Anti-Whiteness During the Trump Administration

60 of people will avoid your business if you have an unattractive logo. This podcast is sponsored by Resurrection Design Company, which helps kingdom-minded businesses and churches fix that problem.

Right now, they're running a special for the listeners of this podcast, a free website design for the first two people who sign up for a brand identity package. This offer expires the last day of this month, so get out your phone now and visit resurrectiondesign .co forward slash matter to claim your free website design.

The link is in the description. Welcome once again to the conversation that matter podcast. I am your host, John Harris, and we have an interview today. I think you're going to really appreciate someone who I think has their, they just have an understanding of what's going on in society.

They have their fingers on the pulse. We've had a mom before. His name is Jeremy Carl, and he is a senior fellow with the Claremont Institute. He wrote a book that I interviewed him for last year called The Unprotected Class.

We're going to talk about the one-year anniversary of that book, what's happened, what the Trump administration is doing, and then what needs to happen. Without further ado, welcome, Jeremy Carl.

Thanks so much, John. It's a pleasure to be on.

Yeah. Well, you're a very gracious man, especially as I've rescheduled you all over this week twice. I really appreciate your time and attention. I know you're a busy guy, but you have so many good things to say.

I know my audience loves to hear them. I think they're worthwhile. I want to just give you the floor to talk about one year since the publication of your book, The Unprotected Class, and how it's been received.

I think history's vindicated you quite a bit, and the Trump administration seems to be taking cues from you. I don't know if that's true, but that'd be cool if they were.

I definitely think to some degree. Again, I don't want to overstate that, but of the six core recommendations that I had in the book, within the first week of the Trump administration, they had done all of them in whole or in part.

I know that there were some, without betraying any confidences, there were some people who were senior officials in the Trump administration who did read it who were making these decisions. Again, there are a lot of other people.

Victory has many fathers. Defeat is an orphan. I'm not in any way suggesting that the book was solely or even primarily responsible for those decisions, but it's been great. In fact, when I did something on the one-year anniversary of the book, I heard from a reader who is a senior official, I didn't know about this person, in a Trump administration civil rights-related group saying, yeah, this is really influential.

We're trying to do our thing. I clerked for an appeals court judge, and he had all the clerks read it. That's been great that it's really that message has gotten out there. You write a book for readers, and that's why I wrote it.

Yeah. Oh, that's so great. Well, why don't you just briefly go over those recommendations so people can remember what you said a year ago and then maybe look at their newspaper and see what's.

Happening now? Yeah. I'm not even sure I can do all of them, but one of them was getting control of the border. I should say, I think you mentioned The Unprotected Class. It's a book on the rise of anti-white racism in the United States.

That's right. What we should do about it. I talked about getting rid of disparate impact, which we just had. We can talk about what that doctrine is. We just had the Trump administration do something aggressive there.

I talked about rooting out DEI in government. I talked about getting rid of affirmative action. Those were some of the really key highlights. Again, this administration has just been terrific. I mean, so much so that when the paperback version of this book comes out early next year, I'm going to write a new introduction.

Not because the book is invalid in any way. There's a ton of stuff still going on, but the Trump administration has really.

Made tremendous progress on some of the bigger issues here. Yeah. It seems like the anti-DEI stuff is maybe the most major. I'd let you talk about. What do you think is the biggest thing they've done that you are positive about?

Yeah. I mean, the DEI stuff is great. I think it's also.

A little bit low-hanging fruit at this point. It's pushing on an open door. Now, I mean, again, credit to them for pushing on. It didn't just become an open door by accident. There are guys like Chris Rufo and others who've really set the stage, I think, to get there.

I think one of the things I would try to leave your listeners with is institutions matter a lot. Personnel is policy. You've got to go change out people. We are escorting people out the door, and that is how you make real policy change.

Because if you still have the same people in there, you're not going to get the sorts of real change that you want. I'll give an example of where I'm just very optimistic. My friend, Harmeet Dhillon, who Trump appointed as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in that division, like 70 of the attorneys have left.

Now, you can say, oh, that's horrible. No, I mean, Harmeet is really hardcore, and she said, look, we're going to enforce the law without fear or favor. And of course, most of those attorneys just want to be left-wing activists, and so they've left.

And so that's going to have long-term ramifications far beyond the Trump administration, because you're now working with just much better personnel who are more aligned with a nonpartisan mission for that institution.

