We're back with another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily de Shinskey,
culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the
show at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit fdr LST.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and of course to
the premium version of our website as well. Today we are joined once again
by Matt Walsh, who is obviously the host of The Matt Walsh Show over
at the Daily Wire, but also the host of a new television show called
Judged by Matt Walsh. It premieres, it drops on Tuesdays at eight.
It's streaming everywhere now. It's available on the Daily Wire Plus, it's available
on x It's available on YouTube. Matt, thanks for stopping by the show.
Hey, thanks for having me. All right, so tell us about
Judged by Matt Walsh. I actually thought that was the name of the Matt
wall Show day for years now, it's just been Judged by Matt Walsh.
Well, that exactly is that's the that's the whole tie in. I mean,
that's why the show exists. It's it's sort of I'm always accused of
being judgmental, so we figured we might as well put that to use.
I don't know if people normally mean it as a compliment. They probably don't,
but we decided to just go with it. And uh, and so
you know, the show means that I am as i've as I have now
announced myself. I am, at least in my own eyes, America's foremost
legal authority and expert. And I do have It's I do have actual legal
authority in these cases. These are real cases, and I have, you
know, contractual legal authority. It's it's very limited. I'll admit it's much
more limited than I than I would prefer, but I do have the ability
to settle these disputes that are that are broad before me. Are you more
of a judge Judy or a judge Joe Brown or this is just a totally
this is just judged by Matt Walsh. You couldn't Matt Walsh can't be compared
to Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown, because it's your your own thing.
Yeah, I think I would say on my own thing, you know,
because those other judges they're they're fine, they have their nice little shows,
but you know, they have things like they have things like legal quote unquote
legal experience, They have things like quote unquote law degrees and so forth.
I have none of that. I have I have none of that whatsoever.
And so and I like to think that that that prepares me even more to
settle these cases. Because the other thing, too, is that we are
we are dealing with cases that would never be allowed in a real courtroom,
but I think should be, you know. And so that's what that's why
the show exists. That's one of our it's kind of one of our marching
orders that we've imposed on ourselves is that we don't we don't want any case
that you might actually find in a real small claims court. And so that's
that's one of the things that Census part I think, you know, you
guys were really pioneers in the space of video podcasts, but now you're actually
I mean, this is a full blown television show. What's that like?
Is it is it's similar podcasting? I imagine it's a totally different animal.
It don't feel like it's all the different animal. I mean, this is
it is? It is new for the Daily Wire. I mean, obviously
we've we've we've put out pieces of entertainment in the past, and and uh,
this is a kind of the marker we threw down as a company years
ago. We wanted to get into the entertainment space, and we have.
Obviously, we put out films, we put out different things. Uh,
plenty of podcasts and audio, you know audio, uh, content and that
sort of thing. We have a we have our first animated series that's coming
out in May. But this was our first foray into like, you know,
a a an actual television show, kind of a traditional genre. It's
our own spin on it. But obviously the core genre we didn't We didn't
invent that. It's been around for a long time and this is our first
foray into that. And I personally enjoyed it quite a bit. It's I
found it to be. It was a lot of fun, a lot of
fun to do. So I'm happy that the audience seems to like it because
I'd like to keep doing it. And how many episodes did you guys tape
we take? I think we ended up with ten, thanks, I should
know that I've got a lot of episodes. Ten Yeah, we ended up
with ten or eleven episodes, I believe, But we've kind of break it.
That's two cases per episodes. We did a bunch of cases. Do
you have a favorite one that you could tease? Favorite one that I could
tease? You know, It's it's lame to say that I like them all.
