Running for President!

Welcome and happens next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What happens next is a podcast which covers economics, politics, and culture. Today's topic is running for president. Our guest is Asa Hutchinson, who is the former governor of the state of Arkansas. Asa is currently running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. I want to learn from him what it takes to run for president in this election, what the critical policy issues will be, and how we can beat the front runner, Donald Trump. My first question for you is what is your objective of running for president of the United States? The objective is to straighten our country out. We're going the wrong direction. President Biden is wrong in energy policy. He's wrong in border security. He's spent too much money at the federal level. So he's wrong in the economy. And he has challenges from a national security standpoint. I have the breadth of experience to address each one of those challenges. Whether it is dealing with border security issues or balancing the budget, I've done that as eight years as governor. I did it while I was in Congress. Whenever you look at our national security issues, that was my responsibility to protect America after 9-11. So I'm running because I care about the future of our country. And I have the experience and breadth of knowledge in order to address those challenges. What is the process for running for president and has that changed over the years? What you see today is a continued trend toward nationalization of our elections. And this is a good example where the Republican National Committee sets criteria for the debates from a national perspective. And it diminishes the role that Iowa and New Hampshire has. And so it's a constant effort to streamline it and really short circuit the voters and the role that they play. That's part of the challenge. Obviously, it's more expensive than it's ever been before. And that's just the environment you've got to compete in. During the 2020 presidential campaign, candid Joe Biden faced several candidates. But most of them dropped out quickly, turning into a two-man race with Bernie Sanders. Why do the Democrats want a forced reduction in the number of presidential candidates? The delegate selection processes have been front-loaded. It moves very quickly. And in the case of President Biden and Bernie Sanders, he was really after South Carolina that the party could solidate it around nominee Biden at the time. Why does the Republican National Committee want to reduce the number of presidential candidates so quickly in the process? Here, you're trying to do a consolidation for months before the first votes are cast. Why is that important if you want to have somebody other than Donald Trump? You recognize that after you hit Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, all of a sudden, you've got Super Tuesday, which is the vast bulk of votes. That's all going to happen by March 5th. It's slow developing, but it's going to be like a freight train that hits a wall whenever you get to March 5th and Super Tuesday. And so the decisions are made quickly, and so they're trying to narrow the field prior to that. But you just can't get ahead of the candidates, you can't get ahead of the voters. The national presidential debates give an opportunity for the public to learn about the candidates. Are the debates effective in that goal? I reread the transcript for the first debate, and the substance of the discussion was thin gruel. No argument was considered in a serious way. There were plenty of personal shots back and forth, but the palsy differences were not that meaningful. Well, they learned some. It's insightful, just like the last debate, the public learned about me that I would take a stand and say, I'm not going to vote for a candidate. Donald Trump, if he's convicted of a felony, they learn how people interject themselves. So it's disappointing that it becomes so much of who can steal the microphone time and who can speak the loudest. That's the disappointing part, but it's still advantageous. The public tunes into it. They want to see the give and take. They want to see how you stand up and defend your positions. The debate was like two hours long to hold the public's interest. It needs to be entertaining. So you need a lot of back and forth with some personal jabs. Otherwise, no one want to watch. That's right, that's right. In this next debate, it's probably not going to be that much different because Fox Business is going to host it. I asked them about whether they're going to control the mics and they said, no, they want to have the interchange back and forth, which means they want to have the entertainment value to hold audiences. That's the world in which we live today. And so a candidate today has to be someone who can present himself or herself in very unique ways that the public can grab hold of, because the best advice I ever had about a debate was don't make it boring. And any debate ought to be an exciting exchange back and forth. So the way you do that, though, is have a structured Q&A, but where you can have cross questions to other candidates, and they'll have structured time to respond. But the moderators have to be able to control the time. Who did you think performed well in the first debate? If you take me out of the picture, then I thought that Nikki Haley got a lot of credit for her performance, because she was subsisting. She answered the questions, but also, she got very aggressive on Vivek Ramaswamy and put him in his place. And other than that, it was pretty much a very thin allotment of time auditions. From Donald Trump's perspective, does it make sense for him to abstain from the Republican debates? Oh, he will have to participate at some point. You know the thing is that this time to do his rally in Detroit simultaneously with the debate. Last time he had Tucker Carlson interview, it's not just about not participating, but it is counter-programming, which is all about himself. And that's what shallow about Donald Trump. It's not about the common good, it's not about the party, it's about Donald Trump. That's not the kind of leader that we need. Eventually, he's going to have to defend his position and participate in a debate. What do you make of Trump's recent polling results? Well, if you look at Iowa and New Hampshire, both of them are lower versus the national polling results. He's less than 50%. And that's because you've got other candidates in there working hard and they see choices. Now, they haven't made their choice yet. And so his numbers are going to stay high until they decide where they're going to go. So it could be late fall, early winter, that you're going to see those numbers decline. And that's why the low polling numbers shouldn't bother a candidate at this point, because that's going to change as people start making decisions. And I think Donald Trump is a former president. Somebody they voted for before is in a default position. They're going to stick with him until they decide where they're going to go. Governor DeSantis decided to use cultural issues to differentiate himself, but hasn't worked out that well. How are cultural issues playing in the Republican primaries? Cultural issues are always important, but they're generally defined by your local school board, your families and your communities. And so they're not the focus of a national debate. Ron DeSantis made a mistake. And he paid a price for that. He dropped in the polls. In the last debate, the word woke, I don't believe was ever used in a two-hour debate. So it really demonstrates that he went too far on this and he pulled back from it. While it is an important issue out there to the voters, it's not something that you lead with or you define a national campaign on. Why are there always so many governors in the presidential race? Well, you don't just get to vote and walk away. You're actually responsible as a chief executive for implementing policy and making things happen and you're held accountable if you don't. That's why governors make good presidents, but also why they have to perform well in their states. We've had to manage through a pandemic. You can look at the track record and that's important because all the candidates have similar positions. We're for pro-growth energy policy. We're for securing the southern border. We're for controlling spending and reducing the size of the administrative state. Well, the question is, who has done that? And as a governor, I can point to the fact that I did move national guard down to the southern border. I can say I've balanced the budget for eight years. I reduced state government employment by 14%. I know how to shrink the size of government and transform it. I lowered taxes and 100,000 jobs were created. So that, to me, is the difference. You can look at someone's record as governor as they did they do it or they didn't do it. The Vekrama Swami is a businessman with no prior governmental experience. Why are Republicans inclined towards individuals who lack government experience but made a fortune in business? Well, we always admire people who are successful in business. Those who are running for office have to be able to point to some success in their life. It's not always translatable to government. Also, there's this tendency to over-promise and under-deliver. Donald Trump did that. Simplistic solutions that people love to hear, easy to promise but hard to perform. As a CEO of a company, sure you're responsible to the shareholders, but you're not have to deal with the Supreme Court. You're not governing in a balance of power environment and that's what you have to do in government. The Vekrama Swami mentioned in the first debate that he's reticent to provide more weapons to Ukraine. Do you agree? It's bad public policy because he would be giving Russia what they want, a reward for their invasion of Ukraine. So it's bad public policy where rewarding culprits and aggressors and oppressors. Now, is it a smart strategy? It has distinguished him some, but that's not what good policy is about. And it has divided our party. I was disappointed that Governor DeSantis in the last debate waffled on it again. It wasn't clear whether he would be supportive of that. In fact, if I heard him right, he was wanting to pull away from support for Ukraine. To me, it's an easy analysis. Russia is in the wrong. We have free people fighting for their liberty and a great cost to themselves. It should be an easy call as to what side the US should be on. And once you're on that side, we have the benefit of not have to send our men and women in uniform there, but we are able to support them militarily and economically in other ways. So it bears scrutiny that we do continue to support them. And that's important for the United States of America and our national interest. The Vekhrama Swami was not as committed to Israel as the other Republican presidential candidates. Where is the Republican party on its support of Israel? There's a unity within the Republican party that we need to continue to support Israel. Now, Vivek Ramaswamy again, he said prior to the debate that he wanted to be able to end the support for Israel. Down the road, when it's up for a new, I wanted to make clear at the debate my long-term commitment to Israel. So I wore the Israeli and the United States flag lapel. And I was a little surprised, the moderator picked up on that, but it was intentional and shows the importance of our relationship to Israel. If you'd asked me about what do we do on Iran, I would say listed Israel. Israel is threatened and we need to be in partnership with them and we need to work hand in hand with them in reference to the threats that we see from Iran. I got a feeling we didn't consult with them very well. We decided under the Biden administration to give them $6 billion. I can't imagine that being well thought of in Israel. In the first debate, there was a discussion about a potential conflict between China and Taiwan. How should we think about defending Taiwan with our allies in the region to contain Chinese aggression? If they see that commitment, that's going to give them great pause. I don't think it's inevitable that they invade Taiwan, that we have to show strength and long-term commitment to support that freedom. Ultimately, it really comes down to Taiwan too. And I believe that they're all in on their defense. We certainly need to be there supporting of Taiwan. Does it make sense to focus on the latest presidential polls? From a candidate standpoint, I'd love to be able to do internal polling and never have any public polls out there. I do believe in the science of polling and I look at it is more difficult today than ever before because people don't want to do the poll. It's harder to get the communication, whether it's online or through mobile phones, the landlines are decreasing. And so having the accuracy and polls is a challenge. I think it does damper the democratic process and the vibrancy of it because the media magnifies the polls to such a great extent. It is human nature that everybody wants to know the end of the story. And so the public needs to be wise and just realize that it's just a window in time and it could change dramatically. And we shouldn't give it as much tension as the media does every day. I mean, running for governor, we would have maybe three or four polls during the course of the election that would be public. But you look at a presidential campaign, you're getting three or four polls a week and sometimes two or three polls a day. I mean, they're polling which Republican candidates do well against Biden. Well, you know, it all changes once you get the nomination and you engage in the other side. In the 1960s, presidential nominees were selected in smoke-filled rooms. How's it done now? I believe in a two-party system and the strength of the party. I don't think it's working that well today and there has been a inability of the parties to control a whole lot. This year, they have assorted themselves and trying to narrow the number of candidates. But this year could also be different because here you look at the Republican party that has the top of the ticket in Donald Trump. And when the nomination process comes next year at the convention, when he is formally designated if he continues. As our nominee, then you could have somebody not only under indictment, but convicted cases pending against him. And you could have a 14th Amendment claim, which there will be that he's not qualified for the ballot under the Constitution. So then what does the party do? That's when you're all of a sudden going back to a very small group of people who's going to determine how we're going to clean this up, how we're going to get a nominee. And so this year, the parties are going to have to do some soul searching as to how to figure that one out. Speaker McCarthy recently started an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. It seems we're headed for a tit-for-tat impeachment process going forward. Is that problematic? It's not healthy for our democracy and for the Congress of the United States. Whenever I engaged as a manager in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, the process was followed. And I thought it was done in a way that had a high regard for the Constitution. But now you see, early on, it was policy disagreements. We didn't like the policy, so we talked about impeaching myorcus. And he's carrying out the policies of President Biden. And the Democrats did this when it came to Trump. They got aggravated about the Ukraine call, didn't have a thorough investigation of it, and even had less of investigation on the January 6th, and it resulted in inadequate factual basis when the case went to the Senate. And now people are even coming more vocal and saying it's going to be used as retribution. It's going to be tit-for-tat, and that is not healthy. Impeachment should be reserved for corruptness and for high levels of wrongdoing, not for policy disagreements, and not for getting an advantage of political race coming up. New Jersey Center Bob Menendez was recently indicted, and there have been calls for him to resign by members of his own party, including the governor of a state. Should politicians resign if there are allegations without a conviction? There'll be many members that call for his resignation. As governor, I called for members' resignation once they were indicted, just because they hold public office and the office is above that. Now, I think the question is, whether the Senate under their ethics rule would pursue a case to remove him or to penalize him. And I think it's a difficult position for the Senate, and that's why office holders should just simply say, I'm stepping aside while this is being litigated. There's an enormous amount of discretion for prosecutors to bring a case. Should the prosecutor have the power to determine who represents us, or should we wait for a conviction? That is a challenge in terms of fairness, and the same case is made with Donald Trump. He's got four indictments. I've called for him to set aside for the good of the country under that same principle, but the counterpoint is, if it's a sham prosecution to begin with, he shouldn't have to step aside. So valid point there, I just happen to believe that whenever you're facing a criminal charge, and you've got the probable cause that's been established for it, you can't concentrate on your public duties. There's always an opportunity to future to come back once you clear your name. That's just the principle I think that's important. The public, since it is being unfair, and it started off with a New York indictment, a state case that liberals and conservatives said it was a step too far, it was not a good foundation legally. Why do you think that Trump's polling has improved so dramatically since his indictments? They've appeared political. So that's how he garnered the support. He's the one that has made those talking points. That is that it's a corrupt prosecutor. It is a corrupt judge. It is a corrupt system. I'm being picked on and I'm fighting for you. He sold that message. He even sold it to Vladimir Putin. Putin goes out there and makes a speech and says the American system is corrupt and referred to the charges against Donald Trump as evidence of that. That's harmful to the United States. As time goes on, will the public reevaluate that and say, but even though we thought it was unfair to begin with, this is serious. This is not reflective of who we want as the commander-in-chief in our country. And that's what I encourage voters to do is disregard the criminal cases and just concentrate on the underlying facts. Is this who we want to lead our country? Thanks to ASEF for joining us today. If you missed last week's show, check it out. The podcast was Religion and the Constitution. Our speaker was Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, who recently published a new book entitled A Green to Disagree, How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience. Michael believes that under the First Amendment, the government should not endorse any specific religion and that the separation of church and state does not mean that the government should always require a secular position. You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website what happens next in six minutes.com. Please subscribe to our weekly emails and follow us on our podcast or Spotify. Thank you for joining us today. Goodbye.