Slavoj Žižek Interview and 2024 US Election Latest | W News, Riz Khan & Global News Today 30/10/24
Interview · Al Arabiya English ·
2024-10-30 · 2:58:15 · 25,728 words
with Norman Finkelstein
geopolitics-warfascism-populismideologycapitalismdemocracyliberalism-political-correctnessreligion-theologyconsciousness-mindsexuality-genderpsychoanalysis
Žižek argues that liberal democracy is collapsing into 'soft fascism,' characterized by capitalist modernization coupled with strong traditionalist states (citing Trump, Putin, Modi, and Xi). He analyzes the Ukraine and Israel-Gaza conflicts as symptoms of a global realignment where BRICS exploits Western hypocrisy to establish a new imperial order. Finally, he critiques the prevailing 'cynical disavowal' of truth, contrasting it with a demand for subjective, morally shocking engagement, while dismissing 'woke' demystification as insufficient without concrete political analysis. Žižek critiques the 'joyful' narrative of trans ideology, arguing that gender identity is a traumatic, unconscious process rather than a simple choice, invoking Freud and psychoanalysis. He then addresses immigration, arguing that Western capitalism structurally depends on immigrant labor and that immigration crises are driven by Western foreign policy interventions. He concludes by discussing political short-termism in the West versus China's long-term planning and illustrates Hegelian dialectics using the 'coffee without cream' anecdote from Ernst Lubitsch's film Ninotchka.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 17
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
Fukuyama's thesis, which Žižek claims was wrong because it failed to predict the return of passionate, fundamentalist politics and cultural wars.
The liberal response to fundamentalism, which Žižek views as a neutral technocracy that has displaced authentic politics.
The 'jouissance' or passionate engagement found in religious fundamentalism, which Žižek argues has resuscitated politics in a way liberalism has lost.
as “authentic strong leader”
A leader who possesses dignity and spontaneously emanating authority that opens a new space of hope, distinct from the ironic, undignified performance of Trump or Putin.
The Western narrative of the Ukraine conflict, which Žižek rejects in favor of viewing it as Russian imperial ambition.
The dangerous binary where defending Ukraine is equated with supporting Western imperialism, allowing Putin to win over the 'third world'.
The political project Žižek argues is being realized by Israel through ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank, creating a new reality that fuels anti-Semitism.
A political formation combining full capitalist modernization with a strong state legitimized by traditional conservative ideology, exemplified by Trump, Putin, and Xi.
as “logic of disavowal”
A psychoanalytic formulation where the subject is open to truth but formulates it in a way that exempts them from subjective engagement or action.
as “cynical disavowal”
The logic of 'Je sais bien, mais quand même' (I know very well, but nonetheless), where one acknowledges the truth (e.g., climate crisis) but acts as if it does not subjectively obligate them to change.
as “theological materialist”
Žižek's self-description, asserting that truth is a category of subjective moral engagement and shock, not neutral factuality.
Implied in his critique of how slogans like 'freedom' function in concrete situations rather than as abstract ideals.
as “unconscious process”
The psychoanalytic view that gender identity formation is not a conscious choice but a complex, traumatic unconscious struggle.
as “joyful vision of trans”
Žižek's label for the liberal/trans ideology premise that gender is a simple, liberating choice free from biological or traumatic determination.
as “moderate conservative aspect”
Žižek's self-description of his political stance: being radical in critique but cautious about immediate radical measures due to their catastrophic side effects.
as “thinking in the terms what will be in next years”
Žižek's description of China's political advantage: the ability to plan long-term without being constrained by short-term electoral cycles.
as “what is missing also counts”
A Hegelian principle illustrated by the coffee joke: the absence of an element (cream/milk) structurally defines the object's symbolic identity, not just its material substance.
Stories he reaches for 3
Žižek contrasts Trump's self-ironical, vulgar, postmodern lack of dignity with Bernie Sanders' old-fashioned moral majority dignity and shame.
“Just compare Trump to Bernie Sanders... He never goes into vulgarities. He acts with shame. He retains his dignity.”
Žižek recounts a Knesset debate where the majority defended unspeakable torture of Palestinians as part of the struggle against terrorism, arguing that hypocrisy (shame) is preferable to this open ethical decay.
“But sorry, when struggle—Israel struggle for Israeli self-defense becomes a publicly admitted horrible mode of torture, then it's over.”
Žižek recalls that in Slovenia, the demand for 'freedom and democracy' at the end of socialism was actually a demand for 'more open socialism' with social justice, not just Western liberalism.
“No, at least for Slovenia I can guarantee you, the ideal was almost a more open socialism.”
Works invoked 4
Ninotchka film
Used to illustrate Hegelian dialectics via the 'coffee without cream' scene.
Moby Dick book
Cited as a book prohibited in schools because the right wing claims the title is obscene.
Tom Sawyer book
Cited alongside Huckleberry Finn as a book prohibited in schools.
Huckleberry Finn book
Cited as a classic banned in US schools by the right wing, illustrating the authoritarian nature of current censorship.
People invoked 22
A right-wing centrist whom European right-wingers (like AfD and Orbán) falsely label as a communist.
Narendra Modi negative
Cited as an example of 'soft fascism' in India, combining 'wild capitalism' with 'Hindu nationalism.'
Ironically described by opposing parties as 'Marxist' in the context of the US election.
Marine Le Pen negative
The populist threat that Macron prevented from taking over.
Vladimir Lenin positive
Putin critically mentioned Lenin in his 2022 speeches, suggesting Ukraine be renamed after him, which Žižek interprets as a negation of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Xi Jinping negative
Cited as an example of 'soft fascism,' promoting 'wild capitalism' alongside 'Hindu nationalism' (in India's case) or 'Confucian tradition' (in China's) to re-educate youth.
Francis Fukuyama negative
Cited as the author of the 'end of history' thesis, which Žižek claims was wrong because it ignored the return of passionate politics.
Cited as the architect of the French Constitution's specific provision allowing presidential nomination of government without parliamentary confirmation.
Donald Trump negative
Described as 'soft fascism,' a 'post-modern relativist cynical politician' who lacks dignity, is self-ironical, and plays at being a strong leader.
George Washington University positive
Used to demystify American history; noted as the richest man in the US at the time and more anti-British than poor English people.
Emmanuel Macron positive
Praised for preventing Le Pen from taking over by partially canceling democracy via the French Constitution's emergency powers.
Bernie Sanders positive
Used as a foil to Trump; praised for his 'old-fashioned moral majority' persona, dignity, and lack of vulgarity.
Marwan Barghouti positive
Prisoner proposed for release by Ayalon as a candidate for a two-state solution who could beat Hamas in free elections.
Taliban negative
Acknowledged by Putin as a 'progressive ally' in the struggle against Western terrorism, illustrating the absurdity of BRICS alliances.
Mentioned as an example of a European leader (alongside others) who might succeed in throwing out immigrants, leading to economic collapse.
Ami Ayalon positive
Ex-chief of Shin Bet, respected for his rational proposal to release Marwan Barghouti and recognize Palestinian autonomy.
Viktor Orbán negative
Described as the 'we-know-who boss of Hungary' and a new right-winger who claims Marxism is in power in Europe.
Žižek expected Xi Jinping to call for reading Mao, but instead called for Confucian tradition.
Tyler Cowen positive
Described as a 'right liberal' who proposed Žižek's self-definition of being 'moderate conservative' in the radical sense.
Vladimir Putin negative
Viewed as having 'imperial ambition' rather than a valid security concern; not an 'authentic strong leader' due to lack of dignity and use of obscenities.
Winston Churchill positive
Mentioned as a figure whose history needs to be demystified by 'woke' critics.
Sigmund Freud positive
Invoked as the necessary counterpoint to the 'joyful' trans ideology; Žižek argues we must not forget psychoanalysis.
Transcript 263 turns
unknown
Hello and welcome. I'm Tom Burges Watson. You are watching W News broadcast live from the Al Arabiya News headquarters. These are our top stories. A row erupts in the United States as President Biden appears to suggest Donald Trump supporters are "garbage." This as tensions rise, remain high, with both sides attempting to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. Donald Trump criticizes Biden's comments, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate as both he and Kamala Harris travel to the swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin. And Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, says the group would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under "acceptable terms." This as two top US diplomats travel to Israel for talks. Hello and welcome. The US presidential candidate Kamala Harris has promised to unite the country in a major primetime closing argument speech in Washington. This comes as President Joe Biden has created a firestorm after appearing to call Donald Trump supporters "garbage." That criticism was in response to a comedian who appeared at a Trump rally on Sunday and he called the US territory of Puerto Rico a floating pile of garbage. Nick Harper has this report from Washington.
Hello and welcome. I'm Tom Burges Watson. You are watching W News broadcast live from the Al Arabiya News headquarters. These are our top stories. A row erupts in the United States as President Biden appears to suggest Donald Trump supporters are "garbage." This as tensions rise, remain high, with both sides attempting to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. Donald Trump criticizes Biden's comments, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate as both he and Kamala Harris travel to the swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin. And Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, says the group would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under "acceptable terms." This as two top US diplomats travel to Israel for talks. Hello and welcome. The US presidential candidate Kamala Harris has promised to unite the country in a major primetime closing argument speech in Washington. This comes as President Joe Biden has created a firestorm after appearing to call Donald Trump supporters "garbage." That criticism was in response to a comedian who appeared at a Trump rally on Sunday and he called the US territory of Puerto Rico a floating pile of garbage. Nick Harper has this report from Washington.
unknown
In front of her largest campaign crowd to date, Kamala Harris set out the choice now facing millions of Americans, warning of the dangers she sees in a second Donald Trump presidency.
In front of her largest campaign crowd to date, Kamala Harris set out the choice now facing millions of Americans, warning of the dangers she sees in a second Donald Trump presidency.
unknown
"And I pledge to be a president for all Americans."
"And I pledge to be a president for all Americans."
unknown
She tried to strike a note of unity using the same site in downtown DC where Trump rallied his supporters on January the 6th, just before they stormed the US Capitol. But overshadowing that message were comments made Tuesday night by President Joe Biden in which he appeared to disparage Trump's voters. "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." The White House now in damage limitation mode, clarifying that the president was referring specifically to the comedian who made racist comments about Puerto Rico at Trump's rally in New York on Sunday. Comparisons are being made to Hillary Clinton's
She tried to strike a note of unity using the same site in downtown DC where Trump rallied his supporters on January the 6th, just before they stormed the US Capitol. But overshadowing that message were comments made Tuesday night by President Joe Biden in which he appeared to disparage Trump's voters. "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." The White House now in damage limitation mode, clarifying that the president was referring specifically to the comedian who made racist comments about Puerto Rico at Trump's rally in New York on Sunday. Comparisons are being made to Hillary Clinton's
Norman Finkelstein
comments about Trump voters that undermined the final days of her presidential campaign. "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." In Pennsylvania, Donald Trump tried to distance himself from the remarks about Puerto Rico, instead rallying with the local community. "Hispanics, Latinos, nobody loves our Latino
comments about Trump voters that undermined the final days of her presidential campaign. "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." In Pennsylvania, Donald Trump tried to distance himself from the remarks about Puerto Rico, instead rallying with the local community. "Hispanics, Latinos, nobody loves our Latino
unknown
community and our Puerto Rican community more than I do. Nobody." Winning over Pennsylvania's sizable Puerto Rican voter base is now becoming pivotal to winning the state and the keys to the White House. Both candidates are campaigning in North Carolina and Wisconsin this Wednesday, with Harris also fitting in a stop in Pennsylvania. But how she responds to Biden's comments is likely to dominate the news agenda just six days out from the election. Nick Harper, Al Arabiya News, Washington. Let's speak now to our chief correspondent Simon Marks, who joins us from DC. Simon, great to have you with us. A lot of people at the Trump rally in North Carolina today are going to be pretty upset by the language used by President Biden. And I'm just wondering, is the Republican Party managing to use those comments in which President Biden appeared to call Trump
community and our Puerto Rican community more than I do. Nobody." Winning over Pennsylvania's sizable Puerto Rican voter base is now becoming pivotal to winning the state and the keys to the White House. Both candidates are campaigning in North Carolina and Wisconsin this Wednesday, with Harris also fitting in a stop in Pennsylvania. But how she responds to Biden's comments is likely to dominate the news agenda just six days out from the election. Nick Harper, Al Arabiya News, Washington. Let's speak now to our chief correspondent Simon Marks, who joins us from DC. Simon, great to have you with us. A lot of people at the Trump rally in North Carolina today are going to be pretty upset by the language used by President Biden. And I'm just wondering, is the Republican Party managing to use those comments in which President Biden appeared to call Trump
unknown
supporters garbage to their advantage? Well, Joe Biden, of course, says that he wasn't calling supporters plural garbage, but that actually there was an apostrophe there. He was referring, he says, to one of Trump's supporters, the comedian at that rally who made the racist joke about Puerto Rico. But Kamala Harris has certainly reacted to this as though it's a problem
supporters garbage to their advantage? Well, Joe Biden, of course, says that he wasn't calling supporters plural garbage, but that actually there was an apostrophe there. He was referring, he says, to one of Trump's supporters, the comedian at that rally who made the racist joke about Puerto Rico. But Kamala Harris has certainly reacted to this as though it's a problem
unknown
for her campaign. And Donald Trump has reacted to this as though this is a massive opportunity for him. So he's taken to social media to say that these comments prove that neither Joe Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris are fit to occupy the
for her campaign. And Donald Trump has reacted to this as though this is a massive opportunity for him. So he's taken to social media to say that these comments prove that neither Joe Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris are fit to occupy the
Norman Finkelstein
nation's highest office. He
nation's highest office. He
unknown
knows how potent and how disastrous for Hillary Clinton her claim that
knows how potent and how disastrous for Hillary Clinton her claim that
unknown
his supporters were a basket of deplorables proved to be back in And Donald Trump will very much be hoping not only that he's able to capitalize out of this and reinspire people to vote for him, but also that this is an opportunity to turn the conversation away from the focus that has been placed on not just the racist joke that was told at Madison Square Garden about Puerto Rico, but about a whole raft of other misogynistic and hate-filled comments that were made during a variety of the warm-up acts leading to Donald Trump's appearance at that rally. Now, Donald Trump told Fox News last night
his supporters were a basket of deplorables proved to be back in And Donald Trump will very much be hoping not only that he's able to capitalize out of this and reinspire people to vote for him, but also that this is an opportunity to turn the conversation away from the focus that has been placed on not just the racist joke that was told at Madison Square Garden about Puerto Rico, but about a whole raft of other misogynistic and hate-filled comments that were made during a variety of the warm-up acts leading to Donald Trump's appearance at that rally. Now, Donald Trump told Fox News last night
unknown
he'd never heard of the comedian. He doesn't know him, he's never met him. He wasn't even aware that he was booked to be part of the bill. But that joke has damaged him greatly among the Latino community, certainly among Puerto Ricans. So he's got repair work to do there. And for Donald Trump, this is a gift. It's manna from heaven from Joe Biden. A massive
he'd never heard of the comedian. He doesn't know him, he's never met him. He wasn't even aware that he was booked to be part of the bill. But that joke has damaged him greatly among the Latino community, certainly among Puerto Ricans. So he's got repair work to do there. And for Donald Trump, this is a gift. It's manna from heaven from Joe Biden. A massive
unknown
opportunity to change the conversation, point the finger back at the Democrats and say, look at these people. They're so dismissive of half the country, millions of people who have already voted for Donald Trump, not to mention the others that will be coming. And if it's manna from heaven for Donald Trump, it's a real problem for Kamala Harris. Yeah, it is. And she's in North Carolina today trying to distance herself from what President Biden said. I'm just wondering, what is she saying? And is what she's saying having the desired effect, Simon? Well, she's on the one hand saying that President Biden has explained the comment, but on the other hand making it pretty clear she doesn't buy the explanation and is saying that she doesn't believe that one should ever dismiss American voters for deciding who they want to support in an American election campaign. Because this really, I mean, this comment, news of it spread even as Kamala Harris was on her feet here in Washington DC last night speaking at the Ellipse, inspiring people she hoped by saying that she was going to be a president for all Americans. She was going to be a unifier, not a divider like Donald Trump. And of course, she was speaking, Tom, in the exact spot where Donald Trump back on January the 6th, made his speech to his supporters urging them to head up to Congress where they would within hours start rampaging and breaking into the congressional building. So for Kamala Harris to step off that stage last night and then be told by her aides that Joe Biden, who by the way Harris staff have tried largely to keep off the campaign trail and out of the news, had made this comment in a discussion he was having with get-out-the-vote activists trying to mobilize the Latino vote, became an immediate problem for her campaign. And she's definitely moving to distance herself, unusually, from something that her boss, the president, has said. Yeah, we're going to be talking a bit more about Joe Biden with one of our guests in just a
opportunity to change the conversation, point the finger back at the Democrats and say, look at these people. They're so dismissive of half the country, millions of people who have already voted for Donald Trump, not to mention the others that will be coming. And if it's manna from heaven for Donald Trump, it's a real problem for Kamala Harris. Yeah, it is. And she's in North Carolina today trying to distance herself from what President Biden said. I'm just wondering, what is she saying? And is what she's saying having the desired effect, Simon? Well, she's on the one hand saying that President Biden has explained the comment, but on the other hand making it pretty clear she doesn't buy the explanation and is saying that she doesn't believe that one should ever dismiss American voters for deciding who they want to support in an American election campaign. Because this really, I mean, this comment, news of it spread even as Kamala Harris was on her feet here in Washington DC last night speaking at the Ellipse, inspiring people she hoped by saying that she was going to be a president for all Americans. She was going to be a unifier, not a divider like Donald Trump. And of course, she was speaking, Tom, in the exact spot where Donald Trump back on January the 6th, made his speech to his supporters urging them to head up to Congress where they would within hours start rampaging and breaking into the congressional building. So for Kamala Harris to step off that stage last night and then be told by her aides that Joe Biden, who by the way Harris staff have tried largely to keep off the campaign trail and out of the news, had made this comment in a discussion he was having with get-out-the-vote activists trying to mobilize the Latino vote, became an immediate problem for her campaign. And she's definitely moving to distance herself, unusually, from something that her boss, the president, has said. Yeah, we're going to be talking a bit more about Joe Biden with one of our guests in just a
unknown
moment. I just want to ask you about the early voting phenomenon. More than three million people have voted early in Georgia, and officials there are saying that's a record. And I'm just wondering what we should read into that and what it might tell us about which way Georgia could swing this time.
moment. I just want to ask you about the early voting phenomenon. More than three million people have voted early in Georgia, and officials there are saying that's a record. And I'm just wondering what we should read into that and what it might tell us about which way Georgia could swing this time.
unknown
Well, the numbers are astonishing and the numbers nationally are astonishing. Americans have already cast their votes. So for them, nothing that happens over the course of the next five days has any relevance whatsoever. It's too late; they've made their decision. As far as those numbers in Georgia are concerned and as far as the national numbers are concerned, and nationally of votes have been cast by registered Democrats, by registered Republicans, by others—that's voters who
Well, the numbers are astonishing and the numbers nationally are astonishing. Americans have already cast their votes. So for them, nothing that happens over the course of the next five days has any relevance whatsoever. It's too late; they've made their decision. As far as those numbers in Georgia are concerned and as far as the national numbers are concerned, and nationally of votes have been cast by registered Democrats, by registered Republicans, by others—that's voters who
unknown
are not registered with one of the two major parties. I mean, one has to be very, very careful with this data because all it tells you is that registered Democrats and registered Republicans are voting in record numbers. But it doesn't tell you how they're voting. So you can't look at those numbers in Georgia and say, well, the number of Republicans showing up at the polls must be really great news for Donald Trump. Because you don't know how many of them don't want to vote for Trump and are actually voting for Harris, or perhaps voting for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein of the Green Party. Same situation in Michigan where she's been openly going after Kamala Harris's vote in a bid to deny her victory in the state. So all we can say looking at these numbers is Americans enthusiastically want to vote and they want to vote before election day. Maybe that's because they're absolutely sick to the back teeth with this election campaign and they just want to get it past them. Or maybe because they are so enthused about Kamala Harris and Donald
are not registered with one of the two major parties. I mean, one has to be very, very careful with this data because all it tells you is that registered Democrats and registered Republicans are voting in record numbers. But it doesn't tell you how they're voting. So you can't look at those numbers in Georgia and say, well, the number of Republicans showing up at the polls must be really great news for Donald Trump. Because you don't know how many of them don't want to vote for Trump and are actually voting for Harris, or perhaps voting for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein of the Green Party. Same situation in Michigan where she's been openly going after Kamala Harris's vote in a bid to deny her victory in the state. So all we can say looking at these numbers is Americans enthusiastically want to vote and they want to vote before election day. Maybe that's because they're absolutely sick to the back teeth with this election campaign and they just want to get it past them. Or maybe because they are so enthused about Kamala Harris and Donald
unknown
Trump that they actually want to get out and show their support early. The numbers are astonishing, but what they say, much, much harder to divine. All right, Simon Marks in Washington. Thank you very much indeed for bringing us all the latest on that. Let's get some more analysis now with the attorney and Trump campaign surrogate, Erin Elmore. Thank you so much for being with us, Erin. I just want to pick up on one of the things
Trump that they actually want to get out and show their support early. The numbers are astonishing, but what they say, much, much harder to divine. All right, Simon Marks in Washington. Thank you very much indeed for bringing us all the latest on that. Let's get some more analysis now with the attorney and Trump campaign surrogate, Erin Elmore. Thank you so much for being with us, Erin. I just want to pick up on one of the things
unknown
we've been talking about earlier in the bulletin: the word "garbage." It's a word that seems now to be haunting both campaign teams. For which party would you say this garbage fury is more damaging? Well, I think certainly the Democrats because one came from a rogue comedian at a group event and the other came from the sitting President of the United States. And now I know what you're going to talk about next is, well, he said he didn't say that. Well, let's say if we're going to just take that line of thought, then let's use that for Donald Trump. Let's apply that standard equally because the left continues to push the narrative of the very fine people hoax or that Trump supports And what I would say in return is, he didn't say that, he doesn't do that. So that just argument of saying he didn't say that for Joe Biden isn't really going to work because we know that's not the standard of the mainstream media or the left in general. Indeed. And Kamala Harris, of course, is trying to put some distance between herself and what Joe Biden said. Do you think she's succeeding in any respect? I mean, it's hard because when I go on social media, I see an echo chamber of conservatives and those who lean right and the Latinos for Trump saying, "Are we really garbage?" And I think of Corey Comperatore, who lost his life at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally for President Trump. Is he garbage, Joe Biden? Is he garbage, Kamala Harris? Are the truck drivers, firefighters, soldiers in this country that happen to support Donald Trump garbage? I think the fact that it came from the President of the
we've been talking about earlier in the bulletin: the word "garbage." It's a word that seems now to be haunting both campaign teams. For which party would you say this garbage fury is more damaging? Well, I think certainly the Democrats because one came from a rogue comedian at a group event and the other came from the sitting President of the United States. And now I know what you're going to talk about next is, well, he said he didn't say that. Well, let's say if we're going to just take that line of thought, then let's use that for Donald Trump. Let's apply that standard equally because the left continues to push the narrative of the very fine people hoax or that Trump supports And what I would say in return is, he didn't say that, he doesn't do that. So that just argument of saying he didn't say that for Joe Biden isn't really going to work because we know that's not the standard of the mainstream media or the left in general. Indeed. And Kamala Harris, of course, is trying to put some distance between herself and what Joe Biden said. Do you think she's succeeding in any respect? I mean, it's hard because when I go on social media, I see an echo chamber of conservatives and those who lean right and the Latinos for Trump saying, "Are we really garbage?" And I think of Corey Comperatore, who lost his life at the Butler, Pennsylvania rally for President Trump. Is he garbage, Joe Biden? Is he garbage, Kamala Harris? Are the truck drivers, firefighters, soldiers in this country that happen to support Donald Trump garbage? I think the fact that it came from the President of the
unknown
United States speaks volumes, and I think the Democrats are going to have a very hard time cleaning up this garbage. Well, I mean, it's the last thing either party probably wanted at this late stage because, of course, we're talking about an election in which the polls are really, you know, it's looking neck and neck. A real nail-biter. And I just want to ask you, how do you see the polls evolving during the course of these remaining five or six days? It's certainly looking better for Donald Trump. If you look at the
United States speaks volumes, and I think the Democrats are going to have a very hard time cleaning up this garbage. Well, I mean, it's the last thing either party probably wanted at this late stage because, of course, we're talking about an election in which the polls are really, you know, it's looking neck and neck. A real nail-biter. And I just want to ask you, how do you see the polls evolving during the course of these remaining five or six days? It's certainly looking better for Donald Trump. If you look at the
unknown
betting markets, the Polymarket, Donald Trump is up at
betting markets, the Polymarket, Donald Trump is up at
unknown
some times by like And I know we touched on the early voting earlier. I think it's a big step to say all these Republicans aren't voting for Donald Trump. If you were a betting person, you would say the fact that Republicans are turning out at a much higher rate than Democrats in many of these swing states would be good for Donald Trump. So I think that the momentum right now is behind President Trump and his campaign, and I think it's a vote for sanity. I think a lot of—I've also seen that this transgender issue in Title IX issue be a big sleeper issue for suburban women that Donald
some times by like And I know we touched on the early voting earlier. I think it's a big step to say all these Republicans aren't voting for Donald Trump. If you were a betting person, you would say the fact that Republicans are turning out at a much higher rate than Democrats in many of these swing states would be good for Donald Trump. So I think that the momentum right now is behind President Trump and his campaign, and I think it's a vote for sanity. I think a lot of—I've also seen that this transgender issue in Title IX issue be a big sleeper issue for suburban women that Donald
unknown
Trump doesn't generally have gravitate towards him. A lot of these moms that were athletes themselves, their daughters are athletes, they're having to share bathrooms
Trump doesn't generally have gravitate towards him. A lot of these moms that were athletes themselves, their daughters are athletes, they're having to share bathrooms
unknown
and locker rooms with biological men. These girls are losing scholarships to college or a chance on a podium for a medal because of biological men. And these women with whom I've spoken a lot, to a lot of them across the country, they're all saying, "I'm not necessarily the biggest supporter of Donald Trump, but I am a supporter of my daughter, and therefore I'm going to vote for Donald Trump." One person that isn't going to vote for Donald Trump is the former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's just said he's still a Republican but he's going to support Harris. He calls Trump "un-American." He's not
and locker rooms with biological men. These girls are losing scholarships to college or a chance on a podium for a medal because of biological men. And these women with whom I've spoken a lot, to a lot of them across the country, they're all saying, "I'm not necessarily the biggest supporter of Donald Trump, but I am a supporter of my daughter, and therefore I'm going to vote for Donald Trump." One person that isn't going to vote for Donald Trump is the former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's just said he's still a Republican but he's going to support Harris. He calls Trump "un-American." He's not
unknown
the only one, is he? I mean, he's basically another typical Hollywood liberal elite at this point. So it doesn't really carry—you know, as Republicans, we are, generally speaking now, the hard-working Americans that pay our taxes and fight the wars. We're not
the only one, is he? I mean, he's basically another typical Hollywood liberal elite at this point. So it doesn't really carry—you know, as Republicans, we are, generally speaking now, the hard-working Americans that pay our taxes and fight the wars. We're not
unknown
very concerned about what people in Hollywood are saying or those that make millions of dollars just to act. And yes, I understand that he was a politician, but it was a different era, and this is not surprising at all. I think he should probably worry more about, you know, what's going on in his state, because California under Newsom and Harris and, you know, all of these liberals in that state has really decimated the economy there. And maybe he should get back into some sort of political office out there and try to help his state as opposed to worrying about what Donald Trump is doing. But it's not just Hollywood actors that are coming out saying these things about Donald Trump. We've got former employees in the Bush administration, you've got the Cheneys, we've got former White House press secretary under Donald Trump. But former employees in the Republican administration coming out writing this letter. Let me just explain that to you. It's very easy to understand that Donald Trump, yes, he is a Republican, but we have created a new Republican
very concerned about what people in Hollywood are saying or those that make millions of dollars just to act. And yes, I understand that he was a politician, but it was a different era, and this is not surprising at all. I think he should probably worry more about, you know, what's going on in his state, because California under Newsom and Harris and, you know, all of these liberals in that state has really decimated the economy there. And maybe he should get back into some sort of political office out there and try to help his state as opposed to worrying about what Donald Trump is doing. But it's not just Hollywood actors that are coming out saying these things about Donald Trump. We've got former employees in the Bush administration, you've got the Cheneys, we've got former White House press secretary under Donald Trump. But former employees in the Republican administration coming out writing this letter. Let me just explain that to you. It's very easy to understand that Donald Trump, yes, he is a Republican, but we have created a new Republican
unknown
Party, and that's the America First party. Right? And so if you want to talk about the Bushes or the Cheneys—okay, what about John Negroponte?—that Republican Party is dead. That Republican Party is gone. They are neocons that love
Party, and that's the America First party. Right? And so if you want to talk about the Bushes or the Cheneys—okay, what about John Negroponte?—that Republican Party is dead. That Republican Party is gone. They are neocons that love
unknown
endless wars. Of course they want Kamala. We have new wars under Kamala. Under Donald Trump, it was the first president in my lifetime that didn't have any new wars. So of course people like Dick Cheney, who is one of the biggest neocons of our generation, would love Kamala. She keeps the military-industrial complex booming. Last question. I mean, clearly emotions running really high with this election. We were just talking to our correspondent in DC and, you know, he was saying some people are looking forward to the end of the election campaign; they're tired of it. Others are clearly very excited about it. Does it feel like people are really mobilized and that people will be heading to the voting
endless wars. Of course they want Kamala. We have new wars under Kamala. Under Donald Trump, it was the first president in my lifetime that didn't have any new wars. So of course people like Dick Cheney, who is one of the biggest neocons of our generation, would love Kamala. She keeps the military-industrial complex booming. Last question. I mean, clearly emotions running really high with this election. We were just talking to our correspondent in DC and, you know, he was saying some people are looking forward to the end of the election campaign; they're tired of it. Others are clearly very excited about it. Does it feel like people are really mobilized and that people will be heading to the voting
unknown
booths on the 5th in very large numbers, Erin? Well, I'm on the campaign trail with Women for Trump right now. I don't know if you've seen it
booths on the 5th in very large numbers, Erin? Well, I'm on the campaign trail with Women for Trump right now. I don't know if you've seen it
unknown
online,
online,
unknown
but with Lara Trump and people like Sage Steele,
but with Lara Trump and people like Sage Steele,
unknown
who was
who was
unknown
at ESPN, and car driving racer—I think she was NASCAR—Danica Patrick, and Savannah Chrisley. And we have all been on the Women for Trump tour just canvassing this country in our pink jackets, and the momentum is really out there. Most people have early voted. People are really excited to get out there and cast their vote for Donald J. Trump. And I just feel this groundswell of, as you said, emotion, of excitement. On our side, we definitely want change. We want sanity. We want logic. We want rationality. And I think Donald Trump is the only way to get that.
at ESPN, and car driving racer—I think she was NASCAR—Danica Patrick, and Savannah Chrisley. And we have all been on the Women for Trump tour just canvassing this country in our pink jackets, and the momentum is really out there. Most people have early voted. People are really excited to get out there and cast their vote for Donald J. Trump. And I just feel this groundswell of, as you said, emotion, of excitement. On our side, we definitely want change. We want sanity. We want logic. We want rationality. And I think Donald Trump is the only way to get that.
unknown
All right. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us, Erin Elmore. Thank you very much indeed.