Well, one of my favorites is one that already came out that if
you haven't watched the show yet, you go to Daily wire dot com,
become a subscriber, you can watch it. We had a case of a
and this was I think in our second episode. It was a case of
an uncle that whose niece had was had a card to get medicinal marijuana,
and he asked his niece to go use her card to get him some marijuana
recreationally and so that he could try because he never tried it before. And
so this is what kind of a responsible uncle this man is. And on
the way home from purchasing the medicine of she ended up she ended up giving
it all to her friends and they smoked it all. And then she now
he was suing her to basically get his drug money back. So he came
face to face with you in a small claim scourt on television with me,
as you know, thinking that i'd be simple. I mean, it's one
of those cases like it would seem I'd be so unsympathetic to this guy just
based on everything that we know that you must think, well, he must
have some great case you must have. And I'm sitting there waiting, like,
what is you must have some great argument if you would dare come before
me with this case of all things. And I not to spoil it,
but he didn't have a great argument, but it was It was funny though
to hear him try anyway, Does Matt Walsh have a soft spot that comes
out in any of these episodes? Because right there, I mean it seemed
like you were getting close to maybe having a soft spot for this particular man,
but no soft spot at all for that guy whatsoever? You know,
I wouldn't know. There's no soft spot, there's no there's no emotion at
all. I don't. I don't experience human emotion, as everyone knows.
I do try to well, I want if a soft spot, But I
do find doing this show in some of these cases that there's the kind of
dad, there's the dad part of me that comes out sometimes, especially when
it's younger people in there and their lives are falling apart and all of that,
I can't help. I can't stop myself from giving the dad lecture.
And having six kids, you know, I give dad lectures all the time.
I like to think it's one of my specialties. I don't know how
my own kids feel about it, but so I that that comes out quite
a bit. I don't know if I call it a soft spot, but
I do. You know, I am trying to kind of guide these wayward
souls as best I can. It's just such an interesting concept because, and
I think back to the Judge Judies or the Judge Mathis or all of those
types of shows, there's this weird, like almost liminal space between the law
and just what is being a normal human being. And that's part of what
we're losing in our culture right now, is just this like shared consensus on
what good behavior is. Like people listening to their iPad are giving their kids
iPads without headphones, and you're like ad the DMV and you just hear like
bluey blaring through the drab corridors. I feel like that's actually part of why
this concept. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. This is kind
of like a leading sort of question, but it seems like that's why this
is such a ripe concept right now, at ripe time for this concept,
because people like genuinely need to be told stop it. That's not normal and
it is not being a decent human being. Cut it out. Yeah,
I think that's exactly right. That's a great pitch. That's actually a better
pitch than anything I've said so far, or anything that I've said in any
interview about this show. So I'm going to want to steal that. But
that's exactly right. I mean, and I joke about on my own show
all the time, quote unquote joke half joke about all the very I'm coming
up with new laws that I think should be passed, like every day on
the show. But it does kind of speak to this that there are a
whole lot of things that you can do legally in society, but you shouldn't
do because they're anti social and wrong and decent and all these things. And
we've kind of lost we've lost sight of that whole category because that's people's response.
Like anytime you if you observe any kind of behavior and you say,
well, that's wrong. People shouldn't don't act that way. The response from
you know, the Internet in the peanut gallery is always well, but people
have people can act that way. They have the right to act that way
if they want to. But yeah, they might have the right to,
but you still shouldn't. Like, yes, you can, but you shouldn't
do it even though you can. And that that connection seems to be lost
on a lot of people for whatever reason. You know, just as you
were saying that, it reminds me in a really weird way of the twenty
twelve Republican autopsy, at which you had all of these sort of like big
brains in DC come together and say, you know, the Republican Party,
the conservative movement, can't you know, infringe on people's the American people sort
of libertarian sensibilities. You know, this is the don't tread on me,
let me do what I want to do. I won't let you, and
I'll let you do what you want to do. That's the sort of American
ethos. And we're just going to be non judgmental. And then here's one
of the most popular people in conservative media, one of the most popular people
in podcasting period, just coming out of the show called Judged, and I
really feel like that speaks to again people realizing that there have to be some
lines after even like on such a high political level, there was this movement
away from judgment The conservative movement, you remember this ten years ago was sort
of like we're not going to be judgmental, We're just going to be open
to everything. And it just sort of it flipped quickly. Yeah, that's
as you say, that's the libertarian that's back when conservatism had a much more
prominent libertarian streak. And you hear. I mean, the big slogan for
people that still hang on to that point of view is when it comes to
laws anyway, is that you can't legislate morality. And used to hear that
a lot more than you hear now, but you still hear it more often
than I'd like. And my point to that always is like, of course,
of course you can legislate morality. And every single law that's ever been
passed anywhere in the world by any government ever is is an effort to legislate
morality in a sense in that it's all laws are based in some kind of
moral code, some sort of moral sense, and if anything is made illegal,
the fundamental reason why it's made illegal is that it's wrong to do.
