Welcome back to The Daily Show.
Man, it's good to be here.
I can't believe more Republicans
don't want to come on.
-It's weird, right?
-That must... Must be...
-Must hurt you right here.
-It-it hurts me so...
-(laughs) -You know why?
Because more Republicans
came to the show than Democrats
before Trump was president.
And then Trump won,
-and then all of a sudden,
you guys... -You think...
It's almost like
you were afraid to come back.
You think there's a cause
and effect between the two?
-Somehow they're related?
-You think that... Wait.
-(laughs) -You guys are, like,
afraid of what Trump will think
if you come here?
Is that what it is?
Hmm. I...
(laughter)
-(cheering and applause)
-No, regardless, can I tell you,
I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate you coming here,
because I love
having conversations.
Um, we're gonna talk
about the book,
The Case Against Socialism,
but I would be remiss
if I didn't talk
about the news of the day,
um, Donald Trump
pulling the troops
out of the region in Syria.
You supported Trump's decision
to withdraw the troops. Why?
As you and I
have talked about before,
um, I've been opposed
to regime change
and war in the Middle East
for a long time.
I agreed with President Obama's
decision to come out of Iraq.
I never thought the Iraq War
was a good idea to begin with.
Um, I think it was one
of the reasons he built...
he beat Hillary Clinton.
I think it's also been one
of the things
where there could be
some agreement
between right and left,
but I think people
have kind of gotten distracted
with the things they don't like
about President Trump.
But do we really want
another war in Syria?
There's, like, five
different countries fighting,
and are 50 soldiers
going to stop the advance
of tens of thousands
of, uh, Turkish troops?
But they did, though.
They-they did, and they were.
Like, let's-let's argue it
this way.
There were 50-odd
American troops in that region.
-Right.
-Right? And the Turkish forces
weren't attacking
the Kurdish forces.
-Well, no, they were...
-But literally within hours,
-they have now.
-No, they were getting ready to,
and that's why we moved
the 50 troops.
-But here's my point. -So
you're saying President Trump
did that to protect the troops
-because that was about
to happen? -Well, I think so.
-I think so, but the thing is...
-You think so or you know so?
-Well, I...
-No, no, honestly. I'm asking.
No, I haven't had a discussion
with the president over it,
but what I would say
is that I think 50 troops
are not really what
you go to war with.
And so if you talk
to our generals
or you talk to our soldiers,
they're sort of of the belief
if America's gonna go to war,
let's go to war.
But you don't go to war
with 50 people.
-There's also...
-But at the same time,
the Pentagon has said--
to that point--
the Pentagon has come out
and said,
"No, but this was strategic.
-We didn't want a war."
-Oh.
'Cause it doesn't always
have to be war or nothing.
It can also be just people there
-providing presence and support.
-But 50 people
in the middle of a war
can be a calamity.
You remember what happened
in Beirut.
We had 300 people
in our barracks.
-We had a bombing,
and it was a calamity. -Mm-hmm.
And even Reagan back then said,
"Well, gosh, now we could go in
with an all-out war,
or we can decide that
the Middle East is very messy."
I would say that right and left
agreed for a long time
that regime change
didn't really help us in Iraq.
It didn't really help us
in-in Libya.
And many of us...
Look, I've agreed
with Bernie Sanders on Iran.
We shouldn't be going into Iran
without Congress first voting.
-Mm-hmm. -We should have a vote
to declare war.
But here's my question.
Lindsey Graham and the Cheneys
are running around the place,
and now we have the left
agreeing with them.
I mean, here's the...
Where's the opposition?
They're running around, saying,
"Oh, we need to have
a resolution
"next week in Congress
"supporting
that the 50 U.S. troops
should stay in Syria."
And I think we should have
a resolution saying...
Are we going to declare war?
Are we going to be involved
in a war?
But if so, who are we fighting?
We're gonna fight the Turks?
Do you know who's allied
with the Turks now?
The Free Syrian Army.
They were our allies
for seven years.
We trained them.
So, the Free Syrian Army
is allied with the Turks,
who are allies
who we're supposed to support.
So if the Kurds and the Turks
get i-into a fight,
by law, we're supposed to
actually be supporting Turkey.