And so, again, I think it's really just been win after win as far as the administration goes in this area. Yeah, and I'm excited to see it.

You know, not to quote every leftist activist, but we have so much farther to go, right? Every time they get a victory, it's always so much farther to go. But in this situation, I do sense that. What are some things that you think need to still happen and maybe things audience members can.

Put their efforts toward? Yeah, well, I think the border is still really key, because a lot of the anti-white racism in the United States is enabled by the vastly changing demographics of the country.

And I think even if you are pro-immigration at baseline, and I'm not, but I think you can be, we need a pause to reconsolidate whatever American identity is going to look like in the 21st century. And so I think that's really a key area where we need to continue to push.

There's going to be a lot of loud noises when we start. I mean, the funny thing is, right, like we're really, we're just deporting like MS -13 gang members right now, and the Democrats are still screeching.

When we start doing the actual hard cases, you know, people who've lived here for a long time, and they're not criminals, and in my view, they still need to go if you're going to have immigration law, then the Democrats are going to scream, I think relevant to us, the church is going to scream in some cases, particularly where the church intersects with some of these, frankly, pretty corrupt resettlement agencies that we've had that various churches have been involved with that have been integral to the invasion of our border.

So I think things like that are still going on. So that's the immigration piece. I would say a lot of it is also now at this point, it's okay. So you've changed the statute and you've changed some personnel, but you've got to actually follow through.

So I'm actually, I mean, I don't want to be too pessimistic or a black pillar, but I'm not incredibly optimistic, not because of anything that the Trump administration is doing wrong, they're doing a great job, that some of these really good changes on paper will actually happen in reality.

That's based on, for example, I've been following California banned affirmative action 25 years ago in university admissions in the state and then they reaffirmed it. Now, this is California, a really conservative, a really liberal state.

They reaffirmed it at the ballot box again in 2020, despite being horribly outspent. If you look at the actual admission statistics in California, in universities, the universities have just ignored it.

They've just ignored the ban. They've continued to do what they want to do and nobody's really stopping them. You've had the same thing at the national level. So you had the Supreme Court strike down affirmative action in universities nationally.

And if you look at what happened with the next class of admitted students, as best I can tell, the universities just ignored it. So I think we need to really focus on enforcement. That's going to be the kind of next frontier.

You've got the right things on paper. Now you've got to get the right.

In reality. Obviously, there's local communities, individuals, then there's the state and obviously then there's things that the national or general government can do. I want to talk about maybe the local and the state real quick.

This is a quote from your book. You say corporations can be the greatest threat to America. And one of the proof you say white supremacy no longer holds great sway in America at all and hasn't for quite some time.

I'm going to skip ahead here. It is not a coincidence that the term white privilege originated in Peggy McIntosh's 1988 paper, but it's become clear that whiteness was now a legal and social disability in much of American life.

So there's a sort of this gradual anti-white sentiment that you track and you say, this becomes over the last 50, 60 years, just part of the established narrative. And that's in corporations. That's in universities.

It's not just on the national level, which I think the mistake of thinking that, oh, Obama or Biden, they got in and then it was bad, but now things are going to go back. You're saying, well, it can't just go back because it's ingrained.

And so just a big one example here, and this is a state thing that I'm really curious about, about the border. We had this great show of force with Governor Greg Abbott during Biden administration that they're going to do the deportations, even if the federal government doesn't.

And now it's like the courts are stopping Trump. The states could do it. And the administration wouldn't have anything to say. They could just do it. Texas could literally do it right now. My brother's a public school teacher in a deep red state.

He goes, they're not getting rid of anyone. We hear all these big things that Tom Homan says, and that was these criminal cases, but he goes, nothing's changed on the ground. They could do something. So anyway, that's my frustration.

Maybe speak to that because we do have people in the listening audience who are in local and state elected capacities. What can they do?

Yeah. And it's tricky, right? Because I'll tell you, I mean, there's just little procedural things. I live in Montana. We had the Montana attorney general at a lunch recently, and he was saying that basically, this is just one of a million examples like this.

They raised in various ways on their way out, the standard for the type of holding facility that you could keep illegal immigrants on ICE detainers, so that it had to do this and this and this. It basically made it impossible for any county jail in Montana to hold these folks.