Now, that doesn't mean that everything that's wrong will be made illegal, but
it does mean that everything that's illegal should be wrong. Like we shouldn't have
anything that's right that's made illegal. Like why is it? Why is it
illegal? Why is a murder illegal? Well, you could say, because
you're harming another person, Well, why shouldn't harm another person? Eventually,
very quickly you get to, well, because it's wrong, it's evil,
that's why you shouldn't do it. And so so every law does that.
Then once we can establish that, then we could get into like, okay,
well, yeah, every law is quote unquote legislating more. But in
what circumstances should we legislate morality and what kinds of law should we pass to
that effect? Like, that's a more interesting conversation once we've gotten past,
you know, the broader conversation. Yeah, I was talking to somebody about
campus protests over the weekend and sort of the way that conservative students have been
treated in the last ten years versus students just in the last couple of weeks.
And it makes me think, you know, this person I was talking
to sort of not been super sympathetic to the new right and sort of seizing
laws and using them for a correct morality when the laws maybe shouldn't exist in
the first place. So the regulation, the campus regulation shouldn't exist in the
first place, and you should have full free speech in this you know,
school or whatever. But it's like free speech has always existed from the envision,
the vision of the founding fathers for the sake of bettering the community.
So there's a difference between outright bigotry and questioning authority. There's a difference between
saying, maybe our policy about trans bathrooms is wrong and all Jews should die.
Like the music that was playing, I think that was at Harvard.
So in a sense, it's like we all kind of know that we need
some you know that that culture is also downstream of politics. Politics is downstream
of culture, and culture is downstam of politics. But we got really uncomfortable
with that for a while, and there's still some people that are deeply uncomfortable
with it because they've seen, for example, like the censorship of the Biden
administration come down on Federalists and Daily Wire, like we have a joint lawsuit
right now going on over that exact issue. It's just it's not so much
that these concepts are bad, just that they're misdirected in horrible like communist ways,
right now, Yeah, I think that that we just like we struggle
with, you know, famously with the definitions of many basic concepts and words,
when when you get into more abstract concepts than the struggle is even is
even deeper. And so a big part of the problem is that, you
know, every every debate in this country always comes down to competing claims of
rights and freedoms. But then, as it's kind of my move, like,
I like to ask people what does that mean and what is and if
you ask most people when they when they say, oh I have a right,
I have a right to this or that or this infringes on my rights.
If you're asking what do you mean right? What does it? What
does that mean? Human right? What is that? Where does that come
from? Why does that matter? Why should I care? Why should I
care about your rights? Is? Why should it matter to me? Why
should it matter to anybody? These are really basic questions that most people,
I think they they wouldn't be able to answer that, you know, this
is kind of as far as they can go. They can talk about their
rights, they can talk about freedom, they recognize vaguely that these are sort
of good things, but they can't go deeper than that. And then you
know a lot of this goes back to the education system and all that.
And that's why conversations about free free speech, what is free speech, what
does it cover? What doesn't it cover? They're almost hopeless because you know,
we haven't even agreed on It's like what does free mean, what does
that mean? And what does that matter? And then there's also the whole
other thing about what what what counts as valid speech and what doesn't. And
that's that's what makes it makes it so difficult when when in reality, I
think most of the time, now there's always gray areas, but I think
most of the time it shouldn't be that confusing, like what kind of speech
should be allowed and what shouldn't. And even when it comes to these campus
protests, like you're pointing out, but some of what we're seeing here has
nothing to do with speech. If they're setting up in campments and they're setting
up like refugee homeless encampments in the middle of the lawn, you can't do
that. That's against the rules. I mean, that's and and no one
is allowed to do that. You can't just start camping. I wouldn't be
able to go to some campus and camp out. They wouldn't let me do
that. Yeah, they would not like that. No, they wouldn't like
that at all. They would I mean, they wouldn't let me even stand
on the grass and hold a sign in a lot of these places, let
alone set up in a campment. So that shouldn't be allowed. If you're
if you're if you're explicitly trying to incite violence, you're calling for violence against
a certain group people, obviously that shouldn't be allowed. If you're calling for
the death of people, obviously that shouldn't be allowed. And if we disagree
on that, like if we just cut that stuff out, then what we'd
be left with. I think most people would be okay with right and would
be willing to call would be willing to sort of consider that to be under
the umbrella of free speech. Don't ever let anyone tell you that having a
national debt isn't a problem. The Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. What portion of your dollar that you sent
to Uncle Sam is just paying down our national debt? Forty percent, forty
cents of every dollar is just interest on our spending. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.
Check out the Watchout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify
or wherever you get your podcasts. Right. But that's like such a good
example of a fundamental thing we just don't agree on anymore. Another one is
marriage, and you've been super outspoken on this, Like we used to have
the shared consensus on a limiting principles that marriage is about child rearing and their
exceptions, but the primary, the primary sort of benefit of marriage just to
or the primary purpose of marriage is to you know, raise children and start
families, and you know, have citizenship through that, and you practice your
religion through that and et cetera. You can go on down the line.
But we don't agree on that anymore. And now you're having these profiles on
polyamory everywhere because once we discarded with the limiting principle, you're just careening down
the slippery slope. Yeah, And I would even say that we talk about
that as a slippery slope, and I think that's I think that's right.
But what we should realize is that the image of a slope is a little
bit misleading because that gives you it's almost like I wish it was just a
slope, because at least a slope is kind of linear and it makes sense,
and there's a logical progression. You kind of know what coming next,
might give you a better chance of stopping it. But what's happened with a
lot of these things, and marriage is a perfect example that we went right
to really the most extreme thing, which is same sex marriage, the idea
that people of the same sex can get married where there's fundamentally, inherently no
chance of a family being born naturally from that union. So we went all
the way there a lot of this other stuff like polyamorily, polyamory, polygamy,
that's a little I would say, that's further up the slope, like
that, if we were going liear in a linear fashion, then we should
have done that first, because that's a less extreme variation of what marriage is
supposed to be than the same sex you know, But we went all the
way to that, and now we're kind of circling back and covering the bases
that we skipped. It's sort of the same thing with you know, gender,
people say, well, we do transgender, So the next thing on
the silppery slope is transracial. Let's say, well, it's like, no,
that's that's actually less extreme. That's by all rights, we that should
be allowed if we're if we're if we're going to accept transgender, we should
allow transracial because that's a less extreme version of this thing. We went right
to the most extreme iteration of the trans idea, skipping over a lot of
the things that are less extreme than that. Why do you think that is?
Is it the moral relativity? Just sort of our human instincts are going
to take us, our simple instincts are going to take us to the most
extreme direction because that's what we crave. I mean, why did we go
from zero to sixty so fast? I think it's partly what you just said.
It's also it's also just a matter of who has a lobbying you know,
who has an actual lobbying group behind them trying to push this, and
there is no there's no real group or voice for transracial right now. I
think eventually, eventually they probably will be, but there isn't and so they
were kind of skipped saying for polygamy, you know, there's not there just
hasn't been. There was no real voice in the culture pushing that specifically.
I think we're really starting to see that now. I think in the next
few years that's going to be, you know, the left is really going
to explicitly embrace that. But they hadn't, so I think that's a big
part of it too. Did some of this happen because we stopped judging people?