All right. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us, Erin Elmore. Thank you very much indeed.
unknown
Always a pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Always a pleasure. Thank you for having me.
unknown
Let's get some more analysis now, and I can speak to Jared Bernstein, a former Obama administration official and Democrat strategist. Thank you so much indeed for taking the time to talk to us as well. This garbage furor has sort of boomeranged round, hasn't it, from the Republicans to hit the Democrats? That's thanks to some comments, as we've been saying, by President Joe Biden. Would you say that President Biden's comments were ill-advised?
Let's get some more analysis now, and I can speak to Jared Bernstein, a former Obama administration official and Democrat strategist. Thank you so much indeed for taking the time to talk to us as well. This garbage furor has sort of boomeranged round, hasn't it, from the Republicans to hit the Democrats? That's thanks to some comments, as we've been saying, by President Joe Biden. Would you say that President Biden's comments were ill-advised?
unknown
I would say that Joe Biden is a good man and been a great president, and anybody who knows Joe Biden knows that every once in a while he says something that doesn't quite match up and is not the most politic thing. Vice President addressed this head-on today. She said she strongly disagreed with any criticism of people based on who they vote for. And I was just listening to your previous guest talk about being on the campaign trail with Women for Trump. I mean, I can't imagine what that actually looks like, campaigning for a guy who actually was found having committed sexual assault and, you know, and being convicted of multiple felonies. How do you campaign in a group called Women for Trump and have a straight face after what this man's been convicted of? And as you accurately pointed out, he's got 200-plus former officials, his own vice president, are not voting for this guy. And I think the American public is really finely tuned into the end of this marathon and really understanding what's at stake here, and that's the future of democracy of this country. Just going back to President
I would say that Joe Biden is a good man and been a great president, and anybody who knows Joe Biden knows that every once in a while he says something that doesn't quite match up and is not the most politic thing. Vice President addressed this head-on today. She said she strongly disagreed with any criticism of people based on who they vote for. And I was just listening to your previous guest talk about being on the campaign trail with Women for Trump. I mean, I can't imagine what that actually looks like, campaigning for a guy who actually was found having committed sexual assault and, you know, and being convicted of multiple felonies. How do you campaign in a group called Women for Trump and have a straight face after what this man's been convicted of? And as you accurately pointed out, he's got 200-plus former officials, his own vice president, are not voting for this guy. And I think the American public is really finely tuned into the end of this marathon and really understanding what's at stake here, and that's the future of democracy of this country. Just going back to President
unknown
Biden. I mean, it ought to be a real asset for a candidate to have a sitting president from the same party for whom she served as vice president backing her and on the campaign trail. That ought to be the case. But it does look, doesn't it, increasingly like President Biden's more of a liability than an asset for a Kamala Harris, doesn't it? I wouldn't say that. I would say there are certain constituencies, particularly in Pennsylvania near where Joe Biden grew up in Scranton, PA, where he is an asset on the campaign trail and people really resonate with him. He's also been a lifelong champion for the middle class and for the working class, and that's really resonating. And I think they're deploying President Biden where he makes the most difference. Does he say something every once in a while that you wish he may have said a little bit differently? Of course. But that's part of the charm and love that Joe Biden brings to the campaign trail. He's going to make a gaffe here and there, and that's what happened. Let's
Biden. I mean, it ought to be a real asset for a candidate to have a sitting president from the same party for whom she served as vice president backing her and on the campaign trail. That ought to be the case. But it does look, doesn't it, increasingly like President Biden's more of a liability than an asset for a Kamala Harris, doesn't it? I wouldn't say that. I would say there are certain constituencies, particularly in Pennsylvania near where Joe Biden grew up in Scranton, PA, where he is an asset on the campaign trail and people really resonate with him. He's also been a lifelong champion for the middle class and for the working class, and that's really resonating. And I think they're deploying President Biden where he makes the most difference. Does he say something every once in a while that you wish he may have said a little bit differently? Of course. But that's part of the charm and love that Joe Biden brings to the campaign trail. He's going to make a gaffe here and there, and that's what happened. Let's
unknown
talk about the polls. Two and a half months ago, Kamala Harris had quite a clear lead in the polls. That seems to have evaporated. In
talk about the polls. Two and a half months ago, Kamala Harris had quite a clear lead in the polls. That seems to have evaporated. In
unknown
fact, the polls seem to have
fact, the polls seem to have
unknown
crossed over to the other side, or some of them have done, giving Donald Trump a very slight lead nationally. What do you think the reason is for the decline in popularity for her?
crossed over to the other side, or some of them have done, giving Donald Trump a very slight lead nationally. What do you think the reason is for the decline in popularity for her?
unknown
I don't think it's a decline in popularity. I think we always knew that this was going to be a really close election. And I think what we're going to see down the stretch in the last four or five days of this campaign is that the ground game that Biden and Harris had built are actually going to come into play, and we're going to see voter turnout in key areas where Kamala Harris needs it actually happen. I think the polls were always going to be tight. We always knew this was going to be a close election, and we're going to see the turnout machine really do what it has to do on an election day and really is already doing with the early voting turnout.
I don't think it's a decline in popularity. I think we always knew that this was going to be a really close election. And I think what we're going to see down the stretch in the last four or five days of this campaign is that the ground game that Biden and Harris had built are actually going to come into play, and we're going to see voter turnout in key areas where Kamala Harris needs it actually happen. I think the polls were always going to be tight. We always knew this was going to be a close election, and we're going to see the turnout machine really do what it has to do on an election day and really is already doing with the early voting turnout.
unknown
Obviously, with tight polls, everybody's nerves are pretty frayed at the moment. And I just want to ask you, what sort of a difference do you think last night's address by Kamala Harris might have made to her chances? Do you think that could have given her a little bit of a lift?
Obviously, with tight polls, everybody's nerves are pretty frayed at the moment. And I just want to ask you, what sort of a difference do you think last night's address by Kamala Harris might have made to her chances? Do you think that could have given her a little bit of a lift?
unknown
Listen, I think that she is going to have gone into election day, as we say in American football, she will have left it all out on the field. There will be no chance, no opportunity that she hasn't tried to take advantage of to make sure the American public knows what she stands for, knows what Donald Trump stands for. And you know, the old adage goes, if somebody tells you who they are, believe them. Donald Trump has showed us that he has fascist tendencies, that he wants to abolish parts of the Constitution, that he has Project he wants to radically remake the society that we live in and the democracy that we live in. And I think that message is going to resonate with the American public, and Kamala Harris is going to be the victor on election day.
Listen, I think that she is going to have gone into election day, as we say in American football, she will have left it all out on the field. There will be no chance, no opportunity that she hasn't tried to take advantage of to make sure the American public knows what she stands for, knows what Donald Trump stands for. And you know, the old adage goes, if somebody tells you who they are, believe them. Donald Trump has showed us that he has fascist tendencies, that he wants to abolish parts of the Constitution, that he has Project he wants to radically remake the society that we live in and the democracy that we live in. And I think that message is going to resonate with the American public, and Kamala Harris is going to be the victor on election day.
unknown
Okay. Jared Bernstein, really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Let's go check now some of the day's other news stories. At least people have been killed in catastrophic flooding in Spain. Rescuers are desperately trying to find survivors and bodies in the mud. This after torrential downpours turned roads into rapids, trapping people inside their homes and cars. The flooding began at lunchtime on Tuesday, wreaking havoc from the provinces of Málaga in the south to Valencia in the east. The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has deployed soldiers to the devastated regions, and he's warning residents there could be more bad weather to come.
Okay. Jared Bernstein, really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Let's go check now some of the day's other news stories. At least people have been killed in catastrophic flooding in Spain. Rescuers are desperately trying to find survivors and bodies in the mud. This after torrential downpours turned roads into rapids, trapping people inside their homes and cars. The flooding began at lunchtime on Tuesday, wreaking havoc from the provinces of Málaga in the south to Valencia in the east. The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has deployed soldiers to the devastated regions, and he's warning residents there could be more bad weather to come.
unknown
"We are working in a coordinated way to do what is possible, and we are going to use all means necessary, today and tomorrow, and for as long as it takes, so that we can recover from this tragedy. We are not going to abandon you. I would like to ask citizens to not let their guard down as the storm continues to cause damage. We cannot yet consider this devastating episode to be
"We are working in a coordinated way to do what is possible, and we are going to use all means necessary, today and tomorrow, and for as long as it takes, so that we can recover from this tragedy. We are not going to abandon you. I would like to ask citizens to not let their guard down as the storm continues to cause damage. We cannot yet consider this devastating episode to be
unknown
over." The Canadian government has accused India's interior minister of ordering a campaign of violence, intimidation, and intelligence gathering targeting Sikh separatists in Canada. India is yet to formally respond to the allegation against Amit Shah, who is Prime Minister Modi's closest aide. Previously, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Canada had credible evidence that agents for the Indian government were involved in the murder of the Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia back in June of South Korea says it is considering sending a team of military monitors to
over." The Canadian government has accused India's interior minister of ordering a campaign of violence, intimidation, and intelligence gathering targeting Sikh separatists in Canada. India is yet to formally respond to the allegation against Amit Shah, who is Prime Minister Modi's closest aide. Previously, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Canada had credible evidence that agents for the Indian government were involved in the murder of the Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia back in June of South Korea says it is considering sending a team of military monitors to
unknown
Ukraine. This after reports that North Korea was deploying troops to Russia. Some reports say that at least North Korean troops are in Russia, which is currently engaged in a nearly three-year-long war with Ukraine. North Korea, meanwhile, may launch an intercontinental ballistic missile around the time of the US election. That's according to South Korea, who say that a mobile launcher has been deployed for a possible test. The Hermit Kingdom's leader has flaunted his nuclear program in recent months, conducting various tests and even revealing a facility for producing weapons-grade uranium. A Chinese spaceship carrying a three-person crew has docked with its orbiting space station. This as the country seeks to expand its exploration of outer space in competition with the United States. The team of two men and one woman will replace the astronauts who have lived on the Tiangong space station for the last six months. The young crew is going to conduct various experiments and maintain the orbiting station as China works towards placing astronauts on the moon by the year To Lebanon now, and Israel has struck neighborhoods surrounding the historic city of Baalbek just a few hours after it ordered evacuations, prompting thousands of people to flee. Lebanese officials have expressed their concerns that further strikes on Baalbek could potentially damage the 3,000-year-old city, which is, in fact, a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued this warning to the residents of Baalbek:
Ukraine. This after reports that North Korea was deploying troops to Russia. Some reports say that at least North Korean troops are in Russia, which is currently engaged in a nearly three-year-long war with Ukraine. North Korea, meanwhile, may launch an intercontinental ballistic missile around the time of the US election. That's according to South Korea, who say that a mobile launcher has been deployed for a possible test. The Hermit Kingdom's leader has flaunted his nuclear program in recent months, conducting various tests and even revealing a facility for producing weapons-grade uranium. A Chinese spaceship carrying a three-person crew has docked with its orbiting space station. This as the country seeks to expand its exploration of outer space in competition with the United States. The team of two men and one woman will replace the astronauts who have lived on the Tiangong space station for the last six months. The young crew is going to conduct various experiments and maintain the orbiting station as China works towards placing astronauts on the moon by the year To Lebanon now, and Israel has struck neighborhoods surrounding the historic city of Baalbek just a few hours after it ordered evacuations, prompting thousands of people to flee. Lebanese officials have expressed their concerns that further strikes on Baalbek could potentially damage the 3,000-year-old city, which is, in fact, a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued this warning to the residents of Baalbek:
unknown
"This is an urgent warning to the residents of Baalbek. The Israeli army will act forcefully against Hezbollah positions and facilities within your city and villages. We do not intend to harm you. For your safety, you must evacuate your homes immediately and leave the city via the following routes: Zahle-Baalbek Highway, Nahle-Baalbek Road, and the Arz Road."
"This is an urgent warning to the residents of Baalbek. The Israeli army will act forcefully against Hezbollah positions and facilities within your city and villages. We do not intend to harm you. For your safety, you must evacuate your homes immediately and leave the city via the following routes: Zahle-Baalbek Highway, Nahle-Baalbek Road, and the Arz Road."
unknown
This comes as the United States announced that two senior advisers to President Biden will arrive in Israel on Thursday to try and negotiate a deal aimed at ending the war in Lebanon and facilitating the return of displaced civilians from both sides of the border. In the last couple of hours, Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, who indicated that the group would consider a ceasefire with Israel if terms were acceptable, but he emphasized that a viable proposal has not yet been presented. For more, I'm joined now by Hanin Ghaddar, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Thank you so much for being with us once again here on Al Arabiya News. So we've heard from Naim Qassem. Those were, I think, his first comments since he was named on Tuesday as Hassan Nasrallah's replacement. He said that Hezbollah would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under acceptable conditions. Any clues as to what those terms and conditions might be? Clearly, this is his first speech and he's still trying to gather his thoughts. He was reading from a paper frequently. He looked as if he was like really in denial. He doesn't understand the diplomacy in that sense. The ceasefire cannot happen before the negotiations. The negotiations are actually about the ceasefire. So he's requesting first and foremost that no negotiations will take place without a ceasefire. He's requesting Israel to stop
This comes as the United States announced that two senior advisers to President Biden will arrive in Israel on Thursday to try and negotiate a deal aimed at ending the war in Lebanon and facilitating the return of displaced civilians from both sides of the border. In the last couple of hours, Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, who indicated that the group would consider a ceasefire with Israel if terms were acceptable, but he emphasized that a viable proposal has not yet been presented. For more, I'm joined now by Hanin Ghaddar, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Thank you so much for being with us once again here on Al Arabiya News. So we've heard from Naim Qassem. Those were, I think, his first comments since he was named on Tuesday as Hassan Nasrallah's replacement. He said that Hezbollah would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under acceptable conditions. Any clues as to what those terms and conditions might be? Clearly, this is his first speech and he's still trying to gather his thoughts. He was reading from a paper frequently. He looked as if he was like really in denial. He doesn't understand the diplomacy in that sense. The ceasefire cannot happen before the negotiations. The negotiations are actually about the ceasefire. So he's requesting first and foremost that no negotiations will take place without a ceasefire. He's requesting Israel to stop
unknown
bombing Lebanon before Hezbollah agrees to start even the negotiations, which is not possible. He is obviously not willing to accept the terms that Hochstein, the White House envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein, brought to the Lebanese government and to Hezbollah by default, which means that Hezbollah will have to withdraw to the north of Litani before any negotiations. And the Israelis are very willing to continue with their war in Lebanon until Hezbollah accepts. The problem is that Naim Qassem projected a kind of victory that is not happening on the ground. And the Israelis are not going to stop. So
bombing Lebanon before Hezbollah agrees to start even the negotiations, which is not possible. He is obviously not willing to accept the terms that Hochstein, the White House envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein, brought to the Lebanese government and to Hezbollah by default, which means that Hezbollah will have to withdraw to the north of Litani before any negotiations. And the Israelis are very willing to continue with their war in Lebanon until Hezbollah accepts. The problem is that Naim Qassem projected a kind of victory that is not happening on the ground. And the Israelis are not going to stop. So
unknown
what he's trying to propose is that we are—he said that Hezbollah can go on for months before, you know, any negotiations start. So he is saying basically that despite all the defeat, even if we have one person fighting on the ground, we will go on. This is suicidal. This is suicidal for the people who are fleeing their villages and towns and cities, and this is suicidal even for Hezbollah. I'm not sure if this is actually what he really meant, or this is the beginning of a longer process of negotiations where he has to start with raising the ceiling to a certain extent and then accepting the possible more realistic scenario. And I think this is the case. He's trying to raise the ceiling as the new leader of Hezbollah.
what he's trying to propose is that we are—he said that Hezbollah can go on for months before, you know, any negotiations start. So he is saying basically that despite all the defeat, even if we have one person fighting on the ground, we will go on. This is suicidal. This is suicidal for the people who are fleeing their villages and towns and cities, and this is suicidal even for Hezbollah. I'm not sure if this is actually what he really meant, or this is the beginning of a longer process of negotiations where he has to start with raising the ceiling to a certain extent and then accepting the possible more realistic scenario. And I think this is the case. He's trying to raise the ceiling as the new leader of Hezbollah.
unknown
Yeah, I wanted to ask you, I mean, in terms of—of course, he's been in the job for one day—in terms of rhetoric and messaging, I mean, do you note any distinct difference between the sort of language, the sort of messaging that Qassem used compared to that of his predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah, or do you think he's just going to carry on with the work of his predecessor? I think
Yeah, I wanted to ask you, I mean, in terms of—of course, he's been in the job for one day—in terms of rhetoric and messaging, I mean, do you note any distinct difference between the sort of language, the sort of messaging that Qassem used compared to that of his predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah, or do you think he's just going to carry on with the work of his predecessor? I think
unknown
it's not his decision at this point because the leadership of Hezbollah as we knew it, you know, has changed completely. One, Naim Qassem is no Hassan Nasrallah. In fact, the actual replacement of Hassan Nasrallah was Hashem Safieddine. Naim Qassem was the non-continuous, you know, lifelong deputy. This is how he is known. He was never groomed or trained to be the leader of Hezbollah. The person who was actually groomed to be the leader after Nasrallah if anything happened to him was Hashem Safieddine, and they killed him. He has no leadership material. I don't think that he wanted to be in this position. I don't think the Iranians wanted him to be in this position. I don't think they wanted to appoint anyone at this point because they know that they are going to be in danger. But I think the appointment of Naim Qassem at this point, despite the fact that he has zero leadership material, is only to reassure the community, which is without a leader, without a father figure at the head of Hezbollah, is feeling confused, scared, leaderless. And this whole talk about the end of political Shiism in Lebanon, that there's no Hezbollah left in Lebanon and actually Iranians are hands-on leading Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is not something that the Lebanese Shia even would accept, forced the Iranians and what is left of Hezbollah's leadership to get someone to this position. I don't think this is—it was a very wise decision. It was just, you know, like reassuring. But his speech today, the fact that he was speaking like a political analyst, not a leader. He was reading from a paper. His tone had zero charisma, no passion whatsoever. The people—and he addressed the Shia community in Lebanon, right? He said basically that we will not accept the negotiations for a ceasefire until a ceasefire happens, which is very contradictory. But also when he talks to the Shia community in Lebanon, he did not give any reassurances. No promises of reconstruction, no promises of compensations. On the contrary, he told them that this is going to take a very long time and you have to be patient. Which, if I were a refugee today in the streets of Beirut in Lebanon, I would totally freak out. His speech was the opposite of Nasrallah's speech, which was about concrete victories, concrete achievements, reassurances. Hassan Nasrallah represented a decade—I'm sorry, represented an era of Hezbollah where Hezbollah was—he marked the victories of Hezbollah. He marked Hezbollah's legacy and victory. Naim Qassem seems to be
it's not his decision at this point because the leadership of Hezbollah as we knew it, you know, has changed completely. One, Naim Qassem is no Hassan Nasrallah. In fact, the actual replacement of Hassan Nasrallah was Hashem Safieddine. Naim Qassem was the non-continuous, you know, lifelong deputy. This is how he is known. He was never groomed or trained to be the leader of Hezbollah. The person who was actually groomed to be the leader after Nasrallah if anything happened to him was Hashem Safieddine, and they killed him. He has no leadership material. I don't think that he wanted to be in this position. I don't think the Iranians wanted him to be in this position. I don't think they wanted to appoint anyone at this point because they know that they are going to be in danger. But I think the appointment of Naim Qassem at this point, despite the fact that he has zero leadership material, is only to reassure the community, which is without a leader, without a father figure at the head of Hezbollah, is feeling confused, scared, leaderless. And this whole talk about the end of political Shiism in Lebanon, that there's no Hezbollah left in Lebanon and actually Iranians are hands-on leading Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is not something that the Lebanese Shia even would accept, forced the Iranians and what is left of Hezbollah's leadership to get someone to this position. I don't think this is—it was a very wise decision. It was just, you know, like reassuring. But his speech today, the fact that he was speaking like a political analyst, not a leader. He was reading from a paper. His tone had zero charisma, no passion whatsoever. The people—and he addressed the Shia community in Lebanon, right? He said basically that we will not accept the negotiations for a ceasefire until a ceasefire happens, which is very contradictory. But also when he talks to the Shia community in Lebanon, he did not give any reassurances. No promises of reconstruction, no promises of compensations. On the contrary, he told them that this is going to take a very long time and you have to be patient. Which, if I were a refugee today in the streets of Beirut in Lebanon, I would totally freak out. His speech was the opposite of Nasrallah's speech, which was about concrete victories, concrete achievements, reassurances. Hassan Nasrallah represented a decade—I'm sorry, represented an era of Hezbollah where Hezbollah was—he marked the victories of Hezbollah. He marked Hezbollah's legacy and victory. Naim Qassem seems to be
unknown
starting a new era of Hezbollah where there are no victories, there are a lot of challenges. And I don't think this speech was successful at all. I think it was—the Shia today in Lebanon are less assured than before. And he did not really even present a roadmap for ceasefire. He just said that we can go on. And what does that mean? Who knows?
starting a new era of Hezbollah where there are no victories, there are a lot of challenges. And I don't think this speech was successful at all. I think it was—the Shia today in Lebanon are less assured than before. And he did not really even present a roadmap for ceasefire. He just said that we can go on. And what does that mean? Who knows?
unknown
Okay. All right, well thank you very much indeed for taking the time to speak to us. Hanin Ghaddar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, bye-bye. Got some business news stories for you now, and the US economy grew at an annual rate of in the three months leading up to September. That is a slight decrease from the previous quarter's Data from the Commerce Department shows that the US is set for one of the strongest economic performances amongst major economies this year, driven by a rebound in consumer spending. This six days ahead of the presidential election in which the economy is top of voters' concerns. Volkswagen has reported a drop in third-quarter profit. That's its lowest level in three years, and that news sent shares plunging to a 24-year low. Europe's biggest automaker faces rising costs, restructuring expenses, and slow demand, particularly from China. Results were released on the same day as a second round of talks between the company and unions over wages. The Swiss banking giant UBS registered a net profit of billion US dollars in Q3. The bank, which suffered a million dollar loss in the same period last year, posted a increase in revenue. Last year, UBS was forced to buy its former rival Credit Suisse under pressure from the Swiss authorities in order to avoid its bankruptcy. Gold is rising due to the uncertainty related to the outcome of the US election and with markets pricing in another Fed rate cut next week. Gold is up this year and is on track for its best annual growth since The World Gold Council says that global demand is steady year-on-year in Q3, as higher investment activity has offset reduced consumption of jewelry. Saudi Arabia's new airline, Riyadh Air, has ordered narrow-body aircraft from Airbus. This as it prepares to launch next year. The deal, announced earlier today, is Riyadh Air's second major purchase after it agreed last year to buy wide-body Boeing Dreamliners with options for more jets. We've got some sports news for you now. The England prop Joe Marler has suggested that the All Blacks' iconic pre-match haka should be dropped ahead of this weekend's Autumn Nations opener. In England faced a fine for breaching protocol before the World Cup semi-final when Marler crossed the line during a reverse V formation to encroach on the New Zealand players. Marler is not in the lineup for Saturday's fixture at Twickenham. Anthony Volpe is the World Series star after delivering the biggest hit of his life and the Yankees' season. His grand slam in the bottom of the third led the Yankees to an Game victory over the Dodgers, extending the World Series. Alexei Popyrin pulled off an upset against fourth-seeded Daniil Medvedev, winning in a tense second-round match at the Paris Masters today. The 25-year-old Australian, who claimed his first Masters title in Montreal this summer, has previously lost to Medvedev in their last three encounters. The match featured a combined total of unforced errors from both players under the roof of the Palais Omnisports. Let's get a reminder before we leave you of our top stories. President Biden appears to suggest that Donald Trump supporters are "garbage." This as tensions remain high with both sides attempting to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. Donald Trump accuses Democrats of running a campaign of hate as both he and Kamala Harris travel to the swing states of North
Okay. All right, well thank you very much indeed for taking the time to speak to us. Hanin Ghaddar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, bye-bye. Got some business news stories for you now, and the US economy grew at an annual rate of in the three months leading up to September. That is a slight decrease from the previous quarter's Data from the Commerce Department shows that the US is set for one of the strongest economic performances amongst major economies this year, driven by a rebound in consumer spending. This six days ahead of the presidential election in which the economy is top of voters' concerns. Volkswagen has reported a drop in third-quarter profit. That's its lowest level in three years, and that news sent shares plunging to a 24-year low. Europe's biggest automaker faces rising costs, restructuring expenses, and slow demand, particularly from China. Results were released on the same day as a second round of talks between the company and unions over wages. The Swiss banking giant UBS registered a net profit of billion US dollars in Q3. The bank, which suffered a million dollar loss in the same period last year, posted a increase in revenue. Last year, UBS was forced to buy its former rival Credit Suisse under pressure from the Swiss authorities in order to avoid its bankruptcy. Gold is rising due to the uncertainty related to the outcome of the US election and with markets pricing in another Fed rate cut next week. Gold is up this year and is on track for its best annual growth since The World Gold Council says that global demand is steady year-on-year in Q3, as higher investment activity has offset reduced consumption of jewelry. Saudi Arabia's new airline, Riyadh Air, has ordered narrow-body aircraft from Airbus. This as it prepares to launch next year. The deal, announced earlier today, is Riyadh Air's second major purchase after it agreed last year to buy wide-body Boeing Dreamliners with options for more jets. We've got some sports news for you now. The England prop Joe Marler has suggested that the All Blacks' iconic pre-match haka should be dropped ahead of this weekend's Autumn Nations opener. In England faced a fine for breaching protocol before the World Cup semi-final when Marler crossed the line during a reverse V formation to encroach on the New Zealand players. Marler is not in the lineup for Saturday's fixture at Twickenham. Anthony Volpe is the World Series star after delivering the biggest hit of his life and the Yankees' season. His grand slam in the bottom of the third led the Yankees to an Game victory over the Dodgers, extending the World Series. Alexei Popyrin pulled off an upset against fourth-seeded Daniil Medvedev, winning in a tense second-round match at the Paris Masters today. The 25-year-old Australian, who claimed his first Masters title in Montreal this summer, has previously lost to Medvedev in their last three encounters. The match featured a combined total of unforced errors from both players under the roof of the Palais Omnisports. Let's get a reminder before we leave you of our top stories. President Biden appears to suggest that Donald Trump supporters are "garbage." This as tensions remain high with both sides attempting to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. Donald Trump accuses Democrats of running a campaign of hate as both he and Kamala Harris travel to the swing states of North
unknown
Carolina and Wisconsin. And Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, says the group would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under "acceptable terms." This as two top US diplomats travel to Israel for talks. Well, that is all we have time for. Coming up next is Riz Khan, and at PM Eastern Time, do join us for Global News Today. That is a roundup of top international news with exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential
Carolina and Wisconsin. And Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, says the group would agree to a ceasefire with Israel under "acceptable terms." This as two top US diplomats travel to Israel for talks. Well, that is all we have time for. Coming up next is Riz Khan, and at PM Eastern Time, do join us for Global News Today. That is a roundup of top international news with exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential
unknown
decision-makers.
decision-makers.
unknown
Thanks for watching. Stay tuned. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets perspective. Hello and welcome. I'm Riz Khan. He's been described as the most dangerous philosopher in the West, and he certainly doesn't hold back any punches. But there's no denying that Slavoj Žižek provokes deep thought and discussion with his often controversial views on everything from the state of politics and the mainstream media to the meaning of real love and now the validity of religion through his new book with the provocative title *Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist*. Keeping an eye on the upcoming US elections as well as the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, Professor Žižek sees a world where we can only start to understand what's going on once it starts to disintegrate and where, quote, "good old capitalism isn't what it used to be." I spoke with the man some see as a celebrity philosopher to find out more. Professor Žižek, it's really good to have a chance to chat with you. It's been a number of years, but glad to be with you. I want to start by asking, you know, I love some of the titles that you have been given over the years, a couple of which I quoted in the introduction to you: "celebrity philosopher," but also "the most dangerous philosopher in the West," and you've even been labeled the "Elvis of cultural theory." How do you regard such titles? I ignore them.
