I will not promise you to reform those agencies. We will shut them down [hoover] end us military support to ukraine, and require young people to pass a civics test if they want to vote before theyre 25. What does Vivek Ramaswamy say now . [presenter] firing line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by robert granieri, vanessa and henry cornell, the fairweather foundation, the tepper foundation, the asness family foundation, the mckenna family foundation, charles r. Schwab, and by the rosalind p. Walter foundation and damon button. Vivek ramaswamy, welcome to firing line. Thanks. Im glad to be here. Why do you want to be the next president of the United States . I am worried, margaret, that we are in the middle of this National Identity crisis where my generation in particular, our generation, were hungry for purpose and meaning and identity, and yet we hunger to be part of something bigger than ourselves, yet we cant even answer what it means to be an american. I think that loss of identity is responsible for a lot of our economic stagnation. Its part of whats actually even behind the loss of our fortitude on the global stage. And i think that i actually have a vision of what it means to be a citizen of this country, because i have lived the true american dream. And i am worried that will not exist for the next generation unless we do something about it. What qualifies you to be the next president of the United States . So the fact that i am an outsider is, i think, an important qualification. But i bring a unique combination. I do think it will take an outsider who has executive experience, whos been a successful ceo. But to combine that, and i think this is where, for example, trump left short, combine that with a deep firstpersonal understanding of the constitution itself, a deep understanding of the laws that actually empower a us president to shut down the Administrative State and the federal bureaucracy that gets in the way of prosperity and liberty in this country. Thats a rare combination. I bring that combination to the table. I think thats going to be required to reach the next generation of americans and i feel a sense of obligation to do it. You just said trump fell short. How did trump fall short . I think in many ways, and im learning from the foundation that he laid, the advisers that he surrounded himself with did not even allow him, really, to see through the agenda that he himself said he wanted to come in and see through draining the swamp, shutting down the deep state. Many of the people around him tied his hands. So youre saying trump wasnt able to fulfill his promises to the American People . I think that he fulfilled some of his promises. To be clear, i think that, my view is trump was actually a very good president , but he fell short of the level that i would want to see us go to. We didnt solve the border crisis. Ive said i would use the us military to secure the southern border. Take the department of education. He put a good person on top of it, betsy devos. I believe an agency like that is not subject to reform. Ive said that i would shut down the Us Department of education. So in many ways, i think trump did not go far enough with the very agenda that he brought to office in the first place. And thats a big part of why im in this race. The first debate yes. Is going to be the first time many gop primary voters have even heard your name. Theyre very quickly going to see that you are wellspoken, that you are energetic, that you have pristine ivy league credentials. And theyre also going to realize that you have no elective experience at the state or federal level. How do you expect that they will not categorize you as a republican version of transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg in his campaign to become president . I think thatll be easy because Pete Buttigieg and i are fundamentally different people. Were different human beings. I think what they will see much more naturally is exactly what the Republican Base wanted in 2016, which was an outsider, untainted by government, independent of the donor class. And thats me. I think the rest of that debate stage will be populated by, lets call it what it is, super pac puppets, people whose campaigns are principally funded by super pacs that are running their ads on television. Im not bought by the donor class. I have put over 15 million of my own money into this campaign, hard earned money on the back of my own success. And i am untainted by the constraints that come with being a career government, you know, really professional politician. The real choice that i think the gop faces in this primary is do we want reform, incremental reform, or do we want revolution . I stand on the side of revolution. I think the gop base stands on the side of the American Revolution with me. And thats a big part of why its going to take an outsider to get that job done. Im going to need you to go into why we need a revolution. We need a revival of the American Revolution in its ideals, thats exactly what we need. Which ideals . Ideals like selfgovernance over aristocracy. The idea that we the people, sort out our differences through free speech and open debate in the Public Square without elite interference. The ideal that its not in the back of palace halls or threeletter Government Agencies that we decide the right answers to questions from Climate Change to Racial Injustice, but that the citizens do it in a constitutional republic. And we have lost that. But are you saying revolution in the context of real violence . No. I am, i believe in full peace in this country. My concern and this is my concern is if we fail to let people speak freely, that is when they scream. If we fail to let people scream, that is when they turn to tearing things down. So i do not want to see another instance like january 6th, 2021 in this country. But my concern is by failing to reckon with what actually led to events like that, were paving the way for far worse in the future. How are gop selfidentified republican primary voters going to look at what youre offering as a trump 2. 0 version, a more effective approach to delivering on trumps original promises, how are they going to not think, you know what, he would be a really effective chief of staff for a trump 2. 