I mean it's sort of a chicken or egg thing where it's like we
people were going to such links that we just stopped judging them, but or
that we decided we had to, you know, drop judgment. But in
a sense, it seems like we dropped the judgment first, Like Christopher lash
was writing about this in Culture of Narcissism, and I think that was like
the early eighties, there was this movement to maybe it is moral relativity,
like what do you think it is? Did we stop judging people and therefore
we just dropped the pretense and said, well, we can't judge people anymore,
because we're just accommodating any direction that you want to go in, whether
it's you know, full women having you know, no children, dedicating their
tilesh their careers, never getting married, and then you know, being unhappy.
But you can't judge it because that's somebody's choice. It seems to me
like some of that stuff happened a long time before we got to the point
where we just like discarded with the entire pretense. Yeah, I think it
was the embracing of tolerance as a as a cardinal virtue is perhaps the highest
of all virtues is tolerance, and that's that's something that's you know, I
can remember back when I was a kid in the nineties, it was tolerance
was being preached about in that way when when in reality, tolerance is not
a virtue at all. Tolerance is only tolerance is good depending on what you're
tolerating. You should tolerate tolerable things. But the thing is you don't need
to if it's tolerable. You don't have to help me tell people to tolerated
like of course they will. That's why it's tolerable. It's not like,
you know, a real virtue something like courage. We would never say,
well, courage is good in certain contexts. Courage is alway good. You
should always be courageous, you should always be loving. You know, you
should always be honest. Those are good in every context. But you know,
something is not a virtue if it's totally based contextual, you know,
which is what tolerance is. And I blame. Yeah, there's many different
factors that played into this, but I blame in large part, I blame
the churches for this. That allowed the churches started themselves treating tolerance like a
great virtue, talking about judgment as if it is an objectively evil thing,
as if Jesus in the Gospels had told us to never exercise judgment at all,
which is not. And all of the Bible verses that are often quoted
even in churches during sermons, I've heard it are being taken out of context.
Jesus never said don't exercise any kind of judgment at all. What he's
saying is judge, judge rightly, you know, to use to exercise proper
judgment, not no judgment at all, obviously, And what is your biblical
sort of in your own mind, your biblical guideposts or maybe balance injuries or
definition of proper judgment, especially since you know you do this every day through
the Mat Wall show and now you have an actual show called Judged. You
know it is there. There are people in this space that go wildly over
the line and will you know, be engaging all kinds of different things in
their personal life like this is like megachurch pastor trope at this point. But
for you, how do you maintain uh, this is sort of staying within
the lines of proper judgment? Well, I think you you it's first of
all, you want to judge people. And I hesitate to this a little
bit because our standards are so out of whack. But you want to judge
people according to the standards that you know that you would like people to judge
yourself. Now again that that doesn't work as well, because you have to
have proper standards for yourself. But the most important thing is that you are
as long as you're you know, you're focused on yourself first, your whole
holding yourself to a proper moral code, and then you hold other people to
the same. And also we recognize, you know, judge the sin,
not the sinner is not really in the Bible. That's not a quote in
the Bible. It's often quoted as if it is in scripture, but it's
not. But I think the sentiment is basically true, that we are judging
action. We can look at things that people are doing and saying those are
the wrong things. We can listen to what they're saying and say that's the
wrong thing to say. But we always have to remember is that we're not
gods. We can't actually see inside their soul so to to determine like their
own personal level of guilt. We can't do that as individuals. And I
think as long as you keep that in mind, then you're on the right
path. So I'm sort of notorious among my normal friends, a political friends,
because every time that they try to move in together before marriage, I
send them an article you wrote in like twenty twelve about why it is a
disaster and you are just begging for trouble if you move in before marriage.
And I really like this article because I think you did something very well in
it, which is judged very harshly, but in a way that is,
you know, communicating clearly that I'm doing this because it's in your best interest.
