I don’t think this is really about “sides.” A significant number of Democrats and independents flipped towards Trump—myself included. The relevant question is: why?

At a basic level, I think it relates to the left’s increasing acceptance of anti-Westernism, environmentalism, and anti-humanism. Democrats were not always aligned this way. The Clinton administration was openly capitalist, incorporated environmental concerns without making them central, and culture at the time broadly reflected a humanistic cultural ethos (e.g., Friends, Seinfeld, The X-Files, Independence Day). I don't see that, even today, in most media. Though that may be changing (think One Battle After Another versus Project Hail Mary).

I’m not certain where the cultural shift occurred, but the obvious event was the September 11 attacks, combined with a general lack of tangible experience with Islamic cultures in the U.S.

On the intellectual side, there are issues around empiricism—particularly inductivism, Bayesianism, and what cargo cult science describes. These are difficult to communicate to lay audiences, but even educated people often demonstrate misunderstandings.

I had hoped listeners would take some of these issues from the podcast and also recognize the value of maintaining a good-faith demeanor. I think, to their credit, the podcast participants largely succeeded on that front. Which is why I recommended it.

⸻

What did you make of the criticism that Trump has been labeled a fascist for years—someone who would end the republic or trigger World War III—yet those predictions have not materialized? It seems that some commentators repeatedly forecast catastrophic outcomes regarding Donald Trump and then shift the goalposts. How do you interpret that? At what point will the goalposts be moved, or do you think the predictions have come true and now America and the world literally live in an authoritarian dystopia?

⸻

On ICE

The institutions responsible for enforcing immigration law were not functioning effectively, even as enforcement standards became more lenient. You may disagree with that premise, but it raises a practical question: what should be done about illegal immigration?

Is it the responsibility of the United States to serve as a global refuge? Prior to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), enforcement fell primarily to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Why was it unable to perform that role effectively? If ICE were abolished, what institutional structure would replace it?

My view is that ICE was created to address a problem on an unrealistically compressed timeline, which led to training and implementation issues. At the same time, delaying action likely would have exacerbated the problem. We’ve been somewhat insulated from this as expatriates in Japan, but:
• Unauthorized border crossings reached historic highs.
• Drug trafficking increased significantly, with Mexican cartels filling gaps left after the decline of Colombian networks.
• Prescription opioid abuse introduced a new dimension to the crisis.
• (again) The INS was widely viewed as ineffective.

⸻

On Crypto

I largely agree that many actors—including Donald Trump and his associates—have benefited from regulatory ambiguity in cryptocurrency.

That said, why were regulators so slow to establish clear guidelines until recently?

If everyone had waited for regulatory clarity before acting, those regulations would likely be worse. You cannot fully design rules for a system that has not been meaningfully tested—similar to trying to playtest a board game without actually playing it.

It is often difficult to distinguish between “problem creators” and “problem discoverers.” While there is significant focus on Trump, many others are experimenting with novel mechanisms in crypto—airdrops, hard forks, soft forks, and more. A lack of understanding does not inherently imply harm.

⸻

On Iran

This was not covered extensively in the podcast, but if I were to be a single-issue voter—if I had to identify one reason not to vote for Harris—it would be this:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2087

I would describe this as “suicidal pacifism.”

You expressed concern about entrusting nuclear authority to Donald Trump, yet in practice, that risk did not materialize in the way many predicted. By contrast, the government of Iran, who continued to endeavour to have their own nuclear weapons, has:
• Killed tens of thousands of its own citizens for dissent.
• Supported proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
• Repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

Some argue Iran is not an imminent threat. I would agree and say it's worse—it is an ongoing, credible existential threat. The regime has functioned as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Meanwhile, Iran was selected to chair the UN Human Rights Council’s Asia-Pacific Group in January 2025.

The only nation to fully support America's test of Iran's reign of terror is Israel. Israel had over a thousand of their citizens hunted, raped, tortured, held hostage and murdered in horrific ways. You can look up the videos if you'd like, I recommend against that, though.

European allies have grown more distant. Japan has taken limited steps (with Sanae Takaichi expressing support), but remains constrained by domestic public opinion—often influenced by idealized visions of peace, a delusion on par with Imagine by John Lennon, while still relying primarily on energy imports from states like Iran and Russia.

If not the U.S. and Israel, which institutions—if any—are capable of addressing threats posed by a theocratic regime engaged in state-sponsored terrorism?

Follow-up question: What factors led to the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the clerical regime? I suspect this is directly relevant, because my personal understanding is that coercing tolerance on Iran lead to an intolerant force flourishing. (see also: Popper's Paradox of Tolerance)