Thanks for watching. Stay tuned. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets perspective. Hello and welcome. I'm Riz Khan. He's been described as the most dangerous philosopher in the West, and he certainly doesn't hold back any punches. But there's no denying that Slavoj Žižek provokes deep thought and discussion with his often controversial views on everything from the state of politics and the mainstream media to the meaning of real love and now the validity of religion through his new book with the provocative title *Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist*. Keeping an eye on the upcoming US elections as well as the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, Professor Žižek sees a world where we can only start to understand what's going on once it starts to disintegrate and where, quote, "good old capitalism isn't what it used to be." I spoke with the man some see as a celebrity philosopher to find out more. Professor Žižek, it's really good to have a chance to chat with you. It's been a number of years, but glad to be with you. I want to start by asking, you know, I love some of the titles that you have been given over the years, a couple of which I quoted in the introduction to you: "celebrity philosopher," but also "the most dangerous philosopher in the West," and you've even been labeled the "Elvis of cultural theory." How do you regard such titles? I ignore them.
unknown
But what makes them interesting is that they unite the opposites.
But what makes them interesting is that they unite the opposites.
unknown
I'm at the same time a clown enjoying obscene jokes, not to be taken seriously,
I'm at the same time a clown enjoying obscene jokes, not to be taken seriously,
unknown
and a
and a
unknown
dangerous either imperialist or
dangerous either imperialist or
unknown
anti-Zionist subversive. What this demonstrates is how it's
anti-Zionist subversive. What this demonstrates is how it's
unknown
not simply today the task to pick choices. The whole space of the choices we are facing is in some sense a false space. That's what worries me. Well, I'd like to get your take on some of the most pressing issues that are currently shaping our world, starting with one that seems to have
not simply today the task to pick choices. The whole space of the choices we are facing is in some sense a false space. That's what worries me. Well, I'd like to get your take on some of the most pressing issues that are currently shaping our world, starting with one that seems to have
unknown
the global community on a bit of a knife-edge, and that's the upcoming US presidential election. Now, some have called it the most important election in modern history. Do you agree? Yes, because of what will happen if Trump wins. Of course, I am in an abstract sense for Kamala Harris, but we should nonetheless all the time be aware that she really doesn't have a convincing new vision. I think that the first question we should ask is: how come that from the kind of American consensus which lasted till some years ago, how was it possible that a figure like Trump emerged? Don't blame the fanatical right. Blame the liberal center. Trump used, exploited deftly, faithful limitations of this benevolent welfare state liberal center. We should begin with self-criticism, not just with attacking Trump. It's clear now with Kamala. She knows that she is under double pressure. She needs the support of the Jewish lobby and she needs the support of young blacks, Muslims, and other progressives. And she is
the global community on a bit of a knife-edge, and that's the upcoming US presidential election. Now, some have called it the most important election in modern history. Do you agree? Yes, because of what will happen if Trump wins. Of course, I am in an abstract sense for Kamala Harris, but we should nonetheless all the time be aware that she really doesn't have a convincing new vision. I think that the first question we should ask is: how come that from the kind of American consensus which lasted till some years ago, how was it possible that a figure like Trump emerged? Don't blame the fanatical right. Blame the liberal center. Trump used, exploited deftly, faithful limitations of this benevolent welfare state liberal center. We should begin with self-criticism, not just with attacking Trump. It's clear now with Kamala. She knows that she is under double pressure. She needs the support of the Jewish lobby and she needs the support of young blacks, Muslims, and other progressives. And she is
unknown
doing, I think, the worst thing possible: avoiding clear positions and so on. So I'm for—that would be my metaphor—I am for—if I were to be a US citizen, I would vote for Kamala, but I, before entering, before voting, before entering the space where you put your vote, I would do something like crossing myself and asking God for forgiveness that I'm voting for the lesser devil. Because the choice is not a true choice. Well, interestingly enough, there's kind of extreme
doing, I think, the worst thing possible: avoiding clear positions and so on. So I'm for—that would be my metaphor—I am for—if I were to be a US citizen, I would vote for Kamala, but I, before entering, before voting, before entering the space where you put your vote, I would do something like crossing myself and asking God for forgiveness that I'm voting for the lesser devil. Because the choice is not a true choice. Well, interestingly enough, there's kind of extreme
Slavoj Žižek
terminology being used by opposing parties. According to that, the world's most powerful democracy is about to elect either the Marxist Kamala Harris or the fascist Donald Trump as president. Do those candidates actually justify the descriptions? Maybe Trump a little bit more, but I just wanted to draw your attention to another fact: that this is not just an American phenomenon. The new right-wingers in Europe, like Alternative for Germany or Viktor Orbán, the we-know-who boss of Hungary, regularly refer to Ursula von der Leyen, a right-wing centrist, as a communist. They claim Marxism is in power in Europe. And this exclusivity, when both sides are
terminology being used by opposing parties. According to that, the world's most powerful democracy is about to elect either the Marxist Kamala Harris or the fascist Donald Trump as president. Do those candidates actually justify the descriptions? Maybe Trump a little bit more, but I just wanted to draw your attention to another fact: that this is not just an American phenomenon. The new right-wingers in Europe, like Alternative for Germany or Viktor Orbán, the we-know-who boss of Hungary, regularly refer to Ursula von der Leyen, a right-wing centrist, as a communist. They claim Marxism is in power in Europe. And this exclusivity, when both sides are
unknown
designating each other with these radical terms, is a signal of something extremely dangerous. People say democracy means diverse voices can be heard. I claim yes and no. Democracy also presupposes some basic consensus, social pact about basic values and rules. For example, although I thought Al Gore won—but in those Bush younger versus Al Gore, do you
designating each other with these radical terms, is a signal of something extremely dangerous. People say democracy means diverse voices can be heard. I claim yes and no. Democracy also presupposes some basic consensus, social pact about basic values and rules. For example, although I thought Al Gore won—but in those Bush younger versus Al Gore, do you
Slavoj Žižek
remember how although it was unclear, when it was nonetheless the decision that in Florida for a couple of hundred of votes Bush won, everybody accepted this? Now this no longer works. Trump is already threatening with unrest, with violence and so on. I really think, that's my big pessimism, that liberal democracy—old Fukuyama's dream of the end of history—liberal democracy is reaching its limitations. And the dangerous prospect I see, what is emerging as the main candidate—I hope you agree—is something that I call soft fascism. That is to say: full modernization, capitalist modernization, but with a strong state which legitimizes itself through some traditional conservative ideology. Look what's happening in China. Yeah, Professor, just sticking with the US just for a second. You described Donald Trump as, quote, "the ultimate post-modern relativist cynical politician." What did you mean by that? I mean this—ah, this is—I'm very glad that you mention this because I'm proud of this designation. Trump, of course, flirts with Christian fundamentalism and so on. But look at how he acts, how he talks, his other gestures and so on. He is self-ironical. He makes fun of himself. He doesn't care if he is caught lying. He uses—I will not repeat them because it would be too obscene—all the dirty obscene sexualized designation of opponents and so on and so on. So this self-relativization and so on and this lack of dignity, this is postmodernist. Just compare Trump to Bernie Sanders. Isn't Bernie Sanders as a person—not privately, but let's say his public persona—isn't he a good old-fashioned moral majority person? He never goes into vulgarities. He acts with shame. He retains his dignity. So when we hear these critiques of postmodernity,
remember how although it was unclear, when it was nonetheless the decision that in Florida for a couple of hundred of votes Bush won, everybody accepted this? Now this no longer works. Trump is already threatening with unrest, with violence and so on. I really think, that's my big pessimism, that liberal democracy—old Fukuyama's dream of the end of history—liberal democracy is reaching its limitations. And the dangerous prospect I see, what is emerging as the main candidate—I hope you agree—is something that I call soft fascism. That is to say: full modernization, capitalist modernization, but with a strong state which legitimizes itself through some traditional conservative ideology. Look what's happening in China. Yeah, Professor, just sticking with the US just for a second. You described Donald Trump as, quote, "the ultimate post-modern relativist cynical politician." What did you mean by that? I mean this—ah, this is—I'm very glad that you mention this because I'm proud of this designation. Trump, of course, flirts with Christian fundamentalism and so on. But look at how he acts, how he talks, his other gestures and so on. He is self-ironical. He makes fun of himself. He doesn't care if he is caught lying. He uses—I will not repeat them because it would be too obscene—all the dirty obscene sexualized designation of opponents and so on and so on. So this self-relativization and so on and this lack of dignity, this is postmodernist. Just compare Trump to Bernie Sanders. Isn't Bernie Sanders as a person—not privately, but let's say his public persona—isn't he a good old-fashioned moral majority person? He never goes into vulgarities. He acts with shame. He retains his dignity. So when we hear these critiques of postmodernity,
unknown
my answer is: sorry, but Donald Trump, with his constant mocking, you cannot catch him, he always finds a face—a way out—pure sophism and so on, he is the true postmodern president. Sorry, I was just going to say, it seems that divisiveness in society, especially in American society, is reaching extremes. It seems that celebrity plays a bigger part than policies when it comes to electing leaders, not just
my answer is: sorry, but Donald Trump, with his constant mocking, you cannot catch him, he always finds a face—a way out—pure sophism and so on, he is the true postmodern president. Sorry, I was just going to say, it seems that divisiveness in society, especially in American society, is reaching extremes. It seems that celebrity plays a bigger part than policies when it comes to electing leaders, not just
Slavoj Žižek
actually in America but many parts of the world. Why do you think society has slid down that slippery path? I think, again, it's a risky extreme hypothesis, but I think that somewhere in the '90s with what Fukuyama wrongly called the end of history, at least in the Western world, wars became predominantly cultural wars on both sides. The right wing against abortion, portraying the opponent as corrupted moral relativism; the leftists with their politically correct obsessions. What is disappearing is politics as such in the authentic sense. And I think that the new religious fundamentalists are precisely a return of politics proper. It's a wrong politics, but religious fundamentalists in some sense resuscitated politics as passionate enjoyment—sorry, also enjoyment—passionate engagement. While all that the other side, liberals, can oppose it, is some expert rule, neutral technocracy, combined with this politically correct moralism. I think this is an ultimate deadlock. Well, I was going to say, it seems that politics is sometimes less relevant because research is showing that many societies are now looking for strong leaders. And that might explain the popularity of someone like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. First of all, I wonder if you see them as strong leaders in the first instance, and how perhaps society is gravitating towards these kind of strong figures that they want in power. I agree with you, although I would add that it's more ambiguous. Like take Trump. Yes, he is authoritarian and so on. But for me, the basic characteristic of an authentic—and I believe in them—authentic strong leader is dignity and this spontaneously emanating authority. Trump is not that. Trump plays a strong leader, but he plays it in an ironical way, making fun of himself and so on and so on. Even with Putin, you can find something similar. He is not dignified. He from time to time goes into obscenities and so on. So it's very sad what is happening. I am not some
actually in America but many parts of the world. Why do you think society has slid down that slippery path? I think, again, it's a risky extreme hypothesis, but I think that somewhere in the '90s with what Fukuyama wrongly called the end of history, at least in the Western world, wars became predominantly cultural wars on both sides. The right wing against abortion, portraying the opponent as corrupted moral relativism; the leftists with their politically correct obsessions. What is disappearing is politics as such in the authentic sense. And I think that the new religious fundamentalists are precisely a return of politics proper. It's a wrong politics, but religious fundamentalists in some sense resuscitated politics as passionate enjoyment—sorry, also enjoyment—passionate engagement. While all that the other side, liberals, can oppose it, is some expert rule, neutral technocracy, combined with this politically correct moralism. I think this is an ultimate deadlock. Well, I was going to say, it seems that politics is sometimes less relevant because research is showing that many societies are now looking for strong leaders. And that might explain the popularity of someone like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. First of all, I wonder if you see them as strong leaders in the first instance, and how perhaps society is gravitating towards these kind of strong figures that they want in power. I agree with you, although I would add that it's more ambiguous. Like take Trump. Yes, he is authoritarian and so on. But for me, the basic characteristic of an authentic—and I believe in them—authentic strong leader is dignity and this spontaneously emanating authority. Trump is not that. Trump plays a strong leader, but he plays it in an ironical way, making fun of himself and so on and so on. Even with Putin, you can find something similar. He is not dignified. He from time to time goes into obscenities and so on. So it's very sad what is happening. I am not some
unknown
kind of anarchist leftist. Sometimes an authentic strong leader is needed. And today it is—by authentic strong leader, I don't mean the one who is a dictator and just tells you what is better for you than you yourself
kind of anarchist leftist. Sometimes an authentic strong leader is needed. And today it is—by authentic strong leader, I don't mean the one who is a dictator and just tells you what is better for you than you yourself
Slavoj Žižek
know. No, an authentic strong leader shakes you, moves you. He makes you feel: yes, we can do this. He opens a new space, a hope. We don't get such strong leaders today. Now I know, Professor, you're not a fan of Vladimir Putin, but, you know, can you sympathize in any way with the position of President Putin against military expansion on his doorstep, especially with Ukraine's ambition to be part of NATO? The narrative, of course, in the West is very much against him, but can you see his point of view? Here, maybe I will disappoint you. I see his point of view, of course, but nonetheless, I have so many friends, not just in Ukraine but in Baltic countries and so on, so that I don't accept this simple narrative that Ukrainians are engaged in a—let's call it, as is usually said—proxy war of NATO against Russia. I think if you look at what goes on in last decades, Russian intervention in Georgia (Gruzia), then Crimea occupation and so on. Just read—I do regularly, I can read passively Russian, I follow their own ideology—it's clear that it's not even some remainder of Soviet Union. It's simply imperial ambition. What I find crucial is that in his two speeches in '22, when Putin announced intervention in Ukraine, 21st and 23rd of February, he only critically mentioned in each speech one name: Lenin. He even said that Ukraine should be renamed Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. So he is really returning to the tsarist imperial tradition of Russian Empire where Ukrainian national sovereignty, right to be a state of its own, is negated. I'm very critical towards many things going on in Ukraine. Corruption goes on,
know. No, an authentic strong leader shakes you, moves you. He makes you feel: yes, we can do this. He opens a new space, a hope. We don't get such strong leaders today. Now I know, Professor, you're not a fan of Vladimir Putin, but, you know, can you sympathize in any way with the position of President Putin against military expansion on his doorstep, especially with Ukraine's ambition to be part of NATO? The narrative, of course, in the West is very much against him, but can you see his point of view? Here, maybe I will disappoint you. I see his point of view, of course, but nonetheless, I have so many friends, not just in Ukraine but in Baltic countries and so on, so that I don't accept this simple narrative that Ukrainians are engaged in a—let's call it, as is usually said—proxy war of NATO against Russia. I think if you look at what goes on in last decades, Russian intervention in Georgia (Gruzia), then Crimea occupation and so on. Just read—I do regularly, I can read passively Russian, I follow their own ideology—it's clear that it's not even some remainder of Soviet Union. It's simply imperial ambition. What I find crucial is that in his two speeches in '22, when Putin announced intervention in Ukraine, 21st and 23rd of February, he only critically mentioned in each speech one name: Lenin. He even said that Ukraine should be renamed Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. So he is really returning to the tsarist imperial tradition of Russian Empire where Ukrainian national sovereignty, right to be a state of its own, is negated. I'm very critical towards many things going on in Ukraine. Corruption goes on,
unknown
economic catastrophe and so on. But nonetheless, I think when we put pressure on Ukraine—"be more for peace" and so on—let's face what is their choice. Their choice is not peace or war. Their choice is: we resist Russia, or we disappear as a nation. Russia is repeatedly saying it, is doing it in the parts of Ukraine it occupies. So I am for
economic catastrophe and so on. But nonetheless, I think when we put pressure on Ukraine—"be more for peace" and so on—let's face what is their choice. Their choice is not peace or war. Their choice is: we resist Russia, or we disappear as a nation. Russia is repeatedly saying it, is doing it in the parts of Ukraine it occupies. So I am for
unknown
peace, for a compromise. But let's be clear: without the
peace, for a compromise. But let's be clear: without the
Slavoj Žižek
Western help, Ukraine would not even be in a position to negotiate for peace. It's precisely the fact that Ukraine was able to resist fast Russian victory which enables serious negotiations for peace. But if I may make here another point: what really worries me is that with the catastrophic Western politics where they all the time give serious warnings to Israel but put no serious pressure on Israel, what Putin is doing with BRICS, he is now constituting a new block so that the opposition will be developed West versus Palestinians and so on, and Ukraine will find itself on the side of developed West. As if, if you defend Ukraine, if you are for Ukrainian defense, you are for Western imperialism—to cut a long story short. And so Putin is, I think, winning in the so-called third world: Africa, Latin America, Asia. And that's for me the true catastrophe. Okay, that's interesting, Professor, because of course what we've seen with both the Ukraine and Russia situation and the Israel-Hamas situation is what seems to be a realignment of alliances across the globe. And BRICS, of course, is coming up, and many of the BRICS countries seem to take a different position. Do you see a split on the world stage along East-West ideological lines? Not in the sense of the Cold War, but more in the sense of those alternatives, such as the BRICS bloc, to that long-running domination of the US and the West in setting global agendas. I agree with you, and
Western help, Ukraine would not even be in a position to negotiate for peace. It's precisely the fact that Ukraine was able to resist fast Russian victory which enables serious negotiations for peace. But if I may make here another point: what really worries me is that with the catastrophic Western politics where they all the time give serious warnings to Israel but put no serious pressure on Israel, what Putin is doing with BRICS, he is now constituting a new block so that the opposition will be developed West versus Palestinians and so on, and Ukraine will find itself on the side of developed West. As if, if you defend Ukraine, if you are for Ukrainian defense, you are for Western imperialism—to cut a long story short. And so Putin is, I think, winning in the so-called third world: Africa, Latin America, Asia. And that's for me the true catastrophe. Okay, that's interesting, Professor, because of course what we've seen with both the Ukraine and Russia situation and the Israel-Hamas situation is what seems to be a realignment of alliances across the globe. And BRICS, of course, is coming up, and many of the BRICS countries seem to take a different position. Do you see a split on the world stage along East-West ideological lines? Not in the sense of the Cold War, but more in the sense of those alternatives, such as the BRICS bloc, to that long-running domination of the US and the West in setting global agendas. I agree with you, and
unknown
I am, of course, for a more authentic multicentric world. What worries me is just this: that in many BRICS countries, not all, what we in the West nonetheless propose as feminist rights, religious rights and so on, is now proclaimed as Western imperialism. What do I mean by this? The saddest example for me that I often use is—you must know that in Uganda a year and a half or a year ago, their parliament almost unanimously endorsed the toughest anti-gay
I am, of course, for a more authentic multicentric world. What worries me is just this: that in many BRICS countries, not all, what we in the West nonetheless propose as feminist rights, religious rights and so on, is now proclaimed as Western imperialism. What do I mean by this? The saddest example for me that I often use is—you must know that in Uganda a year and a half or a year ago, their parliament almost unanimously endorsed the toughest anti-gay
Slavoj Žižek
legislation. It goes up to death penalty if you—and you know what was their justification? That gay rights, this is Western imperialist ideological colonization. So that's what makes me afraid: that our struggle for women's rights and so on will be located as a remainder of neo-imperialism against third-world BRICS. But then, BRICS is a strange thing. Did you notice that a couple of weeks ago, Putin acknowledged Taliban and today's Afghanistan as a progressive ally of Russia in the struggle against Western terrorism and so on? So the situation is, again, what I fear most is the one of false oppositions. Professor, are these conflicts, such as the Israel versus Hamas and the Ukraine versus Russia—is it that it's bringing the world split along similar lines? Is there a common theme here? Yeah, but how do you—that's the problem for me—how do you draw the line? I absolutely don't agree that Ukraine is like Israel. No, I think that first—let me say briefly something about Hamas and so on. For me, what is totally obliterated,
legislation. It goes up to death penalty if you—and you know what was their justification? That gay rights, this is Western imperialist ideological colonization. So that's what makes me afraid: that our struggle for women's rights and so on will be located as a remainder of neo-imperialism against third-world BRICS. But then, BRICS is a strange thing. Did you notice that a couple of weeks ago, Putin acknowledged Taliban and today's Afghanistan as a progressive ally of Russia in the struggle against Western terrorism and so on? So the situation is, again, what I fear most is the one of false oppositions. Professor, are these conflicts, such as the Israel versus Hamas and the Ukraine versus Russia—is it that it's bringing the world split along similar lines? Is there a common theme here? Yeah, but how do you—that's the problem for me—how do you draw the line? I absolutely don't agree that Ukraine is like Israel. No, I think that first—let me say briefly something about Hamas and so on. For me, what is totally obliterated,
unknown
although it was publicly demonstrated as far as I know—I listened to the words of Smotrich and others—it is that we should always bear in mind that till I think two years ago or when, Israel financially supported Hamas because they wanted Palestinians split. So I think that in the long term—I of course condemn the criminal terrorist attack of Hamas—but in the long term, Israel needed—that's
although it was publicly demonstrated as far as I know—I listened to the words of Smotrich and others—it is that we should always bear in mind that till I think two years ago or when, Israel financially supported Hamas because they wanted Palestinians split. So I think that in the long term—I of course condemn the criminal terrorist attack of Hamas—but in the long term, Israel needed—that's
Slavoj Žižek
my analysis—needed this new war to create a Greater Israel. It's happening now. We see it. Ethnic cleansing of Gaza, West Bank and so on and so on. Who knows where they will stop. So I think—you know, remember when Hamas-Gaza attack was done, every interview that I gave, the first question was: let's clarify, do you condemn Hamas attack or not? Now the question should be asked: where do you stand about what is happening now in northern Gaza? If you don't absolutely condemn it, rational conversation is over. Another thing that depresses me immensely is the ethical decay. I hope our viewers and listeners know what happened—it was I think about two months ago—when in Knesset there was a debate about what happened in some camp south of Jerusalem, not far, further south in Sinai, where some Israeli guards escaped in shock and rendered it public even with some video clips that Palestinians there are tortured in an unspeakable way. Big metal sticks with needles up their rectum and so on. You know what shocked me? I'm a pessimist. I know everybody is doing such things. But that we debate—not only we debated this publicly, but the majority in the parliament simply said this is part of our struggle against Arab terrorism. So brutal torture is publicly declared, defended. I mean, I in such a situation, sorry, I prefer hypocrisy. Because hypocrisy means that you are at least a little bit ashamed of what you are doing. But sorry, when struggle—Israel struggle for Israeli self-defense becomes a publicly admitted horrible mode of torture, then it's over. You know, Professor, one thing I want to ask is in the case of Israel versus Hamas, the conflict is often, especially by the Israeli side, positioned as Jewish versus Muslim. And any question of Israel's military action, its consequences, is labeled as anti-Semitic. Now, how do you regard that narrative that pushes a religious agenda over what is essentially a land dispute? And where do you see it all ending? Is there going to be a Greater Israel the way you described Israel's ambitions? I think that the only way to understand the situation is to draw another line of distinction. I see paradoxically Hamas and Israel on the same side because they both see war, brutal violence as the only way to solve the situation. Israel, I think, is fully aware that what it is doing now in Gaza and—for me the key is always West Bank—will give birth to new forms of anti-Semitism. But Israel accepts this because then it will be even more able to present itself as the victim of anti-Semitism and so on. So we should always bear in mind this. And you know who whom I here really respect? I have a long respect from my communist time. Do you know who is Ami Ayalon, the ex-chief of Shin Bet? He said at the beginning: the only way out is to give Palestinians under our control some political freedom, dignity, autonomy, recognize them as belonging to this space. And then he even made a quite rational proposal that Marwan Barghouti, who is now in prison there, should be set free because he is for two-state solution, not openly terrorist now, and he can beat Hamas in free elections. This is our situation where, when I repeated what Ami Ayalon publicly said in a couple of interviews at the beginning of this war, I was interrupted by shouts of: I support Hamas, I'm pro-terrorist and so on and so on. Isn't this a sad time when the only one who clearly dares to say the truth are ex-leaders of Shin Bet and Mossad?