You've got Iran in the mix.
You got Russia in the mix.
You've got Assad in the mix.
But really, it all stemmed
from the same philosophy
that we did in Iraq.
In Iraq, we were gonna get ri...
rid of Hussein,
and democracy
was gonna break out.
It was gonna...
The Middle East was gonna be
this wonderful place.
It's the same with Assad.
Maybe it's
a faulty sort of notion
that regime change is good
for the country and...
or good for the world.
I think you get less stability
and you get more terrorism
every time we try to topple
these governments.
Right. But in this case,
it feels like what you're saying
would be perfectly fine and true
were you not dealing
with previous actions.
And I understand
where you're coming from,
and you have been fairly
consistent in this regard,
where you've said,
"I don't want to go into wars."
But America has already placed
itself in these positions.
The Middle East is what it is
-partly because
of America's actions. -Right.
-Right.
-And so are you now saying,
"Walk away,
despite what has happened"?
-Because-because now what if...
-Well, like I...
-what-what if the Turkish...
-like I said...
-what if the Turkish people
-I-I supported...
-wipe out the Kurds?
-I supported-- I supported,
across the aisle,
President Obama's, um, decision
-to leave Iraq and
to lower the troops -Yes. Right.
and say the war's over.
I-I support
-the same thing in Afghanistan.
-Do you think it's worth it
-if ISIS comes back?
-Well, see, here's the problem.
Everywhere you go--
and this is what the neocons
and the right wing
and the Cheneys
and all the crazy warmongers
want--
they say, "If you ever leave,
terrorists will come back."
But the problem is that argument
could go on forever.
These same people
would still be in Vietnam.
They-they would never have left
Vietnam.
These people never get over
and they never understand
that these wars aren't working.
You can't spread, uh, democracy
through military means
-and at the point of a gun.
-Mm-hmm.
And we can say,
"Well, we could save the Kurds."
It's complicated. You know,
there's four different sets
of Kurds. There's Iraqi Kurds,
there's Syrian Kurds.
There's two political parties
in Syria.
Some of them have
been considered to be terrorists
-and have had terrorist acts
on Turkey. -Right.
There's a Turkish political
party that are Kurds.
And the thing is
is it's sort of working in Iraq,
but I don't think
that we're going to be able to--
If we wanted to carve out
a region of Syria and say,
"Kurds, you can have it
and we're gonna stay with you
forever,"
we'd have to put 10,000,
20,000, 30,000 troops in there.
And I'm not for that. I'm not
really for getting involved
in the Syrian Civil War.
I don't know
who the good guys are
or the bad guys are over there.
It's a very, very complicated...
It is-- it is a complicated war.
And like I say,
you have been fairly consistent,
which makes this-this stance
that you're taking
strange for me.
Because, in 2015, you advocated
for the arming of the Kurds.
You said, you said specifically,
you said that you think
that they are the most effective
and significant fighters
that America has
and if the Kurds fight
to push out ISIS,
that Americans
should give them a homeland.
-And, really, essentially...
-Like, I mean,
that-that would have required
creating-- cutting out land.
No, essentially,
we have advocated for--
-and I have supported--
within Iraq, -Mm-hmm.
a-an area of autonomy.
I would prefer
to be their own country.
It's one of the few things
that Biden actually had
a good comment on.
At the end of the Iraq War,
we should've divided it up
into three countries.
And, really,
a lot of the problems
that come from the Middle East
actually stem from,
right at the end of World War I,
what happened is,
you know, Western powers
carved up all these countries
r-regardless of who lived there
and what their religions were
and who
their tribal affiliations were.
And so we got stuck
with a map like this.
But, yes,
I have advocated in Iraq
for a place of autonomy
for Kurds,
but I haven't advocated
or said it would be practical
to create one in Syria.
And, in fact, I think the same
problems that we got into
with regime change in Iraq,
we have the same problems.
Hundreds of thousands of people
died in Syria.
And maybe we shouldn't have
gotten involved
in the beginning at all
in trying to topple Hus--
uh, Assad. Maybe it's not
the job of America
to always decide
who runs every country.
That's an interesting-- that's
an interesting standpoint.
(applause)
Let me...
let me ask you this,
with, uh, regards to the news
that is happening now,
a-aside from Turkey.
The impeachment scandal
is-is growing every single day.
Now, you-you-- you know, you've
had your-your point of view,
and you've said, you know,
you think the Bidens
should be investigated.
You think that America should be
looking into what Trump--
Donald Trump has said
is a corruption
that is happening
somewhere there.
So I understand your standpoint,
and I'm not ignoring it.
That aside though,
do you think that Donald Trump
was appropriate in the way
he handled that?
Do you think he did it
in the right way?
Because if he believed
that there was a corruption,
why did he not go
through the FBI?
Or why-why would he put pressure
on a foreign leader
with the promise
of American aid?
Was that in my contract?
We were gonna--
I was gonna talk-- I have
to talk about the impeachment?
-(laughs) No, no, no, no.
-No, I'm just kidding.
-I'm just kidding. -'Cause you--
I don't talk to many senators.
No, I'm just-- I'm-- Yeah.
-I'm just... -I would've asked
Will Smith yesterday,
-but, I mean, you were more
appropriate. I mean... -Yeah.
I would say that there is
not anybody from either party
that has not tried to manipulate
the aid of Ukraine
to get what they want.
And then there's a broader
question you could ask,
and you could say,
"Well, should aid--
"When we give money
to a country like Ukraine,
should it be contingent
on us getting what we want?"
And then you can say,
"Well, is it appropriate
"that he actually told 'em to
investigate a particular person
that he's running against?"
Well, was it appropriate
for Joe Biden to ask--
say, "Well,
we're not gonna give you
"a billion dollars' worth of aid
"unless a prosecutor
quits investigating a company
that my son works for
and gets $50,000 a month"?
-I think you could argue...
-So you're say-- you're saying
the two cancel each other out?
-I-I'm...
-If two people do a bad thing,
does it cancel each other out
then?
I-I'm saying that most people...
-A lot of us are partisans
on either side. -Uh-huh.
But I'm saying, most people
in America want people
to be judged
with the same sort of law.
So if it looks like we're going
to judge Trump with one law,
and we're going to judge Biden
with another law,
some people are gonna say
that's unfair.
Some people will retreat into
their corners and say it's fine.
Would you then...?
So then would you...?
Okay, so if you were
with those people,
then would you support
both of them being judged
if they've both done
something wrong?
Well, what I would...
No, what I would say is "yes."
I would say that we can judge
what they did,
whether it was right or wrong.
I don't think either one
of them are things
that we should
impeach someone over.
So, the fact
that the president said,
"Well, you know, you ought
to investigate Hunter Biden
and the 50 grand he was making
a month... a month,"
you know,
there's no specific law.
There's no specific thing
saying,
"Well, we should impeach people
for doing that."
There's another thing.
You know, you mentioned earlier
that over half of the public now
wants-wants impeachment.
But if you ask the public,
ask them, you know,
"Are you in favor
"of actually sending money
that we don't have
to Ukraine in the first place,"
I think you'd find 75%
of Americans aren't really
for sending money
to Ukraine anyway,
'cause we actually have
to borrow it
from China to send it
to Ukraine.
So I think there's a lot
of different viewpoints on this,
but I think in the end,
what's gonna happen
with this impeachment thing is
people are gonna retreat
into their camps.
And then, the people
in the middle are gonna say,
and finally make a judgment,
"Is it fair
to treat people differently?"
You know, is it fair?
Do we dislike other things...
-Mm-hmm.
-...about the president enough
that we're-we're fine
with going on this?
I think there is a danger...
This is why I'm against most
of these special prosecutors,
whether they're going after
Republicans or Democrats.
I think they have too much power
to go after a...
after a person's entire life
that I think really,
we're gonna devolve
into where
we criminalize elections.
And when the Democrats win,
they'll go after Republicans.
When the Republicans win,
they'll go after the Democrats.
And so, I think there's a real
danger to becoming a country
where everything's
so criminalized.
We're gonna have an election
in a year.
Can we not just sort of wait
for a year
to decide who-who...
who gets to run the government?
-(audience groaning, booing)
-No!
I hear your point.
Your book is self-explanatory.
The Case Against Socialism.
Straight into it.
You are clearly against it.
The question is, why?
Well, I think
that if you review the history
of the last 100 years, and every
time we've tried socialism,
it seems
that time and time again,
it ends in authoritarianism,
ends in genocide and famine.
When you say "we,"
who are you referring to?
When... when you look
at the cases of socialism
over the last hundred years,
whether it be Hitler
or Stalin or Mao
or Pol Pot or a Castro,
or currently in Venezuela,
what you see is famine,
what you see is a disaster
of epic proportions.
And I think
we have to be careful
that we don't somehow think,
-"Well, it's gonna be different
this time." -Mm-hmm.
And that's one of the questions
of the book,
and the question is,
"Is violence--
is state-sponsored violence
an anomaly?"
Was it just accidental
that we got Stalin?
Or as some economists
and philosophers have said,
if you're going to take
all of the property
from private ownership,
and the government's going
to take it over,
there is a point
at which people will resist.
And that's what happened.
You know, when Mao came
to take the farms,
and the farms were
collectivized,
people resisted, and they were
killed by the millions.
Same happened with Stalin.
Hitler was different.
He was socialist, also.
His was sort of...
was racially motivated,
as well as confiscatory
in nature.
But now, today's socialists say,
"Oh, that's not what we mean.
"That's not what we're for.
We're for Scandinavia."
So we spent a lot of time
in The Case Against Socialism
looking at Scandinavia
and asking the question,
"Are they socialists?
Are they successful?"
And one of the conclusions
we came to is that, actually,
Bernie's actually too socialist
to even get elected
in Denmark or anywhere
in Scandinavia. In fact...
And-and he's American,
but, yes.
-(laughter) -Yeah,
that's a problem, too.
That is a problem, too.
But when he...
when he was bragging
about how great socialism was
in Denmark,
the prime minister of Denmark
came forward and said,
"Well, we're not socialists.
"We're open for business.
"Don't let Bernie,
you know, mislead you.
-We're not socialists."
-Okay, but, right.
So then, let's talk about that,
because it does feel
like everybody
has a different definition
of what they think socialism
or capitalism is.
-It genuinely feels like that.
-All right.
So, for instance,
you bring up Venezuela.
What's interesting to me
about Venezuela is,
when people have
that conversation,
they always ignore the fact
that Venezuela is plagued
by multiple other issues.
So people go,
"Look at what happened
to Venezuela: socialism."
Then I go, "Does the corruption
not count at all?"
-Right. -Right? Because,
as I understand socialism,
-if the people at the top are
taking everything... -(applause)
is that then...
is that then truly socialism,
or is it now
a corrupt form of socialism
which is more an oligarchy?
Is that...
is that not what it is?
Well, socialism is
when the government owns
the means of production.
They can either own some of them
or a lot of them.
The oil industry is owned
by the government down there.
But all the prices
for all the goods and services
are set as well.
So what you have are massive
and profound shortages.
But if you want to see
how devastating...
Exacerbated
by the corruption, though.
Once the crisis happened
with the oil price...
But here...
but here's the question.
In a market economy
like ours, uh...
people become rich because they
sell something that people want.
In an economy like Venezuela,
what happens is,
you become rich if you control
the reins of government.
And so as power becomes
more and more centralized
to a few people,
the possibility for corruption
is much greater
unless the power is defused.
One of the great principles
of our country is,
we have always resisted
centralization of power.
We didn't like a king,
and we didn't like
a powerful president,
-(groans, murmuring)
-and we still resist...
we still resist the idea
and we promote the idea
of separation of powers
and checks and balances.
-This is interesting, because,
no, no, no, to... -(laughter)
no, no, no, to this point,
though, but this is interesting.
'Cause I-I do like
what you're saying there
about America
has resisted that idea.
But could one not argue that...
capitalism has gotten
to a point in America
where you do in fact
have kings and rulers?
-(applause, cheering)
-You do in fact have people
who define how
other human beings can live
because of how much capital...
'Cause what you just said was,
people become rich
because they sell something
other people want.
but oftentimes we've seen,
with capitalism,
you can also become rich
because you control a certain
resource in a monopolistic way
-where you can then
force people... -Right.
So, like, let's just talk about,
for instance,
just the medicine industry
in America.
-Right.
-We've seen opioids,
they know who to get
the people addicted to them.
They can then set the prices,
they can then figure out
-how to keep you within that
loop of staying with... -Right.
So now, you're in a world where
you don't have a choice anymore.
If you're a diabetic,
you don't have a choice
about the insulin you buy,
and so that's-that's...
that seems like it's-it's a...
it's a corrupt system
masquerading
as just pure free market.
When you have honest capitalism,
people do get rich
based on merit
and based on selling something
that consumers want--
Sam Walton, for example.
The, uh, the people
who have started things
that become incredibly popular.
But there are examples
of crony capitalism as well,
where the, uh,
system has been corrupted.
But the system's been corrupted
by taking...
people taking and using
government to their advantage.
So Big Pharma
and the pharmaceutical industry
-has done that.
-Right.
I'm not a big fan of it.
I think they've really corrupted
the patent system.
I think they've abused
the patent system.
And that needs to be fixed.
But that's not real capitalism.
-(applause)
-That's people using government
-to corrupt the system.
-I agree, I agree.
But time and time again,
what you'll find is
that the freer people are,
the less central power
there is in government,
the richer they are.
And it's amazing, when you look
at the progress we have.
There's a website called
humanprogress.org,
and if you look at poverty
over the last 200 years,
it's amazing what
we're doing to poverty.
In 1820, 90% of the world lived
on less than two dollars a day.
When I was born
in the early 1960s,
it was down to a third of the
world lived in extreme poverty.
Today, less than ten percent,
including all of the poorest
countries you can imagine,
less than ten percent of the
world lives in extreme poverty.
That's because of capitalism
and freedom and trade.
Let me ask you this,
then, to that point.
In the book, you talk about
how young people in America
are less in favor of capitalism
than ever before,
-and they support
socialism more. -Right.
Now, you don't seem to
acknowledge in the book the why.
You say, like,
oh, they don't understand
the why's of capitalism,
they don't understand
that they're living better
lives, et cetera, et cetera.
But... but...
are young people
not just witnesses
to what capitalism did to their
lives and their parents' lives
through the crisis?
So, for instance,
when people were trading freely
with, you know,
credit default swaps,
that's capitalism
running rampant.
That's people going, "You can
buy a thing that doesn't exist
and nobody understands it and
you don't have to regulate it,"
and then all of a sudden,
the markets crash,
people lose their houses.
-Isn't that also capitalism?
-Actually, I think there are
many that would argue
that that was a form
of crony capitalism as well.
When the regulations came upon
that created that marketplace,
there were people like my father
who voted against that,
because he saw that
as a crony system
-that was being created
by the government. -Right.
And he actually voted
against that.
It was called
a deregulation bill,
it was a thousand pages long,
and he thought it was gonna lead
to these things.
And so there were people who
believed in limited government
who did predict these things
would happen
in the credit-default swaps.
But when you look at it,
when you look at socialism
and the history of socialism,
and you look at that versus
what we've had in this country,
I think
the-the younger generation
that's saying,
in majority numbers now,
socialism would be a good idea,
I think that, um, some of that
is a misunderstanding
of what socialism is.
They say, "Well, the world
should be fair."
-Or "We should be more equal."
-Right.
But they're not
really understanding
that socialism,
in its definition,
is the government owning
the means of production.
And when they finally come
to own it,
when they come to take
the houses, the farmland,
the factories,
there has to be violence.
Nobody's gonna give it up,
just sort of, uh, voluntarily.
I think that's an extreme
definition of what socialism is.
Especially if you talk about
democratic socialism.
And I say that because I think
any extreme can be used
as the cherry pick
that defines your argument.
Because when you look
at America--
let's just look at Republicans
in America--
look at how many people voted
for Donald Trump
and why did they vote for him?
Why did they say
they voted for him?
They said because they haven't
moved in their lives.
-Their wages are stagnant;
they have no money. -Right.
Factories have moved
to countries
-where it is cheaper
to make things. -Right.
Companies have found ways
to pay less tax,
pay their workers less.
And wages in America
have been stagnant for half
-But the interesting thing...
-a century, essentially.
-But the interesting thing...
-But is that not capitalism?
-Well... -That's what I'm
saying, 'cause I understand,
like, if we go socialism, bad,
but then,
-is capitalism great then?
-But the interesting thing is
since President Trump
was elected,
the median wage
has gone up $4,000,
unemployment
is at historic lows,
so there's a lot of progress
that's happening in our country,
but we've become so polarized
that people are unwilling
to look at that.
-But things are better.
-Unemployment--
-Things are much better.
-No. No. Unemployment, people--
No, unemployment,
people have acknowledged.
But in terms of wages
in America,
-wages are stagnant in America.
-(stammers)
People are not--
People are not better off
versus the previous generation
in America.
They absolutely are.
They absolutely are.
-I mean, the numbers...
-People-- No, no.
-But more people are liv--
-The numbers are amazing.
More people live at home
than ever before.
-No, I'll give... -People cannot
buy their own houses.
Oh, it's just-- The statistics
are overwhelming.
I'll give you a couple of them.
A hundred years ago,
when-- if you were to take
a certain amount of money,
an average worker's pay,
and buy goods, you'd get
one basket of goods,
or one container of goods.
You get seven times as much
for the same price now.
-The-The amount...
-(audience reacts)
-The amount that...
-No, no, no. This is true.
-I get-- Yes. That's true.
-The-The amount...
-of your income--
-That's true. That's true. Yes.
-The amount of your income
that you paid, -Right.
-uh, as a percentage
of your income -Right.
-for food in 1919
was like, 35%. -Right. Yes.
-It's down to 12%. -But then
the difference as well
is the amount of income that you
pay for medical care
and essentials now
has also gone up
-an insane amount versus
that time. -Right. Exactly.
So-So then the argument that
you're basically having--
No, no, I'm with you.
But then the argument I'm--
The one thing I'm having
with you-- and I know
we can't talk about it forever
'cause we have the book,
we want people to read it,
but this,
-I'm just asking you this
then... -But the next argument,
-before you get any further...
-No, no. I'm not arguing.
-I just want to ask you this.
-No, no, no. No, but...
I just want to ask you this.
Just this. Just this.
-(laughter)
-Just this.
Before you get away
from health care.
Yes, health care has risen.
Health care and education
are the two things
that are rising and almost
everything else
has been going down in cost.
But what is the commonality
between the two?
Government involvement.
They're not great
capitalistic experiments.
They're not great examples
of capitalism.
Health care,
over 50% of health care
is provided
by the government now.
The prices are largely fixed
in conjunction
between big government
and insurance companies.
There's very,
very little capitalism
in the delivery of health care.
So we could say, "Well,
government's so good,
we want more government,"
or we could say,
"Government's not working
very well,
-and we'd like more capitalism
in health care." -Right.
And there are ways to bring
prices down in health care.
I would let all consumers
get together,
all individuals who have to buy
insurance by themselves,
I'd let them join a group,
an association
like Costco or Sam's Club,
buy their insurance together.
And what would happen
is through sheer numbers
of collective bargaining,
we'd drive the prices down.
There are ways to fix it,
but that's a market mechanism.
Or you can say
we'll subsidize people
because the prices are too high,
but when you subsidize them,
and the prices are going up,
guess what, the prices go up
even higher, so it doesn't work.
That's what we've been doing
is giving people money,
and the money goes
to the insurance company.
So since we passed Obamacare
the insurance companies profits
have gone from six billion
to 15 billion.
-They know how to play
the system. -That is true.
-We have a racket. -They do know
how to play the system.
-We have a racket.
-Yes. That is-- It is true.
And I think what you're saying
has a lot of merit
in that, uh, corruption
within capitalism/cronyism
doesn't help the system.
Um, the book is fascinating.
I love having you on the show
because we argue
-and we just...
-Oh, no, no. We just...
-We just go back and forth.
-We-We just go back and forth.
But I-I appreciate
that you come here.
Thank you so much for joining us
on The Daily Show again.
The Case for Socialism
is available now.
Senator Rand Paul, everybody.
