world, we've never been better, fine." There goes another U-Haul for Texas. "Venture a guess as to why they're leaving," and then you know it's like, "we got a shortage on housing." Or OK, I'll give you what I would've said to him, "Gas is $5.50 a gallon, it's $3.50 everywhere else, right? Why is that?" "Exxon is is gouging us." "OK why are they just gouging California? Why aren't they gouging Nevada? Gouge the whole nation Exxon and make good money. Why just here? Do you think that's reasonable that they would just gouge California?" What about something like the housing issue, which is coming up everywhere, but especially in places like California and New York. Talk a bit about one of your ongoing kind of complaints about California, a place you love, obviously, because you're staying here. How does the state just artificially make it so difficult to build and maintain housing? It's so heavily regulated that it's stifling. And so when you make something so difficult that it's not practical to comply, then people don't do it, whether it's fast food franchise or it's building a home. I'll give you a perfect example. California would love everyone to put solar panels on their house, and we'd be green, and we're on the vanguard of green, let's just say. So many years ago, probably 20 years ago or a little bit more, I bought a big sprawling place on top of Lake Hollywood, a big Spanish place. And it was in very bad shape, and I was going to do a huge renovation on it. And there was space on one of the roofs and one part of the house that was big and broad and flat and I said, "I want solar panels on this roof," so like I'm not an environmentalist but fine if I can generate kilowatts from the sun and a little less out of my pocket, a little less coal burning, then good I'll do it. So I started to talk to some solar guys and…

Full show notes at the publisher

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie

Previous appearance:

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected