https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=j0VzgNivfws
What do you think that the founding principles of the United States have to offer to working-class people as an alternative to the utopian vision put forward by the radical leftists? I mean, hypothetically, communism and these terrible systems that emerged in the 20th century were aimed at the working class, right? Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. It turns out the chains you’re going to be put in by the radical leftists are a lot thicker than the ones you abandoned, but we could leave that aside for the moment. Why do you think that you found the principles on which the US was founded more attractive, and particularly what makes them more attractive and useful to people who are genuinely of a working-class derivation? Well, look, there’s a limited role for government to play, and there’s a limited role for these ruling elites. And I think when you look at things like communism, you’re right. The chains are even thicker for the working class, but man, the entrenched elite class, they do very, very well, and they live very high on the hog, and you saw that. I think when we understand what role government has played in holding people back, a more limited government provides more opportunity. I mean, some of that is just what’s the proper scope and power of the federal government. For example, now you have a movement through the bureaucracy, not even legislated by Congress, to force everyone to buy an electric vehicle. Well, if you’re somebody that is a truck driver or a plumber making a pretty good living, do you really want that type of vehicle? How much more is that going to cost you? All these other things. That seems to not be much of an issue for the people driving these policies. They have their agenda, and they basically want people to be thankful that they’re able to participate with that agenda, even though it’s making them worse off. That’s part of why you see the White House press secretary every day gaslight the public, saying how good things are with the economy when people are falling further and further behind. They want people to act like that they should be thankful for what’s going on, even though we know it’s not. So part of it is making sure power is exercised in accordance with the Constitution, which it is not right now. You have a bureaucracy that is untethered to the original understanding of the Constitution. A lot of the most important things that affect people’s lives are done not by members of Congress who you can hire and fire during election season, but by unelected bureaucrats. So I think that’s a problem. The second thing is just there’s a limit to what central planning can do. We saw the Great Society and the war on poverty in the 1960s. Where they said, look, if we just have these smart people in these government bureaus, we put money into it, they’re going to be able to eliminate poverty in this country, and this will just be a great social triumph. Well, what ended up happening was they ended up creating a culture of dependency. They made it more difficult for people to rise out of those circumstances, and they facilitated dysfunction that we’re still living with this very, very day. So I think it’s just a skepticism of government being able to do all these things, to change and mold society in the way they do, and also a skepticism about government power being exercised in big ways by unelected bureaucrats. I was talking to a European friend of mine yesterday, and she pointed out that now in Europe, essentially, 55% of what people earn goes to taxation. And I thought, well, that’s very interesting, because really what it means is that people have given up 55% of the opportunity that presents itself to them in life, to the, what would you say, to the machinations of the people who are taking their money. And now it’s more than half of what they make. Now, on the one hand, you might say, well, that’s a good deal, because look at all the things that the state does for you. But on the other hand, you might say, well, every single thing the state hypothetically does for you is power, responsibility and opportunity that has been taken away from you, that you can no longer exercise yourself locally. So that takes a fair bit of the meaning out of your life, right? If it’s on you to do things properly, then that gives you something genuine and worthwhile to do. And if that’s handed down to you from the top down, then you’re in an infantile independent condition. You talked about a culture of dependency, and that actually hollows you out. So as the state becomes more tyrannical, people become more slavish, and that’s very hard on them existentially, too, because it deprives them of meaning. And so I’m very curious, though, if you look at the situation historically, this is how it appears to me, people who promote limited government in principle and who want to devolve responsibility back to local citizenry in keeping with their abilities go to Washington, but the bloody government keeps growing hand over fist regardless. And it doesn’t really, if you look at the historical data, it doesn’t really seem to matter that much, in other words, the Republicans or the Democrats in control. The state just grows and grows and grows and grows at 3 to 5 percent a year, and no one seems to be able to trim it back. And so have you had any success in doing so at the local level in Florida? And what have you learned, apart from the fact that you have to take flak if you’re going to attempt it, what have you learned about how the proclivity of gigantic organizations to keep growing can be managed? Well, we’ve eliminated two agencies since I’ve been governor, and our cost per state employee is the lowest in the country per capita, and we have either the lowest or close to the lowest number of state employees per capita anywhere in the United States. And it’s interesting because…