We don't have the right facilities under the new rules. So there's all sorts of gamesmanship like that going on. I think for your listeners, for folks in elected office or near folks who are elected office, you just need to make noise about what's going on in your community and make sure that you're keeping the pressure on in the right way to the administration, because the administration does have voices in their ear from the business community who are saying, ah, don't enforce it against these guys who are working at my restaurant.

We need to see a lot more worksite enforcement, for example. Now, again, I am giving the administration a huge benefit of the doubt. I think everything they're doing has been great. They've obviously gotten control of the border.

I think they're pursuing a very deliberate legal strategy in terms of they're not defying court orders yet. I think they're going to get there if they get too ridiculous, but they're giving the Supreme Court the chance to do the right thing.

They're kind of slowly moving the goalpost forward in what I think is a deliberate strategy. But we do need to kind of look at not just going after the immigrants, but going after the employers who are illegally employing these guys.

That's how you're going to begin to make a real difference on that sort of an issue.

Yeah. Did you see in Colorado, there was a bill that was just defeated, but it would have allowed churches to build dwellings, whether it was apartment complex or whatever, regardless of local zoning laws.

I was like, that's a curious thing. Why in the world would they want that? But my first thought was, oh, yeah, churches can be places where illegal migrants can go to be protected, essentially. I'm seeing in blue states, there's a bullishness perhaps against the administration, but red states seem to be coasting.

I don't know if you've noticed that, but it seems like what we need is a bunch of guys on the local and state level to start pushing in the same direction the administration's pushing. I don't know why that is, why that dynamic is there.

I don't know if you have thoughts on that, but

You're correct. And it's tremendously frustrating to watch it. And here in Montana, we literally had, without exaggeration, this is a state that Trump took 60 in without even trying. We had the Republican legislature in the Senate literally hand control to the Democrats.

We had all these Republicans essentially vote with the Democrats on organization. We had nothing done. It's a combination of lack of professionalism, lack of accountability. But the problem is, the Republican Party is still a huge problem.

I wish that weren't the case. I'm not saying with everybody, I'm not going to sit here and say, every local official, every official except for Trump is horrible. No. We do have a lot of good guys, but we've probably got more people who would still love to go back to the days of George W. Bush.

And that's not where our voters are, thankfully, but that's still where we've got a lot of electeds. And so it's a real problem. And to come back to, you mentioned churches, and I don't need to tell you, but churches, we still have huge problems on this issue as well.

I mean, I talk about the church in my book, but even among conservative evangelicals, we have issues where they are reifying anti-white narratives within their church. They're letting CRT, critical race theory, kind of pop into the church.

Votie Bauckham wrote a really good book on this that I'd recommend to any of your listeners who want to learn more. I mentioned a lot in my own book, but our local institutions are still operating under the old rules,.

Unfortunately, in many cases. I got a text message the other day, speaking of that, Wheaton College. Wheaton College is of course a big, supposedly conservative. I don't think so anymore. They're doing a documentary right now called Black Plus Evangelical.

And a lot of big names are in this. But the whole point is that basically the white church has been way off and we didn't let MLK type guys in because of their theology, but this was a big mistake. And this is going to be marketed to all kinds of students and influential people in the Christian evangelical world.

I think it's coming out this summer or maybe next fall, but this stuff is still there and people don't realize it. Like Trump got elected. It didn't change everything. They're still the same forces. So anyway, to get to a question for you, my audience is mostly keyed into the Christian institutions.

What do you recommend moving forward? Obviously you recommend Votie's book, but is there any practical thing that people can do in their churches and in their Christian institutions that you don't.

See happening? Yeah, I think it's almost on a church by church basis. I mean, you can get involved, obviously for those of you involved in denominational politics, you can obviously do that and that can be useful.

I'm in the PCA, but I'm just a lay person. I go to church and I care about what's in my local church. And that's the extent of my, I have enough political involvements outside the church. But if you are involved in governance issues, that's where a lot of the worst things happen.

In fact, I talk in my book that if you look at the mainline church, I mean, there's absolutely insane leftism there. But yet to be fair, like if you go to a lot of these actual mainline churches, even though theologically we would have some very significant disagreements with them, they're not nearly so crazy as the statements that are coming out of their denomination.

And that's because the liberals run unchecked. So I would say that if you are concerned and this is a really central issue in your life, do get involved at the denominational level. Do make sure that your folks are reading good things.

And you talk about Wheaton. I mean, Wheaton is a classic example. I mean, this was allegedly the Harvard of evangelicalism. It's totally fallen. Admissions rates are soaring up to 80 now, I think, like of applicants were admitted up from a much, much smaller number, not that many years ago, because honestly, evangelical parents, or just concerned Christian parents are not looking to go send their kids to a woke school.

So you have places like Hillsdale, or you have places, you know, that are like Grove City that are kind of doing well, because they're differentiating themselves. Although Grove City even hasn't been perfect to a degree.

And then the evangelical schools that are falling prey to liberalism are just not going to be attractive. But we do need to, you know, I'm not look there. I know there's some alumni trying to save Wheaton, and they should there's, there's great resources there.

They have a distinguished history. And we shouldn't just let these institutions go, but it's going to require some, some hand to hand fighting, metaphorically speaking, of course.

Yeah, that is the question, not just for Christian schools, but for all educational institutions, where people have a stake, and they their grandfather, their father went there, they love him. And it's like, what do you do?

When is it beyond return? Let's fast forward, I've talked to some or I've noticed, I should say some guys who are acceleration as to even in some cases voted for Kamala Harris, which I don't get. But yeah, they think that, hey, we just we're gonna come to a race war.

Okay, we just guys like Jeremy Carl guys like john Harris, they're, they're those are those are bad guys, because they're just preventing this from happening. They're trying to put up efforts that it's not, they're not going to work.

Right. And we just need to get to this point of normally, it's like white people versus everyone else, right? I think white people will triumph. And I think this is kind of bonkers. But I'm sure you've kind of navigated this.

I mean, yeah, future holding.

Well, look, whatever in God's providence is going to happen is going to happen, right? Like, and we don't control that. I think we're acknowledgement of the fact that we're not in control. My view is I attempted to use my best discernment to find the best way that I can be active in this issue, relying on on kind of my own prayer, my own thought.

You know, I think that, in general, if we ever air period, we should always err on the side of attempting to reconcile attempting to unify, you know, there may become a point where conflict of some sort just becomes inevitable.

I certainly hope we don't get to that point. But if it does, I think that'll be apparent to a lot more folks than just kind of doomers on, you know, Twitter, Reddit, or wherever, whatever they are. You know, I also would would point out for those even even let's leave aside the kind of moral and theological discomfort I kind of have with that type of thinking.

I just think that that practically, even if and again, they could be right, you know, we'll see how things go. You look at a case like South Africa, and people are like, Oh, well, you know, people will wake up or what happened in Zimbabwe, you know, people wake up, no, actually, things can just get worse and worse.

And in fact, that's generally the way that people operate in the world, and things can get worse and worse. And they just normalize in their mind, the new normal. And so I think it's, it's very dangerous to assume, ah, you know, it's just gonna get really, really bad.

And we're gonna and then everybody will see. And then they'll, they'll leap up and do something. I operate under the assumption that the best way to win is by winning. And, and so that's why I'm, you know, thrilled with what Trump is doing.

And I think even if perhaps the system is not salvageable, and I think it is, but even if I'm wrong in that assertion, we're getting to know like minded people, we're building communities, we're building communities in our churches and our where we live, those things in any political system will prove valuable over the long run.

And so my bet doesn't necessarily have to assume that things are just going to kind of go the way they've been going. I think there are lots of different scenarios in which working in a faithful and serious way on these issues will pay long-term.

Dividends. Now you live in Montana, you did, you went to, is it Harvard or Yale? I'm sorry. Both. I went to Yale for undergrad. Oh, okay. Well, so I was right. So you, you obviously have lived in the Northeast.

I live in New York, but I'm very, I'm probably like maybe 35 minutes from the Connecticut border if I needed to get there. I know New England a little bit. Anyway, one of the things, I know you're going to be writing about this in your upcoming book.

And by the way, do you have a date for that yet? Or?

I don't, you know, I've been, there's, there's some interesting uncertainties because it's possible that I'll be going into the administration in some capacity. And so I, I have not, I, I have publishers who are more than happy to publish it, but I'm not sort of going and signing contracts yet because I don't want to sign a contract and then like disappear and not be able to work on the book for a while.

So I'm just waiting for a little more clarity on what I'm.

Going to do. Well, hold the phone. Whatever I was saying doesn't matter anymore. You're.

Going into the administration? Maybe. I mean, it's, it's a possibility. It, it exists in the possibility set. They're, they're interested in having me in some capacity and I'm interested in joining in some capacity, but there are family and other considerations that, that come into play.