Can you talk just a little bit about striking the right balance. How
you think about that yourself, you're judging, but doing it out of love,
frankly for your fellow Americans, your fellow man. Yeah, it's tough
because you know, anytime you're passing a judgment, even if it's on an
action you're saying like moving in together, as you are passing a judgment in
a sence that you're saying that this is a wrong action. It's going to
be harmful to you and to your relationship in the long run and to your
souls. But anytime you do that, you're automatically going to be accused of
being a hypocrite, being holier than now, being cruel, being all of
these things. And it's sort of that doesn't do a certain extent for a
certain portion of the public. It doesn't matter how you frame it, doesn't
matter what you say, they're going to dismiss you that way. So you
just you kind of know that going in that's the way it is. But
I do think so people can always ignore whatever qualifications you offer, But it
is important to make clear all the same to anyone who has ears to listen,
that you're saying this not because you're personally annoyed or something, or because
you're mad that they're not doing what you want. You know, this is
not an ego trip. You are actually concerned for them and for their own
well being. That's what this is really about. You know. It's the
same. It's like this with any topic. It's like if we're talking about
going back to the trance topic for example. And and I've tried to be
very clear about this, and again people can always ignore it if they want
to, but I want people. I don't want people to fall into this
trap because I'm I really am worried about their well being and I know it's
going to make them miserable. I don't want people to be miserable and live
horrible lives. I don't want that for anybody. I don't want that for
society. I don't want this stuff to be promoted, whether it's transgenderism or
moving in together, any of these things. I don't want to be promoted
because I don't want my kids to fall into it. And that's important.
That's where also it's always odd to me when people say, when they're defending
any of these things, they always say, well, this doesn't affect you,
like what, why do you care so much it doesn't affect you.
The first answer is that usually whatever the thing is we're talking about, it
does affect me, and it's not hard for me to explain how it does.
But let's just say that it doesn't for a second. Well, so
you're saying I should only care about the things that affect me directly. That
isn't that the definition of selfishness? Like if I walk past a homeless guy
on the street and I don't care, and I say it doesn't affect me
like that is that is that how we're supposed to live, where if it
doesn't affect us, we don't care at all. I would have thought that,
you know, caring about something when it doesn't affect you is That's that's
what selflessness is. That's that's virtuous you're supposed to So really, when someone
says that, what I want to say is, well, thank you,
you're right, Like, it doesn't affect me that much, but I still
care because I actually care about other people other than myself. So if you
want to move in together before marriage, and I think it's going to harm
your relationship and it's going to increase your likely of divorce and all these things.
Yeah, it doesn't affect me like I could just say, hey,
I washed my hands of it. I don't care. But I do care
because I want you to be happy, you know. And obviously all of
these things do affect us because we live in the same country. But I
mean for the most part. Now, if we do a little bit of
a teaser of the show, Matt, I want to ask you to judge
someone, and of course this is out of compassion and only having their best
interest at heart. I want to just start with the good Governor of South
Dakota, Christinome, who has I don't want to say bragged, but written
enthusiastically about shooting your dog cricket fourteen months old, the puppy cricket and a
gravel pit after he chased some chickens and then sought to bite her. I
think they were on a hunt. Matt. I don't even want to try
to lead in one direction or the other on this. Christinoam comes before the
judge by Matt Walsh Small Claims Court, how do you judge Christinome? Well,
this is it's an interesting case because there are so many parties here that
I would love to that I think need to be judged that. I wouldn't
want it to be just her. I'd want to haul I want to haul
like everybody involved into the courtroom, and none of them. I don't have
kind words for any of them. But you can't catch a cricket though right
unfortunately, poor cricket is no longer with us. I can't. I can't
get her take on it, his or her or whatever. I think it
was a girl dog. I don't know why you name a girl dog cricket.
I think that sounds like a male name. It's a different get that's
a separate case, I guess. But anyway, I so Christy Dome.
I think first there's two things here. There's like the politics of it,
and then there's the actual thing itself, the act of killing the dog.