my analysis—needed this new war to create a Greater Israel. It's happening now. We see it. Ethnic cleansing of Gaza, West Bank and so on and so on. Who knows where they will stop. So I think—you know, remember when Hamas-Gaza attack was done, every interview that I gave, the first question was: let's clarify, do you condemn Hamas attack or not? Now the question should be asked: where do you stand about what is happening now in northern Gaza? If you don't absolutely condemn it, rational conversation is over. Another thing that depresses me immensely is the ethical decay. I hope our viewers and listeners know what happened—it was I think about two months ago—when in Knesset there was a debate about what happened in some camp south of Jerusalem, not far, further south in Sinai, where some Israeli guards escaped in shock and rendered it public even with some video clips that Palestinians there are tortured in an unspeakable way. Big metal sticks with needles up their rectum and so on. You know what shocked me? I'm a pessimist. I know everybody is doing such things. But that we debate—not only we debated this publicly, but the majority in the parliament simply said this is part of our struggle against Arab terrorism. So brutal torture is publicly declared, defended. I mean, I in such a situation, sorry, I prefer hypocrisy. Because hypocrisy means that you are at least a little bit ashamed of what you are doing. But sorry, when struggle—Israel struggle for Israeli self-defense becomes a publicly admitted horrible mode of torture, then it's over. You know, Professor, one thing I want to ask is in the case of Israel versus Hamas, the conflict is often, especially by the Israeli side, positioned as Jewish versus Muslim. And any question of Israel's military action, its consequences, is labeled as anti-Semitic. Now, how do you regard that narrative that pushes a religious agenda over what is essentially a land dispute? And where do you see it all ending? Is there going to be a Greater Israel the way you described Israel's ambitions? I think that the only way to understand the situation is to draw another line of distinction. I see paradoxically Hamas and Israel on the same side because they both see war, brutal violence as the only way to solve the situation. Israel, I think, is fully aware that what it is doing now in Gaza and—for me the key is always West Bank—will give birth to new forms of anti-Semitism. But Israel accepts this because then it will be even more able to present itself as the victim of anti-Semitism and so on. So we should always bear in mind this. And you know who whom I here really respect? I have a long respect from my communist time. Do you know who is Ami Ayalon, the ex-chief of Shin Bet? He said at the beginning: the only way out is to give Palestinians under our control some political freedom, dignity, autonomy, recognize them as belonging to this space. And then he even made a quite rational proposal that Marwan Barghouti, who is now in prison there, should be set free because he is for two-state solution, not openly terrorist now, and he can beat Hamas in free elections. This is our situation where, when I repeated what Ami Ayalon publicly said in a couple of interviews at the beginning of this war, I was interrupted by shouts of: I support Hamas, I'm pro-terrorist and so on and so on. Isn't this a sad time when the only one who clearly dares to say the truth are ex-leaders of Shin Bet and Mossad?
unknown
Here is where we are. You know, Professor, it's also—it seems that any kind of questioning or protesting at the people level is an issue. The government seem to set the narrative, certainly in the West. How do you regard the way pro-Palestinian protests were handled in various Western countries—the USA, the UK, much of Europe—in terms of the police and military force used to suppress them? I no, I totally
Here is where we are. You know, Professor, it's also—it seems that any kind of questioning or protesting at the people level is an issue. The government seem to set the narrative, certainly in the West. How do you regard the way pro-Palestinian protests were handled in various Western countries—the USA, the UK, much of Europe—in terms of the police and military force used to suppress them? I no, I totally
unknown
agree with you. Even my many Jewish friends supported the protests, like my good friend James Schamus, who was
agree with you. Even my many Jewish friends supported the protests, like my good friend James Schamus, who was
Slavoj Žižek
a movie producer and so on. You know, I think that behind this particular phenomenon, we should confront, admit a very sad fact. The liberty of the press, of saying things in public space, is gradually disappearing. Censorship is reasserting itself on both sides. We know what the new right is doing in the United States. You know how many books are prohibited in elementary and high schools? From *Huckleberry Finn* and *Tom Sawyer* to *Moby Dick*. They claim—I heard—that *Moby Dick*, the title is obscene, like erected penis or what, so let's prohibit it. The politically correct left is engaged in this. So it's—I think why is such a stance dangerously authoritarian? Because it is based on a deep mistrust of ordinary people. As if ordinary people can be so easily seduced that if we don't tightly control what information they get, they will be automatically—they will choose the wrong side and we are lost. So again, I think the era of liberalism as we know it is getting over. And my big dilemma is: how to avoid the obvious solution—capitalist state with a strong traditional narrative at its support, what I call soft fascism. How to prevent that this will be the predominant mode? This is happening in India: Modi, wild capitalism but at the same time Hindu nationalism. This is happening in China: Xi, their boss, had gave a speech which was I think extremely important around a month ago. He spoke about the need to re-educate the young generation. Then I expected that he will say read Mao, Communism. No, he said great Confucian tradition. So my problem is that many of anti-Eurocentric third—so-called third-world countries, while they're so critical of Europe, they're taking over what I think is the worst thing of European tradition: a strong
a movie producer and so on. You know, I think that behind this particular phenomenon, we should confront, admit a very sad fact. The liberty of the press, of saying things in public space, is gradually disappearing. Censorship is reasserting itself on both sides. We know what the new right is doing in the United States. You know how many books are prohibited in elementary and high schools? From *Huckleberry Finn* and *Tom Sawyer* to *Moby Dick*. They claim—I heard—that *Moby Dick*, the title is obscene, like erected penis or what, so let's prohibit it. The politically correct left is engaged in this. So it's—I think why is such a stance dangerously authoritarian? Because it is based on a deep mistrust of ordinary people. As if ordinary people can be so easily seduced that if we don't tightly control what information they get, they will be automatically—they will choose the wrong side and we are lost. So again, I think the era of liberalism as we know it is getting over. And my big dilemma is: how to avoid the obvious solution—capitalist state with a strong traditional narrative at its support, what I call soft fascism. How to prevent that this will be the predominant mode? This is happening in India: Modi, wild capitalism but at the same time Hindu nationalism. This is happening in China: Xi, their boss, had gave a speech which was I think extremely important around a month ago. He spoke about the need to re-educate the young generation. Then I expected that he will say read Mao, Communism. No, he said great Confucian tradition. So my problem is that many of anti-Eurocentric third—so-called third-world countries, while they're so critical of Europe, they're taking over what I think is the worst thing of European tradition: a strong
unknown
nation-state. You know, Professor, going back to what you said about quoting past leaders and the response, the heckling you got. You've also commented, to quote you, "You can say the truth today but it doesn't awaken us." So has society discarded the idea of critical thinking to establish fact versus
nation-state. You know, Professor, going back to what you said about quoting past leaders and the response, the heckling you got. You've also commented, to quote you, "You can say the truth today but it doesn't awaken us." So has society discarded the idea of critical thinking to establish fact versus
Slavoj Žižek
fiction, and if so what's happened to, you know, to truth? Free speech. This now, I'm sorry, we don't have time to go into these more theoretical matters, but this is crucial what you touched now. I call this in psychoanalytic terms the logic of disavowal. You don't deny truth. You are open to truth, but you formulate it in such a way that it doesn't really oblige you to do—it doesn't subjectively engage you. Take ecology. Everybody knows we are in danger, blah-blah-blah, but the more we talk about it, the less we do. I think the battle for—against global warming is already lost. And it's the same at all level. Against war: everybody's against war, but like in the case of Israel, Israel is getting serious warnings, Western powers are worried, but they do nothing. They unconditionally, at the level of arms delivery and so on, support Israel. So again, the predominant logic today is a kind of cynical disavowal. It's no longer the good old-fashioned lying, you deny the truth, because then you can at least counter-attack. The logic is, as they say in French, "*Je sais bien, mais quand même*." I know very well, but... I know the situation is very serious, but listen, we will get somehow out, don't take it too seriously and so on. I think the predominant danger today is not so much a fundamentalist fanatic engagement; it is this cynical indifference. If you have the cynical indifferent stance towards our situation, you are an ideal subject. You pose no threat. I was going to ask you that cynical indifference you just referred to. One of the criticisms of many societies now is they tend not to even try to decipher fact from fiction, and that many blame the media for misinforming the public while others blame social media. Is there still actually any objectivity out there? I am here an old-fashioned partisan of truth. Yes, I still believe in truth. Not only in truth at the level of facts, like it's important to know what goes on. All my friends who claim aren't we too critical of Israel, I always gave them a couple of websites where you can see drone shots of Gaza. And you just go on and on, you see the—so facts are important. Second thing is that I don't believe in simple neutrality. For me—I'm here an old-fashioned theological materialist—truth is a category of subjective engagement. You cannot write a history of Auschwitz or Gulag or whatever without being morally shocked by it. I believe that truth hurts and that to tell the truth, you again are not allowed to occupy a neutral position; you must be shocked and engaged. Professor, the problem with this aspect of truth is perception seems to get in the way a lot, and one of the big battles played out in both mainstream and social media focuses on, for example, the so-called "woke culture," which kind of redefines so much and complicates so much. What do you make of woke culture? Of course, I accept the basic idea how much our history is twisted and so on and so on. For example, Churchill was not simply Winston Churchill, the ideal World War II leader.
fiction, and if so what's happened to, you know, to truth? Free speech. This now, I'm sorry, we don't have time to go into these more theoretical matters, but this is crucial what you touched now. I call this in psychoanalytic terms the logic of disavowal. You don't deny truth. You are open to truth, but you formulate it in such a way that it doesn't really oblige you to do—it doesn't subjectively engage you. Take ecology. Everybody knows we are in danger, blah-blah-blah, but the more we talk about it, the less we do. I think the battle for—against global warming is already lost. And it's the same at all level. Against war: everybody's against war, but like in the case of Israel, Israel is getting serious warnings, Western powers are worried, but they do nothing. They unconditionally, at the level of arms delivery and so on, support Israel. So again, the predominant logic today is a kind of cynical disavowal. It's no longer the good old-fashioned lying, you deny the truth, because then you can at least counter-attack. The logic is, as they say in French, "*Je sais bien, mais quand même*." I know very well, but... I know the situation is very serious, but listen, we will get somehow out, don't take it too seriously and so on. I think the predominant danger today is not so much a fundamentalist fanatic engagement; it is this cynical indifference. If you have the cynical indifferent stance towards our situation, you are an ideal subject. You pose no threat. I was going to ask you that cynical indifference you just referred to. One of the criticisms of many societies now is they tend not to even try to decipher fact from fiction, and that many blame the media for misinforming the public while others blame social media. Is there still actually any objectivity out there? I am here an old-fashioned partisan of truth. Yes, I still believe in truth. Not only in truth at the level of facts, like it's important to know what goes on. All my friends who claim aren't we too critical of Israel, I always gave them a couple of websites where you can see drone shots of Gaza. And you just go on and on, you see the—so facts are important. Second thing is that I don't believe in simple neutrality. For me—I'm here an old-fashioned theological materialist—truth is a category of subjective engagement. You cannot write a history of Auschwitz or Gulag or whatever without being morally shocked by it. I believe that truth hurts and that to tell the truth, you again are not allowed to occupy a neutral position; you must be shocked and engaged. Professor, the problem with this aspect of truth is perception seems to get in the way a lot, and one of the big battles played out in both mainstream and social media focuses on, for example, the so-called "woke culture," which kind of redefines so much and complicates so much. What do you make of woke culture? Of course, I accept the basic idea how much our history is twisted and so on and so on. For example, Churchill was not simply Winston Churchill, the ideal World War II leader.
unknown
We know one of the worst chapters then in I think '43, '44: he consciously allowed a big hunger, millions died in Bengal, so that the food was taken for British soldiers for the offensive against Burma, today Myanmar. So yes, all this should be brought out. Nonetheless, where I have a problem is that monuments from the past, although they are not true in the sense that they imply—they, sorry, obfuscate the historical truth—can play a progressive role. My big example: you remember Tiananmen demonstrations where the Chinese people, they built up a kind of naive, primitive from paper and so
We know one of the worst chapters then in I think '43, '44: he consciously allowed a big hunger, millions died in Bengal, so that the food was taken for British soldiers for the offensive against Burma, today Myanmar. So yes, all this should be brought out. Nonetheless, where I have a problem is that monuments from the past, although they are not true in the sense that they imply—they, sorry, obfuscate the historical truth—can play a progressive role. My big example: you remember Tiananmen demonstrations where the Chinese people, they built up a kind of naive, primitive from paper and so
Slavoj Žižek
on, Statue of Liberty. But you—we should ask the question: what did this statue effectively represent for them? I think it wasn't American imperialism. It was, wrongly attributed to this statue, but it was nonetheless a dream of more free open society and so on and so on. So this is the problem for me with woke critics. Yes, we should totally demystify history. My favorite target here is none other than Washington. Many people don't know that George Washington was the richest man in the United States at that point, and that rich people were much more anti-British than poor English people. So we have to demystify all this. Nonetheless, whenever somebody says freedom, democracy, human rights, my point is: let's look and see how does this slogan function in a certain situation, politically. What does it mean when people evoke that slogan? For example, again my own example, when people were demanding freedom, democracy, blah-blah at the end of the '80s, the end of really existing socialism. No, at least for Slovenia I can guarantee you, the ideal was almost a more open socialism. We wanted, of course, freedom of the press, political freedom, but also more social justice, better healthcare and so on and so on. So again, always look at what slogans which may be originally imposed by the West, what they actually mean in certain situations. Of course, freedom and democracy are always, almost as a rule, used to install new authoritarian pro-Western regimes. So I would say concrete analysis. Bringing woke culture back to a more modern application. When it comes to gender definitions and so on, often people are scared to step in any direction because the wrong statement can be used as a weapon against them. We see
on, Statue of Liberty. But you—we should ask the question: what did this statue effectively represent for them? I think it wasn't American imperialism. It was, wrongly attributed to this statue, but it was nonetheless a dream of more free open society and so on and so on. So this is the problem for me with woke critics. Yes, we should totally demystify history. My favorite target here is none other than Washington. Many people don't know that George Washington was the richest man in the United States at that point, and that rich people were much more anti-British than poor English people. So we have to demystify all this. Nonetheless, whenever somebody says freedom, democracy, human rights, my point is: let's look and see how does this slogan function in a certain situation, politically. What does it mean when people evoke that slogan? For example, again my own example, when people were demanding freedom, democracy, blah-blah at the end of the '80s, the end of really existing socialism. No, at least for Slovenia I can guarantee you, the ideal was almost a more open socialism. We wanted, of course, freedom of the press, political freedom, but also more social justice, better healthcare and so on and so on. So again, always look at what slogans which may be originally imposed by the West, what they actually mean in certain situations. Of course, freedom and democracy are always, almost as a rule, used to install new authoritarian pro-Western regimes. So I would say concrete analysis. Bringing woke culture back to a more modern application. When it comes to gender definitions and so on, often people are scared to step in any direction because the wrong statement can be used as a weapon against them. We see
unknown
politicians walking on eggshells when it comes to saying anything, and it kind of twists what people can discuss, how openly they can talk. So has the idea of free speech disappeared because of the potential landmines that exist with issues such as woke culture? Yes, but again, these landmines I think should be closely analyzed and we should be critical towards both sides. Very briefly to give you my position. I am against binary sexuality, all that stuff. What I reject in trans culture is the idea
politicians walking on eggshells when it comes to saying anything, and it kind of twists what people can discuss, how openly they can talk. So has the idea of free speech disappeared because of the potential landmines that exist with issues such as woke culture? Yes, but again, these landmines I think should be closely analyzed and we should be critical towards both sides. Very briefly to give you my position. I am against binary sexuality, all that stuff. What I reject in trans culture is the idea
Slavoj Žižek
that gender identity is not biologically determined—okay, I buy this—but that it's simply what you feel. You experience yourself as being, I don't know what, masculine, feminine, trans, whatever, and this is what you are. My god, did we forget about Freud and psychoanalysis? I think that building gender identity, it's a very complex problem, full of contradictions, full of tensions, very traumatic problem. So what I oppose is this joyful vision of trans: "Oh, I'm free, I'm not determined by biology, I can choose this, I can choose that." Yes, you are not totally determined by biology, but choosing what you are is an unconscious process, a very traumatic one. I know many trans people; most of them suffer not so much because of external pressure as because of their own inner turmoil. So what bothers me is not the goals of trans ideology; the goals I fully agree with them. I even fully again agree with the premise that gender identity is not a biological fact. I'm just saying it's not a simple choice. I am not what I feel that I am. Feelings can also cheat. Professor, going on to issues that are affecting society nowadays. With the election coming up in the US, we're seeing a lot of key policy issues that are being discussed. One of them is immigration, and actually immigration is something that is a key concern in many countries across the world. How do you regard the way immigration is being presented, is being handled? We're hearing some terrible comments, obviously, by some of the candidates about how they regard immigrants. What's your take on that? Ah, first I would say that—I know the situation in Europe—I again, my position is against both extremes. I don't agree with this easy liberal left position: "just open up the borders" and so on. No, first, if we open up the borders, the populist anti-immigrant right will win. What will you do then? Macron already did something incredible. I support him. How did he prevent Le Pen from taking over? By practically, at least partially, canceling democracy. He—the specificity of French Constitution imposed by De Gaulle in early '60s is that the president can nominate government and the government can be operative even without being confirmed in Assemblée Nationale, in the parliament. So it was a manipulation, but it worked. France is not in chaos and so on. So the first thing I would say is: don't focus just on this, open the border, yes, no. Ask yourself why these waves of immigration. And there are two reasons which are not often mentioned. The first one is that, let's be frank, without American intervention in Iraq or Western intervention in Libya or the mess in Syria where Russia and the West intervened, there would have been no ISIS, there would have been much less immigration. I think the solution is to
that gender identity is not biologically determined—okay, I buy this—but that it's simply what you feel. You experience yourself as being, I don't know what, masculine, feminine, trans, whatever, and this is what you are. My god, did we forget about Freud and psychoanalysis? I think that building gender identity, it's a very complex problem, full of contradictions, full of tensions, very traumatic problem. So what I oppose is this joyful vision of trans: "Oh, I'm free, I'm not determined by biology, I can choose this, I can choose that." Yes, you are not totally determined by biology, but choosing what you are is an unconscious process, a very traumatic one. I know many trans people; most of them suffer not so much because of external pressure as because of their own inner turmoil. So what bothers me is not the goals of trans ideology; the goals I fully agree with them. I even fully again agree with the premise that gender identity is not a biological fact. I'm just saying it's not a simple choice. I am not what I feel that I am. Feelings can also cheat. Professor, going on to issues that are affecting society nowadays. With the election coming up in the US, we're seeing a lot of key policy issues that are being discussed. One of them is immigration, and actually immigration is something that is a key concern in many countries across the world. How do you regard the way immigration is being presented, is being handled? We're hearing some terrible comments, obviously, by some of the candidates about how they regard immigrants. What's your take on that? Ah, first I would say that—I know the situation in Europe—I again, my position is against both extremes. I don't agree with this easy liberal left position: "just open up the borders" and so on. No, first, if we open up the borders, the populist anti-immigrant right will win. What will you do then? Macron already did something incredible. I support him. How did he prevent Le Pen from taking over? By practically, at least partially, canceling democracy. He—the specificity of French Constitution imposed by De Gaulle in early '60s is that the president can nominate government and the government can be operative even without being confirmed in Assemblée Nationale, in the parliament. So it was a manipulation, but it worked. France is not in chaos and so on. So the first thing I would say is: don't focus just on this, open the border, yes, no. Ask yourself why these waves of immigration. And there are two reasons which are not often mentioned. The first one is that, let's be frank, without American intervention in Iraq or Western intervention in Libya or the mess in Syria where Russia and the West intervened, there would have been no ISIS, there would have been much less immigration. I think the solution is to
unknown
rethink the entire economic-political relationship. Now people tell me we don't have time to
rethink the entire economic-political relationship. Now people tell me we don't have time to
unknown
do this. Yes, we have to begin now. Second thing, more important, that right-wingers don't want to hear. I know pretty well the situation all around Europe. Do you know that—let's say that somehow whoever, who is now more right-wing, Swedish
do this. Yes, we have to begin now. Second thing, more important, that right-wingers don't want to hear. I know pretty well the situation all around Europe. Do you know that—let's say that somehow whoever, who is now more right-wing, Swedish
Slavoj Žižek
government, Meloni in Italy and so on—let's say they succeed throwing out most of the immigrants? It's immediate collapse of economy. Because all the so-called lower-paid physical jobs—construction, waste disposal and so on—not to mention maybe even more crucial, these—how do you call them?—homes for old people, in hospitals, caretaking and so on, these posts are already occupied by immigrants. A friend of mine in Sweden has a mother who is now in a home for old people. And he told me that mother told him that of all the personnel there, there is only one white woman and she is Polish even, not Swedish. So it's—the type of capitalism that we have in Western Europe and probably also in the United States—we know the role of Mexican illegal workers in doing harvest in California and so on—so capitalism the way we have it now needs immigrants. It would be a catastrophe to throw them out, to be too tough to throw them out. That's the crucial point. So it sounds, Professor, that the idea of replacement theory then with immigrants is—is not so easy to define. No, because there is also another reason. Because most of the immigrants are nonetheless younger people. In Sweden, I read a wonderful analysis of how is it that their healthcare system doesn't go bankrupt although Sweden has also lower natality and a higher level of retired people so that now it's I think to to One for one retired person, a little bit more than one actively working person is needed financially. So, but you know what's the paradox? In spite of all the complaints that without the contribution—because if they work they also pay for healthcare—without the financial contribution of the immigrants in Sweden, their entire healthcare system would already break down. So again, my
government, Meloni in Italy and so on—let's say they succeed throwing out most of the immigrants? It's immediate collapse of economy. Because all the so-called lower-paid physical jobs—construction, waste disposal and so on—not to mention maybe even more crucial, these—how do you call them?—homes for old people, in hospitals, caretaking and so on, these posts are already occupied by immigrants. A friend of mine in Sweden has a mother who is now in a home for old people. And he told me that mother told him that of all the personnel there, there is only one white woman and she is Polish even, not Swedish. So it's—the type of capitalism that we have in Western Europe and probably also in the United States—we know the role of Mexican illegal workers in doing harvest in California and so on—so capitalism the way we have it now needs immigrants. It would be a catastrophe to throw them out, to be too tough to throw them out. That's the crucial point. So it sounds, Professor, that the idea of replacement theory then with immigrants is—is not so easy to define. No, because there is also another reason. Because most of the immigrants are nonetheless younger people. In Sweden, I read a wonderful analysis of how is it that their healthcare system doesn't go bankrupt although Sweden has also lower natality and a higher level of retired people so that now it's I think to to One for one retired person, a little bit more than one actively working person is needed financially. So, but you know what's the paradox? In spite of all the complaints that without the contribution—because if they work they also pay for healthcare—without the financial contribution of the immigrants in Sweden, their entire healthcare system would already break down. So again, my
unknown
first point is: avoid this quick sophistry, "replacement," "throw them out," or blah-blah. I mean, on the other hand, we should say it's legitimate to ask who is coming to the West. I think it should be more organized. I understand that some people worry that precisely because it's not more organized, smugglers of people control the trade. So there is a lot of criminal there. But my point is that if you look at it closely, it's not the
first point is: avoid this quick sophistry, "replacement," "throw them out," or blah-blah. I mean, on the other hand, we should say it's legitimate to ask who is coming to the West. I think it should be more organized. I understand that some people worry that precisely because it's not more organized, smugglers of people control the trade. So there is a lot of criminal there. But my point is that if you look at it closely, it's not the
Slavoj Žižek
really poor people who come to the West. Because at least from the Middle East, you have to pay a couple of thousands of euros and so on. So that the really poor people remain there. In other words, that's my argument for what I still ironically call communism: more global coordination. Without this, we are lost. Professor Žižek, one reason people love you very much and you have a large following globally is because you are not worried about provoking, and you've certainly provoked thought. And I wonder, having reached the age of have you mellowed in your thoughts at all? Have you revisited some of your philosophical positions with the wisdom of those years? No. First, I must tell you that being I can tell you something very sad: there is nothing wise about being old. It's just you are losing your abilities. It's sad. Second thing: no, I am not getting softer. If anything, I'm getting more radical. You—but maybe soft at another level. Do you know—I find this a wonderful self-definition. It was proposed to me by Tyler Cowen, who is more a right liberal, and I accepted it. You know how I define myself?
really poor people who come to the West. Because at least from the Middle East, you have to pay a couple of thousands of euros and so on. So that the really poor people remain there. In other words, that's my argument for what I still ironically call communism: more global coordination. Without this, we are lost. Professor Žižek, one reason people love you very much and you have a large following globally is because you are not worried about provoking, and you've certainly provoked thought. And I wonder, having reached the age of have you mellowed in your thoughts at all? Have you revisited some of your philosophical positions with the wisdom of those years? No. First, I must tell you that being I can tell you something very sad: there is nothing wise about being old. It's just you are losing your abilities. It's sad. Second thing: no, I am not getting softer. If anything, I'm getting more radical. You—but maybe soft at another level. Do you know—I find this a wonderful self-definition. It was proposed to me by Tyler Cowen, who is more a right liberal, and I accepted it. You know how I define myself?
