Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at fbr LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Ned Ryan, founder and CEO of
American Majority, author of several books, and prominent conservative commentator.
Ned's new book, released this week, is a big one
on a monstrous topic, American Leviathan, the Birth of the
Administrative State and progressive authoritarianism. It is, like I said,
it stems from a long history, painful history of the
growth of the administrative state in this nation. Need thank
you so much for joining us on this edition of
the Federalist Radio Out.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, great to be with you, Matt. I appreciate
the opportunity I want to begin here.
Speaker 1: We are within two months of I believe certainly the
most important election of my long lifetime. I think it
may be the most important election that we've seen among
the most important elections we've seen just for the basic
survival of this republic. But in many ways, we all
go about the whole notion of, oh, yes, this election,
this is an extremely important election. It's a critical election.
We've got to get out and vote. All of those
things are very important. I'm not saying that, so let
me be clear up front. But in many ways, as
your book notes, we're just kind of going through the
motions on the representative democracy side of things, because for
many decades, the real people in power have been the
bureaucrats in Washington, d c. And elsewhere that are controlling
the administrative state.
Speaker 2: You know, to quickly address everybody says, you know, this
is the most important election in our lifetime, I think
twenty twenty four actually is the most important election in
our lifetime because we are accelerating rapidly towards if we
do not stop, you know, one party rule, authoritarian statism,
if we do not win this election on November fifth.
It's hard to overstate how critical this election is and
that Donald Trump wins, because as you mentioned, we are
what we are seeing and I've seen play out from
most of the last decade. People, you know, some people
are still confused as to what all this is about
between Donald Trump and DC and Russian collusion hoax and
Ukrainian quid pro quo and the law fare and all
those things. Peel all that away that has nothing to
do with anything except for some critical points. One Donald
Trump showed up January of twenty seventeen in d C.
And said, I'm duly elected president United States. I'm the
one who decides, and the administrative state said, we don't
think so. We think we're the ones that decide. So
a lot of this conflict is about who decides. Is
that the duly elected representatives of the American people, who
in theory, and we can talk about more of this,
but in theory, are accountable to the American people or
is it the unelected bureaucrats. And it's a clash between
two very different governing philosophies constitution republic versus an administrative state.
And Donald Trump, all of this, these attacks, these hoaxes,
these collusion fairy tales are because Donald Trump rejects the premise.
He rejects the premise that the administrative state is legitimate,
that it is constitutional, and that it decides. But Matt
I got to tell you, the whole point of the
progressive status at the beginning of the twentieth century was
that they would decide, I mean, they rejected wholesale. People
need to understand fundamental aspect of the progressive movement for
the last one hundred and twenty some years is a
fundamental rejection, in fact, a full on attack on the
moral and political authority of the US Constitution, a destruction
of the machinery of the republic. What do I mean
by that? The separation of powers, the diffusion of power,
which progressives hated very much. In fact, we have a
wonderful Bill of rights, matt enumerated bill of rights, that's lovely.
The greatest protector of our natural inherent rights is actually
the machinery of the republic, the diffusion of power. Progressive
this wholesale rejected that, and in its place they wanted
to put in a powerful, sprawling bureaucracy filled with an educated, elite,
unelected bureaucrats who, in their thinking, would actually do the
governing and managing of this country. Separated out. This is
the key part, MATT separated out from any political accountability.
And I think the only question I have after researching
this book and writing it is that how did this
conflict not burst out into the open sooner? And I
would say especially since Reagan. The reason is because most
people in DC have accepted the premise that this is legitimate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And that's the scary part about it. But
in twenty fifteen, ED we had a a businessman, a
very successful businessman, a guy who was pretty well known
across the country in many different spheres, who came in
and said something that I think really resonated with the
average American voter in a way that we have not
seen in a very long time in this country. And
that was I'm going to clean out the swamp. I'm
going to drain the swamp. And then he went about
talking about how he was going to do that. But
that very phrase, while it energized and excited a lot
of Americans to vote, a lot of Americans who had
not voted in a long time, a lot of Americans
who felt nice, enfranchised, disconnected, they felt like, what's the
use why bother? And Donald Trump drove those people back
out because those people felt like the swamp had dominated
their lives and they were absolutely right about that. But
it also simultaneously scared the hell Yeah, the people running
the swamp. And so here we are, right here, we
are almost a decade later, and things that fear that
they would lose their jobs, lose their positions, their power,
their authority. Yeah, exactly. So we've seen how bad it
could be. How much worse can it get? Is the question.
Speaker 2: These things tend to accelerate rapidly, right, It's like going
into debck gradually and then all of a sudden to
me the fear is And I write about this in
the book Matt trying to explain the administrative state through
system dynamics and reinforcing loops and reinforcing loops, and a
system dynamics structure begins slowly over the course of time
accelerate and compounding interest at a certain point have accelerated
so much it explodes, right, and just rapid growth. And
that's really what the progressive set in motion one hundred
years ago, in that they believe the state is salvation. Okay,
This is another important thing to remember about progress is
everything needs to be subsumed by the state, corporations, individuals,
and individual rights, and the state will give back to
you any rights it deems necessary or beneficial to the state.
But if the state of salvation, Matt, the state should
be in every aspect of life. So people are why
is government continuing to grow in DC? This is insane. Now,
that's the point, that's one hundred percent the point of
the administrative state. If the state of salvation, salvation should
be in every aspect of our lives, whether it's healthcare,
or education, or even the church, you name it. They
think the state should be everywhere. And so why would
you want to limit salvation, you dirty little peasants. We're
only trying to save you here. And even more so,
people want to know why does government continue to grow
and our government spending is out of control. Well, it's
because the salvation of the state must be funded. There
is in their minds, Matt, the growth of the state,
which is salvation, is perpetual until salvation comes into every
aspect of our lives. At a certain point. That's where
I said both the administrative state and progressive authoritarianism. As
the state invades every aspect of your life, you must
submit to your betters, to this educated elite, to the
oracles of the state, because we're only trying to save
you Matt, that's how they think. We're only trying to
save you, So you best submit because we're telling you
what's best for you. And if you don't submit, we
will compel you because we know what's best for you.
So this, to me is a very frightening stage we
find ourselves in in which these people who think they
are righteous in how they approach government and human nature
are in fact very rapidly have put us into a
place where I think the idea of freedom versus authoritarianism
hangs in the balance.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very interesting and compelling point you
just raised about the state as salvation. It is dangerous
to begin with, but it is absolute sacrilege to a
founded on Judeo Christian values. For any christ well, any
Christian who fully understands and embraces the power of salvation
through only one man who walked this earth, through a
Lord and a savior bigger than the government, bigger than
the bureaucrat.
Speaker 2: That has to that.
Speaker 1: Whole notion really has to hit home completely.
Speaker 2: People completely different worldviews on a whole host of fronts.
But the Progressives really bought into Gay Org Hegel's views
of the world, and I don't even want to call
him a philosopher, a Prussian propagandas in the early eighteen hundreds.
But for them, Hegel believed that the state was the
marsh of God on earth. The state was the source
of all truth, all science, everything flowed from the state.
So I juxtaposed in the book the Founder's view of
human nature. And you know, I don't want to say
that all of them were Christians, but they certainly moved
within what we would call a Judeo Christian worldview, especially
as it applied to very fundamental things human nature. They
believe that we are imperfect human beings in an imperfect world,
capable of great good, incapable of sustained good, and that
imperfect human nature should never ever be trusted with consolidated
power Matt, because we often do what we can, not
what we should. They didn't even trust themselves, by the way,
I mean, they're sitting there in Philadelphia seventeen eighty seven.
They knew they were going to be the president's vice
president's representative, senators, judges in a future government that they
were forming, and instead of working on in their own
behalf and their own interests, they actually did the exact opposite.
They created a government that diffused power because they didn't
even trust themselves.
Speaker 3: Warmer sunnior days are calling fuel up for them with factors,
no prep, no mess meals meet your wellness schools in
time for summer thanks to the menu of chef crafted
meals with options like calorie smart, protein plus and Keto factors.
Fresh never frozen meals are Dietitian approved and ready to
eat in just two minutes, so no matter how busy
you are, you'll always have time to enjoy nutritious, great
tasting meals. Make today to day you kick start a
new healthy routine. What are you waiting for? With thirty
five different meals and more than sixty add ons to
choose from every week, you'll always have new flavors to explore.
You can crush your wellness goals this month with dietitian
approved meals and ingredients that you can trust. Make your
day delicious from breakfast to dessert. Stay fueled with easy,
nutritious options. Treat yourself to restaurant quality meals that feature
premium ingredients like filet mignon, shrimp, and black and salmon.
Keep kitchen time to a minimum. Factor meals are ready
in just two minutes. No shopping, no prepping, no cooking
or cleaning up. Enjoy effortless support for your lifestyle by
choosing from six menu preferences to help you manage calories,
maximize protein intake, or simply eat well balanced. Head to
factor meals dot com slash Federalist fifty and use code
Federalist fifty to get fifty percent off your first box
plus twenty percent off your next month. That's code Federalists
fifty at factor meals dot com slash Federalist fifty to
get fifty percent off your first box plus twenty percent
off your next month while your subscription is active.
