Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.
- [00:08]
B
Welcome to Newts World podcast on the iHeart podcast network. I want to chat with you just for a minute about the upcoming California governor's race. You know, when Congressman Swalwell had to resign from Congress and resign from the race for governor, he threw everything into turmoil. And the result is you now have a race in which there are three Democrats splitting the vote on their side, two Republicans. And according to the latest Emerson Poll, the two Republicans are running ahead of the Democrats. The front running Democrat is a remarkably brilliant hedge fund investor, made billions of dollars, ran for president in 2020, was such a bad candidate that he spent $253 million and then dropped out without a single delegate. In fact, somebody calculated he spent $3753 for every vote he got in the primaries. Steyer is crazy. In fact, I've nominated him to be the craziest Democrat. I want to run a contest up until Labor Day on who are the craziest Democrats. He has recently come out not just for abolishing ice, not just for putting ICE agents in jail, including their bosses, but he has pledged to use taxpayer money to bring back the detained immigrants that we deported. So in other words, if you were deported by the US government, often because you're a criminal, Steyer wants you to come back to California. This is the kind of stuff that I think puts you in a pretty good run for craziest Democrat. He's also for Bernie Sanders big government single payer health system which will bankrupt us while destroying the health system. And he thinks that they should have tax increases in California on top of the tax increases in a state where people are already leaving because of the tax increases. On the other hand, a more positive note, the Chinese had a humanoid robot. By that I mean it had two legs like us. They had a half marathon, 13 miles. The winner was named. Lightning was developed by the Chinese smartphone maker. Honor ran the 13 mile race in just 50 minutes and 26 seconds, beating all 12,000 human competitors and surpassing the human world record for a half marathon set by Ugandan long distance runner Jacob Kaplimo by nearly seven minutes. Lightning was slowed down only slightly when it crashed into a railing near the end of the race. After it needed help back up, it made a dramatic finish. Two other Honor robots took second and third place. The fastest human to compete in the race in 1 hour, 7 minutes and 47 seconds. I'm not saying that running robots are here, but we're going to see tremendous development in the next decade over Robotics and what they can do. Coming up, I'll talk with Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Chairwoman of the House Republican Leadership, on her new book, Poison Ivies the Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America's Elite Universities. I am really pleased to welcome my guest and my friend, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Chairwoman of the House Republican Leadership. Her new book, Poison Ivies the Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America's Elite Universities, is available. Now, before I get into the book, which is doing very, very well, I'm just curious and I think the audience speakers, I understand you were 14 when you volunteered for the New York Republican State Committee. I mean, how did that happen?
- [04:04]
A
I was, I was 14 years old. I would go after school to the state headquarters in Albany, New York, and I just got involved and I cared deeply about politics and loved reading the newspaper and started off stuffing envelopes, making posters. There were prominent congressional races. This is, of course, during the Governor Pataky era when we had a very strong state apparatus of Republicans. And to this day, Newt, what's interesting is people that I met then who were staffers at the New York gop, they still cross paths with me day to day. So as you know, politics becomes a pretty small world even for a 14 year old. It's interesting the people that I have the opportunity to work with still that I got to know back in that era.
- [04:55]
B
And you started at a point where you really could learn the trade.
- [04:59]
A
Yes, you learn and you learn from the bottom up. You learn from stuffing envelopes, you learn from volunteering. And I think that makes an elected. When I became an elected official, just understanding from top, the person whose name on the ballot to the boots on the ground and the people knocking on doors, how important that role is.
- [05:20]
B
As you are volunteering, you also were getting an education and you ended up going to Harvard. And then after Harvard, you joined President George W. Bush's administration and you were a staff member for the US Domestic Policy Council. And then later you worked in the office of Josh Bolton, the White House Chief of Staff. I mean, that had to be another education.
- [05:42]
A
It was. And that was right after graduating from college. And I had that experience of working in the West Wing in my early 20s. And what a formative experience that that was in terms of seeing the most senior policymaking at the highest levels. Literally a few steps from the Oval Office. I sat right in between Josh Bolton and Joel Kaplan, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for the last about year and a half. And that was of course during some very significant challenges. There was the financial crisis at that time. So seeing the hub at the highest level of policymaking right before it goes into the Oval Office for those decisional meetings, having that unique experience, my early 20s, I think, helped prepare me for being a very young elected official in Congress in understanding the complexities, but also the importance of having a robust policy process as you're developing solutions for some of the toughest challenges. Because, as you know, Newt, what crosses the President's desk aren't the easy issues. They're the hardest, most complex issues, both domestically and internationally.
- [06:54]
B
If it's easy, it's already solved. I didn't know this because I was running that year, and you were the director of news media for Tim Pawlenty in his presidential campaign. Great governor, very solid guy. But that had to be putting you right in the middle of a presidential campaign.
- [07:10]
A
Tim is a great guy, was a great governor in a state that's gotten increasingly blue. So there are some similarities between Minnesota and New York State. And I actually met my longtime chief of staff who. Who was an intern on that campaign. My chief of staff today is named Patrick Hester. He's from Minnesota. But those were the days of the campaign, Newt, when there was something called new media, when it was online tweets. Of course, this is Pre Trump in 2016, which totally shifted the landscape of Twitter and X in terms of being used as an effective platform. But I was director of new media and I focused on policy development, and that was, again, very educational for me to understand the earlier phases of a very crowded presidential race, as you recall.
- [07:59]
B
And then you went for a while and worked at the Foundation Defense of Democracies, which is, frankly, one of my favorite places, and has tremendous leadership, and then at the foreign policy industry. So you were getting a really domestic and foreign policy experience. And I didn't realize that you had managed Paul Ryan's preparation for the 2012 vice presidential debate. I mean, that must have been quite an experience.
- [08:24]
A
That was quite an experience. I had not met Paul Ryan before the Romney campaign hired me, and I was assigned to put together his vice presidential debate prep materials to help run the preparation sessions. And that allowed me to kind of delve into his record in the House, votes he had taken, and working very effectively with the Romney campaign, which was based in Boston. But I was on the road full time with Paul and really, really learned a lot from that job. And interestingly, how things work out, obviously, I was very focused on making sure the Republican ticket won that presidential election when they did not win. Paul was one of the first people that I went to as I was considering moving back home, working at my family's business and running for Congress. He had done that at a very young age. So that election would have been 2012, and I was on the ballot in 2014, Newt. And no one thought I could win. This was a district that was held by a Democrat, moved back home. I was the underdog, no name candidate. Here I am, 28 years old, starting this campaign and to Paul's credit, who also ran at a very young age, as you know, encouraged me and that started this journey. And Here we are 14 years later when I've been proud to be at the highest levels, particularly for a New York Republican in the US Congress.
- [09:46]
B
When you were at Harvard as an undergraduate, you were part of the dorm crew, where you earned enough money during freshman fall cleanup to pay for your textbooks for the whole year. What was the dorm crew?
- [09:59]
A
The dorm crew. So this is great. You know, a week before the classes start at Harvard for freshmen, there were programs that you could pay for. Like you could do an arts program or you could do a service program, but your parents or you would have to pay for that. The only one where you earned money is called dorm crew. And it's students who clean up the dorms and you literally are mopping the floors, but you get a lay of the land of the different campuses. So I loved it. I got to arrive a week early, rolled up my sleeves, cleaned the dorms with fellow freshmen, but really learned, okay, this is, you know, this house and this is this dorm, and just got to know friends before starting my first week freshman year. So, yes, I was part of dorm crew. I did earn enough money to pay for my textbooks my freshman year. And it was a great work experience before I began, began my educational journey there in college.
- [10:54]
B
One of the things that's always impressed me about you, you have a very deep work ethic.
- [10:59]
A
Oh, thank you, Newt. I think it goes back to my parents and growing up in a small business family environment. And my dad used to say to me, it's not how smart you are, it's how hard you work. And the wisdom in that is the harder you work, the smarter you become because you learn so much by absorbing the lessons of putting as much energy as you can into it. And I think constituents in particular and the American truly appreciate and recognize hardworking elected officials. And I think I have to comment on, yes, I do that at a congressional level. But seeing Trump's, you know, round the clock Work ethic is just tremendously inspiring, I think, certainly for folks in the House and Senate who see that up close, but the American people see that as well. So I try to bring hard work, whether it's preparing for a hearing, whether it's doing constituent services, as you know, Newt, jumping on these issues and solving them immediately on behalf of my constituents who elected me.
- [11:58]
B
Because you were an undergraduate at Harvard, how much did Harvard change from when you were there to the kind of thing you confronted in that brilliant series of hearings?
- [12:12]
A
It changed significantly. And that's one of the reasons why I thought it was so important to have the hearing. Because what was happening on college campuses, in particular Harvard Post October 7, Hamas's terrorist attacks against Israel, it was unrecognizable to me. Me, when I had been there 20 years earlier. Yes, of course, Harvard was liberal leaning and left leaning, but you still had a core group of conservative leaning professors who were very prominent, including heads of departments in the humanities. That is no longer the case. You also had the enforcement of rules. It doesn't mean that there weren't indicators that it was moving in the wrong direction. I write in the book about a few instances that, looking back, highlighted this chipping away and decaying of the academic focus of Harvard and the increased focus on political indoctrination. One example I give is my senior year. I attended a career services panel for Public Policy, Career Opportunities and National Security. It was run by the university. It was not a political event. It had the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, which was a newer department. It had the CIA, and then it had, I think, a think tank as well. There was a group of agitator students who physically took over the university space. One person, quote, unquote, in their form of protest. And this was much more than protest, physically made themselves vomit in the room and the event had to be shut down. I then wrote an op ed in the Harvard Crimson called Political Vomit about the fact that the university didn't get this event under control. And it really hurt all the students who were at the event who wanted to hear these panelists. It shut down the panelists ability to speak. So the university mishandled that. But my op ed, it was picked up by the Wall Street Journal and it was sor of my first foray in opinion writing pieces.
- [14:07]
B
That's great. And it turns out that the topic is still lively now, I understand, according to one study, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at Harvard is 88 to 1.
- [14:20]
A
Yes, and that has been a significant sliding towards the left Sprinting towards the left. It was not that long ago, not at Harvard per se, but broadly within higher education. A few decades ago in some of these departments, you've had a one to one ratio that's hard to even imagine today. But that is how out of touch Harvard and many of these universities have become.
- [14:46]
B
When we come back, Congresswoman Stefanik talks about universities responses to the October 7 attack on Israel and foreign influence on American universities. What was your sense, I mean, again, as an alum, what was your sense about Harvard's response after October 7th? I mean, you were very tough on Claudine Gay, who promptly had a career change. But then the president. But what was your general thinking about how Harvard handled the attack on Israel?
- [15:21]
A
It was handled horrifically. And you can see in the course of our investigation some of the subpoenaed material. Just the hand wringing of not being able to identify Hamas as a terrorist organization. It equivocated and frankly, it was silent for days and days. And it allowed a radical group of far left anti Semites dictate the position of the university. And that hesitation from the university broadly to condemn that statement, that set off a firestorm. In addition, the pro Hamas encampments took over portions of Harvard University with no action taken to enforce the rules. And the interesting thing about Harvard, and I talk about this from a historic perspective, Harvard was founded in 1636. It predates the founding of our country. These institutions historically have been very important and the pinnacle of higher education. So many institutions look to them. So goes Harvard, goes Columbia, et cetera, and you go on down the list to the different universities. That created huge consequences and a ripple effect within higher education where most of the schools had just completely mishandled the antisemitism and the pro Hamas encampments. And then on top of that, you had Jewish students on campus who were physically assaulted, who were verbally harassed, who had swastikas written outside their door. There was one case, a student who provided testimony to Congress about a Harvard staff member filmed a video of the staff member wielding a machete threatening this Jewish student. I mean, this is unimaginable things happening on campus that certainly I couldn't imagine happening 20 years ago, but it should happen nowhere in the world, let alone the United States of America, let alone at Harvard. So they completely mismanaged it. And that was one of the reasons why we had the hearing. I encouraged my colleague, the chair at the time, Virginia Fox. We have to haul in these university presidents. But I did not predict, Newt, how much the Hearing would be an earthquake in higher education. Dr. Gay at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no? It can be depending on the context. What's the context? Targeted as an individual. Targeted at an individual. It's targeted at Jewish students. Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no? Anti Semitic rhetoric. And is it anti Semitic rhetoric? Anti Semitic rhetoric. When it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation? That is actionable conduct, and we do take action. So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct? Correct. Again, it depends on the context. It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
- [18:48]
B
You had some people who presumably were from the greatest universities in the country, and they were terrible. They couldn't handle anything. How did you prepare for that hearing?
- [18:59]
A
So, because I am a graduate of Harvard, I spent a tremendous amount of time talking to my fellow alumni, talking to students on campus, and I know the and outs, even to the point of I knew the geographical locations and where the pro Hamas encampments were. I knew sort of the structure of the various schools and the administrative staff. So I think that allowed me to prepare. I spent a significant amount of time the night before thinking through, okay, what could my lines of questioning be? And in the hearing, this was organic. Yes, I had my five minutes that are allocated to me, but. But Republican members started yielding me their leftover time. So I had about seven rounds before we got to the final question. And this wasn't my prepared question. Newt, I thought to myself, because I was so frustrated not getting direct answers from Claudine Gay, the then president of Harvard. I thought, how can I ask this in the most direct way possible to force them to answer correctly? And the question I wrote in pencil, literally two minutes before I asked it was, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university's code of conduct? I thought they would say yes. I assumed they would say yes. I started with MIT thinking, this is a technical school. It's not quite as far gone as Penn and Harvard. She answered poorly. Then I went to Liz McGill at Penn. She answered horrifically. And then I went to Claudine Gay, and her answer was, it depends on the context and the World heard. But interestingly, Newt, you'll find this fascinating because this hearing went all day and very few members were in the room. There was almost no media. It was just the C SPAN footage that caught this exchange. And the university president stood up as if nothing was wrong. I knew the question was going to be an important question. I did not anticipate that within one week, 1 billion views, the most viewed testimony in the history of Congress. More than impeachment, more than Watergate. And it set off a firestorm. Multiple college presidents resignations. But think about that. The most simple moral question. Not a gotcha question, just a straightforward moral one. And they blew it for the world to see.
- [21:18]
B
When you look at how bad it's gotten, you cite from the network Contagion Research Institute that there'd been like $29 billion in foreign donations to US universities between 21 and 24. How much impact is all that foreign money having, in your judgment?
- [21:36]
A
I think it has a significant impact. And that was one of the questions I asked at the hearing that did not actually get a lot of media attention, but I knew at the time because Claudine Gay sort of clammed up and didn't want to answer when I asked, you know, name me your top foreign funding sources. Can you outline those? And she didn't want to answer it. We now know because of the congressional action, closing loopholes, and of course the Department of Education, that some of these schools get billions of dollars from Qatar from communist China. And with that, I believe, goes strings attached to the curricula that's taught and the type of professors that are hired. One real world example, Northwestern is the recipient of significant funding from Qatar. They also have opened a university campus in Qatar post October 7th. In terms of what Northwestern said publicly about Hamas's terrorist attack against Israel. We had subpoenaed emails that they hesitated and really kind of work chop that language with the broader understanding that Qatari funding shaped the language that they put out. So it wasn't a very specific condemnation of Hamas. And then the other piece, Newt, is you look at the Chinese funding, they set up what's called Confucius Institutes at various universities. We have blocked those by Congress, but they're still looking for different avenues to fund and shape what's happening on our college campuses. And then the other piece is the percentage of foreign students. I don't think people realize Columbia student body is 40% foreign students. Some of those students organized the pro Hamas encampments. Mahmoud Khalil is an example. So we have to prioritize American students and I believe cap the percentage of foreign students per institution at no more than 15%.
- [23:33]
B
To what extent in that process do you think the rise of antisemitism relates to the foreign students and the foreign money?
- [23:42]
A
I think it goes hand in hand because you've seen the rise of antisemitism at the same time that you've seen the increase in foreign dollars, particularly from countries that do not recognize the importance of Israel and have records of antisemitism. And then I think you also see the increase in percentage of foreign students at the same time as this increase in antisemitism.
- [24:07]
B
You are very tough in describing Northwestern's campus in Doha as really almost a center of influence for the other team. What led you to that conclusion?
- [24:19]
A
Well, after the hearing it set off an earthquake. We subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of documents. We had a hearing with the Northwestern president himself. We had the hearing with the Columbia president. So in the course of this investigation, as we continued to peel off the various layers of how we got here, you know, that was why I drew that conclusion regarding Northwestern was because of the investigative work that Congress did. So this hearing people talk about what impact can Congress have. This hearing literally reset the course of this conversation that's happening today in higher education even to the point Newt, where Yale last week put out a report and it's been widely covered of identifying the same issues that I've identified and that are hearing an investigation identified as to why the American people are increasingly losing faith and confidence in these higher ed institutions. So the investigation is what led to the conclusions regarding Northwestern, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, etc.
- [25:23]
B
Coming up, Congresswoman Stefanik discusses what went wrong and why and how Congress should step in and fix the problem. By sensing is that some schools actually do a pretty good job. Do you have any in particular do you think have been alert and have been trying to do the right thing?
- [25:48]
A
Yes, I made the choice in the book to talk about not only the Poisoned Ivies but we end on a positive note about schools that are getting it right. One standout in the Ivy League is Dartmouth. Dartmouth immediately enforced the rules and they didn't allow the pro Hamas encampment to take over the classrooms or spaces faces at the university. There was a zero tolerance policy from the president of Dartmouth and that created a deterrent effect as you know when you enforce the rules that deters other people from breaking the rules. She took a very strong stance stating our job as universities is not to politically indoctrinate, it is to focus on academic rigor and academic exceptionalism. So Dartmouth is the standout in the Ivy League. Beyond that, Vanderbilt, which is now more competitive to gain admissions to than some of the Ivy League schools. Vanderbilt is getting it exactly right. You have strong leadership from the chancellor, Daniel Dearmeyer. I talk about this in the book. They are focused again on the academics. You have ideological balance and diversity rather than this self selection increasing to the left. That's been happening at places like Harvard, Harvard and Yale and Penn and Columbia. And you also have innovations happening at Vanderbilt. They've opened up a campus in New York, in Silicon Valley, Palm Beach. They partner with employers to provide that pipeline from what you're learning in the classroom to its application in the real world. Another standout is University of Florida, which of course is a public university system. Ben Sasse, who led that institution during this very challenging time for higher education, he was a visionary in terms of again, focusing on the actual learning for students and not the political indoctrination, while also enforcing the rules immediately ensuring that Jewish students were not under assault and harassment as they were at many of these Ivy League schools. And then I'm a fan of University of Austin, the innovation, sort of thinking outside of the box, founded in 2021 one focused on the great classical Western canon. That is a model as well. So the book not only highlights the poisoned Ivies, but highlights the pathway ahead beyond education bias.
- [28:12]
B
You also point out that there's a frightening amount of foreign espionage in higher education. In your judgment, how real is that threat and what do we need to do about it?
- [28:24]
A
Very significant. And I'll give you two examples. One was from a hearing we had earlier this year. It was not as much in the public eye, but it was an important hearing. Michigan. There were examples of stolen research at Michigan from Communist Chinese spies and law enforcement got involved. But I asked the university president of Michigan, did you do an investigation to ensure they didn't have access to other research departments or other potential vulnerabilities? They not neut they didn't. They handed it to law enforcement and the university took no action as to how did they let this happen. Another example I'd give is the Communist Chinese party considers Harvard its school for the children of the elites in the ccp. That is where they view as the pipeline. So that's deeply concerning to me as well.
- [29:18]
B
That's wild. One last thing, which is you talk about dismantling the whole DEI concept.
- [29:24]
A
Yes.
- [29:25]
B
And you would replace it with what you call viewpoint diversity. How do we dismantle DEI and Move towards a more open merit based system.
- [29:35]
A
Yes. So dei, at its core is anti Semitic and frankly, it's anti American. I talk about examples in the book. For instance, at Harvard, and this is prior to October 7th, a group of Jewish students had raised concerns of the increase of antisemitism on campus. They reached out to the DEI officer. The DEI office at Harvard didn't even give a response. They viewed it not even worthy of a response because it didn't fit into their DEI worldview. At its core, DEI is divisive and it's anything but meritocratic. So the administration's executive actions, which we have helped shape because of the congressional oversight that I've led and conducted, those are very important. We need to codify them, that we need to withhold these federal dollars if they are, again, not protecting the civil rights of students on campus, which in this case they were not, because of the mistreatment and frankly, illegal harassment Jewish students were facing. So that's a step in the right direction. The executive orders, Newt would not have happened were it not for the congressional investigation and the congressional hearing. They were ready on day one. The other piece that's important is the Department of Justice and lawsuits and the Department of Education investigations. We had a year of the Biden administration after this hearing who did nothing. And then day one, you saw action from the Trump administration to holding these schools accountable. The other part of your question was viewpoint diversity. So some of these schools have great models. I point to the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I point to the Hamilton center at University of Florida. There is a center at Princeton. So while Princeton overall struggles and gets a failing grade, the fact that they have an important, vibrant part of their university that's focused on conservative leaders, that is a step in the right direction. Many of these schools do not have that.
- [31:30]
B
That's very helpful. I have to say I've admired you for a long time and have enjoyed watching you. First of all, that hearing and the way you did it and your courage and standing up to these, you know, people who thought of themselves as amazingly important. You don't get to be president of Columbia or Harvard without some sense of ego. That hearing was as good as any hearing I've ever seen and as explosive. And that was overwhelmingly you. So I just want to congratulate you for that was a historic turning point for the country and you personally pulled it off.
- [32:06]
A
Well, thank you, Newt. And my hope is that we can save American higher education because we have had a history of the best higher education in the world and it's fundamentally lost its way. And I think that's why the hearing resonated is it was on crystal clear display that something is deeply wrong with higher education. And it's interesting. This was a three year process to write this book. When I was in discussions with the publisher, the question was asked, you know, will this issue still be relevant a few years from the hearing? And I said to them, oh, this is just the beginning. This is the earthquake. This is going to be increasingly relevant and important in the public square. And that has proven to be the case. You cannot open the newspaper even today, Newt, without sort of bombshell investigative reporting or incredible think pieces and editorial pieces regarding the crisis in higher education and what we do to fix it. And I'll say that as a parent, you know, this coincided and I write about that in the book. I lay my then 2 year old son Sam to sleep and then I went to prepare for the hearing. As a mother who's beginning this educational journey with my son who's about to start kindergarten this September, I want to make sure that we have the best educational opportunities in the world for every American. But I come at that from a perspective, I think, as a mother as well.
- [33:26]
B
That's great. Now I have to say, you have come so far and done so many things and you're still so young. I can't quite imagine the trajectory from this point on, but you're clearly going to be one of the people in your generation who have a huge impact on America.
- [33:43]
A
Oh, thank you, Newt. It's been wonderful to work with you. Well, before I was elected in Congress, that was when I first got to know you, when I was the policy director for the RNC Platform. Platform. And just the tremendous mentorship you have provided to so many rising stars who are now national leaders. We cannot thank you enough. And I'm looking forward to the chapters ahead. This is my 12th year in Congress, longest serving New York Republican, which is hard to believe, but I'm excited for the challenges and chapters ahead to make an impact.
- [34:15]
B
We want you to come back over time and share with us as you continue to evolve. But I want to thank you for joining me. Your new book, Poisoned the Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America's Elite Universities, is available now on Amazon and in bookstores everywhere. And I commend you as an author on that title. That is a really good title and I'll do all I can to help sell it.
- [34:43]
A
Thank you, Newt, so much.
- [34:54]
B
And now I'm pleased to introduce a new segment to Newt's world, where I answer listeners questions. To ask a question, please email me at newtingers360.com inner circle member gene Cannon asked, how can we get the Republicans to actually act in the interest of their constituents as they seem quite apathetic these days? Well, as somebody used to serve in Congress, all I can tell you is pick up the phone and call them. Go to the town hall meeting, send them an email or a letter, go on talk radio. Anybody who's not paying attention is going to have a harder time getting reelected. And I've been through tough cycles. I'll tell you, if you work hard and you go home and people believe you're honest, they're probably going to reelect you. Particularly if you don't have radical values that make people think you're crazy. So it's a good question, Gene, but I think my advice is very direct. You run across a case where they're not acting in the interest of their constituents, call and just raise Cain until they do. I look forward to hearing from you. To ask a question, please email me at newtingrich360.com thank you to my guest, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Newt Weld is produced by Gingrich360 and iHeartMedia. Our executive producers Garnesy Sloan our researchers Rachel Peterson. Special thanks to the team at Gingrich360. If you've been enjoying Newts World, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Join me on substack@gingrich360.net I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newts World Foreign.
- [36:40]
A
This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.