0 with trump as the president . What is going to differentiate you, other than your technocratic ability to get it done . I think thats an important element of it, but its not the whole story. I think im the only person in this race, including trump, who has the power and ability to inspire a new young generation of americans that i think our voter base cares deeply about. About 30 of this country became psychiatrically ill when trump was in office started agreeing with things they would have never agreed with just because donald trump was saying them, started disagreeing with things that they used to agree with just because trump is in office. And without putting blame on trump or anybody else, i think most people understand that was just a fact from 2016 onward in this country. And for whatever reason, im not having that effect on people. To the contrary, we are bringing young people into this movement, new people into our proamerican movement who have never come with the gop before. I was a guy who supported trump. I was a guy, i am a guy who still respects immensely what he accomplished for this country. But America First does not belong to trump, just as it does not belong to me. Just as it didnt belong to reagan. It belongs to the people of this country. And the question is, whos going to take that agenda further . I think its going to be the guy with fresh legs, a deep understanding of the constitution, the ability to win a landslide and bring Young Americans with us. Okay. So you want to bring a new generation into politics. Thats a very refreshing approach. And yet one of your Key Campaign Pillars is raising the voting age to 25 with a civics test or military service in order to maintain the 18, age 18 voting age. So my premise is this every young kid who graduates from high school should be able to pass the same civics test that every immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country. Amen. At the age of 18, lets attach civic duties to civic privileges. And i say that minimal duty is either knowing something about the country, the exact same things an immigrant has to know, or else serve the country in some minimal way First Responder role or in the military. Part of reaching young people isnt just pandering by telling them what in the short term they want to hear, satisfying their moral hunger by saying, you know what the left says, go to ben jerrys and order a cup of ice cream with some social justice sprinkles on the side. No, thats not how we satisfy the hunger for purpose and meaning. I think the revival of actual civic duty is a big part of how we feed that hunger for rpose. Citizenship means something to me. And if we make it mean something to Young Americans, theyll be much less drawn to secular cults from wokeism to climateism than they are today, because they actually believe that the fact that theyre a citizen of the United States of america actually means something to them. And it will unite the country in the process. Youve coined the term climateism. Yeah. What does it mean . I think it refers to an ideology that says we have to abandon fossil fuels and Carbon Emissions at all cost to stave off existential Climate Risks for humanity. I think that is a religious conviction. It is not a scientific conviction. So i think we have to reckon with the facts to say that, are global surface temperature is going up . Yes, it appears to. Thats a fact. Because of the emission of carbon because of broadly manmade causes, including but not limited to the emission of carbon and also not man made causes. Yes. Is that an existential risk for humanity . No, it is not. Does that mean that we should abandon or even abate the use of carbon or Carbon Dioxide emissions . No, it does not in my book. I think the right question we should be asking is what advances human prosperity . Thats what i care about. Thats what i will care about measuring as the leader of this country, rather than obsessing over a cult of carbon. When people point to the 101 degree water temperatures in florida or the heat waves throughouthe country or t t t taralleled storms and climate events. How do you respond . I respond by saying that if the same shoe fit the other foot and you disagreed with that policy and somebody else were picking up anecdotal data from the middle of arkansas who didnt go to harvard, youd be laughing them off the stage as a bunch of rubes who didnt know how to follow data based on anecdotal evidence. Approximately half of republican primary voters favor donald trump as their first choice candidate for the nomination. How do you defeat donald trump without contrasting yourself and making the case that republicans should not renominate him . Look, i am not running from something. I am leading us to a vision of what it means to be an american and doing it while authentically respecting what trump did for this country. But drawing the contrast, i mean, the contrasts are plenty. Im less than half his age. I am the fresh outsider in this race. I have a clear, detailed vision to take on policy disputes, policy objectives that he was even unwilling to touch. So those are details, but i think theyre important details. But most importantly, i thk respecting his legacy and doing it authentically will allow me to be more successful in winning this nomination. Youve called for republican candidates to pardon trump in both of the two cases that he has been charged with the bragg d. A. From the manhattan case, as well as jack smiths documents case from maralago. Recently, new charges have been added to the documents case. Whats clear is that the scope of trumps legal liability is not fully known yet, even still. So why plant the flag . Why plant the pardon flag without seeing all of the evidence that prosecutors have against him . So ill give you the narrow awer and ill give you the deeper answer. The narrow answer is, i would pardon him because i think that his behaviors did not obviously constitute a legal violation, even as stated in those indictments. Thats the narrow answer. The deeper answer, and the one that really moves me, is that i think it will set an awful National Precedent for us to become a country in which the ruling party, whoever it is, uses police power to indict its political rivals. That is the stuff of banana republics. That is not the stuff of the United States of america. I ask the question of is anything, any step we take as a country, is that going to take us one step closer to a national divorce, which i worry deeply about. I do not want a national divorce. I want to lead a national revival. Would this prosecution of a former president who currently is a frontrunner in a primary to be the next president , would that take us in the right direction or the wrong direction as a country . There is no doubt in my mind that that will take us in not only a wrong but potentially dangerous direction that will make the job of reuniting this country that much more difficult. That is what moves me. Is there any scenario in which you believe that the officials at the Justice Department can put partisanship aside and truly administer the laws of this country apart from politics . If there were a republican president and a Republican Attorney general prosecuting donald trump, would that be legitimate and free from politicization in your view . I dont think e real divide in this country is between republicans and democrats. No, no, but answer my question. Is there any way to prosecute a former president without it being considered politicized in your view . The answer would be, it wouldnt be whether its a republican or not. It would come down to the facts in law. Ill tell you something that would change my mind. If you told me in the documents case there was new evidence that came out that trump was selling those secrets for private financial gain to our foreign adversaries, who are in a position to use that to compromise the u. S that would change your position . That would absolutely change my position. But obstruction is breaking the law. Obstruction is breaking the law. But if, for the same reason that entrapment, right, entrapment would cause someone to okay, but were not talking about entrapment here but its a were talking about the fbi asked for documents were talking about a principle and then he potentially destroyed camera evidence of him not giving over those documents. So this gets into deep constitutional doctrine, which im happy to do. The way youre supposed to prosecute somebody, deeply ingrained in the legal tradition of this country, is that there is an actual act that breaks the law. And then you bring the person who committed it to justice. Not that you pick the person and then find the violation. I hear your passion and youve redirected the question and the answer i have not. Im answering your question. From actually the circumstances of President Trumps obstction. Bill barr read the same indictment that you read, and that i read, and that america has read and called it damning. So you two just have a difference of opinion . Im not sure we do. Id have to talk to bill on that. Maybe we do. Maybe we dont. He called it damning. You dont think its damning . I have said it is not the basis for a legal conviction. What i have also said at every step, ill remind you, margaret, im in this race for us president , in the same race that donald trump is in, for a reason. I would have made different judgments than trump made in each of those instances, very different judgments. But i think there is a fundamental difference between a bad judgment, which is an issue for the voters to take into account as they wish to, where we the people decide who leads the country, versus using criminal procedures to eliminate someone from competition in that election and eliminating the ability of the voters to make that decision for themselves. If President Trump were to be convicted by a jury of his peers in florida, a jury pool that is much more likely to be sympathetic to donald trump than not, would you still feel the need to pardon him . I would, because it would be important to move this country forward. As i said, if the facts are dramatically different, were talking about selling secrets to foreign adversaries, for example, i would change my judgment on that. But on these facts, theres no doubt that i will pardon donald trump, because i think thats the right thing for the country. Okay, you have called the potential indictment of donald trump around january 6th, quote, a dangerous precedent for the political weaponization of police power in this country. If prosecutors have evidence of the former president committing crimes in an effort to overturn a free and fair election, isnt that also a dangerous precedent not to hold that kind of person accountable . Theres a lot baked into your question. You used the word crimes. If there are clear evidence in support of a crime, i always support accountability. But the question is, it begs the question of was there a crime . After january six, you are critical of Donald Trumps conduct. But you also maintain that january six riots at the capitol were not his fault. You have said that censorship yes. By Big Tech Companies contributed. Help me understand. Are you saying that if donald trump hadnt spent two months promoting baseless Election Fraud conspiracy theories and encouraging his supporters to show up and march on the capitol on january six, the riots still would have happened anyway . That was the final catalyst. It was not the cause. The underlying cause was the frustration of people across this country. So that pent up frustration, yes, boiled over on january 6th. But my concern, margaret, is if we havent actually addressed that underlying problem and cause yet, it will as yet still boil over in other ways that we are yet to see. Do you think that trump is addressing those underlying concerns or do you think that he is aggravating them . I am in this race because i am best positioned to address those underlying concerns. Margaret, im a candidate for u. S. President looking to lead this nation in a race where donald trump but youre running against donald trump. And weve spent 30 minutes talking about donald trump. I would prefer to talk about our vision for the nation. I would have made dramatically different judgments th trump did. Were trumps judgments that he made in the lead up to january 6th good for this country . No. With respect, the reason that were talking about what donald trump did, right or wrong, is because he is leading in the polls. And so im trying to draw the contrast and understand what responsibility you feel he has for the violence that happened that day. I dont think hes legally responsible for the violence that day. I do believe that we go further as a country when we do it based on First Principles and moral authority, not just vengeance and grievance. That is what im bringing to the table. Okay. Your proposal to end the war in ukraine yes. Many say would embolden putin. If the u. S. Were to withdraw military support from ukraine, cede the donbass region to russia, and pledge not to admit ukraine into nato, putin would be rewarded for his aggression. Wouldnt the defeat of putin actually best be the way to rupture the no limits pact between china and russia rather than giving putin what he wants . No, i dont think so. And i think this is an area where we have deep seated disagreement even within the republican party, on this question. So explain why this wouldnt embolden putin. I dont think that whether this would embolden putin or not is even the right first question to ask. The first question to k is what advances american interests . The top military threat we face is the russiachina alliance. Our top adversary today is communist china. And so, no, i do not think it should be a u. S. Policy objective to defeat Vladimir Putin or drive regime change in russia. I think the top goal of the u. S. Should be to ensure peace and security for americans foremost. And that happens when we have peace and stability on the global stage. I also do not believe that ukraine is some model paragon of democracy. Its not. And so i think that the idea that were retrofitting this into a battle between good and evil is just fundamentally incorrect, which means we have to look at this as realists. If we were to follow your plan vis a vis ukraine and russia, what message would china take away . And how would that plan sure. Deter china from then invading taiwan . The answer is, right now xi jinping believes that the u. S. Wont want to go to war with two allied nuclear superpowers, russia and china, at the same time. So xi jinpings bet is that with russia in his camp, hes in a strong position should he want to invade taiwan. If russia is no longer in his camp, then xi jinping will have to think twice before going after taiwan. That is how we deter communist china from going after taiwan while avoiding war over it in the south china sea, while in another one fell swoop ending the war in ukraine and pulling American Resources back. Thats realist Foreign Policy, not the Foreign Policy neoconservative dogma that now pervades, frankly, both political parties. You came to prominence with your critiques of woke capitalism. You wrote a book, woke inc. Explain what woke capitalism is. Sure. So ill start with what wokeism is. It is a worldview that says that your identity is based on your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, or other genetically inherited attributes, that we are either oppressors or oppressed based on those genetic characteristics, and that it is our obligation to reorder those injustices and social relationships. Woke capitalism is the extension of using capitalism, commerce, as a means to address those injustices Racial Injustice and Climate Change. I think that this is a mistake on two counts. One is, i think it actually leads companies to be less successful over the long run. Milton friedman made that case. Ive made a revised case of it in my book. Margaret, thats not even my main reason for being against it. My main reason for being against this trend of stakeholder capitalism, what you could also refer to as woke capitalism, is that it is a perversion of how a constitutional republic, a Democratic Society is supposed to work. What the model of stakeholder capitalism calls for us to say that, no, no, no, we the people, cant be trusted to sort out our differences on Climate Change or on social justice, but that we have to actually trust an enlightened group of elites to determine for e rest of society what the right answers are to those questions, using commerce as a vehicle to do it. And so you want to talk about threats to democracy. I think thats pretty high on the list, actually. And thats been the source of my criticism over the last several years. In your arguments against woke capitalism, you have cited the writings of economist milton friedman. Friedman appeared several times on the original firing line with william f. Buckley jr. Oh, did he . Yeah. Yeah. [hoover] and here he is. Take a look. We have an overblown, overgrown Government Spending 40, more than 40 percent of our income, supposedly for our benefit, mostly waste and mostly restricting our freedom. And as a result, we have destroyed a sense of individual responsibility and responsibility to one another. Now everybodtakes it for granted that if theres a problem, the governments going to take care of it. So, friedman there is talking about how government crowds out yes. The civic space and the social space. But you write in your book woke inc, how, also, capitalism has inherentlynvasive qualities. And you argue that the answer is to, quote, build protective walls around the things we cherish most like democracy. How do we do that . I think thats deeply aligned with Milton Friedmans view is that theres different spheres of our lives. I think part of what weve lost in our country is the integrity of each of those spheres of our lives. And part of the reason why is weve blurred the boundaries between them. One of those boundaries weve blurred is between our civic space and our space as capitalists. And i think that, you know, as i said in one of my books, we dont want democracy and capitalism to share the same bed. What we actually need is a clean divorce. And i think that will revive the integrity of both capitalism and our democratic republi Vivek Ramaswamy, thank you for joining me here at firing line. Thank you. Good to see you. [bright music] [presenter] firing line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by robert granieri, vanessa and henry cornell, the fairweather foundation, the tepper foundation, the asness family foundation, the mckenna family foundation, charles r. Schwab, and by the rosalind p. Walter foundation and damon button. [bright music continues] [bright music continues] [bright music fades] [enlightening music] [soft guitar music] [presenter] youre watching pbs. Back on the campaign trail after his Court Appearance in how voters are reacting this most serious indictment with political strategist sarah longwell. Then as the anniversary of the gruesome death approaches in iran we look at a new documentary on irans protest movement. With producer sasha joella keeley and the New York Times journalist. And what the russian state trial says about alex novotny. Yevgeny prigozhins wings are much less clipped than we thought. Inside the wagner groups armed rebellion