Transcript [00:00] America's birth rate is too low, just [00:02] like that of the rest of the West. Now, [00:04] we're being told the solution to all of [00:06] this is, you won't believe it, more [00:09] government involvement. I will explain [00:10] why this is a foolish idea in just a [00:12] moment. This is the Ben Shapiro show. [00:21] So, America's birth rate is too low. [00:22] That is obvious. We are well below [00:24] replacement rates in the United States. [00:26] We're doing better than most of Europe, [00:27] by the way, and it's still too low. The [00:29] birth rate of pretty much all [00:30] industrialized countries is below [00:32] replacement rate. There is one [00:33] exception. We'll get to that exception [00:35] in just a little while. All of this, [00:37] because we are not producing enough [00:38] humans, has led to a migration crisis [00:40] because you need people to fill the jobs [00:42] and pay your future taxes. And of [00:44] course, it has led to national [00:45] bankruptcy. We spent all of the money [00:47] borrowing on a future that doesn't [00:49] exist. And then we remigrated entire [00:51] swaths of humans from other parts of the [00:53] world where they don't have fertility [00:55] rate problems. So, how do we reverse [00:57] that precise problem? Well, according to [00:59] many people on both the right and the [01:01] left, the answer is you'll never believe [01:02] it. You won't believe it. You'll believe [01:04] it. It's the government. Never mind that [01:07] government policies have exacerbated the [01:09] problems of family non-formation and the [01:11] lack of childbearing at pretty much [01:13] every step imaginable. The federal [01:14] government has promoted birth control, [01:17] abortion, disincentivized marriage at [01:19] pretty much every turn, removed all [01:21] economic benefits of being involved in [01:23] social fabric building activities like [01:25] church, promoted broken kinship [01:27] networks, and pretty much all government [01:29] policies have done is to break apart the [01:31] systems that cause people to actually [01:34] have children. The answer to people not [01:37] having babies, apparently, according to [01:39] these folks, is that government needs to [01:40] pay you to have more babies. Now, some [01:43] of the people who are pushing this are [01:44] on the right, and they are trying to [01:47] walk in the in the path trod by Hungary, [01:49] which we'll get to in a little bit. So, [01:51] over the weekend, the New York Times [01:53] reported that the Trump administration [01:54] is moving to allow married couples with [01:56] a stay-at-home spouse to collect child [01:58] care subsidies, a policy championed by [02:00] Vice President JD Vance using funds from [02:01] a federal program intended to assist [02:03] working parents. According to people [02:05] familiar with the discussions, the [02:06] change would create the only federal [02:08] subsidy to pay parents who stay home and [02:10] raise their kids. So, where is the money [02:12] coming from? Apparently, they're going [02:13] to use an HHS fund created in the 1990s [02:17] to help low-income and working-class [02:19] parents afford child care so they could [02:20] go to work or go to school. Under the [02:22] new draft rule, parents who stay home [02:24] with their kids could benefit from the [02:25] program, typically providing about 9 [02:27] grand per child each year. So, again, [02:30] the idea would be that you're paying [02:32] stay-at-home moms to stay at home. Now, [02:35] this is very much part and parcel of [02:37] stuff that JD Vance has been preaching [02:38] for a long time. He said back in April [02:40] 2021 on Twitter, "It turns out that [02:42] normal Americans care more about their [02:43] families than their jobs and want a [02:45] family policy that doesn't shunt their [02:46] kids into crap daycare so they can enjoy [02:48] more freedom in the paid labor force." [02:52] Again, this is a plausible argument. And [02:54] it turns out that according to the [02:55] statistics, the plurality of mothers of [02:59] young children [03:01] don't actually want to work full-time. [03:04] According to the Institute of Family [03:06] Studies poll from March 2025, about 42% [03:10] of mothers of young children want to [03:12] work full-time, 39% want to work [03:14] part-time and 19% would prefer to work [03:16] not at all. Now, those numbers change [03:18] pretty rapidly, by the way, when you get [03:21] to unmarried moms. It turns out that [03:22] unmarried moms actually do want to work [03:24] full-time, which is kind of interesting. [03:27] They don't want to be at home presumably [03:28] with the kids. Only 35% say they want to [03:31] work part-time. But when you get to [03:32] married moms, then actually the vast [03:34] majority would prefer to work part-time, [03:36] which is my personal experience. My [03:37] wife, the doctor, she prefers working [03:39] part-time because she wants to spend a [03:40] lot of time at home with the kids. We [03:42] can afford to do that, which is great. [03:43] Okay. So, let's agree that we need more [03:45] married couples having more babies in [03:47] America because we very clearly do. We [03:49] should then ask a couple of questions. [03:51] Is the role of the government to promote [03:53] this? And second, are these policies [03:55] actually going to work? So, let's start [03:57] with the basics. Not all forms of [03:59] government are the same. The job of the [04:01] federal government and your local [04:02] government are not the same. Everyone [04:03] likes to ignore this. The constitution [04:05] is written the way that it is for a [04:06] reason. Every amendment to the [04:08] constitution is a restriction on the [04:10] power of the federal government. It [04:11] doesn't have to do with state [04:12] government. So just to take an example, [04:13] the first amendment to the constitution [04:15] tells Congress shall make no law [04:17] abridging freedom of speech. It says [04:19] nothing about what state or local [04:21] governments can do. It says here's what [04:22] Congress should not be able to do [04:24] because the founders very well [04:26] understood their Montescu and they [04:28] understood that there's a lot of stuff [04:29] that you can do at the local community [04:31] level. They shouldn't be doing at the [04:32] federal level. This is why by the way [04:33] criminal law is typically local in [04:36] nature. If you commit a murder you will [04:38] be prosecuted by the state, not by the [04:39] federal government because it's not the [04:40] job of the federal government to be [04:42] involved in things. Now again that [04:43] doesn't mean that we want murder to be [04:45] okay. What we're saying is that [04:46] different levels of government do [04:48] different things, which is important [04:49] when it comes to policies like this one. [04:51] So, if you in your neighborhood want to [04:53] facilitate the common good by voting for [04:56] subsidies to new moms, I don't see any [04:58] problem with that at all. In fact, I [05:00] know a lot of communities that do this [05:01] sort of stuff, even on a private level. [05:04] For example, in my own Jewish community, [05:06] there are cities where, for example, [05:08] there will be a quasi tax as part of [05:11] your synagogue membership that goes to [05:13] subsidize childhood education for kids. [05:16] And that's all consensual. It makes [05:17] perfect sense. People are buying into [05:19] it. But again, local government, local [05:22] community is not the same as the federal [05:23] government. The federal government was [05:24] designed in order to protect particular [05:27] rights and prevent particular abuses. It [05:30] is a government of enumerated powers and [05:33] limited jurisdiction. It was never [05:35] instituted for the purpose of generally [05:37] promoting quote unquote the common good. [05:39] Because here is the problem. The bigger [05:41] the polity gets, the bigger the area and [05:43] and population you're governing, the [05:45] less agreement there is on what the [05:46] common good actually constitutes. Which [05:48] is why the federal government, [05:49] traditionally speaking, handled things [05:51] like border policy, [05:54] federal federal defense policy, right? [05:58] National debt issues, right? Th those [06:00] were things the federal government was [06:01] designed to do. But when it came to [06:02] local stuff, you could actually have a [06:04] lot more government that was a lot more [06:05] intrusive on the local level. You just [06:07] didn't need it as much. Right? This is [06:08] the paradox of government where social [06:11] fabric is high. Government is more [06:13] appropriate because there's broader [06:14] agreement. But also government is [06:16] significantly less necessary because [06:17] everybody sort of agrees on the standard [06:19] without the government being involved. [06:20] The more you abstract up the chain, the [06:22] higher the level of government, the less [06:24] agreement there is, the heavier the hand [06:26] of government would be necessary to [06:27] promote a particular vision of the [06:28] common good, the less legitimate it is [06:30] because the fewer people even agree on [06:32] this. Now again, this actually comes [06:34] from Catholic ideology. I mean, you got [06:37] probably go back to the original Bible [06:38] where you go to the Old Testament and [06:40] the tribes actually have their own sort [06:41] of governance systems, but the Catholic [06:43] idea for this is subsidiarity, right? [06:45] This is like a basic idea in [06:47] Catholicism. Now many of the people in [06:49] government ranging from Marco Rubio to [06:50] JD Vans seem to think the federal [06:52] government has the generalized capacity [06:54] to promote the common good. Now the [06:56] problem there is that there is no actual [06:58] limiting principle here in a democracy [07:01] with regard to this. Once you say that [07:03] the federal government is here to [07:04] promote the common good without defining [07:06] the common good the left promoting its [07:08] version of the common good with the [07:10] gigantic government gun. This is why [07:11] using rim navarum the pope's take on [07:14] economics as a guide to national [07:16] politics is a very very very poor idea. [07:20] Furthermore many of the people pushing [07:22] this policy are as we will discuss [07:23] making a category error. They think that [07:26] people are not having babies that can be [07:28] fixed by material circumstance that if [07:30] they point the government gun at you or [07:32] the money hose of the government at you [07:35] this will make things better. But the [07:36] problem as religious people should know [07:38] is in fact not lack of government [07:40] subsidies. It is a lack of social [07:42] fabric, patriotism and spiritual [07:45] preparedness for having kids. That is [07:46] the reason fewer people are having kids [07:48] in religious communities. People still [07:50] having kids. Religious Catholics still [07:51] having tons of kids. Mormons having tons [07:52] of kids. Orthodox Jews having tons of [07:54] kids. Evangelical Protestants having a [07:56] lot of kids. That is the big problem. It [07:59] will not be solved by shooting money at [08:00] people from a t-shirt cannon. [08:02] Now again, the best argument that's [08:04] being made right now for a policy that [08:06] promotes childbearing and rearing from [08:07] the federal government is the argument [08:09] made by Kevin Roberts over at the [08:11] Heritage Foundation. Basically, the [08:13] argument is that this is the best we can [08:17] do, that we're not going to be able to [08:18] dismantle the welfare state, so we [08:20] should use the power of the ring for our [08:22] own good. It is a gift. We should wield [08:24] it. As Kevin Roberts tweeted out, Vice [08:26] President Vance's proposal to redirect [08:28] existing subsidies toward married [08:29] families is the kind of strategic policy [08:31] conservatives should embrace. The [08:32] welfare state already exists. The [08:34] subsidies already exist. Conservatives [08:36] do not have the votes to dismantle [08:37] either. Until that changes, taxpayer [08:39] dollars should reward family formation, [08:41] not subsidize its decline. That is the [08:42] conservative option. Again, that is the [08:44] best argument. It is because it's [08:46] basically saying, "We're not getting rid [08:47] of the slush funds. You may as well use [08:49] the slush fund to direct it toward [08:51] particular better ideas." Now again, [08:54] what's funny about this is many of the [08:55] same people who are promoting a [08:56] pragmatism in government here are [08:58] utterly unpragmatic about how government [09:00] actually works and where the votes are [09:02] right now. They're also utterly [09:03] unpragmatic about the fact that when you [09:05] maximize the size and scope of [09:06] government, eventually you will lose and [09:08] all the people you hate will control [09:10] that government. [09:12] But again, they're really doing because [09:13] they think it's a good idea. And it [09:14] isn't actually a good idea because when [09:15] you expand the size and scope of the [09:17] federal government, again, if you think [09:19] that you can wield the ring of power, [09:21] usually the next thing to wield it is [09:23] Gollum. Coming up, we'll get to whether [09:26] this policy really even will work or [09:28] not. The answer, spoiler alert, kind of [09:29] know, but I'll explain why. First, I [09:31] don't think you need to predict the [09:32] future to understand the appeal of gold. [09:33] You just have to look at what's [09:34] happening right this moment. The [09:36] national debt, it keeps going up. [09:37] Central banks are buying gold. Major [09:39] Wall Street institutions themselves are [09:40] putting increasingly bullish targets on [09:42] precious metals. When all these [09:44] institutions start doing the exact same [09:46] thing, you should probably think why [09:47] they are doing that. Here's what we know [09:49] about physical gold and silver. [09:50] Washington cannot actually print those [09:51] things. The Fed can't create more of [09:53] them at a meeting. You actually own the [09:55] asset. This is why I recommend [09:56] diversification through Golden Crest [09:58] Metals. They're boutique precious metals [09:59] firm with transparent pricing, widely [10:01] recognized, highly liquid coins, and [10:03] zero buyback fees. No overpriced private [10:05] label products, no giant call center, [10:07] just straightforward service. right now. [10:09] Get a free 2026 info kit or a free [10:11] portfolio review, plus up to 25 grand in [10:14] free silver on qualifying purchases. [10:16] Call 888-429-39.99. [10:18] Text Bentometals. That's 638257. [10:22] Again, 638257. Textbentomedals or go to [10:25] golden crestmetals.com/ben. [10:27] Give them a call and get started. [10:28] 888429-39.99. [10:31] Now again, government has done [10:33] historically a terrible job of [10:35] incentivizing childbearing and [10:36] childbearing. like truly awful. So for [10:38] example, government policies have [10:40] radically undermined the kinship [10:41] network. One of the things that allows [10:42] you to have lots of kids, my own [10:44] personal life, one of the things that [10:45] allows us to have lots of kids is the [10:47] fact that we have a lot of friends, [10:48] family, grandparents nearby. And this is [10:51] true in most societies that have lots of [10:53] kids. Is that kids kind of are raised by [10:56] obviously the parents, but then also the [10:57] extended kinship network, right? If my [10:59] nieces and nephews step out of line, [11:01] I'll tell them to cut it out. And the [11:03] same thing is true of my kids, for their [11:04] uncles and aunts and certainly for my [11:06] parents and my wife's parents, right? [11:08] Both of whom live near live by built our [11:09] own kinship network that provides a [11:11] social safety net on the private level. [11:14] All of the government's policies have [11:16] been designed to eviscerate that kinship [11:18] network in favor of the government doing [11:19] the job and the government can't do the [11:20] job. So for example, it used to be that [11:23] grandparents typically as they aged [11:25] moved in with the kids and the purpose [11:27] of that was not just to take care of [11:29] grandpa and grandma. It was also because [11:31] grandpa and grandma help take care of [11:33] the grandkids. Well, social security [11:36] basically got rid of that. So now [11:38] grandma and grandma, grandpa and [11:39] grandma, they have money coming from the [11:41] government and mom and dad because they [11:45] don't feel the necessity to take care of [11:46] grandma and grandpa, they shuttle [11:48] grandma and grandpa off to a retirement [11:49] community or off to a retirement home. [11:52] And so the entire kinship network breaks [11:53] down. Right? Welfare undermine marriage. [11:56] Right? The entire welfare state was [11:58] designed to alleviate the consequences [12:00] of making poor life decisions. So you [12:01] would get pregnant out of wedlock. We're [12:03] not talking obviously about cases of [12:05] involuntarism of rape or something, but [12:07] large-scale welfare was designed to [12:08] alleviate the consequences of single [12:10] motherhood. So single motherhood shut [12:12] up, right? People were having babies [12:14] because the consequences of having a [12:15] baby were not as dire economically [12:17] speaking. Subsidies for things like [12:20] college and birth control delayed both [12:21] marriage and childbearing. [12:24] government subsidies for things like [12:25] child care drove the cost of childare up [12:27] because you are artificially expanding [12:29] the demand without driving up the [12:31] supply. But the real issue of why people [12:34] are not having babies. Okay, this is the [12:36] real thing. In every country that is [12:38] currently not having babies, [12:40] there is a magic formula for not having [12:42] babies. One, high use of birth control. [12:44] Right? Birth control is the one medical [12:47] intervention that has achieved many [12:49] left-wing goals because again the birth [12:52] control pill was designed to separate [12:53] off sex from childbearing. Now again [12:55] this is not a case that no one should [12:57] ever use the birth control pill or that [12:58] people should never be on birth control [13:00] or anything like that. Right? That that [13:02] is in my opinion your business. We live [13:06] in a free country. I I'm not somebody [13:08] who is anti- birth control even on a a [13:10] total religious level. Right? There's [13:11] some controversy in Orthodox Judaism [13:13] about various types of birth control and [13:14] all that as a societal matter and this [13:17] is true for for lots of things in [13:19] society that are useful on an individual [13:22] level but when applied at scale have [13:23] some pretty interesting downstream [13:24] effects. The birth control pill which [13:26] separated off sex from childbearing [13:28] which means sex and marriage were no [13:30] longer connected separated all this [13:32] stuff. So now people could have their [13:34] fun and there would be no consequences [13:35] to the fun. Again, you can say that's a [13:37] good thing, but one of the consequences [13:39] of that is fewer marriages, fewer kids. [13:42] Just a reality. Because if you go back [13:44] to the 1940s, for example, when people [13:46] were having lots of seven-month babies, [13:49] people would have sex, they would get [13:51] pregnant, and there were a lot of [13:52] preeies happening, right? They would get [13:54] married while the while a lot of shotgun [13:56] weddings happening. And that wasn't like [13:57] the worst thing in the world. I [13:58] understand everybody now pretends that [14:00] was like a horrible, terrible thing. [14:01] That's the way that pretty much all [14:02] human society worked for several hundred [14:04] years there, for several thousand years [14:05] actually. And uh it was not the end of [14:07] the world. Okay. High levels of economic [14:09] development. And so as societies get [14:12] richer, kids move from becoming an asset [14:15] class to becoming an economic detriment. [14:17] So if you go to very poor countries, and [14:19] again this is this is good, right? You [14:20] don't want kids to have to work at the [14:22] factory. But if you are living in a poor [14:24] society or let's say America 150 years [14:27] ago, you're living on a farm. Your kids [14:29] come home and they work, right? They're [14:31] they're part of the labor unit. They [14:34] come home and they are expected to earn. [14:36] And there are a lot of stories for a [14:38] large chunk of American history about [14:39] 17-year-olds entering the workforce to [14:41] help support the family. And so the idea [14:43] was have lots of kids because number [14:44] one, some of them will die when they're [14:46] young. And number two, the ones who are [14:48] left over are going to help work the [14:49] farm. Well, as countries develop [14:51] economically, you don't want your kids [14:53] having to do all of that. So now they [14:55] are not actually contributing to your [14:57] household economically speaking. They're [14:58] now a net cost, which of course is very [15:00] true of kids today. Kids are very [15:01] expensive, cost hundreds of thousands of [15:03] dollars to raise your kids. And so now [15:06] they go from being a net economic [15:08] benefit to a net economic cost. That [15:10] changes the economic structure. And then [15:12] finally, most importantly, a decline in [15:14] rel religion and or civic nationalism. [15:16] So when people believe that there is a [15:18] religious duty to have kids, they have [15:19] kids. When people believe that part of [15:22] your patriotic duty is to provide a next [15:25] generation to be patriots, people have [15:27] kids. Now notice something common to all [15:29] these factors and why people are having [15:32] used to have kids and now no longer have [15:33] kids. There are necessities. There are [15:35] reasons you must have kids, right? You [15:36] used to have kids because you couldn't [15:38] stop it because again sex equals babies. [15:41] You used to have kids because again you [15:45] needed labor and you used to have kids [15:47] because God said so and because your [15:49] country needed it. These were all [15:51] necessities. And then and then it turns [15:53] out that we got rid of the necessities [15:55] and people decided not to have kids, [15:58] right? People don't have kids because [16:00] they don't have to have kids. In fact, [16:02] they're not even getting married today. [16:04] Now, statistically, what we actually [16:06] have here in the United States and [16:07] across the West is not even a [16:08] childbearing crisis. It is a marriage [16:10] crisis. One of the fascinating things [16:12] that's happening here is that married [16:14] coup people are getting married later, [16:16] but as we'll explore in just a second, [16:19] married couples are still having kids. [16:21] It's just that few fewer people are [16:22] getting married generally speaking. And [16:24] we have great stats on this. The [16:26] National Bureau of Economic Research did [16:28] a study a few years back, a couple of [16:30] years ago, and they found that across [16:32] high-income countries and increasingly [16:34] elsewhere, birth rates have fallen to [16:36] historically low levels, total fertility [16:38] rates are now below replacement rate in [16:39] nearly all OECD countries, with many [16:41] experiencing sustained fertility rates [16:43] below 1.5, including Japan, Canada, [16:45] Greece, and Italy. Some countries in [16:47] East Asia including South Korea, [16:48] Singapore and China now have a total [16:50] fertility rate at below one right which [16:53] means the population is going to have [16:55] now look at this chart right you can see [16:57] this chart not a single OECD country not [17:00] one is above replacement rate [17:02] replacement rate is two except for [17:04] Israel which is near three Israel is the [17:06] one exception I said I'd mention the [17:07] exception Israel is the exception there [17:08] are a lot of reasons for that which [17:10] we'll get into in just a second [17:14] now again they say the National Bureau [17:16] of Economic Research, a broad-based [17:18] decline in fertility across the [17:20] industrialized world, reflected in both [17:22] higher childlessness and lower completed [17:23] fertility is less a response to period [17:26] specific costs or policies than a [17:28] widespread deprioritization of [17:29] parenthood in people's adult lives. This [17:31] deprioritization reflects a complex [17:33] interplay of changing norms around work, [17:36] parenting, gender roles, and leisure [17:38] shaped by evolving social and economic [17:39] influences and an expanded set of [17:41] non-child activities and consumption. In [17:42] other words, people aren't having fewer [17:44] kids cuz they can't afford it. they're [17:45] having fewer kids because they don't [17:46] want as many kids. They say we refer to [17:49] the set of dynamics as shifting [17:51] priorities. It does not reflect a simple [17:52] change in preferences or a direct [17:54] response to prices or constraints, but [17:55] rather a deeper transformation in how [17:57] successive cohorts are choosing to [17:59] orient their lives. And again, look at [18:01] the radical decline from the 60s to now [18:04] in terms of total fertility rate. And [18:06] again, the United States is not an [18:07] outlier here. We're actually slightly [18:08] higher than a lot of these other [18:09] countries like Canada, Norway, Portugal, [18:11] Japan. [18:14] And now again, the west has trashed all [18:16] of the factors that have led [18:19] historically to high fertility rates. So [18:22] as you can see when you look at US [18:24] fertility rates starting in 1800 to [18:27] 2025, [18:30] right? What you can see here is that [18:32] total fertility rate is in sort of [18:34] steady decline up until you hit, you [18:38] know, about 1925. It boosts again into [18:42] 1950 and then it and then it totally [18:44] dumps after the birth control bill. [18:47] Again, not not a gigantic shock. [18:50] One of the kind of I mean as as [18:52] societies become richer, then you have [18:54] fewer kids. This is just a normal thing [18:56] that happens. Okay, the reversal that [18:59] happens because of the birth control [19:00] pill is pretty obvious on this chart, [19:02] right? You hit 1960, birth control pill [19:03] hits, and you start to see a radical [19:05] decline and then it basically sticks [19:07] around at just below two for a while. [19:10] The bigger issue right now in the United [19:12] States and across the West is that the [19:14] percentage of women never getting [19:15] married is rising rapidly, [19:18] rapidly, rapidly. [19:20] And in fact, married women, they used to [19:23] there was a decline in the number of [19:25] pregnancies completed for married women, [19:26] but it's been basically stagnant in the [19:28] United States since the 1980s. So [19:30] married women are still having babies. [19:32] It's just that fewer women are getting [19:34] married. According to the Institute for [19:35] Family Studies, both marital marital and [19:38] non-marital first birth rates have [19:39] declined on the whole. Marital first [19:41] birth rates remain very similar to where [19:43] where they were at any point between the [19:45] 70s and today. A whopping 75% of the [19:48] total fertility decline since 2007 is [19:50] attributable to the shifting likelihood [19:52] that people are married. When Americans [19:54] today get married, they have babies just [19:55] like married people at their ages did in [19:56] the past. explanations for falling [19:58] fertility that place the blame on [19:59] couples choosing not to have kids [20:01] probably can't explain much about [20:02] declining fertility since changes with [20:04] in within couple behavior are not the [20:06] main story. So in other words, much of [20:07] the policy that is currently being [20:09] developed, right? The policy that says [20:12] is that you're a married couple, we want [20:13] you to be able to stay home with your [20:14] kids now. You'll have more kids, you're [20:16] going to have those kids anyway. The [20:18] biggest problem in Western societies is [20:20] that women are not getting married, men [20:22] are not getting married, fewer babies. [20:25] Now, as you say, the second argument is [20:27] that children stopped being an economic [20:29] asset. They became a cost as we've [20:30] discussed and people don't have to, so [20:33] they're not. And third, religious [20:35] observance across the US and across the [20:37] West has declined precipitously. So [20:39] again, all the reasons why people had to [20:41] have kids or felt the necessity to have [20:43] kids, all of those are basically gone. [20:45] And you can see every cultural indicator [20:47] of this. All righty. Coming up, we'll [20:49] get to just another indicator. The [20:50] religion is falling apart here in the [20:53] West. First, you have to be prepared for [20:55] the future. And you know the thing that [20:57] is definitely going to happen in the [20:58] future. I know this is going to get dark [20:59] real fast. You're going to die. We're [21:00] all going to die. Now, how's that for a [21:03] Tuesday? But here is the thing. You can [21:05] prepare so that at least your family's [21:07] taken care of in case, god forbid, [21:08] something happens to you. You'll feel [21:09] better about your life if you have life [21:11] insurance. Policy Genius makes that [21:13] easier. It's a free online marketplace [21:14] where you can compare quotes from some [21:16] of America's top insurers side by side. [21:17] Their licensed team helps clarify [21:19] coverage amounts, prices, and terms, [21:20] answers your questions, handles the [21:22] paperwork. With Policy Genius, you can [21:23] find 20-year life insurance policies [21:25] starting at just 276 bucks a year for a [21:27] million dollars in coverage. Head on [21:28] over to policygenius.com/shapiro [21:30] to compare life insurance quotes from [21:32] top companies. See how much you could [21:33] save. That's policygenius.com/shapiro. [21:36] Again, I have been thinking ahead about [21:38] my family for years, but you should do [21:39] the same because there's only one [21:40] inevitability in life, and that is that [21:43] again, your family is going to need help [21:45] if something happens to you. Go check [21:46] them out right now. [21:47] policygenius.com/shapiro. [21:49] the best, easiest way to get the life [21:51] insurance you need, [21:52] policygenius.com/appiro. [21:53] So over the weekend, a big story is that [21:56] over in Britain, St. Paul's Cathedral [22:00] signed a 4-year deal with the London [22:02] nightclub Fabric to stage music events [22:04] inside St. Paul's Cathedral. Under the [22:07] partnership, Fabric will be the [22:09] cathedral's exclusive partner for such [22:10] events until 2030. [22:13] Silent discos held at Canterbury [22:15] Cathedral in 2024 were dubbed a rave in [22:17] the nave by critics. [22:20] Its organizer said at the time such [22:22] events would not bring young people [22:23] closer to Christ and would instead [22:24] suggest entertainment deserves our [22:26] attention more than God. Fabric in [22:28] Fairington had its license revoked in [22:30] 2016 after Islington Council found what [22:33] it described as a culture of drug use at [22:34] the venue. Two 18-year-olds had died of [22:36] drug overdoses and now they're playing [22:38] gigs at St. Paul's Cathedral. Naturally, [22:41] Sadik Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, [22:44] is super happy about this quote. Fabric [22:46] St. Paul's Cathedral. Name a more iconic [22:48] duo. [22:50] Bringing together these two institutions [22:52] will create a one-of- aind experience. [22:53] Pairing worldclass music with one of our [22:55] most special landmarks. Is it just a [22:57] special landmark? Is that what the [22:58] cathedral is for? Is it um is it just a [23:01] landmark? Is it? [23:03] Bishop Robert Baron, frequent guest on [23:04] our program. He says, "Word has just [23:06] come down that St. Paul's Cathedral in [23:07] London, the second most important church [23:08] in the Anglican world, has imitated [23:10] Canterbury Cathedral in permitting [23:12] raves, nightclub-like entertainments to [23:14] take place in its confines. The usual [23:15] reasons for acquiescing to this have [23:17] been trotted out, reaching out to the [23:18] young, trying to get with the times, [23:20] etc. But this development simply shows [23:21] that the leadership of the Church of [23:22] England has lost any sense of the [23:24] crucial distinction between the sacred [23:26] and the secular. Across the centuries [23:27] and across the cultures, our ancestors [23:29] seem to have intuitively grasped the [23:31] importance of this demarcation. Whereas [23:33] the secular is the arena of ordinary [23:34] experience and activity, the sacred is [23:36] another realm, a different dimension. [23:38] Accordingly, in the properly sacred [23:39] space, one is lifted out of the [23:41] conventional and introduced into the [23:42] numinous. This is why Christian [23:43] cathedrals are filled with images of the [23:45] saints and angels and why their [23:46] interiors are meant to first disorient [23:48] us and then to reorient us toward the [23:49] divine. It is also why in the initiation [23:51] rituals of primal peoples, a young [23:53] person is purposely ripped out of the [23:54] ordinary and introduced into the mythic [23:56] and mystic dimension. And it is why [23:57] throughout the Bible, sacred spaces are [23:59] carefully set apart from common spaces. [24:00] This, of course, is totally true. [24:03] He says the contemporary West is quite [24:04] literally the first culture in human [24:06] history that is in danger of collapsing [24:07] the sacred into the secular or better [24:09] losing any sense of the difference [24:11] between the two. Now again I think [24:13] that's actually being kind of flattering [24:14] to the secular. I think what you [24:15] actually have is a merger of the pagan [24:17] and the religious which has happened [24:18] over human history and doesn't end well. [24:20] He said this is doing enormous damage [24:22] especially to young people whose lives [24:23] have been flattened into a preoccupation [24:25] with money, worldly success and material [24:27] things. I mean honestly I I I actually [24:28] don't think that's why people are going [24:30] to raves. I think they're going there [24:31] for the sex and the drugs. The church [24:32] indeed should go out into the secular [24:34] space to find those who have wandered [24:35] away from God. But it should then lead [24:37] those wanderers back to the holy having [24:39] raves in the nave of one of the most [24:40] sacred spaces in the Christian world is [24:41] I'm sad to say another sign of our [24:43] pitiful surrender to ideological [24:44] secularism. I mean that last part is [24:46] certainly true. Douglas Murray made a [24:49] point and uh he he said London Central [24:52] Mosque is also an iconic venue. When's [24:54] the rave? In other words, Muslims aren't [24:56] doing this. So why exactly are [24:57] Christians? And this is an excellent [24:58] question. Now again once your society [25:01] has fewer kids for all the reasons [25:03] mentioned above ranging from religious [25:05] decline to economic reasons to birth [25:07] control delayed marriage once your [25:09] society has fewer kids you get a social [25:11] death spiral. Having lots of kids or [25:14] almost no kids is a social thing. So I [25:16] mentioned earlier Israel Israel is the [25:18] only developed country on planet earth [25:20] with higher than replacement fertility [25:22] rates like significantly higher than [25:24] replacement fertility rates. And those [25:25] rates are going up not down. [25:28] There are a bunch of reasons for that. [25:30] One, the country is basically built [25:32] around kids. Extended kinship networks, [25:34] family, friends. The social fabric [25:37] favors large families. The isolation [25:39] that you see in the rest of the West [25:40] does not. So, if you ever walk around in [25:41] Jerusalem, you will see kids just [25:43] getting on buses at the age of five and [25:45] just riding around because the bus [25:47] driver will take care of them. It's it's [25:48] like a real thing. The entire public [25:51] space is built around children. Nobody [25:53] gets offended if you bring your kid to a [25:55] restaurant and people make noise. That's [25:57] just not the way. Like there are certain [25:58] fancy restaurants where obviously it's [26:00] not a thing but the spaces in Israel are [26:03] filled with kids and everybody gets it [26:05] and nobody's upset about it. And again a [26:08] large part of that is sort of religious [26:10] principle. One of one religious [26:11] principle in Judaism is that for example [26:15] even if your religious observance [26:18] particularly you have to hear something [26:19] right. So so quick [26:22] quick word on the on the last Bible [26:24] portion. So the last Bible portion that [26:26] that we just read from the book of [26:27] Deuteronomy talks about the idea that [26:30] once every seven years the leader of the [26:32] Jewish people has to get up and do [26:33] something called hehal which is you you [26:34] read out the entire Torah and they still [26:37] do this by the way in Israel once every [26:39] seven years the president of the country [26:40] Bji Herszog Isaac Herszog will get up [26:43] and do this and one of the commandments [26:44] in the Torah is that everyone has to [26:45] attend women men and so the question is [26:48] well if the kids come aren't people [26:50] going to be distracted the answer is [26:52] that you want the kids to be present [26:53] because the kids have to learn the ways [26:55] even if people are slightly distracted [26:57] from the from the the actual thing [27:00] that's happening. Right? So again, a [27:02] culture built around kids is a real [27:04] thing. And that's not unique to Judaism, [27:06] right? Their culture is built around [27:06] kids in the United States. If you go to [27:08] deeply Catholic communities, lots of [27:10] kids running around. Deeply Protestant [27:11] communities, lots of kids running [27:12] around. Okay? Israel is in fact built on [27:15] religious principles. It is not a state [27:17] that is ruled by Jewish law. It [27:19] certainly is not. But even the secular, [27:21] very secular in Tel Aviv, where the [27:22] politics are similar to San Francisco, [27:24] has a relative who is religious. Secular [27:26] people in Israel still very often light [27:29] candles on Friday night, even if they [27:31] then go on to do things that violate the [27:33] laws of Sabbath. [27:35] When when Yom Kapoor happens, Tel Aviv [27:37] shuts down. It is a secular city. It [27:38] shuts down. People will ride bicycles [27:40] around rather than taking cars. [27:42] People still celebrate Passover. Like [27:44] secular people in Israel are very often [27:46] more religious than the reformed Jews in [27:48] the United States by a fair margin. Not [27:51] only that, there's a civic nationalism [27:53] that applies in Israel because Israel is [27:54] under continuous fire obviously. And [27:56] that means that every single Israeli has [27:58] a national commitment to the future of [28:00] the state and to the Jewish people, [28:02] which is why a line that you will very [28:03] often hear in Israel and in the Jewish [28:05] community more broadly, but mostly in [28:07] Israel, is the best revenge against [28:09] Hitler is to have lots of kids. It's a [28:11] thing that you'll hear people say. Okay. [28:13] So again, all the elements of having [28:15] lots of kids are there and could be [28:16] there for Americans, right? Because [28:18] civic nationalism is a thing. We're a [28:20] more religious country than Europe, [28:22] right? And and we have those social [28:24] spaces. It's possible to have kinship [28:25] networks again. But all of those things [28:28] are non-governmental in origin, right? [28:31] Vanishingly few Americans believe the [28:32] survival of America is dependent on them [28:34] having kids. Pretty much all the [28:35] Israelis do, even the ones who aren't [28:37] religious. [28:38] So we could do those things. But again, [28:40] what you will notice in that entire [28:42] litany, what you'll notice is that there [28:44] is no talk of the government. It is not [28:47] government policy in Israel that is [28:48] causing people to have children. It is [28:50] social fabric that is causing people to [28:52] have kids. And I'm not the only one [28:54] saying this. Tim Carney, a Catholic [28:56] writer who's literally written the book [28:58] on declining birth rates in the West, [29:00] points this out. Okay, so how about [29:03] these policies? Back to the policy [29:04] that's being proposed. When we say that [29:06] we're going to pay people to stay at [29:07] home with kids and now maybe they'll [29:09] have more kids, we are trying to solve a [29:12] problem with a tool it is not designed [29:13] to do. We're trying to fix a broken [29:15] light bulb with a fly swatter and we [29:18] have good evidence of this. So Hungary [29:20] beloved of sort of the Naton right and a [29:23] lot a lot of people in the nationalist [29:24] conservative movement very fond of [29:25] Hungary because they love government [29:27] promoted quote unquote common good. [29:29] Hungary tried this and it totally didn't [29:30] work. As the American Enterprise [29:32] Institute reported back in November of [29:34] 2025, [29:36] Hungary spends around 5% of GDP on [29:38] family subsidies. The OECD ranks Hungary [29:41] among the top five OECD countries [29:42] overall in public spending on family [29:43] benefits. Victor Orbin said in 2017 the [29:46] country's objective was to raise the [29:48] total fertility rate to replacement [29:50] level, which is 2.1 by 2030. [29:52] Fertility instead has been trending [29:54] down. Hungary is further from meeting [29:56] its 2030 fertility objective. They go [29:58] way further than anything being promoted [30:00] by JD Vance and the rest of the federal [30:02] government under President Trump right [30:03] now. So here we're talking about like [30:05] $9,000 subsidies to stay home, which [30:07] frankly is not that much money. Orbin's [30:10] government in Hungary introduced [30:12] lifetime personal income tax exemptions [30:14] for women with four or more kids. If you [30:16] had four or more kids, no taxes, none. [30:19] And then later they expanded that to [30:21] include moms of three and eventually [30:22] even two kids. So if you had two kids, [30:24] no income taxes. Now, you would think [30:27] that would lead to a birth explosion, [30:29] right? Well, actually, not really. What [30:31] happened is that people who were already [30:32] planning on having lots of kids just had [30:34] those kids faster. They accelerated the [30:37] baby making. They ended up with the same [30:39] number of kids total, but they [30:40] accelerated the b the baby making. [30:43] That strategy, by the way, from the [30:44] government also included zero interest [30:46] baby expecting loans for given after the [30:48] birth of three kids, huge housing [30:50] subsidies, and a car purchase grant for [30:51] big families. So, what happened? So, the [30:54] fertility rate saw a rise from 1.2 25 in [30:57] 2010 to a peak of about 1.6 in 2020 [31:00] 2021, which is large, right? But then it [31:02] turns out that everybody who's going to [31:04] have the babies, they hit the two and [31:05] they didn't want to have three or they [31:06] hit the three and they didn't want to [31:07] have four. And the momentum fizzled out. [31:10] By 2025, the fertility rate was back [31:12] down to 1.31, which is back where it was [31:15] when we started. [31:18] Hey, so again, this just shows you that [31:20] governmental subsidies are not the thing [31:22] that's happening right now. You actually [31:24] have to change the entire mindset of [31:25] society and this is something [31:26] conservatives have historically [31:28] understood. And we're hearing a lot from [31:30] the common good conser government is a [31:32] teacher. Government is a teacher. [31:33] Usually the government only has two [31:34] tools to teach. Okay? It has a money [31:36] hose and it has a gun. Those are the two [31:38] tools that it has to teach. The money [31:40] hose is not going to teach you good [31:41] values. It just doesn't. The gun is [31:43] going to teach you not to commit a [31:45] crime. But unless you are going to force [31:46] people to have more kids at point of [31:48] gun, that ain't going to work either. [31:50] What you actually need to do is rebuild [31:51] a social fabric. And that starts at the [31:54] local level. This is where conservatives [31:55] should be putting their efforts at the [31:56] local level in rebuilding all of this, [31:58] not at the federal. The government is [32:00] not the solution. In other words, if it [32:02] were that easy, I'd be in favor of it. [32:04] It ain't. It ain't. Well, to take the [32:07] other side of this debate because we do [32:09] disagree a fair bit here at Daily Water. [32:11] Actually, this is the second time in [32:12] like three shows that we've taken [32:14] opposite sides of of the same question [32:16] is Michael Mull, host of the Michael [32:17] Mills show. So, Michael, we've been [32:19] discussing the proposed family policy [32:22] put forward by the Trump administration [32:23] with regard to subsidies for, you know, [32:27] moms to stay at home with their kids. [32:28] The best argument that I heard was Kevin [32:30] Roberts' argument at Heritage that [32:31] basically we're not getting rid of all [32:32] these welfare programs, so we may as [32:34] well use the money for a better cause. [32:35] That seems to me the best argument. The [32:37] the overall argument I I sort of have [32:39] two problems with, and I want to get [32:40] your take on it. One is that if you're [32:42] going to pursue family policies like [32:43] this, this should not be done by the [32:45] federal government on an ideological [32:46] level. should be done by state and local [32:48] governments if you're going to do it at [32:49] all because subsidiarity suggests you're [32:51] going to get a better policy and better [32:53] agreement on what the policy ought to be [32:54] at the local level. And then question [32:57] number two is more of an efficacy one. [32:58] Hungary tried this and it just didn't [32:59] work because what you're trying to do is [33:01] use material circumstance as a as a [33:04] substitute for the real problem which is [33:06] spiritual and and social fabric lack and [33:08] that can't be filled in by government. [33:09] What do you make of those arguments? [33:11] >> Yeah. Okay. the the Hungary one is a [33:12] really good point because uh Hungary did [33:15] have this concerted effort on family [33:17] policy broadly and we should make a [33:20] distinction between family policy [33:21] broadly and what the Trump [33:22] administration is proposing here because [33:24] I I I think it's being misrepresented [33:26] and it's much narrower than the broader [33:27] debate but I'm interested in the broader [33:29] debate when it comes to Hungary. Yes, [33:31] the Hungary policy failed to increase [33:34] birth rates to replacement levels and it [33:36] failed spectacularly at that. However, [33:38] we should remember there were some wins [33:40] to the Hungarian family policy. Uh it [33:42] did increase in the short run. It [33:44] increased the fertility rate by about [33:45] 30%. Marriages doubled, divorce [33:48] plummeted. There were big wins. Now, [33:50] there were lots of other problems in [33:52] Hungary and there remain big problems in [33:54] Hungary. Obviously, Orban was ousted out [33:55] of office. Strong headwinds from [33:57] Brussels. I agree though that yes, [33:59] trying to get people to have kids just [34:01] by giving them money is ultimately not [34:03] going to work. The greatest predictor of [34:05] increasing the fertility rate is [34:07] religiosity. It's not just money, but [34:09] money plays a little bit of a role, too. [34:10] So then, okay, then we get to this [34:12] specific aspect of family policy. And I [34:15] think in many ways, conservatives are [34:16] talking past each other here because I [34:19] agree with many of the arguments that [34:21] are being made against the policy that [34:25] Trump is not doing. In other words, I I [34:27] agree with many of the arguments against [34:29] creating a new welfare program or [34:31] expanding the spending on this welfare [34:33] program or this that or the Yeah, I [34:35] agree with a lot of those arguments. [34:36] That isn't what's happening here. [34:37] According to reporting from the New York [34:39] Times, so take it with a grain of salt. [34:41] There is a welfare program which is the [34:44] child care and development fund which [34:45] has existed for 30 years. It's a Clinton [34:47] era program and the fund says that if [34:49] you're a single mother, a single parent, [34:51] but the vast majority of the money is [34:52] going to single mothers. If you're a [34:54] single mother below a certain income [34:55] threshold, you can get the money and you [34:57] can pay it to a daycare and then you can [34:58] go work in the widget factory. Okay, all [35:01] well and good. The Trump administration [35:02] comes in and says, you know what, uh, we [35:05] should actually open up the pool of [35:06] eligibility here and say that uh, if you [35:09] are a stay-at-home mother, if you want [35:11] to care for your own kid, rather than [35:13] just sending this government cheese to [35:14] the daycare center so you can work for [35:16] Dr. McGillicuy, if you want to care for [35:17] your own kid, you can be eligible for [35:19] that money as well. So, in other words, [35:21] it takes the pre-existing program [35:23] already has mandatory spending, doesn't [35:24] add a penny, and just says rather than [35:26] only incentivizing single parenthood, [35:29] we're also going to uh incentivize [35:31] people to be able to stay at home and [35:33] give the care to their kids they [35:34] deserve. This to me seems exactly the [35:36] same as the argument for school choice, [35:38] which was a little bit controversial on [35:40] the right. Even some of my fellow [35:42] Tennessee Republicans, they were kind of [35:43] opposed to it because they supported the [35:45] public schools. But generally, this is a [35:46] very popular policy. says, "We're going [35:48] to get direct payments from the [35:49] government to help you raise your kids [35:51] in the way that you see fit." Uh, yes, [35:53] it's unsatisfying because we're not [35:54] abolishing the welfare state. Yes, it's [35:56] unsatisfying because we're not uh we [35:59] don't have a perfect uh subsidiarity [36:01] here where the decisions are being made [36:03] at the most competent local levels. But [36:05] all in all, I really don't get much of [36:07] the opposition to this policy. I get I [36:10] get an opposition to a broader ideology, [36:13] but I I don't get an opposition to this [36:14] policy. [36:16] >> No. No, I mean I I I tend to I mean [36:18] we're supposed to disagree, but I'm [36:19] tending to agree with you. The the [36:20] policy itself, as I say, is not wildly [36:23] objectionable as it currently stands. [36:25] I'm afraid that it does open the door to [36:26] a bunch of waste and fraud and abuse [36:28] because it's a government program and [36:29] people will find ways to stay home, take [36:31] the money, go work on the side anyway, [36:33] and then just, you know, take the [36:34] difference because that's what people do [36:35] when government grab bags of cash are [36:37] made available to them. But yeah, it's [36:38] the broader debate that I find kind of [36:40] interesting and the one that you and I [36:41] have been having continuously for years [36:42] at this point, which is sort of what is [36:44] the what is the goal of government in [36:46] promoting quote unquote the common good [36:48] because some of the language that's [36:49] being used to defend this policy to me [36:51] never had any limiting principle and and [36:53] it is very difficult for me to see how [36:55] that doesn't end up kind of coming back [36:57] around and biting conservatives in in [36:59] very sensitive spots. And and also again [37:02] when you when you examine the evidence, [37:03] you and I I think agree on the main [37:04] things that actually drive people to [37:06] have kids. What Hungary actually showed [37:08] is that if you subsidize certain things, [37:10] you get a a speed up. So if people [37:12] wanted to have three kids and they were [37:14] thinking they were going to do it in [37:14] four years, instead they basically were [37:16] like, you know, I'm going to sneak it [37:17] under the wire and get free of income [37:18] tax. So they didn't end up generally [37:20] increasing fertility rate. They ended up [37:21] accelerating fertility rate temporarily [37:23] and then it went back down. The real [37:25] crisis in the West actually is not how [37:28] many kids people are having within [37:29] marriage. has been basically stable [37:30] since the 70s is that no one in the west [37:33] is even getting married. And that is a a [37:35] function of the birth control pill. That [37:37] is a function of a society that teaches [37:39] people that marriage is not worthwhile. [37:40] It's a function of lack of religiosity [37:42] in society. And it is also a function of [37:44] lack of civic nationalism. And the [37:46] reason that I cite all of these things [37:47] is because there is only one country, [37:48] and I wish it weren't this country [37:49] because it always gets awkward when I [37:50] say this, but there's only one country [37:52] that is developed that has fertility [37:54] rates that are above replacement, and [37:56] it's Israel by leaps and bounds. Israel [37:57] has a fertility rate that that is at [37:59] like three. And that's true not just in [38:02] the you know very religious areas where [38:04] if you're in in the so-called [38:05] settlements those settlements the people [38:07] there are having I believe on average [38:08] six kids. If you go to the ultra [38:10] orthodox areas people are having on [38:11] average eight kids. But if you go to Tel [38:13] Aviv and Tel Aviv has the politics of [38:15] San Francisco people on average have [38:16] three kids in Tel Aviv. And the reason [38:19] for that is because there is an [38:21] extraordinary level of civic nationalism [38:22] in Israel where people are saying, [38:24] "Listen, our country just does not [38:25] survive if we don't have kids." Right? [38:27] One of the phrases that's frequently [38:28] used in Israel is the best revenge [38:30] against Hitler is have kids. He wants to [38:32] wipe out the Jews, so we're going to [38:33] just make more Jews. And so that's that [38:35] that is that is taken for granted. [38:36] There's also because of that a very [38:38] child-centric society. If you ever go to [38:40] Israel, then what you see is that there [38:41] are kids kind of running around [38:42] everywhere. And kids are given enormous [38:44] levels of responsibility you would never [38:45] see in America. There's no there's no [38:47] kind of drone parenting in in Israel. If [38:49] if you have a seven-year-old kid, your [38:51] kid is taking the bus by himself from [38:52] the time he's like six, seven years old, [38:54] because the bus driver will protect the [38:56] kid. Like, it's it's it's a real it's a [38:57] real thing. That that stuff could happen [38:59] in America, but it requires a renewed [39:01] sense of religiosity and civic [39:03] nationalism, both of of which are are in [39:05] absence. [39:05] >> And I think it's deeper even than civic [39:07] nationalism. I mean, obviously in the [39:08] United States, civic nationalism is kind [39:10] of our go-to because we're a [39:11] historically strange country that is now [39:14] extremely multithnic and multi-religious [39:16] and all the rest, but but with Israel, [39:18] you know, many um 20th century liberals [39:21] will say America is just an idea. Israel [39:23] is not just an idea. Israel is an [39:25] historic nation. Some would say it's the [39:27] historic nation and in fact the type of [39:29] all of the other nations. And so, yeah, [39:31] I think there are a lot of lessons to [39:32] learn from Israel. I mean you have a [39:34] largely homogeneous population with a [39:37] deep sense of you know intragroup uh [39:41] loyalty and and history. You have a [39:43] religion even though to your point Tel [39:45] Aviv is about as secular a city as [39:47] exists. But nevertheless there is the [39:49] sense that the religion is in the air. [39:51] There is a common religion to the state [39:53] of Israel and it's even if you [39:54] personally don't practice it, it's just [39:56] there. You kind of get it in by osmosis [39:58] which is very very helpful for these [40:00] issues. there is a strong obviously [40:03] biblical moral foundation of how people [40:05] are supposed to act and it happens to be [40:07] pretty conducive to virtue. There's a [40:09] sense of common enemies uh you know so [40:12] we could use a lot more of that in the [40:14] United States. I think that's actually a [40:15] very good model. And so it gets down to [40:17] okay what's the government supposed to [40:19] do? Uh you know the the government for [40:21] most of American history uh we don't [40:23] have a a church establishment. We don't [40:25] have a confessional state certainly but [40:27] the government did promote religion all [40:29] the time. You know, we had blue laws, [40:31] stores closed on Sunday, prayer in [40:32] schools, Bible in schools. Uh Yorum [40:34] Hzone, a great Israeli philosopher, [40:36] points out you you can't have education [40:38] without uh Bible in schools, m much less [40:41] have a, you know, a robust virtuous [40:42] population. So, you could put all of [40:44] those things back in that would help [40:46] increase the fertility rate. In in terms [40:48] of marriage, yeah, we've we because of [40:50] liberalism, we've just totally weakened [40:51] marriage. We've liberalized divorce. [40:53] Don't forget the state of New York [40:55] didn't fully liberalize divorce until [40:57] like 15 years ago. You know, I this was [40:59] a relatively new event coming out of the [41:01] 60s and 70s along with the supposed [41:03] constitutional right to abortion and [41:05] contraception and all all the rest of [41:06] it. Whatever you think about the [41:07] individual issues, all of this leads [41:09] into this problem. So, so then my [41:11] response getting back to the original [41:13] question on this policy debate, but even [41:16] tying it into the bigger issue. I think [41:19] you got some people who come out and [41:20] they say, "I don't want this policy [41:22] reform, even if it doesn't expand the [41:24] welfare state, even if it doesn't make a [41:25] new program, even if it doesn't add a [41:26] penny of spending, because it would be [41:29] better to abolish the welfare system. It [41:31] would be better to just cut taxes and [41:33] send the money." And I'd say, "Yeah, [41:35] sure. There are a lot of things that [41:36] would be better, but my question is, are [41:38] we going to take these incremental wins [41:40] even in modest ways where we can find [41:43] them to just nudge people in the right [41:45] direction, nudge the incentives in the [41:46] right direction?" I want incentives to [41:48] tell people to go to church and and to [41:50] their broadly to their religious [41:52] services uh once a week at least. I want [41:55] policies that broadly say read the Bible [41:58] in schools. It I want the RSVCE or the [42:00] dua reams. Someone else wants the KJV. [42:02] What? But I I just I want these wins [42:04] that are nudging people in the right [42:06] direction that discourage divorce. The [42:08] the one really big success of the [42:10] Hungarian family policy is it did [42:12] encourage marriage, which is something, [42:13] you know, it's not everything they [42:15] wanted, but it's something. And so I [42:16] guess the question for the GOP is, are [42:18] we going to take these incremental wins [42:19] and deal in the political reality that [42:21] we find ourselves in right now? Or are [42:23] we going to say no, I want the perfect [42:25] solution. I want to go back to, you [42:27] know, pre-wealthfare state 1934. And in [42:30] that case, I think we're just seating [42:32] political power to the left that is only [42:34] going to make the problems worse. [42:36] Yeah. And and this may turn out to be a [42:37] sort of politically pragmatic argument [42:39] because again the question is going to [42:41] be whether you're now entering into a [42:43] sweep stakes in which you will always be [42:44] outbid because no matter how many [42:46] benefits you give the other side will [42:47] always give more benefits and to people [42:49] with with fewer restrictions or whether [42:51] as you say you basically have to seed [42:52] some ground in order to achieve victory [42:54] and that that really is is sort of one [42:56] of the big questions. Well Michael [42:57] really appreciate the time. We didn't [42:58] argue as much as I thought we were going [42:59] to unfortunately but there'll be plenty [43:01] of time for that so long as you remain [43:02] employed. So I appreciate it. It's like [43:05] a 50/50 uh offer at least, you know. [43:07] Good to see you, sir. [43:08] >> What an amazing video you just watched. [43:10] Wasn't that amazing? Well, you know, if [43:12] you think so, head on over to [43:13] dailywire.com/subscribe to watch the [43:15] full show ad free or check out this [43:17] crazy story here. [43:19] >> Every significant movement in history [43:20] started with protesting. [43:21] >> You're a traitor, [43:22] >> Uncle Tom. [43:23] >> This is our generation civil rights. I [43:25] >> have no idea what the protest is about. [43:27] >> Bingo. [43:27] >> Given the current climate, should a [43:29] figure as polarizing as Clay Saunders [43:31] even be allowed on campus? [43:33] >> Uh, can you hear me? Okay. [43:34] >> Dunders is a close personal friend of [43:35] Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I [43:37] can all fight. [43:38] >> Islam will conquer the West. [43:44] >> Are we paying attention? [43:47] >> They've taken over the building. They're [43:48] downstairs and they've blocked the [43:49] doors. [43:51] >> I seek forgiveness from Allah the [43:53] Almighty. [43:55] >> You cannot run and hide. [43:57] >> Muhammad is the messenger of God. [44:00] There is no god but Allah. [44:03] >> What do you say we turn those sobs [44:07] into a fine red mist? As we move, one [44:11] man will cover while the other guys go. [44:13] They call that leap. Stretch them out [44:15] and listen. [44:17] You need a course in safe weapons [44:19] handling.