Just on the politics, this is one of the most bewildering unforced errors in
politics I think I've seen in my lifetime. Why would you volunteer this information
about yourself in a book? Knowing again, putting aside like whether it was
the right thing to do it, just just knowing how our culture and the
fact that we live in a culture where people worship their dogs, I mean
people people see their dogs as children, and so this is not the context
where people are going to be very you know, forgiving of that kind of
thing. I mean, I could have if I had been, if she
had told me, if she'd come to me and said, I got the
story that I'm gonna write, and I'm gonna put it in my book and
publish it. What do you think I was. No, Absolutely, do
not put that in the book if you want, if you want to tell
if the whole point here, which I guess was the point that she's trying
to communicate that she makes tough decisions and she's not afraid to make tough decisions.
Find any other, literally, any other example from your life other than
that, anything else that doesn't involve killing a dog. Would be better if
you killed an actual person, like if you killed your neighbor rather than read
than a dog, that would be better to put in your book. Politically,
in this environment than this. That's the worst thing you could confess to
in the minds of so many people in our culture, So politically it's incredibly
stupid. I don't know why she thought to do that, to put that
as a book, especially because she's so ambitious, and I think that's what
makes it. You know ten times dumbers that this is a woman who desperately
wants higher office exactly, is trying very hard. And that's that's the only
reason these books exist. Like this is if you have if you have ambitions
for national office, you put a book out. That's what every politician does.
Nobody reads the book, No one cares about the book. The book
sells twelve thousand copies in the first month, and then it disappears. Nobody
hears about it again. It only exists just to give you some legitimacy and
to get a little bit of to give you easy softball promotion for a few
weeks. That's the book exists. You don't put anything in the book that's
actually like interesting. You don't want people if your book, as a politician,
makes news, it's always a bad sign. You don't want it to
make news. So that was dumb. Now, as far as killing the
dog itself, I look, I do think that first of all, on
a farm, these kinds of things happen. I think many people are judging
this from their kind of suburban bubble. On farms, it's different. Dogs
have utility and if they no longer have a utility there or animals in general
have a utility, and if they never have no longer have utility, then
they're killed. That's the way it works on a farm. That's how we
all eat. Unless you're a vegetarian. You eat because animals are defenseless.
Animals are brought to the gravel pit or somewhere else and they're killed and you
eat them, and that's how it works. However, I do think that
in this case, the dog was fourteen months old. It sounds like it
had not been properly trained. From what I've heard from actual dog trainers and
people who train hunting dogs, they say takes longer than fourteen months to train
a So you know, you don't just give up on the dog after fourteen
months and kill it. That's not generally all these things have done, even
on a farm. So I think that, you know, I think she
made the wrong choice. I don't think that the dog should have been killed.
But then there's the whole other part of this, which is the public
and the public reaction today. Even though I agree that she shouldn't have killed
the dog, the fact that it's this level of outrage from all corners of
the political world it's way overblown. And then when you can when you when
you consider that there are politicians who have confessed publicly to killing their own children
and have not experienced even a fraction of the outrage that, to me is
is that's the sickest thing of all. That's much more sick than the killing
of the dog itself. It's the fact that for a lot of people in
our country, honest to God, they they think it's more outrageous for a
woman to kill her dog than to kill her own child. That is an
actual position that millions of people hold. I'm not making a straw man of
them, and I find that, to me is the thing I can't I
can't get past that, that, to me, is the real evil here.
It would actually be fascinating to ask someone like Alexandri Kasio Kortez on the
left to rank the sort of important the dignity level of a baby in the
womb and a grown dog a puppy. I actually think they would struggle with
that quite much. That's a great question. That's why I will never ever
be asked of any of them. Uh, And they would, I mean,
they wouldn't struggle with it in reality, because for them, it's an
easy answer, the dog. They take the dog first, one hundred percent
and they don't have to think about it. But I think they would also
recognize that you don't want to say that out loud. I mean, when
it comes to the pro abortion side, there are many many things you don't
want to say out loud, and that's one of them. So I'd loved
how would they handle that publicly? Very interesting to hear. Yeah, just
a scale of a fertilized embryo and a dog and just see what they do.