unknown
Moderately conservative communist. I'm a communist in the sense—not the old central committee party, but we need more global cooperation. Imagine new crisis, and there will be, like a COVID and so on. We can only confront with strong global cooperation. Ecological and other threats. But how we do it—we should
Moderately conservative communist. I'm a communist in the sense—not the old central committee party, but we need more global cooperation. Imagine new crisis, and there will be, like a COVID and so on. We can only confront with strong global cooperation. Ecological and other threats. But how we do it—we should
Slavoj Žižek
be—that's here comes the moderate conservative aspect—we should be very careful. Because if history teaches us anything, it is that how many well-meant radical measures then entailed catastrophic side effects. This is why also I think our liberal political system needs restructuring. I don't know how, but listen, I spoke with a Chinese guy. I nonetheless, although I'm very critical of China, respect what China achieved. And they told me: listen, the world today needs not communist planning, but thinking in the terms what will be in next years. In China they can do it because, haha, they don't worry will they be elected in two or re-elected in four years. While in the West, the whole political system is pressing you into thinking in short-term terms. You know, Professor, we have so many questions—I was going to say we have so many questions, I do want to end though with a thought: you're known for your sense of humor. What's your favorite philosophical joke? It's—it's okay, I like philosophical jokes which are at the same time vulgar, but I will put an innocent joke which I think is known—I repeat it all the time. It's not even a joke, it's an anecdote. It's a scene from Ernst Lubitsch's film *Ninotchka*, where a guy goes to a cafeteria—this is a joke told in the film—and says, "Can I get coffee but without cream, please?" And the waiter answers, "Sorry, sir, we don't have cream, so I cannot give it to you, a coffee without cream. But we have milk, so I can only give it to you, a coffee without milk." That's dialectics: that what is missing also counts. Coffee is materially the same coffee, but coffee without milk, it's nonetheless symbolically, in how you taste it, not the same as coffee without cream. I think always ask—this is my lesson—what, when you see a certain thing, ask yourself what this thing is not but it could have been. You should count in this. Professor, we have to wrap up there. I think I've been to that coffee shop. Thank you so much. So many questions. Hope to speak to you again. Whenever you want, I'm always for you. You're one of the few hopes because it's so sad to see how journalists who—but it's not even a question, I agree here—you, you are not a crazy provocateur. You are just honest moderate guy. How we are under oppression today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Always for you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. That was a special edition of the show in conversation with the remarkable and often remarkably outspoken philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek, with comments and thoughts particularly relevant to the upcoming US presidential election. We will of course be bringing you coverage of that, but in the meantime, that's it for now. I'm Riz Khan from me and the team. Thanks for watching. Stay tuned. Hello and welcome to Global News Today, bringing you exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential decision-makers. Every weekday here on Al Arabiya News. I'm Tom Burges Watson. Coming up on today's program. Biden appears to call Trump supporters "garbage," sparking outrage as Republicans seize on the controversy. That comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move past political drama and conflict during her final address of the race. Donald Trump has criticized
be—that's here comes the moderate conservative aspect—we should be very careful. Because if history teaches us anything, it is that how many well-meant radical measures then entailed catastrophic side effects. This is why also I think our liberal political system needs restructuring. I don't know how, but listen, I spoke with a Chinese guy. I nonetheless, although I'm very critical of China, respect what China achieved. And they told me: listen, the world today needs not communist planning, but thinking in the terms what will be in next years. In China they can do it because, haha, they don't worry will they be elected in two or re-elected in four years. While in the West, the whole political system is pressing you into thinking in short-term terms. You know, Professor, we have so many questions—I was going to say we have so many questions, I do want to end though with a thought: you're known for your sense of humor. What's your favorite philosophical joke? It's—it's okay, I like philosophical jokes which are at the same time vulgar, but I will put an innocent joke which I think is known—I repeat it all the time. It's not even a joke, it's an anecdote. It's a scene from Ernst Lubitsch's film *Ninotchka*, where a guy goes to a cafeteria—this is a joke told in the film—and says, "Can I get coffee but without cream, please?" And the waiter answers, "Sorry, sir, we don't have cream, so I cannot give it to you, a coffee without cream. But we have milk, so I can only give it to you, a coffee without milk." That's dialectics: that what is missing also counts. Coffee is materially the same coffee, but coffee without milk, it's nonetheless symbolically, in how you taste it, not the same as coffee without cream. I think always ask—this is my lesson—what, when you see a certain thing, ask yourself what this thing is not but it could have been. You should count in this. Professor, we have to wrap up there. I think I've been to that coffee shop. Thank you so much. So many questions. Hope to speak to you again. Whenever you want, I'm always for you. You're one of the few hopes because it's so sad to see how journalists who—but it's not even a question, I agree here—you, you are not a crazy provocateur. You are just honest moderate guy. How we are under oppression today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Always for you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. That was a special edition of the show in conversation with the remarkable and often remarkably outspoken philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek, with comments and thoughts particularly relevant to the upcoming US presidential election. We will of course be bringing you coverage of that, but in the meantime, that's it for now. I'm Riz Khan from me and the team. Thanks for watching. Stay tuned. Hello and welcome to Global News Today, bringing you exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential decision-makers. Every weekday here on Al Arabiya News. I'm Tom Burges Watson. Coming up on today's program. Biden appears to call Trump supporters "garbage," sparking outrage as Republicans seize on the controversy. That comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move past political drama and conflict during her final address of the race. Donald Trump has criticized
unknown
Biden's comment, accusing Democrats of
Biden's comment, accusing Democrats of
unknown
running a campaign of hate. And Donald Trump closes in on Kamala Harris's narrow lead as both presidential candidates travel to the swing state of North Carolina. Hello and welcome. The US Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a significant campaign speech in Washington last night, urging Americans to move on from divisive politics. However, her address risked being overshadowed by a controversy sparked by the current president Joe Biden's recent remarks where he appeared to call some Trump supporters "garbage." That's a comment that has quickly ignited backlash. "And just the other day, a
running a campaign of hate. And Donald Trump closes in on Kamala Harris's narrow lead as both presidential candidates travel to the swing state of North Carolina. Hello and welcome. The US Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a significant campaign speech in Washington last night, urging Americans to move on from divisive politics. However, her address risked being overshadowed by a controversy sparked by the current president Joe Biden's recent remarks where he appeared to call some Trump supporters "garbage." That's a comment that has quickly ignited backlash. "And just the other day, a
Slavoj Žižek
speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a 'floating island of garbage.' Well, let me tell you something. I don't—I don't know the Puerto Rican that I know, or Puerto Rico where I'm from, my home state of Delaware, they're good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His—his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been." President Biden speaking there. Well, according to the White House, Biden's remarks specifically targeted hateful rhetoric directed against Puerto Rico, but Republicans and Trump's campaign team were swift to condemn it as an insult to Trump supporters. Well, in response to the backlash, both the White House and Biden clarified the president's intention. Well, Biden took to X to explain he was addressing divisive language used at the rally held in Madison Square Garden, not making a blanket statement about Trump's base. Biden clarified, quote, "Earlier today I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporters at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage—which is the only word I can think of to describe it," adding that this was "all I meant to say." Well, the White House supported Biden's statement, specifying that he was referring to a particular comedian who made offensive jokes about Puerto Ricans during the rally, not Trump supporters generally. Well, a transcript released by the White House further clarified that Biden had condemned the rhetoric as "unconscionable." Well, the White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates reiterated in a statement that Biden's "garbage" comment was directed at this divisive language, not a group of supporters. Well, Biden's comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move on
speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a 'floating island of garbage.' Well, let me tell you something. I don't—I don't know the Puerto Rican that I know, or Puerto Rico where I'm from, my home state of Delaware, they're good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His—his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been." President Biden speaking there. Well, according to the White House, Biden's remarks specifically targeted hateful rhetoric directed against Puerto Rico, but Republicans and Trump's campaign team were swift to condemn it as an insult to Trump supporters. Well, in response to the backlash, both the White House and Biden clarified the president's intention. Well, Biden took to X to explain he was addressing divisive language used at the rally held in Madison Square Garden, not making a blanket statement about Trump's base. Biden clarified, quote, "Earlier today I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporters at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage—which is the only word I can think of to describe it," adding that this was "all I meant to say." Well, the White House supported Biden's statement, specifying that he was referring to a particular comedian who made offensive jokes about Puerto Ricans during the rally, not Trump supporters generally. Well, a transcript released by the White House further clarified that Biden had condemned the rhetoric as "unconscionable." Well, the White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates reiterated in a statement that Biden's "garbage" comment was directed at this divisive language, not a group of supporters. Well, Biden's comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move on
unknown
from political drama and conflict, adding that the United States of America is not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators. "America, for too long, we have been consumed with too much division, chaos, and mutual distrust. We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms. It is time to turn the page on the drama and the conflict, the fear and division. It is time for a new generation of leadership in America. These United States of America—we are not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators." Well, Donald Trump quickly capitalized on the incident, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate. He took to the
from political drama and conflict, adding that the United States of America is not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators. "America, for too long, we have been consumed with too much division, chaos, and mutual distrust. We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms. It is time to turn the page on the drama and the conflict, the fear and division. It is time for a new generation of leadership in America. These United States of America—we are not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators." Well, Donald Trump quickly capitalized on the incident, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate. He took to the
Slavoj Žižek
platform X to say, "While I am running a campaign of positive solutions to save America, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of hate. She has spent all week comparing her political opponents to the most evil mass murderers in history. Now, on top of everything, Joe Biden calls our supporters garbage. You can't lead America if you don't love the American people. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have shown that they are both unfit to be President of the United States. I am proud to lead the biggest, broadest, and the most important political coalition in American history. We are welcoming historic numbers of Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed. It is my desire to be the president of all the people." Well, with less than a week remaining before election day, the race is incredibly close and tensions are high as both sides attempt to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. For more, I'm joined now by the political commentator and Republican strategist Scotty Nell Hughes. Great to have you with us. Thank you so much for talking to Al Arabiya News. Um, back in there was an article in *GQ* in which you were described as being the world's most loyal Trump surrogate. And I'm curious to know whether eight years on, this is still the case. Um, it's absolutely the case, but it's not just being the most loyal to the Trump surrogate or to Trump himself; it's being loyal to the agenda. And I think that's what people have blended—the man with who the—the movement. And the reality is the majority of Americans, yes, while they—they like Donald Trump, they like the fact that he's the person that's been put at the top that's the face of it. The reality is it's really a movement that has been coalescing since when Obama got into office and told people that they could keep their doctors if they wanted to and that was an absolute lie, the birth of the Tea Party that ultimately in resulted in Donald Trump. Now here we find ourselves in with absolute record inflation, high interest rates, um, low support internationally for many of our foreign adventures that we're doing right now. And so I think people are going, "We need to bring it back to where we were in where we put here in America—we need to put America first." And when that happens, when America's prosperous, then other parts of the world also seem to thrive as well. And I think it's more about the movement than the man, but yes, I still consider myself a very loyal supporter of it. So the court cases, the gaffes, the January 6th situation, none of that has done any damage as far as you're concerned to the enduring appeal of Trump and his movement? Well, no. And I mean, obviously what they've done is they've made people think twice before they go to a political rally. Um, they make people look and see that yes, the government does target, whether you are a small individual business or a multimillionaire/billionaire who is a former president. The government and the DOJ do try to entangle you. So I think what if anything, it has strengthened because it's kind of exposed what everybody—everyday Americans have been experiencing for decades. It put it all in the last four years right in front of our face. And so I think that's why you've seen this movement go stronger and grow stronger and why you've seen people like Elon Musk as well as like RFK Kennedy come out and join the team of Trump because they're actually being open—their eyes are being open to what the majority of conservatives have been talking about since the 1980s. But other people have come forward as well, haven't they? It hasn't just been friends of Donald Trump; former friends turned adversaries, we assume, have come up. People like General Kelly who has triggered a lot of discussion with his comments on Trump's mindset, his propensity to authoritarian-style leadership, and his liking of dictators. Um, reading some comments where you've been interviewed on this subject, you don't seem to have attached too much importance to what a four-star general said. Well, it's interesting because prior to General Kelly being dismissed from the Trump administration, he was definitely a supporter of Donald Trump. And when you look at why he was dismissed and the fact that his foreign policy, a lot of the foreign policy we're seeing implemented today that is very unpopular by the people who are actually having to have their families go off and serve and implement it, you could see why him and Trump clash. Trump has a very much a Monroe Doctrine type of mission in the fact of making sure that we're not going to be involved in the United States unless it has something directly to do with our national security. And that, unfortunately, is not how the Biden administration has profited both personally as well as their administration. And that's why I think General Kelly's foreign policy and his military strategy has more to do with like what you would see the neocons slash the Biden administration has tried to pull off. So no, you look at those that are
platform X to say, "While I am running a campaign of positive solutions to save America, Kamala Harris is running a campaign of hate. She has spent all week comparing her political opponents to the most evil mass murderers in history. Now, on top of everything, Joe Biden calls our supporters garbage. You can't lead America if you don't love the American people. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have shown that they are both unfit to be President of the United States. I am proud to lead the biggest, broadest, and the most important political coalition in American history. We are welcoming historic numbers of Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed. It is my desire to be the president of all the people." Well, with less than a week remaining before election day, the race is incredibly close and tensions are high as both sides attempt to control the narrative in the campaign's final days. For more, I'm joined now by the political commentator and Republican strategist Scotty Nell Hughes. Great to have you with us. Thank you so much for talking to Al Arabiya News. Um, back in there was an article in *GQ* in which you were described as being the world's most loyal Trump surrogate. And I'm curious to know whether eight years on, this is still the case. Um, it's absolutely the case, but it's not just being the most loyal to the Trump surrogate or to Trump himself; it's being loyal to the agenda. And I think that's what people have blended—the man with who the—the movement. And the reality is the majority of Americans, yes, while they—they like Donald Trump, they like the fact that he's the person that's been put at the top that's the face of it. The reality is it's really a movement that has been coalescing since when Obama got into office and told people that they could keep their doctors if they wanted to and that was an absolute lie, the birth of the Tea Party that ultimately in resulted in Donald Trump. Now here we find ourselves in with absolute record inflation, high interest rates, um, low support internationally for many of our foreign adventures that we're doing right now. And so I think people are going, "We need to bring it back to where we were in where we put here in America—we need to put America first." And when that happens, when America's prosperous, then other parts of the world also seem to thrive as well. And I think it's more about the movement than the man, but yes, I still consider myself a very loyal supporter of it. So the court cases, the gaffes, the January 6th situation, none of that has done any damage as far as you're concerned to the enduring appeal of Trump and his movement? Well, no. And I mean, obviously what they've done is they've made people think twice before they go to a political rally. Um, they make people look and see that yes, the government does target, whether you are a small individual business or a multimillionaire/billionaire who is a former president. The government and the DOJ do try to entangle you. So I think what if anything, it has strengthened because it's kind of exposed what everybody—everyday Americans have been experiencing for decades. It put it all in the last four years right in front of our face. And so I think that's why you've seen this movement go stronger and grow stronger and why you've seen people like Elon Musk as well as like RFK Kennedy come out and join the team of Trump because they're actually being open—their eyes are being open to what the majority of conservatives have been talking about since the 1980s. But other people have come forward as well, haven't they? It hasn't just been friends of Donald Trump; former friends turned adversaries, we assume, have come up. People like General Kelly who has triggered a lot of discussion with his comments on Trump's mindset, his propensity to authoritarian-style leadership, and his liking of dictators. Um, reading some comments where you've been interviewed on this subject, you don't seem to have attached too much importance to what a four-star general said. Well, it's interesting because prior to General Kelly being dismissed from the Trump administration, he was definitely a supporter of Donald Trump. And when you look at why he was dismissed and the fact that his foreign policy, a lot of the foreign policy we're seeing implemented today that is very unpopular by the people who are actually having to have their families go off and serve and implement it, you could see why him and Trump clash. Trump has a very much a Monroe Doctrine type of mission in the fact of making sure that we're not going to be involved in the United States unless it has something directly to do with our national security. And that, unfortunately, is not how the Biden administration has profited both personally as well as their administration. And that's why I think General Kelly's foreign policy and his military strategy has more to do with like what you would see the neocons slash the Biden administration has tried to pull off. So no, you look at those that are
unknown
around—I'm sorry if I can't too put much credence in people that have been dismissed. But let me tell you this. In what you had was an inundation of folks that were not necessarily a part of the Trump agenda. A lot of people that did not talk—speak favorably of Trump while he was running, never thought he could run, outwardly bashed him, were brought into his administration. You kind of brought the snakes in the house. So when Trump realized this,
around—I'm sorry if I can't too put much credence in people that have been dismissed. But let me tell you this. In what you had was an inundation of folks that were not necessarily a part of the Trump agenda. A lot of people that did not talk—speak favorably of Trump while he was running, never thought he could run, outwardly bashed him, were brought into his administration. You kind of brought the snakes in the house. So when Trump realized this,
Slavoj Žižek
thinking that as a business you bring people in that you think everybody's working together to make a successful business and a goal, Trump learned real quick that's not how politics work. And the White House is not a business, that you have people there for their own agendas with their own intentions. And I think he real quick figured that out about General Kelly, hence why he dismissed him. And now you have this bitter round of former Trump people from who were never really on the Trump train or on the Trump agenda supportive of it, really just wanted a job. And now they're bitter and they're making their rounds. and I don't think it changes anybody's vote that General Kelly speaks against Donald Trump. If anything, it might strengthen those that don't want to see America involved in more forward intervention that we have no necessary dealings with. Yeah, but it's interesting, though, that enemies list that even Kamala Harris referenced in her address last night in DC. She says, "I don't have an enemies list, I've got a to-do list." Um, what do you make of this idea of the enemies list and who's on it? I don't care what you call it. You cannot say that right now this administration does not consider Donald Trump their number one enemy. Not terrorists, not people that are coming in and are bringing in disease—to certain folks that are bringing in disease—they doesn't consider them the enemy. They consider Donald Trump and, as we have learned what Joe Biden very honestly for once said, he considers anybody that supports Donald Trump to be garbage today. And it's funny that this is coming out five days before the election. I'm glad it's publicly being stated because it's how the majority of Trump supporters have felt the last four years underneath this administration. We knew that's how their outlook was of us, and that's really sad to think that, you know, at least of
thinking that as a business you bring people in that you think everybody's working together to make a successful business and a goal, Trump learned real quick that's not how politics work. And the White House is not a business, that you have people there for their own agendas with their own intentions. And I think he real quick figured that out about General Kelly, hence why he dismissed him. And now you have this bitter round of former Trump people from who were never really on the Trump train or on the Trump agenda supportive of it, really just wanted a job. And now they're bitter and they're making their rounds. and I don't think it changes anybody's vote that General Kelly speaks against Donald Trump. If anything, it might strengthen those that don't want to see America involved in more forward intervention that we have no necessary dealings with. Yeah, but it's interesting, though, that enemies list that even Kamala Harris referenced in her address last night in DC. She says, "I don't have an enemies list, I've got a to-do list." Um, what do you make of this idea of the enemies list and who's on it? I don't care what you call it. You cannot say that right now this administration does not consider Donald Trump their number one enemy. Not terrorists, not people that are coming in and are bringing in disease—to certain folks that are bringing in disease—they doesn't consider them the enemy. They consider Donald Trump and, as we have learned what Joe Biden very honestly for once said, he considers anybody that supports Donald Trump to be garbage today. And it's funny that this is coming out five days before the election. I'm glad it's publicly being stated because it's how the majority of Trump supporters have felt the last four years underneath this administration. We knew that's how their outlook was of us, and that's really sad to think that, you know, at least of
unknown
the American population, you think is garbage. So she can call her list whatever she wants, but she has considered Donald Trump her number one
the American population, you think is garbage. So she can call her list whatever she wants, but she has considered Donald Trump her number one
Slavoj Žižek
enemy and his supporters are obviously right behind him on that list. And I think that is why you are seeing their campaign absolutely tank as quickly as it started. Um, let's just talk about that Biden gaffe a little bit more. Obviously, being described as "garbage" is presumably offensive to people like you who support Donald Trump. Um, how damaging do you think that is for Joe Biden? And do you think it did any harm to Donald Trump? Or his—his supporters will simply just disregard it? Oh, they're not disregarding it. They woke up highly offended by it. Now, it's interesting you're saying, you know, Donald Trump supporters being offended. You know, we're supposed to be pretty thick-skinned obviously with Donald Trump, who sometimes has had his own gaffes. But what makes this different is you've never had a President of the United States insult such a large amount—insult—they go after each other all they want, very personal in history, but they've never actually gone after their supporters. And that's what makes this extremely different from past campaign sort of digs at each other. But here's where I think it's interesting, and you're even seeing
enemy and his supporters are obviously right behind him on that list. And I think that is why you are seeing their campaign absolutely tank as quickly as it started. Um, let's just talk about that Biden gaffe a little bit more. Obviously, being described as "garbage" is presumably offensive to people like you who support Donald Trump. Um, how damaging do you think that is for Joe Biden? And do you think it did any harm to Donald Trump? Or his—his supporters will simply just disregard it? Oh, they're not disregarding it. They woke up highly offended by it. Now, it's interesting you're saying, you know, Donald Trump supporters being offended. You know, we're supposed to be pretty thick-skinned obviously with Donald Trump, who sometimes has had his own gaffes. But what makes this different is you've never had a President of the United States insult such a large amount—insult—they go after each other all they want, very personal in history, but they've never actually gone after their supporters. And that's what makes this extremely different from past campaign sort of digs at each other. But here's where I think it's interesting, and you're even seeing
unknown
it on the left. Some of their highest donors are—are even questioning: why would Joe Biden do this? We know that he's obviously been in cognitive decline; Kamala Harris and the administration has hid it from us for the last
it on the left. Some of their highest donors are—are even questioning: why would Joe Biden do this? We know that he's obviously been in cognitive decline; Kamala Harris and the administration has hid it from us for the last
Slavoj Žižek
three years, which should be a big red flag to the American people on some of his decisions that he has made. But now you have this case. And what I feel: back in June, after Joe Biden debated Donald Trump, you had a letter come out from a celebrity George Clooney. It kind of released the floodgates to tell Democrats yes, you can join in the chorus that we're all thinking and publicly say
three years, which should be a big red flag to the American people on some of his decisions that he has made. But now you have this case. And what I feel: back in June, after Joe Biden debated Donald Trump, you had a letter come out from a celebrity George Clooney. It kind of released the floodgates to tell Democrats yes, you can join in the chorus that we're all thinking and publicly say
unknown
that Joe Biden does not need to be at the top of the ticket. I feel like yesterday was that—was that moment. I cannot think that despite all of the issues that people might have with Joe Biden, that he did not have some sort of—that you can't say he was confused when he said it, that he did not have some sort of reasoning behind saying such a damaging word not to Donald Trump, but such a damaging word to the Kamala Harris
that Joe Biden does not need to be at the top of the ticket. I feel like yesterday was that—was that moment. I cannot think that despite all of the issues that people might have with Joe Biden, that he did not have some sort of—that you can't say he was confused when he said it, that he did not have some sort of reasoning behind saying such a damaging word not to Donald Trump, but such a damaging word to the Kamala Harris
unknown
campaign. Because up until this point, they'd been getting this
campaign. Because up until this point, they'd been getting this
unknown
momentum off of a very poor joke made by a very distasteful comedian at the Donald Trump
momentum off of a very poor joke made by a very distasteful comedian at the Donald Trump
unknown
Madison Square Garden rally. That had been what the media had been feeding on. Now the media can't ignore this, and they're
Madison Square Garden rally. That had been what the media had been feeding on. Now the media can't ignore this, and they're
unknown
having to talk about it. And that right there is, I think, is extremely damaging because
having to talk about it. And that right there is, I think, is extremely damaging because
unknown
Kamala Harris has tried to sell this thing that she's joy, she's hope, she's unifying, and it's really hard when the current president and the person that you are serving underneath calls half the people garbage. I think
Kamala Harris has tried to sell this thing that she's joy, she's hope, she's unifying, and it's really hard when the current president and the person that you are serving underneath calls half the people garbage. I think
unknown
this was probably—if it—if
this was probably—if it—if
unknown
there wasn't already the coffin going into the ground, this right here was the start of putting the dirt on. I think you're going to see more and more of the next few days the Democrats continue to shrink back from the Harris-Walz campaign. Yeah, it sounds a lot, doesn't it, like the "basket of deplorables" which not a former president, but a former first lady used to describe Trump supporters eight or so years ago. I just want to ask you about the Madison Square Garden incident involving Tony Hinchcliffe since you reference it there. I mean, how big of a mistake do you think it was on the part
there wasn't already the coffin going into the ground, this right here was the start of putting the dirt on. I think you're going to see more and more of the next few days the Democrats continue to shrink back from the Harris-Walz campaign. Yeah, it sounds a lot, doesn't it, like the "basket of deplorables" which not a former president, but a former first lady used to describe Trump supporters eight or so years ago. I just want to ask you about the Madison Square Garden incident involving Tony Hinchcliffe since you reference it there. I mean, how big of a mistake do you think it was on the part
unknown
of the Trump campaign to have someone on the stage making jokes that were supposedly vetted or at least, you know, checked through by some of the people on the Trump campaign team? How do you feel about things like that slipping through the net and how damaging do you think it is? Okay, well you know as a presenter yourself, it's not just you. You have a whole layers of staff, correct? That you don't just get to go on air and yes, you have your own free—your own thought, but of the time they at least know where you're going
of the Trump campaign to have someone on the stage making jokes that were supposedly vetted or at least, you know, checked through by some of the people on the Trump campaign team? How do you feel about things like that slipping through the net and how damaging do you think it is? Okay, well you know as a presenter yourself, it's not just you. You have a whole layers of staff, correct? That you don't just get to go on air and yes, you have your own free—your own thought, but of the time they at least know where you're going
Norman Finkelstein
with it. That's what a good staff does. In this case, I don't hold the comedian responsible as much as as the—even conservatives are harping on the—on the comedian. No, the comedian did exactly what he's always done. Anybody who's ever listened to his podcast, anybody who's ever seen one of his comedy shows, he's extremely popular for that reason because
with it. That's what a good staff does. In this case, I don't hold the comedian responsible as much as as the—even conservatives are harping on the—on the comedian. No, the comedian did exactly what he's always done. Anybody who's ever listened to his podcast, anybody who's ever seen one of his comedy shows, he's extremely popular for that reason because
unknown
he says ludicrous, absurd, insulting comments like that. That being said, the fault of this, and it's sort of like what we saw in is somebody invited him. Somebody thought it was going to be a good idea to put him on that stage. That somebody doesn't need to be allowed anywhere near the White House. And I'd even say the RNC. That somebody should never be around campaigns again because that was one of the most gravest mistakes. I mean, look at it. You saw it. You watched Madison Square Garden. I mean, Taylor Swift, the Beatles, go down your list of all these historically musical icons that were able to sell out Madison Square Garden. We had a politician do it. Not only did they do it in three hours—and granted the tickets were free—but it's still incredible that in a blue state like New York that Donald Trump could fill a stadium like that. And they weren't there to see Beyoncé supposedly sing or to see Bruce Springsteen, who have both sold out Madison Square Garden. No, they were there to see Donald Trump, the future President of the United States they were hoping for. That right there just shows that there are people that are engaged in the political system. That should be a positive. But instead of coming out of it, even as a Democrat—let me say this: if Kamala Harris or even Michelle Obama had been able to fill Madison Square Garden, I wouldn't necessarily like what she was saying, but I would say,
he says ludicrous, absurd, insulting comments like that. That being said, the fault of this, and it's sort of like what we saw in is somebody invited him. Somebody thought it was going to be a good idea to put him on that stage. That somebody doesn't need to be allowed anywhere near the White House. And I'd even say the RNC. That somebody should never be around campaigns again because that was one of the most gravest mistakes. I mean, look at it. You saw it. You watched Madison Square Garden. I mean, Taylor Swift, the Beatles, go down your list of all these historically musical icons that were able to sell out Madison Square Garden. We had a politician do it. Not only did they do it in three hours—and granted the tickets were free—but it's still incredible that in a blue state like New York that Donald Trump could fill a stadium like that. And they weren't there to see Beyoncé supposedly sing or to see Bruce Springsteen, who have both sold out Madison Square Garden. No, they were there to see Donald Trump, the future President of the United States they were hoping for. That right there just shows that there are people that are engaged in the political system. That should be a positive. But instead of coming out of it, even as a Democrat—let me say this: if Kamala Harris or even Michelle Obama had been able to fill Madison Square Garden, I wouldn't necessarily like what she was saying, but I would say,