And so we just, you know, maybe we'll be able to match that up and,.

And maybe we won't, but. Okay. Well hopefully everyone who's hearing this can pray for you and that there will be prudent decision-making going on here. I'd love to see you in the administration. I would hate to see you out of Montana.

Montana is a beautiful place though.

Well, if I did, I would be commuting and that's one of the reasons why I, you know, that's, it really has to be the perfect sort of setup because it will be, I've got five kids at home and it's just, you know, it's a lot of time on the road.

So, so that's there, but assuming that, that, so right now I'm sort of in a more unusual mode. Normally I would have shopped the book already and have a really firm date. But what I've been doing is I know that there are publishers out there who, because of the success of my last book would be happy to publish this one.

And so I've just been kind of writing and holding on for a little bit more clarity before I kind of formally.

Shop it. Well, one of the things that I know you're going to be writing about, and this is one of the dynamics that I've noticed living in this area is of course there are white people, quote unquote, even original stock settler descendants kind of people who seem to really hate white people and they seem to control the levers of power in most of the Northeastern states.

And of course, even in the Pacific Northwest, we see a similar dynamic. And, and this I think causes some confusion. It caused, well, not confused, but it caught, it's, it's a problem for the guys who are like pure white supremacist or nationalist types who want to see the DNA test.

And that's the basis for cooperation because these guys would all pass it. And of course there's different settlers that are different groups from Europe that have been fighting each other in recent past in Europe.

It's not like white people can just bind everyone together, but the left of course is going after any European descendants. So that's the, so all that to say I know you're going to be talking about this in your book moving forward, maybe help us navigate that dynamic where it's like people who it wouldn't seem like it's in their best interest to go anti-white because they're so white.

Is it that they just protect themselves from their own policies? Well, that's really what.

I'm trying to understand for myself almost in writing the book. And I have ideas. The working title of the book is What's the Matter with Minnesota. Although I thought about also using What's the Matter with Massachusetts.

I like that one better. Two slightly different dynamics, but kind of similar where you have these very, very liberal whites. And it's basically a book on the kind of pernicious influence of liberal whites in America, which there are a variety of different factions.

And I kind of talk about those in the book as I'm developing it. But it's not totally clear. And I sort of, I'm actually trying to write this. It's, and I make this clear from the first words, I'm sort of trying to write this in love in hopes to kind of bring them back into the fold.

It's not just, I mean, there's an inevitable amount of anger. But I do think that ultimately, the Democratic Party is so dedicated to anti-whiteness that I think some of these people can be roused to their senses, a lot of them ultimately, and kind of come back and join the fold, not because I'm trying to have some ethno-nationalist party, but just because why would you support a party that actively hates you and attacks your family and attacks your culture and attacks your tradition?

So I'm trying to sort of understand. I mean, I do think in some cases, as you know, they are able to, particularly these affluent ones, sort of exempt themselves from the rule. If you're really, really wealthy and really affluent, I mean, it's a very powerful virtue signal and a very powerful flex of your own power to say, oh, well, I don't care about, you know, you can do all these things that hurt other white people, because frankly, my family is still going to be fine, right?

Like, that's the ultimate underlying thing. But I think also some of it is, and you see this a lot with liberal white women who are usually unmarried women, and this is, like, a lot of it really comes from deep unhappiness and unhappiness with themselves that is manifesting, unfortunately, in our politics.

And so I'm trying to, I think there's different things, different motivations for different of these groups. And again, just like with the book that I just wrote, I'm not kind of just trying to write for the true believer, for the person who's already just so angry and shaking their fist, but to really, you know, be to these people, but still, you know, say the truth, but in a loving way.

And hopefully, we'll catch more flies with honey than we will with vinegar, in this case, and that we can bring some of these folks to a more productive place in the political debate, because these liberal whites are really just, they're causing a tremendous, tremendous amount of damage in society.

And as you point out, it kind of belies a lot of the hopes of these white supremacist nationalists that, you know, some of the most toxic people in this debate are, in fact, you know, part of their.

Group. So. Yeah, yeah. It's, it's interesting to me to see those who would vote against the future of their children. That's right. And I think that's what you're and I appreciate so much the posture you take that is measured, that is calm, is loving.

We need more of that. It seems like we've come to similar conclusions on even the localism and building in your local community. I don't know if you're originally from Montana. Where are you from? I grew up in North Carolina.