Speaker 1: It's hilarious, though, ned because you're absolutely right. They didn't
trust themselves more so they didn't trust each other. These guys,
you know, pledged everything, their lives, their liberty, is, their fortunes,
to the founding of this country. But they also understood,
as Thomas Jefferson understood John Adams, and John Adams understood
Thomas Jefferson, that these were these were phenomenally intelligent people.
These were very realistic, the very realistic people. But they
understood their limitations. That is the power of the founders,
I think, to understand and stand their own limitations and
the limitation of man.
Speaker 2: Yes, and even more so think about what they did.
They put in place a rights based government. Right, the
preable of the declaration really framed out what they believed.
We all these truths to be self evident, all men
a career equal. They are endowed by their creator with
certain unvailable rights that among these are life, liberty, pursuit
of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men. Governments do not give rights. Governments are not
meant to take away rights. Governments are meant to secure them.
So when we talk about a rights based government, that's
what frames it out. And so then they're sitting in
Philadelphia seventeen eighty seven, going, how do we actually put
meat to the bones on those ideals of a rights
based government in which our creator has given us these natural,
inherent rights of which, by the way, no constitution, and
they knew this could ever cover all the absolute and
incredible rights we've been given. How do you create a
government that secures those rights, takes none them away, and
yet at the same time is very realistic about human nature,
does not trust it. With consolidated power, you create the
machinery of the republic, that is, a separation of powers,
a diffusion of power, so that power can never be
consolidated to actually abuse all of our God given rights.
Progressives rejected that wholesale. They believe power should be consolidated.
They believe that you should actually have your rights absumed
by the government because the state, with salvation, the state
would bring progress. And even more so, Matt when you
talk about a rejection of the worldview and the belief
system of the Founders by progressives. They believed in the
apotheosis of mankind. They believe that through the power of
the state in the here and now, that they would
elevate human nature to another plane, that they would somehow
reach perfection through the power of the all glorious, enlightened
and rational states. So when I say that they are
very too different governing philosophies, they are oil and water.
They are complete polar opposites. They cannot exist in the
same government. And that's the conflict that I think Donald J.
Trump brought to the forefront, this conflict of very different
world views. And again, the question in twenty twenty four
is which path are were going to choose We're going
to go back to restoring the republic or we're just
going to keep on slouching towards complete and total statism.
Speaker 1: Indeed, our guests today on this edition of the Federalist
Radio hour Ned Ryan, founder and CEO of American Majority.
He is also author of a massive book, and I
mean that all frun. It deals with so many different elements.
It is the American Leviathan, the birth of the administrative
state and progressive authoritarianism. You referenced it before. The book
delves into it, the history of this where the origins
where it all started. I think about would Row Wilson,
and I think about the progressives of that time. I
think about what he did under the cover, of course,
and there are lessons to be learned from the origins
of the administrative state to where it is at now.
Of course, because again, as you mentioned, the idea is
state as salvation. Would Row Wilson saw that, of course
with you know, the creation of the notion of internationalism,
globalism all started there to a great degree. But actually
I think it began really with the whole idea of
my home state. Doug lavallat the progressive movement in this country.
While there were elements in that progressive movement of you know,
broadening the republic to include the voices of more people,
it was ultimately the idea of the state will run things. Yes,
where did all of this notion begin that the state dominates?
Speaker 2: Well? It really so? How did this get injected into
our bloodstream? I would point out really quick you mentioned
Woodrow Wilson. I talk about the four horsemen of the
Progressive Apocalypse in the book. Three of the four are Republicans.
And if you want to know where the UNI Party began,
go look into the early nineteen hundreds and especially the
nineteen twelve presidential election, massive pivot point in our history.
But how did these ideas get injected into our republic? Well,
late eighteen hundreds we did not have the university and
college system that we have today, which would be another
whole conversation about whether that's been a benefit or not.
So to get an advanced degree you had to go overseas,
and a lot of these people seeking advanced degrees France, Prussia,
Germany now, but Prussia at the time in the Prussian
state university system. Gay Org Hegel's ideas were being The
state university system in Prussia was being used as a
conduit for his ideas. So you go over there to
get your advanced degree, you get imbued and inculcated with
these ideas and go, oh, that's the solution to all
of the problems that we confront as the country. You
come back and go, this antiquated idea of covenance and
a constitution and a natural inherent rights and limited government
absurd and ridiculous. It will not get us to where
we want to go in the twentieth century. So they
were taking these ideas of Hegel and bringing them back
and going what does this look like in reality? And
so they started agitating for this. In nineteen twelve was
again the triumph at the beginning of it of the
progressive movement. Woodrow Wilson wins. He starts the administrative state,
and then you have FDRs, the second sledgehammer of progressivism,
and the third sledgehammer is Lbjane is great society. And
over the course of the twentieth century, sledgehammer after sledgehammer
after sledgehammer, and all of a sudden, the republic starts
to crumble, the machinery starts to crumble, the elected representatives
of the American people start to see their legislative authority
from the Article one branch to the Article two, where
most of the administrative state resides, and all of a sudden,
you find yourself in the twenty first century, going, wait
a minute. I tend to think, and I say this
in the book, Matt, I think we're kind of living
an illusion of a constitution republic. I think we have hope.
I think there's still a vestige of it, but when
in reality it's an administrative state based off a completely
different worldview than our founders.
Speaker 1: I agree. I agree, and that there in lies the danger,
and back to our original point, therein lies the absolute significance,
among other points in this election.
Speaker 2: Yes, when you.
Speaker 1: Mentioned and you deal with this, you know in the book,
But when did our congressional representatives, our representatives in this
representative democracy. You know, we keep hearing this from the left.
You know, Trump is a threat to democracy. They never
liked to mention this is a representative democracy. This is
a republic, for the love of God. But when did
we get the absolute abdicating of the first branch in
this country? When did that begin? As the formulation of
the takeover of the second branch and the administrative state.
Speaker 2: So really quick, I would like to make one point
about democracy. You guys at the Federalists wrote a really
good piece on Frederick Foresight and the Fourth Protocol this
past summer, which I had not read, so I read
it when I was at the beach and may He
made a very interesting point in that book when he
talked about a democracy of the committee, and in the
socialist leftis thinking democracy in their mind is only for
those that are committed to their twisted and warped worldview.
So I want people when anybody on the left starts
talking about democracy, that's what they mean. It's a democracy
of the committed, those committed to their world views. Those
are the only ones that should have a voice in
their version of democracy. But back to the question, when
did Congress the Article one brand start to see more
and more power to the Article two. Well, it started
obviously in the nineteen twelve election, and that whole those
two terms of Woodrow Wilson, so early nineteen hundreds. But
I write in the book it's probably the late nineteen
sixties early seventies in which Congress pretty much just capitulate
and said, screw it, we're not actually going to do
the governing and legislating. And Matt, this is why you
see we get four or five thousand page bills. People
like this is insane. Nobody's reading them. Well, that's the point.
They're just framing out generally kind of what should be
done or what they're thinking about. They send those massive
bills to the Article two unelected bureaucrats who through their
statutes and regulations, are doing the actual governing, and they
flesh out what Congress is kind of framed down. That's
why I say again, that was the whole point of progressivism,
that these unelected bureaucrafts would do the real governing, and
Confress is like, yeah, that makes our lives so much easier.
And even to the point of Matt, it really feels
like we're going to make them do all of this
and if they make a bad decision, we'll just go
home to our voters and go you know what. I
wish I could have stopped that, but that's not my
fault with somebody at the EPA or the FDA or
one of these guys. I'm going to go back and
I'm going to really fight and make sure that doesn't
happen again as they go into the next term and
pass another four or five thousand page bill, and the
same thing happens. So they're really abdicating their role as legislating.
But they're also, let's put a fine point on it,
being gutless cowards because they refuse to govern for fear
that they might actually have to make a hard decision
that they will be accountable for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's right. Is it equal parts laziness
and cowardice?
Speaker 2: Yes? And even so this dynamic is taking place Article
one giving to the Article two unco constitutionally, they're sub
delegating their legislative authority to the Article two branch. And
then over the course of really the last forty years,
the Article three judicial branch was also giving some of
its judicial control over the Article two branch until this summer,
Matt there were two decisions this summer I write about
the Chevron doctrine in this pot Amaricon Leviath and in
which the Supreme Court said, yeah, we're not going to
defer to your bureaucratic regulations and statutes anymore, because that
kind of undermines an independent judiciary, which I would point out.
MATT was very important to our founders. Why because the
British courts were really just rubber stamping King Chorice, the
Third Parliament, the King's Ministers, and the Founders did not
view it as an independent judiciary in the British court system.
They viewed it as just a rubber stand But they said,
we're not going to do this when we found in
a republic there must be an independent judiciary. The Chevron
doctrine really undermined that. Thankfully the Supreme Court that we're
not doing this anymore. The other thing that they did
that I think caused even bigger fractures in the foundation
of the administrative state was their SEC ruling on the
Security and Exchange Commission's tribunals, and the Supreme Court said, yeah,
you don't get to have your administrative law tribunals. Your
private courts that ninety percent of the time actually rule
in favor of the SEC. But a lot of departments
and agencies have these MATT. So the Supreme Court said, again,
undermines an independent judiciary. Oh, by the way, annihilates the
Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, which goes back
to one of the points that mean, previously, Matt, the
greatest protective of our natural inherent rights is not a
bill of rights. The Progressive to you that it's kind
of a nice series of suggestions that they min or
mind not takes seriously correct. If there's a diffusion of power,
they cannot consolidate power to abuse those natural god given rights.
Speaker 1: It's you know, when you think about how this all
began and where it is today, and we think about
this almost exclusively at the federal level, and I think
there's reason too, because we see it play out every day.
But you know, let's be honest, Americans every day are
seeing the same thing being playing out in their states.
And perhaps our listeners get a little tired of me
reminiscing about my days covering the Wisconsin State Capitol, But
I mean, I think that's a perfect example of you know,
what went down in the monumental movement, the Republican Revolution
of twenty ten. In the twenty eleven and you recall
then Governor Scott Walker taking on oh yeah, absolutely, the
Public Sector Unions Act ten, trying to find some reform,
trying to get you know, the people back at the
table as opposed to the bureaucrats and the unions negotiating
over their tax dollars. He was successful in doing that.
Of course, it almost cost him his job because of
a massive recall attempt. And I think about what happened then,
and I know you were there. I know your folks
are on the ground there, but you know that, to
me was a template for what we have seen over
the last eight plus years in this country at the
federal level. The threat was there. It was exposed in
Wisconsin under a courageous governor and a courageous legislature at
the time that said enough is enough. And then we
see And I remember when Trump was elected. Right before
inauguration day, I talked with a gentleman who was a
state senator at the time who became one of Wisconsin's congressmen,
and that of course Tom Tiffany, representing the seventh congressional
district in Wisconsin, and he said, Matt, you know what
we saw during the days of civil unrest so to speak,
in Wisconsin in the recall movement, We're about to see
that writ large stential threat. Is it not for the
administrative state?
Speaker 2: Oh one? And interesting again, obviously you have a lot
of Wisconsin background experience. The Wisconsin Plan is one of
the foundations and genesis for the larger administrative states, because
they believed that it should be a managerial class at
the state level doing the real governing of this country.
But you know, you point out something in which this
sounds what you are describing people like, feels like we're
an afterthought in that form of government, because you are.
You are an absolute afterthought in a managerial class, administrative state.
Educator elites so called, I call them a credential idiocracy.
I want to put a very fine point on that,
because I do not consider them an educated elite. I
think they are a credential ideocracy coming out of these
indoctrination centers because they've given, you know, they've applied, they've given,
they believe in this creed, the warped, twisted creed, and
they've gotten that stamp of approval from those and doctrination centers.
But yeah, in this form of government, whether it's the
state level or the federal level, you know, republic, all
power flows from the people, which they then give to
their duly elected representatives a stewards of the money and
power given to them to create a government of buy
for the people that act every day is supposed to
advance and protect the interests of the American people. American
people should be first and last in all things. In
a administrative state, it's the state that decides. All power
flows from the state, and you might or might not
have rights, you might or might not be the priority,
and you find yourself going I feel like we're and
I make this point at the end of the book.
I feel like we now in this country are kind
of the latest battlefield in this age old struggle of
does man serve the state or does the state serve me?
And I think that's where we find ourselves again, where
the state is supposed to serve us. And I think
we've gotten the point where if we're not very careful
this futile administrative system, we will find ourselves as full
fledged serfs if we are not very careful and have
completely lost our heritage and legacy as free born America.
Speaker 4: Have you ever noticed it's only called a recession after
we're already in it or pasted it. The Watchdout 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. Economists are always in search of
a recession, like letter nimoy. If they find one, it's
already too late. Always be prepared by putting money away
and investing accordingly. Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: And you see it now. You see the administrative state
with the infusion of the Marxist movement in this country,
you know, effectively one and the same, because the power
does not reside with the people, as much as the
Marxists like to make that their talking point. The power
is central to the state. And you know, they're not
even hiding it anymore. That's the thing. They're not an
even hiring it. It's scary, but I think they're not
hiding it anymore, quite frankly ned because I think that
they are trusting in the indoctrination of the next generation.
They have had generations of indoctrinations in the school systems,
and if you want to look at where this shifted,
where you have seen so many people embrace the power
of the state, the salvation of the state. That you said,
that's where you have to begin. But you know, we're
in a time period, as you say, where there is
truly an existential battle between the administrative state and the
concepts of the republic and a free people. And so
you have to wonder, as we've seen the events shaping
our politics in our elections over this summer, we've gotten
into not just a weaponization of the administrative state, we
have gotten into a dangerous, deadly time for the representatives
of the republic. Do you fear that for Trump's life
and others who support him as we do to the election?
Speaker 2: No, I do. I mean, let me say a few
things about the education system really quick. That was the
whole point with progressives. I mean Herbert Crowley, who I
call one of the four horsemen of the progressive apocalypse.
I mean, he even admitted this is early nineteen hundreds
and I'll just read a quick quote twentieth century democracy again.
Their form of democracy believes that the community has certain
policy that have ends to achieve, and if they are
to be achieved, the community must control the education of
the young. So they're very clear about what they wanted
to do. And then you know John Burgess, really quick
Columbia law professor late eighteen hundreds, among whose students was
Theodore Roosevelt, fully bought into Hegel's philosophy of government, and
he is considered the father of political science here in America.
So think about this. A progressive very imbued with this
thought of Hegel, vehemently opposed to a rights based government.
So I Matt that before we address that other issue. Yes,
I believe that our education system should be completely re examined.
I believe a lot of the history of the twentieth
century in regards to US politics and government should be
re examined. But to today, two attempts on Trump's life
in just over sixty days, we don't even know the
answers to the first one. When a second one takes place,
I'm afraid, and I've said this before, I'll say it again.
I'm not sure that'll be the last one on him
before November fifth. As things continue to accelerate and panic
continues to grow among those who view him as an
existential thread that oh my gosh, Donald Trump might win,
he might actually have a second term, and he has
figured out so much matt over the last four years
since he left office about what the real threat is
to democracy, to real representative democracy, that they realize, Oh
my gosh, he gets back in power, he knows exactly
what he's going to be doing on day one, and
that will be waging war against the administrative state, which
you mentioned the swamp earlier. Think of the swamp as
a pool, a nasty, feadied swamp. The foundation of that
swamp is the administrative state. You want to drain that massive,
nasty swamp. You break the state, You break the state,
you drain the swamp, you restore the Republic. So I
think you're going to see the rhetoric increase. I think
there'll be even more threats to Donald Trump that the
corporate propagandists are refused to call them media stenographers of
the state. Corporate propagandists will continue to up their rhetoric
to dehumanize Trump, to dehumanize his supporters, which, by the way,
is a tactic of all leftists throughout time that you
don't really engage on the political ideas. You dehumanize your
political opponents so that you can do to them whatever
you want to and portray him as an existential threat
to democracy, so that deranged people, who, by the way,
I do not think are acting alone, but deranged people
might think it's it's incumbent upon them to put an
end to this threat to democracy and deal with Donald
Trump and the supporters. That's what the corporate propagandists and
sonographers of the state have been doing for almost a decade.
And now they're sitting here going, who us, No, it's
all about Trump. Trump's someone that's been, you know, brought
this rhetoric to this level, when in fact, for the
last ten years, the whole point of them is to
create a environment in which people think they will be
justified in any acts of violence because they have been
humanizing Trump and the supporters for almost a decade.
Speaker 1: And then you have a corporate media, of course, that
is going along for the ride, not going not just
going along for the ride, shaping the reality, shaping the narrative.
I mean, after the second attempt, you have a New
York Times piece, you have guys like Lester Holds leading
with not that the former president and the GOP nominee
for president has faced yet another attempt on his life,
but this this guy, who is you know has been
threatened on multiple occasions, is responsible for the threat against
his life. I mean, that is a strange space in
which to exist.
Speaker 2: But again is they always want to project what they
are actually guilty of. Right, right, That's been the whole
strategy the last ten years. Well, actually it's it's really
Donald Trump that wants to weaponize a state against his
political opponents. Are you freaking kidding me? Like the whole
state has been weaponized against Donald Trump, and they're saying
if he comes back into power, and I want to
make that I'm going to make this point. If Donald
Trump comes back into power, it's going to be a
revenge tour. He's going to weaponize all of this against
his opponents. That's it's not going to be about revenge, Matt.
It has nothing to do with that at all. If
you are going to actually bring about a restoration of
responsible government and a republic, there actually have to be
consequences for this massive abuse of power that we have
seen play out over the last ten years. So to
restore the proper balance to DC and the proper role
of government and to actually have consequences for the abuse
of power, because that is the process of restoration. Yeah,
I think some people should go to jail. I think
that the people that abuse their powers to target Donald
Trump should actually have security clearance revoked and go to jail.
Speaker 1: I agree, I believe there should be for once, because
there has an absolute ute. Ben and I say this
as someone who covered the John Doe investigations at the
state level in Wisconsin, there has never been any accountability
for you know, this actual real threat to representative democracy.
Speaker 2: Again this point, though they didn't want political accountability, they
didn't want accountability for them at all when they formed
this administrative state one hundred and some years ago. Absolutely
idea of accountability with something very foreign to the progressive
because they thought these enlightened people would never abused their
power at all, because they're just trying to bring salvation
to the dirty little peasants.
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, So I'm not worried about the revenge that
the left keeps talking about.
Speaker 2: Frustration.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well, you know what, there are people who
clearly broke the law in the administrative state, lots of people,
lots of people in the deep state. What I'm worried
about is that Trump gets into power and we see
for the most part what happened is first term. Think
about how much he accomplished in the first term. Think
about how much he attempted to drain the swamp. What
I am most worried about, and I want to get
your take on this is something you mentioned before. The
UNI Party. Yep, will the UNI Party again stifle what
the American people want, and that is a cleanup of
their government.
Speaker 2: So the thing that should be encouraging to people if
then win nless they win Donald Trump gainst the White House,
most of the administrative state resides inside the Article two branch,
the executive branch. The head of the executive branch is
the duly elected President the United States. If Congress proves itself,
and I think we've got a pretty good track record
to show that they will be feckless, gutless cowards, the
head of the executive Branch, through a series of executive orders,
and I lay this out in the last chapter of
the book, can actually do tremendous damage to devolving, destroying,
and breaking apart the administrative state. Now, for it to
be more long term, on a four year term in
the White House, Congress is going to actually have to
step up. But in a four year window. If Donald
Trump as the head of the executive branch has the
political courage, which I think he does, and the focus
and the plan, he could do a lot to actually
start to break apart the state restore the Republic. But
Matt for that to happen one of the things, and
he's admitted. He's admitted to me, but he's admitted to
other people. I didn't know was as bad as I
thought it was. It's even worse what he did not
get right in his first term because he thought, oh,
all Republicans are on the same team uniparty. No they're not.
McConnell and Paul Ryan did not view themselves on the
same team, to be the clear on that front. But
where he really missed it was the head of PPO
residential Personnel, Johnny DiStefano, had nothing in common with Donald
Trump or America first. And so for the first three years,
the way that you actually implement your policy and actually
implement all of your plans are getting the key decision maker,
says the Pump books about five thousand positions, give or take.
I'd say there's maybe four or five hundred important decision
makers that you actually have to nail and get right
to go out to the various departments and agencies to
implement the president's plan. Didn't have a chance of getting
it right with Johnny DeStefano. He got it right in
the last year with Johnny McEntee, but at that point
there was not enough time to pivot into doing some
of these effective things. But I'm telling you, Matt, I
was there in some of those meetings. The first six
months of a second term would have been incredible, but
he didn't have that opportunity. So that's why I think
the six months of the next term, he'll get ppo right.
He'll have a plan. He knows now. He was such
a great outsider, Matt, I don't think he fully understood
that his powers as the head of the executive branch.
He does now, he does now right.
Speaker 1: And I think the big Ramaswami brought that whole point
home when he was campaigning for president. I had the opportunity,
I guess, part of the gig of covering the presidential
contenders and pretenders when they came through Iowa covered them extensively.
And that is what Ramaswamy hammered over and over again.
And I agree. I think after four years of experiencing
the inside. Trump understands now as an outsider, yet to
this day, what needs to be accomplished. I think you,
folks at American Majority, as we close our conversation, I
appreciate the generosity of your time, the perspective, but I
think it's not just talking about these ideas, and you've
laid them all out, I think expertly in this book,
a compelling new book. I think it is walking the
talk as well. American Majority is doing that. If you
wouldn't mind a little bit on how American Majority is working,
particularly in critical swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and
Georgia and Arizona and elsewhere, to get out the vote,
to send the message that this is indeed an existential
election for the Republic.
Speaker 2: So I founded America Majority. Gosh, I'm in my seventeenth year,
which sounds crazy. I'm not that old, Matt. I'm a
child prodigy.
Speaker 1: So you started when you were six years old.
Speaker 2: I was amazed. Yeah, that's all that. So America Majority
of the C three we do training and equipping of
state and local people that want to go run for
school board, city council, state house, states and all these
local offices, because that's how real change begins. And I'm
a firm believer that politics is policy. We have great ideas,
but unless you actually win politically, you don't get to
implement your policy. So that's the C three side, the
C four side that you're referring to America majority action.
I have to tell you, and I think we're all
on a learning process no matter where we are in life.
After the mid terms in November of twenty twenty two,
after I picked myself up off the floor because I
feel like I missed a few important things, I went
to donors and said, I've had an epiphany. And I
wish I'd had this epiphany begins of twenty two, but
I'm having the epiphany now, so better late than ever.
We need to export the Florida GOPS absentee ballot chase
program into these key battle ground states. In twenty twenty four,
and by that I mean matt in Florida, they always
pursued and what was until very recently a Democrat majority
registration state they won. I want to say it's twenty
one of twenty three state wide races from twenty ten
until recent times, Republicans did. How'd they do that well.