unknown
wow, that's amazing. You have been able to rock star-level people's engagement in the political system in what is going on today. That many people are paying attention, even if it was on the other side. Going out of this, the left knew they were going to have to grapple to try to find things to criticize such a historical moment. And yet, the comedian just handed it to them on
wow, that's amazing. You have been able to rock star-level people's engagement in the political system in what is going on today. That many people are paying attention, even if it was on the other side. Going out of this, the left knew they were going to have to grapple to try to find things to criticize such a historical moment. And yet, the comedian just handed it to them on
unknown
a silver platter, and that was the focus, that was the messaging that came out of Madison Square Garden. Nothing else, very little else was ever focused on in the mainstream. And so from that perspective right there, I think it was a great event. I think long term we're going to, you know, that's going to be definitely in reflection. But the comedian definitely was a dark cloud that didn't need to be there. Yeah, and we've seen, haven't we, in the last hours, Donald Trump very much in service recovery, disaster
a silver platter, and that was the focus, that was the messaging that came out of Madison Square Garden. Nothing else, very little else was ever focused on in the mainstream. And so from that perspective right there, I think it was a great event. I think long term we're going to, you know, that's going to be definitely in reflection. But the comedian definitely was a dark cloud that didn't need to be there. Yeah, and we've seen, haven't we, in the last hours, Donald Trump very much in service recovery, disaster
unknown
management mode, trying to win back and win over Latino voters, because they're a seriously important demographic, especially in some of those swing states. But I mean, putting your political preferences to one side, just strategically speaking in terms of the numbers we could be talking about, how damaging—I mean, how many votes could that whole incident have cost Donald Trump? Or do you think it won't cost him at all? Um, I don't think maybe initially, but you have to understand, all of these different demographics the Republican Party has always had an issue with, whether we're talking about women, African Americans, Hispanics—even, you know, you've—you've seen outreach into places and into people that Republicans in the past have just dismissed, hence why they lost in and lost in So the good news is, and once again, it's one thing to be called—a whole island to be
management mode, trying to win back and win over Latino voters, because they're a seriously important demographic, especially in some of those swing states. But I mean, putting your political preferences to one side, just strategically speaking in terms of the numbers we could be talking about, how damaging—I mean, how many votes could that whole incident have cost Donald Trump? Or do you think it won't cost him at all? Um, I don't think maybe initially, but you have to understand, all of these different demographics the Republican Party has always had an issue with, whether we're talking about women, African Americans, Hispanics—even, you know, you've—you've seen outreach into places and into people that Republicans in the past have just dismissed, hence why they lost in and lost in So the good news is, and once again, it's one thing to be called—a whole island to be
unknown
called garbage, to be called garbage—and let me point out: when you had Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, and this is I think why a lot of Puerto Ricans aren't necessarily falling for it unless they, you know, they're trying to get some face time, is they go: he gave—he was the first country to step up, first president to step up and give millions, actually one of the largest aid packages to Puerto Rico, initially, you know, promising it to the country with some stipends that it would actually go to the people and not sit in a warehouse, which we later found out that a lot of it did. So his actions in supporting Puerto Rico are definitely a lot different. But if we're going to start holding national leaders accountable for the people who speak not only at the rallies but for their supporters, um, we're going down a Pandora's box that I believe that once we let that genie out of a bottle, um, I think that it does no good for our
called garbage, to be called garbage—and let me point out: when you had Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, and this is I think why a lot of Puerto Ricans aren't necessarily falling for it unless they, you know, they're trying to get some face time, is they go: he gave—he was the first country to step up, first president to step up and give millions, actually one of the largest aid packages to Puerto Rico, initially, you know, promising it to the country with some stipends that it would actually go to the people and not sit in a warehouse, which we later found out that a lot of it did. So his actions in supporting Puerto Rico are definitely a lot different. But if we're going to start holding national leaders accountable for the people who speak not only at the rallies but for their supporters, um, we're going down a Pandora's box that I believe that once we let that genie out of a bottle, um, I think that it does no good for our
unknown
political system and continues to make people have a very much a negative
political system and continues to make people have a very much a negative
unknown
feel towards anything that has to do with the election system. Yeah, but it does say something about judgment of character. I mean, we talked already about General Kelly who was in the entourage, and by no means the only person from Trump's previous entourage that, you know, suddenly turned into an enemy and was no longer and suddenly started speaking out openly and aggressively against Donald Trump. Do you—do you think he's got a bit of an issue when it comes to judgment of character? Well, let me say this. My mother used to always tell me: she said you can always tell the quality of a person by the quality of their enemies. And when you're at the top, when you're at the top, especially as Republicans and as
feel towards anything that has to do with the election system. Yeah, but it does say something about judgment of character. I mean, we talked already about General Kelly who was in the entourage, and by no means the only person from Trump's previous entourage that, you know, suddenly turned into an enemy and was no longer and suddenly started speaking out openly and aggressively against Donald Trump. Do you—do you think he's got a bit of an issue when it comes to judgment of character? Well, let me say this. My mother used to always tell me: she said you can always tell the quality of a person by the quality of their enemies. And when you're at the top, when you're at the top, especially as Republicans and as
unknown
this party continues to diversify and grow, you're not going to be friends with everybody. Heck, you're not friends with everybody in an elementary school kindergarten class either, and that happens all through our lives. Uh, the more that you continue to try to change, just as long as you're in—and I think Donald Trump is truly sincere in trying to change what the bureaucracy that has been built in the United States government. As long as he's going to continue to try to change that, he is going to take fire. He is going to make enemies. People
this party continues to diversify and grow, you're not going to be friends with everybody. Heck, you're not friends with everybody in an elementary school kindergarten class either, and that happens all through our lives. Uh, the more that you continue to try to change, just as long as you're in—and I think Donald Trump is truly sincere in trying to change what the bureaucracy that has been built in the United States government. As long as he's going to continue to try to change that, he is going to take fire. He is going to make enemies. People
unknown
are going to find reasons not to like him. Uh, that is just the nature of the business. That's going to go with it. In fact, I don't want a president that everybody likes, because that means that
are going to find reasons not to like him. Uh, that is just the nature of the business. That's going to go with it. In fact, I don't want a president that everybody likes, because that means that
unknown
there's something wrong with the people. I always say that one of our biggest problems we have here in the United States is we keep putting people back into office that do nothing for their own communities. You go into these very urban areas and they've elected their congressman to the—to the house, not one, two, but six, ten. They're career politicians, and yet their neighborhoods are continuing to be declined. There's less safety, there's no money going into their schools, and yet they keep re-electing the same person. That is a problem in America. And so I think, you know, the fact that Donald Trump has enemies and the quality of they are and their motivation for being his enemy. Their motivation is personal. It's not about doing what's best for the country or doing what's best for our United States military in General Kelly's perspective; it's what's doing best for him. And so I have no problem with Donald Trump being the bully to the bullies. And that's kind of why he has made—why he is so different and why he's continuing to take the blows he does. Let's just talk about the polls quickly. Looks like the gap has narrowed quite a bit, and obviously it does vary enormously from one poll to another. Um, just like to ask for your thoughts as to why the gap has narrowed. I mean, a couple of months ago Kamala Harris did have a pretty clear lead, quite a consistently clear lead, and that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Is this part of the Trump strategy, do you think, to focus more effort, more resources at the latter stages of—of campaigning? Well, it's going to be a nail-biter. I can't guarantee—I hope, I would hope that we would have a winner by midnight on election night. I can't necessarily guarantee
there's something wrong with the people. I always say that one of our biggest problems we have here in the United States is we keep putting people back into office that do nothing for their own communities. You go into these very urban areas and they've elected their congressman to the—to the house, not one, two, but six, ten. They're career politicians, and yet their neighborhoods are continuing to be declined. There's less safety, there's no money going into their schools, and yet they keep re-electing the same person. That is a problem in America. And so I think, you know, the fact that Donald Trump has enemies and the quality of they are and their motivation for being his enemy. Their motivation is personal. It's not about doing what's best for the country or doing what's best for our United States military in General Kelly's perspective; it's what's doing best for him. And so I have no problem with Donald Trump being the bully to the bullies. And that's kind of why he has made—why he is so different and why he's continuing to take the blows he does. Let's just talk about the polls quickly. Looks like the gap has narrowed quite a bit, and obviously it does vary enormously from one poll to another. Um, just like to ask for your thoughts as to why the gap has narrowed. I mean, a couple of months ago Kamala Harris did have a pretty clear lead, quite a consistently clear lead, and that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Is this part of the Trump strategy, do you think, to focus more effort, more resources at the latter stages of—of campaigning? Well, it's going to be a nail-biter. I can't guarantee—I hope, I would hope that we would have a winner by midnight on election night. I can't necessarily guarantee
unknown
it. It's going to be very, very close. But ultimately, and I'm sure you've discussed this multiple times on your show, it's
it. It's going to be very, very close. But ultimately, and I'm sure you've discussed this multiple times on your show, it's
unknown
going to come down to your key swing states. And that's either going to be your Blue Wall of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or where it's going to be—you're going to do the Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia. Oddly enough, Arizona and Nevada have found themselves in play. What I think shows that there is some hope for Donald Trump in those states that in definitely went for Biden except for North Carolina is that you're seeing Trump continuing to fight in those states. He's continuing to hold rallies, he's continuing to hold people, and also helps who's on the ballot down ballot as well. I mean, here's the reality: if Donald Trump gets elected, he goes in the White House, he's going to be impeached on day one of his
going to come down to your key swing states. And that's either going to be your Blue Wall of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or where it's going to be—you're going to do the Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia. Oddly enough, Arizona and Nevada have found themselves in play. What I think shows that there is some hope for Donald Trump in those states that in definitely went for Biden except for North Carolina is that you're seeing Trump continuing to fight in those states. He's continuing to hold rallies, he's continuing to hold people, and also helps who's on the ballot down ballot as well. I mean, here's the reality: if Donald Trump gets elected, he goes in the White House, he's going to be impeached on day one of his
unknown
inauguration if he doesn't have the House and the Senate also control of them. At the same time, he's got to make sure in one of his biggest problems is the Republicans might have had the House and
inauguration if he doesn't have the House and the Senate also control of them. At the same time, he's got to make sure in one of his biggest problems is the Republicans might have had the House and
unknown
the Senate, but they were definitely not a part of Trump's agenda. So he ended up fighting his own party, his own Congress, hence why he didn't get much done in that first administration. So I think part of the Trump campaign strategy is to not only win at the very top, but to continue in those down-ballot states. And I think that's why you're seeing him also fight for some of these Senate seats, knowing how
the Senate, but they were definitely not a part of Trump's agenda. So he ended up fighting his own party, his own Congress, hence why he didn't get much done in that first administration. So I think part of the Trump campaign strategy is to not only win at the very top, but to continue in those down-ballot states. And I think that's why you're seeing him also fight for some of these Senate seats, knowing how
unknown
important that they're going to be. And—and just lastly on the question of money. Um, if this was only about money, Kamala Harris would have won this election three to one. She outstripped Donald Trump in terms of the amount of money she's managed to raise for her campaign. So how has Trump managed to do relatively well and—and narrow that gap with one-third of the amount of money that Kamala Harris has managed to raise? That is such an excellent question, Tom. And once again, I'm glad that you point out—I have to give you some kudos because you're the first person that's actually put the financial numbers on it. I hate money in politics. Um, I wish we could go back to the day where you could, you know, stand on the street corner and you didn't need to have, you know, a five-million-dollar screen behind you and whole—whole staff behind you lifting you up in order to win. In Donald Trump ran the most frugal campaign possible ever seen in modern-day presidential history. Why? Why did he—was he able to win? Well, it wasn't because he bought flashy ads or pushcards. It was because his message resonated. And I think this is why—to bring it full circle back to how we started—Donald Trump is a man, but he's representing a movement. The movement doesn't need dollars in order to push forward. That's not what consultants want you to hear, that's not what very expensive strategists and campaigns, those that work in the campaign and election world, want you to hear. It's all about the
important that they're going to be. And—and just lastly on the question of money. Um, if this was only about money, Kamala Harris would have won this election three to one. She outstripped Donald Trump in terms of the amount of money she's managed to raise for her campaign. So how has Trump managed to do relatively well and—and narrow that gap with one-third of the amount of money that Kamala Harris has managed to raise? That is such an excellent question, Tom. And once again, I'm glad that you point out—I have to give you some kudos because you're the first person that's actually put the financial numbers on it. I hate money in politics. Um, I wish we could go back to the day where you could, you know, stand on the street corner and you didn't need to have, you know, a five-million-dollar screen behind you and whole—whole staff behind you lifting you up in order to win. In Donald Trump ran the most frugal campaign possible ever seen in modern-day presidential history. Why? Why did he—was he able to win? Well, it wasn't because he bought flashy ads or pushcards. It was because his message resonated. And I think this is why—to bring it full circle back to how we started—Donald Trump is a man, but he's representing a movement. The movement doesn't need dollars in order to push forward. That's not what consultants want you to hear, that's not what very expensive strategists and campaigns, those that work in the campaign and election world, want you to hear. It's all about the
unknown
message. And you can have zero—you can have a very low budget, but if your message is what the American people earnestly want and you're a genuine teller of that message, I believe you can get elected. And I think that's why you're seeing Donald Trump being able to handle the three-to-one spending and the three-to-one fundraising that he's seen against Kamala Harris. Okay, we're going to have to leave it there.
message. And you can have zero—you can have a very low budget, but if your message is what the American people earnestly want and you're a genuine teller of that message, I believe you can get elected. And I think that's why you're seeing Donald Trump being able to handle the three-to-one spending and the three-to-one fundraising that he's seen against Kamala Harris. Okay, we're going to have to leave it there.
unknown
We're out of time. Thank you so much, Scotty Nell Hughes. Thank you for speaking to Al Arabiya. Thank you. For more reaction, I'm joined now by the former chief speechwriter to President Bill Clinton, David Kusnet. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. You're also a published author. I'd like to start by asking you about the speech given by Kamala Harris last night in DC. It was called a "closing argument" speech, and it had a sort of a legal theme to it, with the US public as the jury. Do you think it worked? I think it did. Because as—as you know and as she reminded the audience, she's a former prosecutor and she knows how to give a closing argument. And the venue was very important. The venue was the Ellipse, which is really the public park of American democracy, and it's also where then-President Donald Trump gave a fire-breathing speech on January 6th and sent a crowd of his supporters to attack the nation's capital and try to undo the result of an election. So the setting was as important for her as the arguments, but I think she made arguments that were fitting for—for the setting and that closed—closed her case to the American people. And as a former speechwriter, I'm—I'm curious to know what you made of her tone and her overall delivery. Well, I think the—I think she had the challenge of having a tone and delivery that would be authoritative, that would not be
We're out of time. Thank you so much, Scotty Nell Hughes. Thank you for speaking to Al Arabiya. Thank you. For more reaction, I'm joined now by the former chief speechwriter to President Bill Clinton, David Kusnet. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. You're also a published author. I'd like to start by asking you about the speech given by Kamala Harris last night in DC. It was called a "closing argument" speech, and it had a sort of a legal theme to it, with the US public as the jury. Do you think it worked? I think it did. Because as—as you know and as she reminded the audience, she's a former prosecutor and she knows how to give a closing argument. And the venue was very important. The venue was the Ellipse, which is really the public park of American democracy, and it's also where then-President Donald Trump gave a fire-breathing speech on January 6th and sent a crowd of his supporters to attack the nation's capital and try to undo the result of an election. So the setting was as important for her as the arguments, but I think she made arguments that were fitting for—for the setting and that closed—closed her case to the American people. And as a former speechwriter, I'm—I'm curious to know what you made of her tone and her overall delivery. Well, I think the—I think she had the challenge of having a tone and delivery that would be authoritative, that would not be
unknown
so harsh as to offend the audience, but that also had a—had a seriousness in keeping with this moment in history and in keeping with the moment in history January 6th, which the setting for her speech was intended to recall. And I think—I think she did that well. Um, how many people do you think watched it? I mean, do you think it was a very closely watched event right across the United States? Or do you think at this pretty late stage in the day, most people have made up their minds already and the only people that would have watched it are people who've already decided they like what she says? What do you think about the viewership? Well, the immediate audience was very impressive. I've seen estimates of as high as as many as people in the immediate audience, and that—that lends a gravity
so harsh as to offend the audience, but that also had a—had a seriousness in keeping with this moment in history and in keeping with the moment in history January 6th, which the setting for her speech was intended to recall. And I think—I think she did that well. Um, how many people do you think watched it? I mean, do you think it was a very closely watched event right across the United States? Or do you think at this pretty late stage in the day, most people have made up their minds already and the only people that would have watched it are people who've already decided they like what she says? What do you think about the viewership? Well, the immediate audience was very impressive. I've seen estimates of as high as as many as people in the immediate audience, and that—that lends a gravity
unknown
to the speech if there's a—an in-person audience of As you know, people no longer observe events only in real time. In addition to whoever might have been watching live coverage, there's coverage on the traditional media on the evening news. There's coverage on cable news. It's pushed out on what used to be called Twitter and other social media. So I think probably tens of millions of people were in some way were exposed to what—what she was
to the speech if there's a—an in-person audience of As you know, people no longer observe events only in real time. In addition to whoever might have been watching live coverage, there's coverage on the traditional media on the evening news. There's coverage on cable news. It's pushed out on what used to be called Twitter and other social media. So I think probably tens of millions of people were in some way were exposed to what—what she was
unknown
saying. But do you think that someone who already has decided they're going to vote for Donald Trump would have bothered to listen to any of it, or would they just completely disregard it? I don't think it's—I don't think it was intended for people who have already voted for Donald Trump or intend to vote for him. And I don't think it was intended for people who obviously who have already voted for Vice President Harris or have a plan for voting in between now and election day. I think it was intended for people who are either undecided on whom to vote for or undecided on whether to vote. It was intended really for the—the softer segment of the electorate, people who are not certain votes for either candidate and may not even be certain to vote. And you've obviously been following US politics for a long time. You were active during the Clinton administration. Um, and with the polls tightening, here we
saying. But do you think that someone who already has decided they're going to vote for Donald Trump would have bothered to listen to any of it, or would they just completely disregard it? I don't think it's—I don't think it was intended for people who have already voted for Donald Trump or intend to vote for him. And I don't think it was intended for people who obviously who have already voted for Vice President Harris or have a plan for voting in between now and election day. I think it was intended for people who are either undecided on whom to vote for or undecided on whether to vote. It was intended really for the—the softer segment of the electorate, people who are not certain votes for either candidate and may not even be certain to vote. And you've obviously been following US politics for a long time. You were active during the Clinton administration. Um, and with the polls tightening, here we
unknown
are what, six days away from election day. I just wonder: what have you seen in the past with regards to the impact that a sort of a last-ditch speech like last night's one was? What sort of a difference it makes to the overall polls? Well, it's part of the totality of what people are seeing and hearing and experiencing and thinking during the final week of the election campaign. And
are what, six days away from election day. I just wonder: what have you seen in the past with regards to the impact that a sort of a last-ditch speech like last night's one was? What sort of a difference it makes to the overall polls? Well, it's part of the totality of what people are seeing and hearing and experiencing and thinking during the final week of the election campaign. And
unknown
unlike and the—and the cycles immediately after we no longer really have an election day, we have an election season. But there's a—most—the great majority of the people who are eligible to vote have not yet voted, and they're going to be barraged with a lot of information over the next six days. And I think that Vice President Harris's speech yesterday was a very effective closing argument. And part of what it does is not only reach the audience that are reached by the speech itself or by some sort of coverage or pushing out of that speech, but it also frames the remainder of what they hear. It's been about days, I think it's exactly days, isn't it, since Kamala Harris was nominated as the party's candidate in this
unlike and the—and the cycles immediately after we no longer really have an election day, we have an election season. But there's a—most—the great majority of the people who are eligible to vote have not yet voted, and they're going to be barraged with a lot of information over the next six days. And I think that Vice President Harris's speech yesterday was a very effective closing argument. And part of what it does is not only reach the audience that are reached by the speech itself or by some sort of coverage or pushing out of that speech, but it also frames the remainder of what they hear. It's been about days, I think it's exactly days, isn't it, since Kamala Harris was nominated as the party's candidate in this
unknown
election. Um, I'm just curious to know why you think the polls have tightened to the extent they have done. Because back in August, I remember opinion polls quite consistently putting Kamala Harris about four percentage points ahead of Donald Trump. And that doesn't seem to be there anymore, or at least quite a consistently clear lead. Is this part of the Trump strategy, do you think, to focus more effort, more resources at the latter stages of—of campaigning? Well, I think it's—it's been a remarkable 100-day campaign. It's sort of as if she's been running maybe a British campaign for a—the kind of calendar that there are in countries other than the United States where the campaign by our standards is relatively compressed. And she was able to literally and figuratively hit the ground running and present herself as a presidential candidate, which is very different from being vice president
election. Um, I'm just curious to know why you think the polls have tightened to the extent they have done. Because back in August, I remember opinion polls quite consistently putting Kamala Harris about four percentage points ahead of Donald Trump. And that doesn't seem to be there anymore, or at least quite a consistently clear lead. Is this part of the Trump strategy, do you think, to focus more effort, more resources at the latter stages of—of campaigning? Well, I think it's—it's been a remarkable 100-day campaign. It's sort of as if she's been running maybe a British campaign for a—the kind of calendar that there are in countries other than the United States where the campaign by our standards is relatively compressed. And she was able to literally and figuratively hit the ground running and present herself as a presidential candidate, which is very different from being vice president
unknown
in this country. Vice presidents in this country have a mixed record of becoming president. You just have to ask Walter Mondale, for whom I worked, or Hubert Humphrey, or Dan Quayle, or Al Gore and others who ran for president and didn't make it because they were typecast as being a number two and not a number one. So I think she's run a great campaign. I
in this country. Vice presidents in this country have a mixed record of becoming president. You just have to ask Walter Mondale, for whom I worked, or Hubert Humphrey, or Dan Quayle, or Al Gore and others who ran for president and didn't make it because they were typecast as being a number two and not a number one. So I think she's run a great campaign. I
unknown
think you have maybe what statisticians call regression to the mean, which is this—this is a very closely divided country. And you look at the polls between Donald Trump and Joe Biden before Joe Biden withdrew, and it's very close. And it's—at least if you can believe the polling, it's going back to what has been—what have been the lines of division in this country over the last eight years or so. Yeah, and it's almost like two distinct camps, isn't it, with, you know, the margin being so razor-thin if the polls are to be believed. And just talking about the distinctiveness of the campaign versus previous campaigns. I remember back in Barack Obama was credited for having used social media very much to his advantage in that election. Um, has anything stood out for you with this election, the presidential election, in terms of a new phenomenon? Or anything—something we haven't seen perhaps as much of in previous elections? Well, I think every—in recent times, every election or every few elections, as you say, there's a difference in how the voters consume information and how the candidates try to reach the voters. The Bill Clinton campaign was really the first—one of the first campaigns of the 24-hour news cycle, cable news, and sort of niche programming on broadcast television. There were the famous shows where he played the saxophone
think you have maybe what statisticians call regression to the mean, which is this—this is a very closely divided country. And you look at the polls between Donald Trump and Joe Biden before Joe Biden withdrew, and it's very close. And it's—at least if you can believe the polling, it's going back to what has been—what have been the lines of division in this country over the last eight years or so. Yeah, and it's almost like two distinct camps, isn't it, with, you know, the margin being so razor-thin if the polls are to be believed. And just talking about the distinctiveness of the campaign versus previous campaigns. I remember back in Barack Obama was credited for having used social media very much to his advantage in that election. Um, has anything stood out for you with this election, the presidential election, in terms of a new phenomenon? Or anything—something we haven't seen perhaps as much of in previous elections? Well, I think every—in recent times, every election or every few elections, as you say, there's a difference in how the voters consume information and how the candidates try to reach the voters. The Bill Clinton campaign was really the first—one of the first campaigns of the 24-hour news cycle, cable news, and sort of niche programming on broadcast television. There were the famous shows where he played the saxophone
unknown
on entertainment shows. And as you say, Barack Obama was the first—was the first candidate to use social media like what used to be called Twitter. And now I think what—and a new element, podcasts have been around for a while, but this has been almost
on entertainment shows. And as you say, Barack Obama was the first—was the first candidate to use social media like what used to be called Twitter. And now I think what—and a new element, podcasts have been around for a while, but this has been almost
unknown
the podcast election, where you have both candidates micro-targeting the podcasts that appeal to the demographics they're trying to mobilize. And you have—you've had Vice President Harris speaking on podcasts that probably disproportionately reach young women, and you've had Donald Trump on podcasts that really are targeted to not just to young men but to young men in a way that sort of excludes other—other people, whether older people or women and young women. And there's been this kind of cultural
the podcast election, where you have both candidates micro-targeting the podcasts that appeal to the demographics they're trying to mobilize. And you have—you've had Vice President Harris speaking on podcasts that probably disproportionately reach young women, and you've had Donald Trump on podcasts that really are targeted to not just to young men but to young men in a way that sort of excludes other—other people, whether older people or women and young women. And there's been this kind of cultural
unknown
micro-targeting through media that micro-target. Yeah, that's really interesting, the podcast—it seems to be standing out, doesn't it, as being a distinct feature of—of this race to the White House. Um, another feature of this race to the White House, and it's probably not new—and you might be able to tell me about past races to the White House—but quite a lot of gaffes being made on—on all sides. And comments, some of them meant in good humor, that are ending up costing votes on both sides. Um, let's talk about what was said on Sunday at Madison Square Garden. Uh, that comment about Puerto Rico being a floating island of garbage. I mean, Donald Trump appears has been in disaster management
micro-targeting through media that micro-target. Yeah, that's really interesting, the podcast—it seems to be standing out, doesn't it, as being a distinct feature of—of this race to the White House. Um, another feature of this race to the White House, and it's probably not new—and you might be able to tell me about past races to the White House—but quite a lot of gaffes being made on—on all sides. And comments, some of them meant in good humor, that are ending up costing votes on both sides. Um, let's talk about what was said on Sunday at Madison Square Garden. Uh, that comment about Puerto Rico being a floating island of garbage. I mean, Donald Trump appears has been in disaster management
unknown
mode for the last hours on that. Do you think he's succeeded in perhaps putting that one to bed and
mode for the last hours on that. Do you think he's succeeded in perhaps putting that one to bed and
unknown
laying that—that
laying that—that
unknown
saga to rest? I don't think so. I—I think it's difficult to say that what the so-called comedian said at the rally without Donald Trump objecting to it and without the—a lot of the audience seeming to object to it. I think it's hard to say that calling Puerto Rico an island—a floating garbage dump, or whatever he called it—hard to see how that was meant in good humor. And I think that also
saga to rest? I don't think so. I—I think it's difficult to say that what the so-called comedian said at the rally without Donald Trump objecting to it and without the—a lot of the audience seeming to object to it. I think it's hard to say that calling Puerto Rico an island—a floating garbage dump, or whatever he called it—hard to see how that was meant in good humor. And I think that also
unknown
reinforced a visual image that people remember of Donald Trump going to the scene of a disaster in Puerto Rico when he was president and throwing paper towels at people, rather than seeming to take their condition seriously and take seriously his responsibility as president to help them—to help them overcome the catastrophe. And there's just such a record of Donald Trump and his supporters and his presence attacking different segments of the American people that—that what happened on at Madison Square Garden resonated. And if I could just do a—a little bit of a—recall some history. This is not—the media change
reinforced a visual image that people remember of Donald Trump going to the scene of a disaster in Puerto Rico when he was president and throwing paper towels at people, rather than seeming to take their condition seriously and take seriously his responsibility as president to help them—to help them overcome the catastrophe. And there's just such a record of Donald Trump and his supporters and his presence attacking different segments of the American people that—that what happened on at Madison Square Garden resonated. And if I could just do a—a little bit of a—recall some history. This is not—the media change
unknown
and the divisions change in America, but there's some events that tend to happen over and over again.
and the divisions change in America, but there's some events that tend to happen over and over again.