So. But you're in Montana, and I'm assuming you're finding your community. You're trying to find a.

Place. Absolutely. And I've done that particularly around my church. I mean, those are my closest friends here. And I say that, you know, and we're not a political church, right? Like, in fact, our pastors, I mean, they're very orthodox, but they they're probably they're unhappy that we're not a little bit more political from the pulpit.

But it's still it's just a solid group of Christians, of folks who are like minded, of folks who are trying to build community in a really useful way. And I think that that's just a great starting point for whatever.

Happens down the road. Yeah, I told guys, I think the best thing if you're concerned about this issue is have babies and take power wherever you can. Yeah. You can't just stay out of the fight and you can't just not get married and have children.

You have to keep building. And that's what I think the left seems to understand is that as they take over institutions that can thumb their nose at even policies against them. So the Trump administration is in right now.

I want to sort of get to the positive vision here where you're positive about a lot of the things that they are doing moving forward. We're so like this has only been a few months, right? So we still have three and a half years and then hopefully with Vance, we get it would be great to have seven and a half years of this.

The possibilities seem pretty like endless. Like we have so many things we can do if we actually have that much momentum. This is a political question from the executive branch. Now this is courts maybe going against Trump, leaving state legislatures, not wanting to inform.

But what can the executive do if we have the executive, which is what we have now? Yeah. What kinds of things do you see either happening in a predictive way or would you love to see happening since you may go work for the administration that would really give us some.

Optimism here? Yeah. Well, we've seen tremendous amount of energy from the executive, tremendous numbers of executive orders really pushing executive power. And I don't mean that in a critical way. I think that so much of executive power has been illegally usurped.

This has actually been a big hobby horse of the Claremont Institute where I work for decades. We've talked about the administrative state far before it's been fashionable. Essentially, what you see Trump trying to do is that for the first time, probably arguably since FDR, you actually have somebody trying to be president.

In other words, he's saying, I am in control of the executive branch. There is no power in these bureaucrats other than what I invest in them. They are here to work for me. And this is the correct way to think about how the government should run, but it's not how it historically has run.

And this has been going on for a long time. I'll give you an anecdote along this. So I was at the Hoover Institution at Stanford for a decade. I worked very, very closely there with the late Secretary of State, George Shultz, who was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State.

And he had a wonderful anecdote that he told me on a few occasions of when he was Secretary of State, he went down to Latin America, and the diplomats there were very unhappy about something that we were doing where we were, I guess, undermining the Sandinistas or who knows what.

They were unhappy about something. And Shultz listened to them for a while. He was a very good listener, quite sympathetically. And he said, you know, I agree with you. I think you're right. And I think what you should do is, and he meant that quite sincerely, is that you should quit your job and go back to America and run for president.

When you get elected, you can put in this policy. And what he was really saying by that is like, you know, that's fine. I'm listening to you. But we have a president. The president is the person who sets the policy, and it's our job to enact the president's policy.

And we can share our expertise. President is not a dictator. We have a right to let him know if we don't agree. But at the end of the day, he has to give an order, and then we salute when we get that order.

And in fact, I was much more conservative than Secretary Shultz. He kept me around working with him for a decade, I think, because he appreciated that element of my own personality that I would argue with him.

A lot of people were too scared to argue with him because of his high status. I would get in arguments with him about stuff. But at the end of the day, sometimes he would just say, Jeremy, we're going to do it this way.

And then I would go, and I would execute his plan as if it were my idea. Right. And I just think that that's really, really important. That's the sort of attitude we need to have in our executive branch.

Trump is trying to bring this in a variety of ways. He's trying to preserve the executive's power to do things like he just he has power over through the Secretary of State on immigration in all sorts of ways that the courts really don't have say over it.

And I think he's trying to claw back a lot of power from the judiciary, which has not been licitly gained. And so I think that there's a tremendous opportunity there. And then to build on what you just said with Vice President Vance, I never engage in that this was the most important election of our lifetimes.

But I do think it would be incredibly important to get Vance or whoever it is, but Vance being the most likely and certainly the most appealing right now. Because I think he can, there's an element of the kind of deep state that's like, okay, well, I can wait out Trump for three and a half more years.

If Vance gets in, especially the guys who are already out the door, they're going to go do something else. Like they can't, they could wait three and a half years, but they can't wait seven and a half years or 11 and a half years.