They focused on generating more absentee ballots among mental low
propensity voters, and then the last six weeks from ballots
drop in Florida, chasing those ballots and to make sure
they got no less than eighty percent of them. In
a lot of times it was eighty one to eighty
two percent, and they kept on winning and winning and winning.
So I went to donors in January of twenty three
and said, we need to do this in key battleground
states for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: We need to.
Speaker 2: Generate more ballots among mental low props. Because we know, Matt,
that if you take a mid to low propensity voter
and get them to request about eighty percent end of
the time, they're going to vote in this, next and
the next election. So you turn them into kind of
super voters, create that bigger ballot universe, and then we
put pieces in place for a robust ballot chase in
which it's really a series of targeted harassments. We know
where the ballots are at, so it becomes you know,
door knocks, phone calls, texts, postcards, digital, you name it,
to remind people get your ballot in no less than
eighty percent return. Why you're also working on early voting
because again the rules of the game, which we might
resent might not like, are that you know on Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has already started early person voting tomorrow. I'm going
to go vote here in Virginia because early person voting
starts in ballots drop, play the game by the rules.
So we're hammering on absentee ballot return the minute they drop,
and then the minute early voting starts. We are trying
to get people to go out and vote early. So
we're in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina in a very
robust real way. I've got allied groups that are taking
care of Georgia and Pennsylvania. But the goal being that
that the minute ballots drop, the minute early in person
voting starts, that we hammer to get people to do
this because of a couple things. Get the ballots in,
don't wait for any games to take place on election
day like it did Americopa County in the midterms. But
also to change the narrative. The narrative being that I
hope is that Donald Trump is either in the lead
or narrowly behind on the ABEV vote so that coming
into election day, we're traditionally Republicans absolutely annihilate Democrats. Donald
Trump crushes an election day and wins reelection by winning
most of these, if not all, of these seven key states,
a lot of what a lot of those states where
we're at right now with American majority actions. So we've
been spending a lot of time generating more ballots and
putting the pieces in place for a ballot chase. I
think we're going to have by the time we're done,
about fifteen hundred to close to two thousand people doing
this by the time we're you know, in October and
really hitting the chase hard.
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, boots on the ground and.
Speaker 2: Doing the right things, exactly the right things.
Speaker 1: And as you said, playing by the rules that exist.
I know that there are Republicans and Conservatives in this
country who are absolutely appalled by the notion of you know,
and I get it.
Speaker 2: Can I make one last point on that shirt? Absolutely
the thing that frustrates me so much about these people
I'm voting on election day? Why do you hate Why
do you hate me? And I mean that in all sincerity,
Why do you hate Donald Trump? You're costing us ten
times the amount of money if you insist on voting
on election day, if you vote early, if you vote
the day of the ballast trap, you're going to cost
me ten or twelve bucks, right, or all the allied
groups in me ten twelve bucks. If you wait a
few weeks twenty bucks. You wait until election day, it
might cost us one hundred dollars by the time you
put together cumulative door knocks, live calls, mailers, digital texts,
you name it. Why would you do that? It is
not like we have some map a surplus of money.
Help us to be more efficient with the money that
we have and Donald Trump and then allow us to
take those resources that we're saving by you getting your
vote in to then target other people or other ballast
They're sloan coming in.
Speaker 1: Well, you know who's doing exactly what you're talking about,
and they have done it very well for a long time.
The Democrats. Oh yes, that's why they're winning. As you say,
policy is important, but it means nothing without politics. It
means nothing without people who really get the policy in power.
And American majority has done this for a long time.
I know you folks, well, you have a fantastic guy.
I know he's working nationally with you, but he started
out in the Wisconsin front end YEP.
Speaker 2: Matt Batesil Robie.
Speaker 1: Matt Batesll. I've known him for many, many years. Not
just a great individual in the conservative movement in this country,
but just a great individual. Always a pleasure, my friend.
Let us talk very soon because the implications I think
of your book in what American Majority are doing certainly
deserve follow up as we move forward. I do very
much appreciate you you joining us and being with us
and talking about this very important book.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Thanks so much for the conversation, Matt.
I truly appreciate it, and we should do it again
before the elections.
Speaker 1: Absolutely thanks to my guest today, Ned Ryan, founder and
CEO of American Majority and author of American Leviathan, The
Birth of the Administrative State and Progressive Authoritarianism. Compelling new book.
You can find it everywhere You've been listening to another
edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior
correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame.
Speaker 2: I heard the fame voice the reason.
Speaker 1: And then it faded away.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.