unknown
And back in the 19th century, there was a presidential election where the Republican presidential candidate also appeared at a meeting in New York, and one of the speakers before him, before the presidential candidate, attacked rum, Romanism, and rebellion. Romanism being the Roman Catholic Church. And the presidential candidate James Blaine did not object to that, and that
And back in the 19th century, there was a presidential election where the Republican presidential candidate also appeared at a meeting in New York, and one of the speakers before him, before the presidential candidate, attacked rum, Romanism, and rebellion. Romanism being the Roman Catholic Church. And the presidential candidate James Blaine did not object to that, and that
unknown
contributed to a lot of Irish and German American Catholics voting Democratic in larger numbers than usual and the—the first Democratic president since the Civil War, Grover Cleveland, being elected. So there's always been a history of campaigns sabotaging themselves
contributed to a lot of Irish and German American Catholics voting Democratic in larger numbers than usual and the—the first Democratic president since the Civil War, Grover Cleveland, being elected. So there's always been a history of campaigns sabotaging themselves
unknown
by attacking segments of the electorate. It's the—it's the media that tend to change. Yeah, indeed. That was and as you say, not without precedent as you say. Um, I want to pick up on a different gaffe, though. So the Sunday gaffe, or that comment that people found offensive at Madison Square Garden, triggered a comment by Joe Biden yesterday, who said the only garbage I could see out there floating was his supporters. Um, was that an ill-advised comment for Joe Biden to make? And do you think he's becoming a bit of a liability to the Harris campaign? Well, I think
by attacking segments of the electorate. It's the—it's the media that tend to change. Yeah, indeed. That was and as you say, not without precedent as you say. Um, I want to pick up on a different gaffe, though. So the Sunday gaffe, or that comment that people found offensive at Madison Square Garden, triggered a comment by Joe Biden yesterday, who said the only garbage I could see out there floating was his supporters. Um, was that an ill-advised comment for Joe Biden to make? And do you think he's becoming a bit of a liability to the Harris campaign? Well, I think
unknown
the—the difference is that Joe Biden's
the—the difference is that Joe Biden's
unknown
denying that's what he meant, and no one connected with Trump has really denied that the slurs that their campaign has engaged in
denying that's what he meant, and no one connected with Trump has really denied that the slurs that their campaign has engaged in
unknown
are what they mean. And the other—I think the other difference is whether you choose to believe the—the explanation or not. The—the Biden camp has the plausible explanation that he's someone who grew up with—with a speech impediment as a young man, and there's a history that if you have a speech impediment when you're younger, they tend to return when you're older. And they at least have an explanation, you can accept it or not, for why he misspeaks. The Trump supporters really don't have an explanation for why Donald Trump is constantly attacking segments
are what they mean. And the other—I think the other difference is whether you choose to believe the—the explanation or not. The—the Biden camp has the plausible explanation that he's someone who grew up with—with a speech impediment as a young man, and there's a history that if you have a speech impediment when you're younger, they tend to return when you're older. And they at least have an explanation, you can accept it or not, for why he misspeaks. The Trump supporters really don't have an explanation for why Donald Trump is constantly attacking segments
unknown
of society and why people connected with him are doing that. Yeah, but I think—I think the difference, if nothing else, is a sense of shame and norms, that if something like that comes out of the Biden camp, they apologize and they try to offer an explanation. With Donald Trump, there's
of society and why people connected with him are doing that. Yeah, but I think—I think the difference, if nothing else, is a sense of shame and norms, that if something like that comes out of the Biden camp, they apologize and they try to offer an explanation. With Donald Trump, there's
unknown
no apology and there's no explanation. Yeah, I was going to ask you, do you think that Joe Biden has become more of a liability than an asset to the Harris campaign? Because she has got a younger former president who's out there flying the flag for her as well in the form of Barack Obama. Um, do you think it's fair to say that Team Harris would rather that perhaps at this stage Joe Biden didn't get too involved in her—her campaign effort? Well, once again history—as the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. When you look at other vice presidents who have run for president when their president—as—as vice president, the president tends to
no apology and there's no explanation. Yeah, I was going to ask you, do you think that Joe Biden has become more of a liability than an asset to the Harris campaign? Because she has got a younger former president who's out there flying the flag for her as well in the form of Barack Obama. Um, do you think it's fair to say that Team Harris would rather that perhaps at this stage Joe Biden didn't get too involved in her—her campaign effort? Well, once again history—as the saying goes, history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. When you look at other vice presidents who have run for president when their president—as—as vice president, the president tends to
unknown
recede into the background. No one—if you go back to no one ever called Lyndon Johnson a shrinking violet, but he did not play a—much of a role in Hubert Humphrey's campaign in Closer to the recent past, and something I very much remember, Al Gore did not use Bill Clinton as much as some people thought he should have done, because I think understandably he didn't want
recede into the background. No one—if you go back to no one ever called Lyndon Johnson a shrinking violet, but he did not play a—much of a role in Hubert Humphrey's campaign in Closer to the recent past, and something I very much remember, Al Gore did not use Bill Clinton as much as some people thought he should have done, because I think understandably he didn't want
unknown
to be overshadowed by Bill Clinton, and while he was part of and then proud of being part of Bill Clinton's public record, he didn't want to be connected with all of Bill Clinton's personal behavior. So there is—whatever you think about Joe Biden—there is a history of if you have a sitting president whose vice president is running for president, there is a history of the sitting president sort of staying in the background. Okay, last question to you. We're perhaps a week away from knowing the outcome of this election. I don't know if you think we're going to have an answer or not by this time next week; we might not. Um, but with six days of campaigning left to go, I just want to ask you lastly of all, um, what you think the campaign is going to be focused on and should be focused on during these next and last six days. Well, I think that as with Vice President Harris's speech yesterday, at least her—her campaign—I won't pretend to presume to know what on earth Donald Trump will be talking about—but I think Vice
to be overshadowed by Bill Clinton, and while he was part of and then proud of being part of Bill Clinton's public record, he didn't want to be connected with all of Bill Clinton's personal behavior. So there is—whatever you think about Joe Biden—there is a history of if you have a sitting president whose vice president is running for president, there is a history of the sitting president sort of staying in the background. Okay, last question to you. We're perhaps a week away from knowing the outcome of this election. I don't know if you think we're going to have an answer or not by this time next week; we might not. Um, but with six days of campaigning left to go, I just want to ask you lastly of all, um, what you think the campaign is going to be focused on and should be focused on during these next and last six days. Well, I think that as with Vice President Harris's speech yesterday, at least her—her campaign—I won't pretend to presume to know what on earth Donald Trump will be talking about—but I think Vice
unknown
President Harris's campaign needs to have two levels of message. I think one of them is sort of the mega-meta-message about the survival of American democracy against a rival who talks about being a dictator on day one. And the other message is about, as she also talked about yesterday, is about bread and butter, it's about
President Harris's campaign needs to have two levels of message. I think one of them is sort of the mega-meta-message about the survival of American democracy against a rival who talks about being a dictator on day one. And the other message is about, as she also talked about yesterday, is about bread and butter, it's about
unknown
wages and prices, it's about making people's—helping people make their lives better. And I think she melded the two by saying that when she becomes president, her focus won't be on revenge and retribution, it will be on improving working people's lives. So I think you need those two messages and you need to
wages and prices, it's about making people's—helping people make their lives better. And I think she melded the two by saying that when she becomes president, her focus won't be on revenge and retribution, it will be on improving working people's lives. So I think you need those two messages and you need to
unknown
meld the two. All right, well we're out of time. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us and sharing your encyclopedic historical knowledge of all things US election. David Kusnet, thank you very much indeed. Well, thank you. Well, the former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has distanced himself from the racist remarks made by allies at his New York rally on Sunday. Speaking at a rally of his own in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Trump thanked Latinos for their support. "And I'm so proud that we're getting support from Latinos like never before. We're setting every record. Hispanics, Latinos, nobody loves our Latino community and our Puerto Rican community more than I do. Nobody. Incredible people, energetic, smart, great entrepreneurial people, we appreciate. And we have a lot of them here tonight. Thank you very much, Latinos, Hispanics, Puerto Rico." So has that event on Sunday damaged Donald Trump? Well, to answer that, I'm joined now by the former communications director for the Congressional
meld the two. All right, well we're out of time. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us and sharing your encyclopedic historical knowledge of all things US election. David Kusnet, thank you very much indeed. Well, thank you. Well, the former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has distanced himself from the racist remarks made by allies at his New York rally on Sunday. Speaking at a rally of his own in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Trump thanked Latinos for their support. "And I'm so proud that we're getting support from Latinos like never before. We're setting every record. Hispanics, Latinos, nobody loves our Latino community and our Puerto Rican community more than I do. Nobody. Incredible people, energetic, smart, great entrepreneurial people, we appreciate. And we have a lot of them here tonight. Thank you very much, Latinos, Hispanics, Puerto Rico." So has that event on Sunday damaged Donald Trump? Well, to answer that, I'm joined now by the former communications director for the Congressional
unknown
Hispanic Caucus, Cristian Ramos. Thank you very much indeed for speaking to us. Um, first of all, is the furor surrounding Sunday's event and in particular the comedian labeling Puerto Rico as an island of garbage—is that dying down, or does the debate continue? No, I—I think it absolutely is relevant and if anything is only picking up importance in places like Pennsylvania and Allentown when you have a lot of Puerto Ricans there that are going to be casting their vote on
Hispanic Caucus, Cristian Ramos. Thank you very much indeed for speaking to us. Um, first of all, is the furor surrounding Sunday's event and in particular the comedian labeling Puerto Rico as an island of garbage—is that dying down, or does the debate continue? No, I—I think it absolutely is relevant and if anything is only picking up importance in places like Pennsylvania and Allentown when you have a lot of Puerto Ricans there that are going to be casting their vote on
unknown
November 5th. I—I think we have an incredible opportunity here to capitalize on exactly how toxic MAGA is to the Latino community, to—to black people, to this country. And so no, I don't think it's dying down. I think this is very relevant and will be relevant all the way through election day. Trump obviously trying to move on from those comments and that controversy about the remarks in Madison Square Garden. Um, it sounds to me like you think he has not succeeded in doing that at all. Has he apologized? Has he said anything at all? Not personally, no. No. And—and his campaign hasn't apologized. Nobody's apologized. And what I think is fascinating is you've seen people who wanted to stay on the sidelines like Bad Bunny enter into this conversation in a real way. His endorsement is a Thanos-level event for—for Democrats, for those folks in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. There's a lot of Puerto Ricans there. Those states are hotly contested right now and it could really make the difference. And the reality is, look, Donald Trump at the end of the day, uh, he did not give
November 5th. I—I think we have an incredible opportunity here to capitalize on exactly how toxic MAGA is to the Latino community, to—to black people, to this country. And so no, I don't think it's dying down. I think this is very relevant and will be relevant all the way through election day. Trump obviously trying to move on from those comments and that controversy about the remarks in Madison Square Garden. Um, it sounds to me like you think he has not succeeded in doing that at all. Has he apologized? Has he said anything at all? Not personally, no. No. And—and his campaign hasn't apologized. Nobody's apologized. And what I think is fascinating is you've seen people who wanted to stay on the sidelines like Bad Bunny enter into this conversation in a real way. His endorsement is a Thanos-level event for—for Democrats, for those folks in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. There's a lot of Puerto Ricans there. Those states are hotly contested right now and it could really make the difference. And the reality is, look, Donald Trump at the end of the day, uh, he did not give
unknown
money to Puerto Rico when the hurricane came and devastated it. When he went, he was throwing towels at Puerto Ricans who were looking for food and for help. Uh,
money to Puerto Rico when the hurricane came and devastated it. When he went, he was throwing towels at Puerto Ricans who were looking for food and for help. Uh,
unknown
he has a dismal record with Puerto Ricans. And so in a state like Pennsylvania, again, where Puerto Ricans make up a huge number of those voters, this is really bad for him heading into the general election. Well, he says, and he said this yesterday, he's done more for Puerto Rico than any president, I think, that's ever been president. What—what's he getting at? I have no idea. That's not true. So if you could tell me anything that he's done that would help Puerto Rico in—in the last, you know, in his presidency. Again, I think—I think he's referring to that visit that he made after the—after the
he has a dismal record with Puerto Ricans. And so in a state like Pennsylvania, again, where Puerto Ricans make up a huge number of those voters, this is really bad for him heading into the general election. Well, he says, and he said this yesterday, he's done more for Puerto Rico than any president, I think, that's ever been president. What—what's he getting at? I have no idea. That's not true. So if you could tell me anything that he's done that would help Puerto Rico in—in the last, you know, in his presidency. Again, I think—I think he's referring to that visit that he made after the—after the
unknown
storm during his presidency. There in Allentown in Pennsylvania yesterday, we had Donald Trump saying he loves Latinos. Um, do you—do you believe him when he says he loves Latinos? Well, let's—let's review here. He started his presidential campaign in by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. And he's ending his current presidential campaign by saying that Puerto Rico is an island of garbage. He lost more jobs for Latinos than any president in the history of the country. Right? He's the only president to leave office with less jobs created than when he came in. And he continues to demonize our community, saying that immigrants are, you know, are poisoning the blood of our—our country, you know, echoing Hitler. He's compared immigrants to rats. No, I don't think Donald Trump loves Latinos. No. And just looking at—you mentioned Pennsylvania being a state where there's a really important Latino and Puerto Rican community. people of Puerto Rican heritage just in Pennsylvania, a swing state. I mean, are they all on the same page, do you think? Or mostly on the same page? And therefore, how expensive a mistake do you think it was to have Tony Hinchcliffe on the stage on Sunday? So, I am fortunate to have a lot of Puerto Rican friends, right? There is one thing I can say with absolute confidence about Puerto Ricans: they love their island. They have incredible pride in where they come from, and they are very, very passionate about their politics. And so what I hear from folks in Pennsylvania, what I hear from folks, you know, all over the country: they're mad. And those folks who were on the sidelines, who felt like, you know, they didn't know how they were going to vote this election, they know now. They are ready to go out and elect Kamala Harris for president. So, you know, this is a disaster for Donald Trump, any way
storm during his presidency. There in Allentown in Pennsylvania yesterday, we had Donald Trump saying he loves Latinos. Um, do you—do you believe him when he says he loves Latinos? Well, let's—let's review here. He started his presidential campaign in by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. And he's ending his current presidential campaign by saying that Puerto Rico is an island of garbage. He lost more jobs for Latinos than any president in the history of the country. Right? He's the only president to leave office with less jobs created than when he came in. And he continues to demonize our community, saying that immigrants are, you know, are poisoning the blood of our—our country, you know, echoing Hitler. He's compared immigrants to rats. No, I don't think Donald Trump loves Latinos. No. And just looking at—you mentioned Pennsylvania being a state where there's a really important Latino and Puerto Rican community. people of Puerto Rican heritage just in Pennsylvania, a swing state. I mean, are they all on the same page, do you think? Or mostly on the same page? And therefore, how expensive a mistake do you think it was to have Tony Hinchcliffe on the stage on Sunday? So, I am fortunate to have a lot of Puerto Rican friends, right? There is one thing I can say with absolute confidence about Puerto Ricans: they love their island. They have incredible pride in where they come from, and they are very, very passionate about their politics. And so what I hear from folks in Pennsylvania, what I hear from folks, you know, all over the country: they're mad. And those folks who were on the sidelines, who felt like, you know, they didn't know how they were going to vote this election, they know now. They are ready to go out and elect Kamala Harris for president. So, you know, this is a disaster for Donald Trump, any way
unknown
you slice it. And when it comes
you slice it. And when it comes
unknown
to Latino representation
to Latino representation
unknown
in US politics, do you think one party has done a better job than the other in terms of promoting people to prominent figures within the party who come from a Latino heritage and therefore are better at building bridges with those communities? Uh, absolutely. The Democratic Party has the stronger record in terms of, you name it, cabinet officials, government officials, elected officials. I don't even think there's
in US politics, do you think one party has done a better job than the other in terms of promoting people to prominent figures within the party who come from a Latino heritage and therefore are better at building bridges with those communities? Uh, absolutely. The Democratic Party has the stronger record in terms of, you name it, cabinet officials, government officials, elected officials. I don't even think there's
unknown
a comparison here.
a comparison here.
unknown
And I think it's remarkable to me how bad Republicans are at this. And that's not to say that there aren't conservatives that are Latino. There are, of course. I think, you know, of Latinos in this country are conservative. But the majority are Democrats because the party continues to deliver for them and is, you know, been good for their bottom line over the last modern political history. Just reading some articles about Latino voters, their voter intentions, and how they feel going into this election. And obviously you're much better placed than I am reading articles to say whether this is true or not, but a lot of people quoted as saying they feel a sense of "political homelessness." Do you think political homelessness—is that a good term to describe a large section of the
And I think it's remarkable to me how bad Republicans are at this. And that's not to say that there aren't conservatives that are Latino. There are, of course. I think, you know, of Latinos in this country are conservative. But the majority are Democrats because the party continues to deliver for them and is, you know, been good for their bottom line over the last modern political history. Just reading some articles about Latino voters, their voter intentions, and how they feel going into this election. And obviously you're much better placed than I am reading articles to say whether this is true or not, but a lot of people quoted as saying they feel a sense of "political homelessness." Do you think political homelessness—is that a good term to describe a large section of the
unknown
Latino community in the United
Latino community in the United
unknown
States? So what I think is true is younger Latinos in general, and particularly younger Latino men, do not have a party preference. I think when they are looking at the country and the political parties, they have a lot of questions and they're trying to figure out exactly how they fit into
States? So what I think is true is younger Latinos in general, and particularly younger Latino men, do not have a party preference. I think when they are looking at the country and the political parties, they have a lot of questions and they're trying to figure out exactly how they fit into
unknown
this conversation. And so I think that's true for a part of the Latino community, absolutely. And I think generally speaking, this election cycle probably more than in past, Latinos are open to hearing from both parties. But I think the real issue here is the other party is a dumpster fire. MAGA is not a serious political movement.
this conversation. And so I think that's true for a part of the Latino community, absolutely. And I think generally speaking, this election cycle probably more than in past, Latinos are open to hearing from both parties. But I think the real issue here is the other party is a dumpster fire. MAGA is not a serious political movement.
unknown
Um, it is really sad and scary what they stand for. Is there anything that stands out when it comes to priorities at the forefront of voters' minds when they're casting their ballots? Is there anything that stands out when you look at opinion polls as being higher up the list of concerns amongst the Latino demographic in the United States? Look, I think the economy's always going to be critically important to this community as it is to all voters. I think Kamala has an incredible record to run on. I think Kamala has an incredible story to tell of job creation, small business creation, and has done incredible work for the Latino community. What I find fascinating is this conversation that we're having about immigration, and in particular, mass deportation. Work that we've done with the Valiente Action Fund
Um, it is really sad and scary what they stand for. Is there anything that stands out when it comes to priorities at the forefront of voters' minds when they're casting their ballots? Is there anything that stands out when you look at opinion polls as being higher up the list of concerns amongst the Latino demographic in the United States? Look, I think the economy's always going to be critically important to this community as it is to all voters. I think Kamala has an incredible record to run on. I think Kamala has an incredible story to tell of job creation, small business creation, and has done incredible work for the Latino community. What I find fascinating is this conversation that we're having about immigration, and in particular, mass deportation. Work that we've done with the Valiente Action Fund
unknown
around mass deportation, research that we did found that most people have no idea what it is. And so you have some polls that sort of show support for it, but once you unpack that and once you really go into the human cost of what that would look like, people do not like it. People do not want it. And
around mass deportation, research that we did found that most people have no idea what it is. And so you have some polls that sort of show support for it, but once you unpack that and once you really go into the human cost of what that would look like, people do not like it. People do not want it. And
unknown
so I do think this is another sort of area where Donald Trump has really run on an issue that's very unpopular with most people once they understand what it is. He refuses to talk about it, right? He refuses to say this is exactly what mass deportation does and is. So, uh, yeah, it's—it's wild. And yet, I mean, and this is again I know the polls are obviously open to interpretation; there are many polls that say different things. But one poll I've been looking at shows Kamala Harris is about
so I do think this is another sort of area where Donald Trump has really run on an issue that's very unpopular with most people once they understand what it is. He refuses to talk about it, right? He refuses to say this is exactly what mass deportation does and is. So, uh, yeah, it's—it's wild. And yet, I mean, and this is again I know the polls are obviously open to interpretation; there are many polls that say different things. But one poll I've been looking at shows Kamala Harris is about
unknown
points ahead of Donald Trump amongst Latino voters. But that's not very much, is it, when you consider that Joe Biden in had about a 26-point lead. So I'm just wondering why you think the gap has narrowed so significantly.
points ahead of Donald Trump amongst Latino voters. But that's not very much, is it, when you consider that Joe Biden in had about a 26-point lead. So I'm just wondering why you think the gap has narrowed so significantly.
unknown
Well, I think it really depends on the poll you're looking at. I think if you're looking at high-quality polls with oversamples of Latinos that are just Latino voters, Kamala Harris breaks which is more or less where Joe Biden was in So, you know, I don't want to get on the poller-coaster with you here. What I see in early vote numbers is that Latinos are supporting Kamala at roughly the same amount that they did at this time in and, uh, you
Well, I think it really depends on the poll you're looking at. I think if you're looking at high-quality polls with oversamples of Latinos that are just Latino voters, Kamala Harris breaks which is more or less where Joe Biden was in So, you know, I don't want to get on the poller-coaster with you here. What I see in early vote numbers is that Latinos are supporting Kamala at roughly the same amount that they did at this time in and, uh, you
unknown
know, we have a lot of time left on the clock here—well, seven days, but there's—there's time to continue to grow and build on those numbers. So I feel—I feel good about where we are right now. Do you think this is going to be—I mean, these next six days obviously are going to be crucial. And it was always going to be down to seven
know, we have a lot of time left on the clock here—well, seven days, but there's—there's time to continue to grow and build on those numbers. So I feel—I feel good about where we are right now. Do you think this is going to be—I mean, these next six days obviously are going to be crucial. And it was always going to be down to seven
unknown
swing states, it was always going to be down to winning over certain demographics. Do you think this issue of offense caused to Latino people in the United States is going to be looked back upon as being the deciding factor in what was already going to be a razor-thin margin election? So I think everybody is very focused on the Electoral College, rightfully so. I think for the Blue Wall states,
swing states, it was always going to be down to winning over certain demographics. Do you think this issue of offense caused to Latino people in the United States is going to be looked back upon as being the deciding factor in what was already going to be a razor-thin margin election? So I think everybody is very focused on the Electoral College, rightfully so. I think for the Blue Wall states,
unknown
right—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin—Latinos and Puerto Ricans in particular in Pennsylvania and Allentown are going to be critically important to winning. In Nevada and Arizona, Latinos are also going to be—in the Sun Belt states—also critically important. So Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, also very important. And then you throw in North Carolina, also incredibly important. There are a lot of paths to victory for Kamala here, less so for Donald Trump. And I think that makes me cautiously optimistic about where we're going to be on election day.
right—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin—Latinos and Puerto Ricans in particular in Pennsylvania and Allentown are going to be critically important to winning. In Nevada and Arizona, Latinos are also going to be—in the Sun Belt states—also critically important. So Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, also very important. And then you throw in North Carolina, also incredibly important. There are a lot of paths to victory for Kamala here, less so for Donald Trump. And I think that makes me cautiously optimistic about where we're going to be on election day.
unknown
But right now, yeah, it's going to be a very close race, and I think it was always going to come down to, as you said, these battleground states, but more importantly, black and Latino voters are going to be critically important to
But right now, yeah, it's going to be a very close race, and I think it was always going to come down to, as you said, these battleground states, but more importantly, black and Latino voters are going to be critically important to
unknown
Kamala in those states, right? In Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. It's their—it's that combination of those two that are going to help us put—put us over the top. Yeah, and from this part of the world, obviously we're very interested in the voting intentions of Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, um, in particular with regards to the Biden administration's track record on—on foreign policy, and that's something very much that we've discussed. But I'm just wondering whether—this is my last question to you—whether you think that the sudden winning over of more Latino voters from the Trump campaign is going to somehow compensate for the loss of votes that perhaps Kamala Harris could have counted on were it
Kamala in those states, right? In Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. It's their—it's that combination of those two that are going to help us put—put us over the top. Yeah, and from this part of the world, obviously we're very interested in the voting intentions of Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, um, in particular with regards to the Biden administration's track record on—on foreign policy, and that's something very much that we've discussed. But I'm just wondering whether—this is my last question to you—whether you think that the sudden winning over of more Latino voters from the Trump campaign is going to somehow compensate for the loss of votes that perhaps Kamala Harris could have counted on were it
unknown
not
not
unknown
for the Biden administration's record on—on foreign policy in the Middle
for the Biden administration's record on—on foreign policy in the Middle
unknown
East? Well, so I don't see that as of yet as it relates to foreign policy. Uh, what I see is a lot of frustration around the economy. I see
East? Well, so I don't see that as of yet as it relates to foreign policy. Uh, what I see is a lot of frustration around the economy. I see
unknown
a lot of frustration around cost of living and housing and things like that. And it, you know, we have—again, we haven't lost these voters. Um, that remains to be
a lot of frustration around cost of living and housing and things like that. And it, you know, we have—again, we haven't lost these voters. Um, that remains to be
unknown
seen what's going to happen there. I feel fairly confident we're going to be okay. But yeah, um, I don't see that as it relates to foreign policy with the Latino community here domestically. Okay. Well, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for taking the time
seen what's going to happen there. I feel fairly confident we're going to be okay. But yeah, um, I don't see that as it relates to foreign policy with the Latino community here domestically. Okay. Well, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for taking the time
unknown
to speak to us, former communications director for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Cristian Ramos. Thank you very much indeed. Well, as the election draws ever closer, Kamala Harris's lead over Donald Trump has narrowed significantly. According to the latest Ipsos poll, Harris now leads by a slim margin: to Trump's leaving her with only a one-point advantage nationwide. Well, that poll also shows that Harris's lead has gradually decreased since late September. Well, a separate Rasmussen poll points to a possible challenge for the vice president regarding public perception. The poll indicates
to speak to us, former communications director for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Cristian Ramos. Thank you very much indeed. Well, as the election draws ever closer, Kamala Harris's lead over Donald Trump has narrowed significantly. According to the latest Ipsos poll, Harris now leads by a slim margin: to Trump's leaving her with only a one-point advantage nationwide. Well, that poll also shows that Harris's lead has gradually decreased since late September. Well, a separate Rasmussen poll points to a possible challenge for the vice president regarding public perception. The poll indicates
unknown
that of likely US voters view her favorably; express a very favorable opinion. However, have an unfavorable view, with holding a very unfavorable impression of her. Well, national polling averages, including 538's tracker, show the Democratic presidential nominee with a 1.4-point lead over the former president,
that of likely US voters view her favorably; express a very favorable opinion. However, have an unfavorable view, with holding a very unfavorable impression of her. Well, national polling averages, including 538's tracker, show the Democratic presidential nominee with a 1.4-point lead over the former president,
unknown
underscoring just how close the race has become in its final days. Let's get more now with the Trump biographer and author of *The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President*, Gwenda Blair. Thank you so much indeed for taking the time to speak to us. Um, back in when you wrote your book, you said in the preface, "There is nothing authentic or spontaneous about what Donald Trump says; everything is considered strategic," and
underscoring just how close the race has become in its final days. Let's get more now with the Trump biographer and author of *The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President*, Gwenda Blair. Thank you so much indeed for taking the time to speak to us. Um, back in when you wrote your book, you said in the preface, "There is nothing authentic or spontaneous about what Donald Trump says; everything is considered strategic," and
unknown
then you go on to describe him as being the most artificial of creatures in every possible respect. Here we are, eight years since you wrote that. Has he changed? Not a bit. Not a bit. So you fully stand by that. Why—why do you think he's so artificial? What—what is it
then you go on to describe him as being the most artificial of creatures in every possible respect. Here we are, eight years since you wrote that. Has he changed? Not a bit. Not a bit. So you fully stand by that. Why—why do you think he's so artificial? What—what is it
unknown
about—what was your argument, and why do you think he remains someone who is, in your view, so artificial? He has made, really, the country, arguably the world, into a kind of reality world, reality nation, reality world, coming off of his success in beginning in with that television show *The Apprentice*, an early reality TV hit, in which nothing is really quite real. You don't exactly know, you think you know, you know it's a TV show, uh, but you soon—as soon as you start watching, you forget. And watching him, you think this is an authentic candidate making, you know, an argument, and then you forget that he's actually performing. He's performing as a
about—what was your argument, and why do you think he remains someone who is, in your view, so artificial? He has made, really, the country, arguably the world, into a kind of reality world, reality nation, reality world, coming off of his success in beginning in with that television show *The Apprentice*, an early reality TV hit, in which nothing is really quite real. You don't exactly know, you think you know, you know it's a TV show, uh, but you soon—as soon as you start watching, you forget. And watching him, you think this is an authentic candidate making, you know, an argument, and then you forget that he's actually performing. He's performing as a
unknown
candidate, he's performing as someone who can do all these things. And there's the—you don't—there's no kind of
candidate, he's performing as someone who can do all these things. And there's the—you don't—there's no kind of
unknown
"there" there. There's a performance. There's a—early on in his career, someone coined the phrase "exaggerated hyperbole" to describe how he conducts himself, what he says to the world. And that really, I was thinking about that this morning, it's really a kind of grandiose way of saying "lying." Exaggerated hyperbole means not the truth, and he has
"there" there. There's a performance. There's a—early on in his career, someone coined the phrase "exaggerated hyperbole" to describe how he conducts himself, what he says to the world. And that really, I was thinking about that this morning, it's really a kind of grandiose way of saying "lying." Exaggerated hyperbole means not the truth, and he has
unknown
carried that forward. And when you say he's not spontaneous—I mean, we sometimes hear Donald Trump make speeches and, you know, they do sometimes not respect a particular timeframe, they seem to go on quite a long time. Um, I'm just wondering whether you think that lack of spontaneity endures, or whether you think he's got perhaps a bit more spontaneous with the passage of time. I think there's a kind of a pretense of spontaneity in a way. It's all about sort of control, and controlling the experience of someone watching him, of—of—of saying that he's the one who's deciding whether what he says is going to happen, isn't going to happen. He—he is, as we have seen over the years,
carried that forward. And when you say he's not spontaneous—I mean, we sometimes hear Donald Trump make speeches and, you know, they do sometimes not respect a particular timeframe, they seem to go on quite a long time. Um, I'm just wondering whether you think that lack of spontaneity endures, or whether you think he's got perhaps a bit more spontaneous with the passage of time. I think there's a kind of a pretense of spontaneity in a way. It's all about sort of control, and controlling the experience of someone watching him, of—of—of saying that he's the one who's deciding whether what he says is going to happen, isn't going to happen. He—he is, as we have seen over the years,
unknown
constantly saying something and then stepping away from it and saying, "Oh, you didn't get that that was a joke. You didn't get that I was being sarcastic." So there's no kind of enduring through-line. He's—it's all aimed at that. So that is the
constantly saying something and then stepping away from it and saying, "Oh, you didn't get that that was a joke. You didn't get that I was being sarcastic." So there's no kind of enduring through-line. He's—it's all aimed at that. So that is the
unknown
sense in which I said he's not spontaneous. It's all aimed at the notion that only he can decide whether what he said he really meant. And at any given moment, he could say, "Oh, I didn't really mean it," or "I meant it even more so," and go back and forth. He's the one who gets to decide, and it's that kind of control over how people experience what he's saying, in that sense, it's not spontaneous. Gwenda, let's talk a bit about Donald Trump's supporters and the nearly of Americans who are most likely going to vote for him next Tuesday. Um, do you think the profile of a typical Donald Trump supporter has changed over the years, certainly since he first came onto the political scene? Or do you think the socioeconomic profile of the average Trump supporter has largely remained the same? What—what's your thinking on this? This is the 64—we used to say million, billion, trillion, quadrillion dollar question. Uh,
sense in which I said he's not spontaneous. It's all aimed at the notion that only he can decide whether what he said he really meant. And at any given moment, he could say, "Oh, I didn't really mean it," or "I meant it even more so," and go back and forth. He's the one who gets to decide, and it's that kind of control over how people experience what he's saying, in that sense, it's not spontaneous. Gwenda, let's talk a bit about Donald Trump's supporters and the nearly of Americans who are most likely going to vote for him next Tuesday. Um, do you think the profile of a typical Donald Trump supporter has changed over the years, certainly since he first came onto the political scene? Or do you think the socioeconomic profile of the average Trump supporter has largely remained the same? What—what's your thinking on this? This is the 64—we used to say million, billion, trillion, quadrillion dollar question. Uh,
unknown
and it seems in one sense, no, it hasn't changed because these are people who want permission to be really angry and to really hate somebody else and to hold somebody else or some other "they" responsible for however things don't seem to be working out. So in that sense,
and it seems in one sense, no, it hasn't changed because these are people who want permission to be really angry and to really hate somebody else and to hold somebody else or some other "they" responsible for however things don't seem to be working out. So in that sense,
unknown
that's an ongoing identity. Um, who exactly fills that identity has shifted somewhat. Um, after the Supreme Court decision that did away with the right to abortion, the people who—the Republican women who had been staunch Trump supporters have shifted over somewhat. There's been more of a gender divide; women
that's an ongoing identity. Um, who exactly fills that identity has shifted somewhat. Um, after the Supreme Court decision that did away with the right to abortion, the people who—the Republican women who had been staunch Trump supporters have shifted over somewhat. There's been more of a gender divide; women
unknown
who used to vote for Trump, some number—we don't know how many, we won't know
who used to vote for Trump, some number—we don't know how many, we won't know
unknown
until after the election—have shifted over to wanting to vote for Kamala Harris, who promises to protect the right to abortion. Um, and the Trump message has had—seems to have more appeal to people of color who have conservative views and are hearing that permission to be angry being given to
until after the election—have shifted over to wanting to vote for Kamala Harris, who promises to protect the right to abortion. Um, and the Trump message has had—seems to have more appeal to people of color who have conservative views and are hearing that permission to be angry being given to
unknown
them if they vote for him. So there's been somewhat of a shift within the people who fill out that identity, but I think the overall identity of people who want permission, who are attracted to the idea of permission to hate, to be angry, to think that someone else is responsible for why their lives aren't working—that remains the same. And having studied not just Donald Trump but previous generations of Trumps—I mean, to what extent do you think Donald Trump is his own persona, his own self-made persona, and to what extent do you think he is the product of those previous generations? He's taken it to a next level, the Trump family culture, to the next level. That is absolutely true. But it has been a transactional family culture in which anything goes if it's self-interest and in which everything is put through an analysis of whether it will help out whichever generation
them if they vote for him. So there's been somewhat of a shift within the people who fill out that identity, but I think the overall identity of people who want permission, who are attracted to the idea of permission to hate, to be angry, to think that someone else is responsible for why their lives aren't working—that remains the same. And having studied not just Donald Trump but previous generations of Trumps—I mean, to what extent do you think Donald Trump is his own persona, his own self-made persona, and to what extent do you think he is the product of those previous generations? He's taken it to a next level, the Trump family culture, to the next level. That is absolutely true. But it has been a transactional family culture in which anything goes if it's self-interest and in which everything is put through an analysis of whether it will help out whichever generation
unknown
of Trump it is. Um, the grandfather who had saloons in the West of the United States kind of at the end of the 19th century, in which the market was single young men out there in the gold rush and he provided liquor, food, proximity to women—that was what was going to make a fortune, or a small fortune, not a gigantic one but enough of a nest egg. Uh, and he also left Germany just young enough to escape mandatory military service, tried to go back just old
of Trump it is. Um, the grandfather who had saloons in the West of the United States kind of at the end of the 19th century, in which the market was single young men out there in the gold rush and he provided liquor, food, proximity to women—that was what was going to make a fortune, or a small fortune, not a gigantic one but enough of a nest egg. Uh, and he also left Germany just young enough to escape mandatory military service, tried to go back just old
unknown
enough to be ineligible for service. Um, so that was a different—another kind of transactional move. Um, and Donald's father, Fred, made a much larger fortune out of federal government supports for housing after—during—in the '30s, '40s, '50s in the New York City area mostly. And he saw the kind of wiggle-room place for himself to be able to extract
enough to be ineligible for service. Um, so that was a different—another kind of transactional move. Um, and Donald's father, Fred, made a much larger fortune out of federal government supports for housing after—during—in the '30s, '40s, '50s in the New York City area mostly. And he saw the kind of wiggle-room place for himself to be able to extract
unknown
windfall profits out of that whole arrangement of federal support for housing. And he did very well by that. And Donald saw kind
windfall profits out of that whole arrangement of federal support for housing. And he did very well by that. And Donald saw kind
unknown
of
of
unknown
the next generation was one in which he saw, that is Donald, that the opportunity was going to be for that same transactional self-interest move was going to be through branding, through making himself as big as possible so that he could get away with as much as possible. And—and just lastly, I mean obviously we can turn our attention now to next future generations of Trumps. There's perhaps another book in here for you, because Donald Trump is now himself a grandfather. He's years old. Um, in your view, what will a second Trump presidency look like? Or
the next generation was one in which he saw, that is Donald, that the opportunity was going to be for that same transactional self-interest move was going to be through branding, through making himself as big as possible so that he could get away with as much as possible. And—and just lastly, I mean obviously we can turn our attention now to next future generations of Trumps. There's perhaps another book in here for you, because Donald Trump is now himself a grandfather. He's years old. Um, in your view, what will a second Trump presidency look like? Or
unknown
what would it look like, I should say, if he wins? A second Trump presidency? What would that look like? I think it would be off the rails. That the first Trump presidency, he did have people in his administration who seemed to have kind of kept things—the lid on to some degree, who had some regard for precedent, who had some regard for the law, who had some regard for appearances. And he, in the eight years since that he was elected the first time, there has been a concerted effort by people who support him to erect a much more armored—I'm not sure if I want to say bulletproof, but let's just say armored, well-armored effort to plow ahead and not be constrained by precedent, not be constrained
what would it look like, I should say, if he wins? A second Trump presidency? What would that look like? I think it would be off the rails. That the first Trump presidency, he did have people in his administration who seemed to have kind of kept things—the lid on to some degree, who had some regard for precedent, who had some regard for the law, who had some regard for appearances. And he, in the eight years since that he was elected the first time, there has been a concerted effort by people who support him to erect a much more armored—I'm not sure if I want to say bulletproof, but let's just say armored, well-armored effort to plow ahead and not be constrained by precedent, not be constrained
unknown
by history,
by history,
unknown
not be constrained by, you know, popular expectations, not be constrained by anything in promoting this sort of whole transactional
not be constrained by, you know, popular expectations, not be constrained by anything in promoting this sort of whole transactional
unknown
government in which the goal is to be to the profit and well-being of Donald Trump. Okay, well we're going to have to leave it there. I'm being told we're out of time, but I'd like to say a very big thank you to you, Gwenda Blair, for taking the time to speak to us here on Al Arabiya News. Oh, my great pleasure. Nice to be with you. Well, that is all we have time for for today's edition of Global News Today. Thank you for watching. Be sure to join us again tomorrow for more exclusive interviews. Until then, goodbye. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets
government in which the goal is to be to the profit and well-being of Donald Trump. Okay, well we're going to have to leave it there. I'm being told we're out of time, but I'd like to say a very big thank you to you, Gwenda Blair, for taking the time to speak to us here on Al Arabiya News. Oh, my great pleasure. Nice to be with you. Well, that is all we have time for for today's edition of Global News Today. Thank you for watching. Be sure to join us again tomorrow for more exclusive interviews. Until then, goodbye. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets
unknown
perspective. Your Excellency. So thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Sarah, and welcome to Riyadh and hopefully this will not be the last. I'm already planning the next trip. Um, so you know, when—when I told some of the CEOs, the American CEOs, that I was going to interview you in this fireside
perspective. Your Excellency. So thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Sarah, and welcome to Riyadh and hopefully this will not be the last. I'm already planning the next trip. Um, so you know, when—when I told some of the CEOs, the American CEOs, that I was going to interview you in this fireside
unknown
chat, they said, "Oh, we love him. He's such an interesting guy and part of the reason, you know, we come and we invest and we have all these great conversations." So I was wondering if you could just start the conversation—we'll talk about your view on—on the economy and global—but I do—I do wonder if you could just start by asking your story and how you got to be Finance Minister, because it's not a traditional route and you're a lawyer, right? I am, I am. Well,
chat, they said, "Oh, we love him. He's such an interesting guy and part of the reason, you know, we come and we invest and we have all these great conversations." So I was wondering if you could just start the conversation—we'll talk about your view on—on the economy and global—but I do—I do wonder if you could just start by asking your story and how you got to be Finance Minister, because it's not a traditional route and you're a lawyer, right? I am, I am. Well,
unknown
that's a good question. Thank you very much, Sarah, for—for being here, for your interest, and I thank everybody here for participating in this event. Very quickly, I am a father of three: two boys and one girl. I practiced law for most of my life, a lot of it
that's a good question. Thank you very much, Sarah, for—for being here, for your interest, and I thank everybody here for participating in this event. Very quickly, I am a father of three: two boys and one girl. I practiced law for most of my life, a lot of it
unknown
related to corporate. Um, I became the chair of the Capital Market Authority in and then Minister of Finance late '16. Um, you don't have actually so much relationship between what I studied and what I'm doing now, but I think I'm trying to do the right thing when—on what I'm doing now compared to also what
related to corporate. Um, I became the chair of the Capital Market Authority in and then Minister of Finance late '16. Um, you don't have actually so much relationship between what I studied and what I'm doing now, but I think I'm trying to do the right thing when—on what I'm doing now compared to also what
unknown
I was doing before. I think there are some similarities, but they are not definitely related. Eight years now, I could tell you I feel at home. You're one of the longest-serving Finance Ministers at the IMF, and I know you have this leadership role in the IMFC. You're regular at the IMF World Bank meetings, just had one last week in Washington. And—and I wonder what your view is right now on the global economy and where Saudi Arabia fits in right now. Um, I just came from Washington. I mean, we just had the annual meetings of the IMF World Bank Group. And overall, I think a lot of people feel that the global economy is proving to be a lot more resilient than what people thought. Um, inflation is coming under control; we are at the last mile of bringing inflation down, and I think overall we are getting into a soft landing, as it is called. Um, but that is not actually even globally. I mean, there are uneven situations within regions and within countries where there are countries which are still really struggling. Um, debt is a big issue; sovereign debt is a serious, serious challenge that we discussed extensively globally. And I'm working as a chair of the IMFC with the IMF, the World Bank, the G20, to
I was doing before. I think there are some similarities, but they are not definitely related. Eight years now, I could tell you I feel at home. You're one of the longest-serving Finance Ministers at the IMF, and I know you have this leadership role in the IMFC. You're regular at the IMF World Bank meetings, just had one last week in Washington. And—and I wonder what your view is right now on the global economy and where Saudi Arabia fits in right now. Um, I just came from Washington. I mean, we just had the annual meetings of the IMF World Bank Group. And overall, I think a lot of people feel that the global economy is proving to be a lot more resilient than what people thought. Um, inflation is coming under control; we are at the last mile of bringing inflation down, and I think overall we are getting into a soft landing, as it is called. Um, but that is not actually even globally. I mean, there are uneven situations within regions and within countries where there are countries which are still really struggling. Um, debt is a big issue; sovereign debt is a serious, serious challenge that we discussed extensively globally. And I'm working as a chair of the IMFC with the IMF, the World Bank, the G20, to
unknown
try and make sure that we bring the world into a path of sustainable growth and lower debt, rather than the current trajectory of, you know, difficult growth and higher debt. But how do you do that when we're in a period where there's increasing fragmentation and some say deglobalization, and countries are putting up more walls and we are
try and make sure that we bring the world into a path of sustainable growth and lower debt, rather than the current trajectory of, you know, difficult growth and higher debt. But how do you do that when we're in a period where there's increasing fragmentation and some say deglobalization, and countries are putting up more walls and we are
unknown
seeing more geopolitical conflict? Doesn't it make that coordination that you're trying to do harder? Two things. I think fragmentation is getting more serious, if I want to prescribe it shortly. That said, I think we need to be very careful when describing this. I mean, trade, international trade is actually growing despite all the rhetoric, despite all the
seeing more geopolitical conflict? Doesn't it make that coordination that you're trying to do harder? Two things. I think fragmentation is getting more serious, if I want to prescribe it shortly. That said, I think we need to be very careful when describing this. I mean, trade, international trade is actually growing despite all the rhetoric, despite all the
unknown
negative news that we hear globally. Global trade is actually growing. For now. We don't know who wins the US election. That's right, but regardless of who wins the election, um, we had both sides of the aisle in the White House, and under both, still, um, trade has grown. Um, that said, there are obviously serious restrictions that are being put by nations year after year, and that impacts global trade. I think currently, under the current circumstances of serious geopolitical
negative news that we hear globally. Global trade is actually growing. For now. We don't know who wins the US election. That's right, but regardless of who wins the election, um, we had both sides of the aisle in the White House, and under both, still, um, trade has grown. Um, that said, there are obviously serious restrictions that are being put by nations year after year, and that impacts global trade. I think currently, under the current circumstances of serious geopolitical
unknown
uncertainties, um, we need to build bridges rather than really burn them. Global communities need to come together. There are serious challenges
uncertainties, um, we need to build bridges rather than really burn them. Global communities need to come together. There are serious challenges
unknown
around the world that cannot be resolved by one country alone, and therefore a cooperative approach is necessary. I can tell you firsthand that when we discussed over the last year how we are going to deal with the IMF capitalization, how we are going to deal with the IMF surcharges and charges um for borrowing countries, the whole global community came together and voted unanimously in favor of multilateralism. So that gives me hope and confirms my optimist approach. Even though there are challenges, still I think the global community feels the importance of multilateralism. What about the kingdom? You know, so many people here for FII, there's just such excitement and optimism. I know you've been probably in conversations with investors and CEOs globally for the last hours. What is it? Why do you think there is so much bullishness around what's happening here? Few things. One is this is one of the brightest spots in the world in terms of what investors are looking for. What investors look for in brief is return and risk-return adjust. So they are looking for stable place to invest, they are looking for long-term plans, they are looking for leadership who are bold and able to make tough decisions. They are looking for an environment where public consultation is there, that there is a very clear communication of what the plans are. They are looking for a society that is young and vibrant, well-educated
around the world that cannot be resolved by one country alone, and therefore a cooperative approach is necessary. I can tell you firsthand that when we discussed over the last year how we are going to deal with the IMF capitalization, how we are going to deal with the IMF surcharges and charges um for borrowing countries, the whole global community came together and voted unanimously in favor of multilateralism. So that gives me hope and confirms my optimist approach. Even though there are challenges, still I think the global community feels the importance of multilateralism. What about the kingdom? You know, so many people here for FII, there's just such excitement and optimism. I know you've been probably in conversations with investors and CEOs globally for the last hours. What is it? Why do you think there is so much bullishness around what's happening here? Few things. One is this is one of the brightest spots in the world in terms of what investors are looking for. What investors look for in brief is return and risk-return adjust. So they are looking for stable place to invest, they are looking for long-term plans, they are looking for leadership who are bold and able to make tough decisions. They are looking for an environment where public consultation is there, that there is a very clear communication of what the plans are. They are looking for a society that is young and vibrant, well-educated
unknown
and engaged and enthusiastic about what's happening in the country. They are looking for a dynamic regulatory framework that is conducive and supportive and enabling to the private sector. And we are strong believers. I mean, no matter how much resources as a country you have, you cannot do what
and engaged and enthusiastic about what's happening in the country. They are looking for a dynamic regulatory framework that is conducive and supportive and enabling to the private sector. And we are strong believers. I mean, no matter how much resources as a country you have, you cannot do what
unknown
you need to do without the private sector. And if you have the enabling environment, that's what the private sector needs. I can tell you a very enlightening quote from a prominent investor who was here yesterday. When I asked them why are you doing it, and the
you need to do without the private sector. And if you have the enabling environment, that's what the private sector needs. I can tell you a very enlightening quote from a prominent investor who was here yesterday. When I asked them why are you doing it, and the
unknown
question—their response was: I really did not come here for Saudi Vision promises; I came here for what Saudi Vision delivered. And what it delivered, it delivered actually a lot. If you look at our GDP, the non-oil GDP for a country like Saudi Arabia—this is significant—the non-oil GDP now represents about of the economy. Um, unemployment from what it was when we started vision for Saudis, 13%—now it's at We had a target
question—their response was: I really did not come here for Saudi Vision promises; I came here for what Saudi Vision delivered. And what it delivered, it delivered actually a lot. If you look at our GDP, the non-oil GDP for a country like Saudi Arabia—this is significant—the non-oil GDP now represents about of the economy. Um, unemployment from what it was when we started vision for Saudis, 13%—now it's at We had a target
unknown
of in we are about to hit that target. We mobilized the resources of the country in terms of human capital significantly. Women empowerment has been a key pillar of what Saudi Vision is
of in we are about to hit that target. We mobilized the resources of the country in terms of human capital significantly. Women empowerment has been a key pillar of what Saudi Vision is
unknown
about, and the leadership have supported
about, and the leadership have supported
unknown
that enablement big time, moving from almost when we started vision of women participation in the workforce to where we are now, which is female participation? Absolutely. And our target
that enablement big time, moving from almost when we started vision of women participation in the workforce to where we are now, which is female participation? Absolutely. And our target
unknown
for was and we thought we were too optimist. So now where do you want to be by for that? Well, I think we are targeting actually more than around and I think
for was and we thought we were too optimist. So now where do you want to be by for that? Well, I think we are targeting actually more than around and I think
unknown
we will be able to achieve that.
we will be able to achieve that.
unknown
I mean, if you look at the women participation today, not only as employees but also as entrepreneurs, it is significant. We doubled the SMEs' numbers in the last seven years. What's interesting
I mean, if you look at the women participation today, not only as employees but also as entrepreneurs, it is significant. We doubled the SMEs' numbers in the last seven years. What's interesting
unknown
is of that is female-led SMEs. That's
is of that is female-led SMEs. That's
unknown
significant. You see that impacting consumption,
significant. You see that impacting consumption,
unknown
you see that impacting
you see that impacting
unknown
household income, you see that
household income, you see that
unknown
impacting the significant activities in—in new sectors around tourism as an example, where in tourism is improving significantly. We are the highest growth under the Tourism International Authority. Saudi ranked in '23 the highest growth in tourism. It's beyond what we thought. We had million tourists as a target for we hit that last year.
impacting the significant activities in—in new sectors around tourism as an example, where in tourism is improving significantly. We are the highest growth under the Tourism International Authority. Saudi ranked in '23 the highest growth in tourism. It's beyond what we thought. We had million tourists as a target for we hit that last year.
unknown
So a lot is happening and hopefully the investment community around this room and outside the room sees that, and I think that explains why they are here, why they are engaged. The last thing I would say is Saudi Arabia plays a very important role as an anchor of stability in the region, but globally, and that is important. We are trying to make sure that we play a role model for the region, and the, you know, the region countries see what we are doing and focusing on our people and our economy as hopefully a call for them to do the same. Well, I was going to ask
So a lot is happening and hopefully the investment community around this room and outside the room sees that, and I think that explains why they are here, why they are engaged. The last thing I would say is Saudi Arabia plays a very important role as an anchor of stability in the region, but globally, and that is important. We are trying to make sure that we play a role model for the region, and the, you know, the region countries see what we are doing and focusing on our people and our economy as hopefully a call for them to do the same. Well, I was going to ask
unknown
you, I mean, the region is dealing with some instability now, obviously
you, I mean, the region is dealing with some instability now, obviously
unknown
geopolitical conflict, wars. Has that made what you're trying to do harder? Has it made it less appealing to invest here? I think investors, and I've heard an investor yesterday in
geopolitical conflict, wars. Has that made what you're trying to do harder? Has it made it less appealing to invest here? I think investors, and I've heard an investor yesterday in
unknown
one of the international networks commenting that the reason why they are investing in Saudi Arabia despite all the geopolitical tension is because actually Saudi plays a very important role as an anchor of stability. Um, that will continue. We are making our effort to bring calm and de-escalate and work with our partners around the world, and I think what investors want is that stability. What investors want is to be part of a national transformation that is taking place in a country as big as Saudi Arabia, which is the largest economy in the region. It's the same answer I heard on CNBC yesterday when we asked investors that question about the stability amid the instability. So
one of the international networks commenting that the reason why they are investing in Saudi Arabia despite all the geopolitical tension is because actually Saudi plays a very important role as an anchor of stability. Um, that will continue. We are making our effort to bring calm and de-escalate and work with our partners around the world, and I think what investors want is that stability. What investors want is to be part of a national transformation that is taking place in a country as big as Saudi Arabia, which is the largest economy in the region. It's the same answer I heard on CNBC yesterday when we asked investors that question about the stability amid the instability. So
unknown
what is your biggest challenge at this point in terms of progress towards Project A lot of opportunities, but a lot of challenges, and we actually not shying away from the challenges. Um,
what is your biggest challenge at this point in terms of progress towards Project A lot of opportunities, but a lot of challenges, and we actually not shying away from the challenges. Um,
unknown
challenges in relation to human resource and ability to execute. And we wanted to make sure that we bring up more execution capacity. We wanted to make sure that we don't overheat the economy and therefore trying
challenges in relation to human resource and ability to execute. And we wanted to make sure that we bring up more execution capacity. We wanted to make sure that we don't overheat the economy and therefore trying
unknown
to make sure that
to make sure that
unknown
our plans are very synchronized together so that you don't really impact each other. We wanted to make sure that we don't have too much leakage from the economy; if you do too much at the same time and not allowing your economy to grow with you and the private sector to catch up with you, you could actually have a lot of leakage from your spend by importing rather than actually manufacturing in the country. So we are monitoring that and recalibrating our plans to make sure that happens, and actually successfully so far. And how would you describe the progress? Where are you? We are actually on track. Adaa, which is the authority monitoring what we are doing, a government—independent entity within the government monitoring what the government is doing—reported few
our plans are very synchronized together so that you don't really impact each other. We wanted to make sure that we don't have too much leakage from the economy; if you do too much at the same time and not allowing your economy to grow with you and the private sector to catch up with you, you could actually have a lot of leakage from your spend by importing rather than actually manufacturing in the country. So we are monitoring that and recalibrating our plans to make sure that happens, and actually successfully so far. And how would you describe the progress? Where are you? We are actually on track. Adaa, which is the authority monitoring what we are doing, a government—independent entity within the government monitoring what the government is doing—reported few
unknown
months back that almost of our targets are either achieved or
months back that almost of our targets are either achieved or
unknown
on track. We are looking at the remaining to making sure that we bring them on track and
on track. We are looking at the remaining to making sure that we bring them on track and
unknown
reprioritize some of them. Overall, I think we are very, very excited and happy with what we have achieved under Saudi Vision but we are not complacent. We are doubling down, making sure that we do the right thing. So what are your—what are your priorities in the Ministry of Finance? Our priority is to maintain what we have actually successfully done under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who's actually very disciplined on the fiscal side, making sure that we maintain our fiscal strength. Our Saudi economy remains dependent on government and public finance, and we wanted to make sure that we maintain that strength, and I think a lot of investors would want to make sure that they see a country that has fiscal discipline. So we are maintaining significant reserves, we are maintaining a lot of efficiency in the government spending, and mobilizing private money to ensure that we—we alone are not doing this; it's the private sector who is doing it. You started, Your Excellency, in the conversation when I asked about your story by talking about being a father of three kids, two boys and a girl. We talked about some of the changes, but I do wonder how different you think the country will be for them growing up into the workplace and their kids
reprioritize some of them. Overall, I think we are very, very excited and happy with what we have achieved under Saudi Vision but we are not complacent. We are doubling down, making sure that we do the right thing. So what are your—what are your priorities in the Ministry of Finance? Our priority is to maintain what we have actually successfully done under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who's actually very disciplined on the fiscal side, making sure that we maintain our fiscal strength. Our Saudi economy remains dependent on government and public finance, and we wanted to make sure that we maintain that strength, and I think a lot of investors would want to make sure that they see a country that has fiscal discipline. So we are maintaining significant reserves, we are maintaining a lot of efficiency in the government spending, and mobilizing private money to ensure that we—we alone are not doing this; it's the private sector who is doing it. You started, Your Excellency, in the conversation when I asked about your story by talking about being a father of three kids, two boys and a girl. We talked about some of the changes, but I do wonder how different you think the country will be for them growing up into the workplace and their kids
unknown
than you? Over
than you? Over
unknown
dinner last night at His Royal Highness's place, someone, I think, who was here asked me, "Why is ministers doing and hours a day?" I mean, he can understand it for a venture capital
dinner last night at His Royal Highness's place, someone, I think, who was here asked me, "Why is ministers doing and hours a day?" I mean, he can understand it for a venture capital
unknown
who's making a lot of money, but
who's making a lot of money, but
unknown
why the government, not only the ministers, but even civil servants doing long hours? And it's—I think that's the answer to your question. It's: we are doing it not for ourselves; we are doing it for our kids and their kids; we
why the government, not only the ministers, but even civil servants doing long hours? And it's—I think that's the answer to your question. It's: we are doing it not for ourselves; we are doing it for our kids and their kids; we
unknown
are doing it for the future of this country. Your Excellency, thank you so much for taking the time and for taking the question. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Good to see you. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns
are doing it for the future of this country. Your Excellency, thank you so much for taking the time and for taking the question. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Good to see you. At Al Arabiya News, we go beyond the headlines. From the latest breaking news to in-depth coverage of global events. We're not bought or sold. Nobody owns
unknown
us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context
us. The loss of life, the destruction of property. Conflict is such a terrible thing. Context
unknown
and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets perspective. Hello and welcome to Global News Today, bringing you exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential
and analysis to help you see the full picture. The world is in a very dangerous place. Join us on Al Arabiya News. It's very impressive. Where knowledge meets perspective. Hello and welcome to Global News Today, bringing you exclusive insights and fresh perspectives from leading experts and influential
unknown
decision-makers every weekday here on Al Arabiya News. I'm Tom Burges Watson. Coming up on today's program. Biden
decision-makers every weekday here on Al Arabiya News. I'm Tom Burges Watson. Coming up on today's program. Biden
unknown
appears to call Trump supporters "garbage," sparking outrage as Republicans seize on the controversy. That comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move past political drama and conflict during her final address of the race. Donald
appears to call Trump supporters "garbage," sparking outrage as Republicans seize on the controversy. That comment surfaced just as Kamala Harris was urging voters to move past political drama and conflict during her final address of the race. Donald
unknown
Trump
Trump
unknown
has criticized Biden's comment, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate. And Donald Trump closes in on Kamala Harris's narrow lead as both presidential candidates travel to the swing
has criticized Biden's comment, accusing Democrats of running a campaign of hate. And Donald Trump closes in on Kamala Harris's narrow lead as both presidential candidates travel to the swing
unknown
state of North
state of North
unknown
Carolina.
Carolina.