Before we wrap, Matt, I wanted to ask your opinion on I
wanted to ask you to judge another scenario, and that would be the California
Highway Patrol actually flaming a Californian on Instagram for using a dummy in a carpool
lane. So there's a couple layers here, first using a dummy to use
the carpool lane, and then secondly the California Highway Patrol blasting whoever this is
for putting their mannequin and like a black hoodie and sunglasses, putting that on
social media for everyone to see. Judge this one map, Well, you
know this is where you say why I'm not an actual judge because I take
into account factors that have no real legal bearing, and so for something like
this, I think, yeah, look, it's against the law, it's
against the rules. I think the law is important, rules are important.
I'm a law and order guy, but I don't know. It's pretty funny.
So that has to count for something. And in my court, if
you come in and you've got a funny excuse and it makes me laugh that
I give you time off for that, and also the creativity, like the
creativity that goes into to that, like I look, I know that I
have disobeyed. I'll confess carpool rules many many times, right to jail,
like basically every time. I mean, if there's a carpool lane, I'll
just be honest me, I should be admitting this. If there's a carpolane,
I'm taking it. I don't. I don't because it's the fastest lane
and I got to get where I'm going. And I don't care if I
have doesn't matter who else I've been. If I have no one else in
my car, I'm still taking it. And I've never thought to go through
the effort of actually getting a mannequin and putting it in there. So I
don't know. I respect the effort, I mean, but it's never been
a problem for you. Then maybe the judgment is on somebody actually going to
the effort because you're fine, they're not going to pull you over. Yeah,
you probably call it you You're right. I guess I'm talking myself out
of giving them credit because you can probably call more attention to yourself than you
need too. So yeah, anyway, I guess I guess it was dumb,
So they should go to jail. You convince me. Tens Joe death
penalty. Even so, before we wrap, Matt, actually, I do
have one more question. Jerry Seinfeld came out recently, and I think this
is sort of surprising to people because he's definitely on the left. He has
been very critical of political correctness for a long time and he said that PC
crap that was his quote, is like ruining TV. Again, not surprising
here from a comedian. There's been a lot of comedians, even on the
left that has said something similar for a long time. But just looking back,
even like Dailly Weier has been working really hard at this, do you
feel like there's been a shift that you know, when you have mainstream comedians
like Jerry Seinfeld, you have like Shane Gillis now being super Pott gets canceled
from SNL and is now more popular than he was way before that, more
popular than most of the actual cast members of SNL. Has there been a
culture shift? Is there something that's actually really you know, you look back
and say this is this is healthier than it was a few years before,
or is it just so mixed that it's hard to say. I think it's
probably slowly shifting in the right direction. I think people are I think it's
probably a slightly better environment for comedy now than it was, say, three
four years ago, but it's still not great. And I think that,
and you know, his analysis, of course, is one hundred percent correct.
I think there's more that goes into the death of comedy than just that,
but Wolken, this is a big part of it. I also think
that there are there are certain people who have just sort of been granted and
I think he talked about this in the interview too, that some people have
just been grandfathered in that they're allowed like he brought a Chappelle, even though
obviously he gets plenty of grief. But still he gets the Netflix specials.
He can say what he wants, Larry David Curby Enthusiasm. There are some
shows like Family Guy that have been on the air forever, and so it's
just like you're kind of allowed to. But I guess the question is,
once all that goes away and all of these people that have been grandfathered in
are no longer with us, are no longer making comedy, what about this
next generation? Like who's in the next general making really funny stuff? And
there are some people out there, But I guess that's the worry. Well,
everyone can tune into Judge by Mount Walsh. It's streaming everywhere Dailly Wire
plus YouTube x right now for a dose of some real comedy. Mott Walsh,
host of The Matt Walsh Show, thank you so much for stopping by
a Federalist Radio Hour. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. You've been
listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dashinski, culture
editor here at The Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then,
be the lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame