Is America’s Economy Truly Making a Comeback? | The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor

Shanghai Airport can look nice.

There are a couple of infrastructure projects

in China that actually have been well built.

They look really snazzy and fantastic.

But what has it happened is that as we would appreciate

in the United States and Britain and the West,

is that that has not come from a healthy civil society,

sort of an organic development of organizations

or small businesses, that's really the engine

of economic freedom rather than a centralized system.

Welcome back to the Kevin Roberts Show.

I'm Larry O'Connor, and this is an exciting episode,

because Heritage Foundation just released their annual report

on economic freedom.

This is something that people wait for to see,

how we're doing, how the whole world is doing.

And, well, Kevin Roberts, you wrote the introduction

for this year's report, and let's cut to the chase.

What's our report card?

How are we doing on economic freedom here in America?

Look, I know people only want to hear bad news these days,

but we've got good news today, Larry,

and that is because the United States among advanced

developed countries made the greatest strides,

the greatest improvements in improving an economic freedom.

That's just 14, 15 months into President Trump's second term.

And it is, and it's a very important thing,

and it's a very important thing to do,

and it's a very important thing to do,

and it's a very important thing to do,

for President Trump's second term.

And it is a direct result of Trump's policies

and Congress passing one of those big priorities of his.

We know it was the one big beautiful bill.

The bottom line is that, well, we still have some room to grow.

We've dropped a lot of spots forward

so that the United States is one of the leading

countries in economic freedom as it should be.

All right. So most improved is nice to hear,

but I got to be straight with you, Kevin.

I saw the report.

I saw the grade.

It was a 72.8.

I remember in school, I got a lot of these too.

My dad was not happy.

That's kind of a C minus, but I understand it's better

than before, but you just said,

we've got a lot of room to grow.

Why does it, because that seems relatively low

for such a free country as ours.

Well, it is, and we don't believe,

believe in great inflation at Heritage,

even for our own country, especially for our own country.

If you take, for example, the countries

that fared the best in the index of economic freedom,

Singapore once again leading the way, Taiwan, Ireland,

in the top five, one of the things that they do

much better than the United States

is that they spend within their means.

And so the United States, to tell you something you know,

continues to spend more money than it has,

where as we sit here and record this,

$37.5 trillion in debt.

That weighs very heavily against economic freedom,

because what happens is that the government

has to spend money on interest payments,

those interest payments often go hand in hand

with other symptoms of a lack of economic freedom

like over-regulation.

Those are the kinds of things that, in terms of policies,

the United States needs to improve on

in order to move up from a C minus to maybe a B minus next year.

All right, that's what I always told my dad,

he never bought it.

You gotta sell him on the trajectory, right?

You gotta be moving uppers.

That's right, I've improved.

By the proof.

And in fact, the score is up 2.6 points in a single year,

and you're saying no other country

made those kind of strides in just one year.

In that category of advanced economies like ours,

one other country I would highlight that has done very well

and has also been in the news is Argentina.

You remember that when Heritage Friends,

Javier Miele, surprisingly one of the presidential election

there, he came in with a lot of gusto,

personality-wise and policy-wise,

and all of the experts, Larry,

all of the experts said he couldn't do it.

Well, what did Argentina do?

Because it has slashed spending,

it has slashed federal workers,

it has really attacked the problem of monetary policy

in Argentina.

It also has made great strides,

a little bit different category,

because there's a different category,

different size of economy.

All right, let's break down the various components

of how Heritage ranks economic freedom on this report.

And I'm not overstating the case,

it's much anticipated every year,

and it's gonna be able to inform a lot of policy discussions

on Capitol Hill for the rest of this year.

All right, number one, monetary freedom.

How do you measure that

and how does the U.S. measure up?

Well, in terms of monetary freedom in the United States,

we would usually look at federal reserve policy,

and so a lot of the haggling between the president

and the federal reserve is about monetary freedom,

ultimately, making sure that this central bank,

which I think at the very least should be entirely reformed,

if not completely eliminated,

to actually echo some libertarian economist friends,

make sure that it doesn't lord over the economy,

it actually gives investors more freedom to invest.

And so the United States has made some modest improvement there.

There needs to be more, I would think,

that once the nominee to lead the Fed,

Kevin Warsh is confirmed, we expect him to be confirmed,

that there will be more freedom there,

and individual Americans will feel that better

because of their access to credit.

That's the main thing that you're looking for.

Why do we want access to credit?

Not credit card debt,

but the kind of low interest credit

that allows us to start small businesses.

We're talking about loans from community banks,

regional banks, and interest rates

between six and nine and 10%,

the kinds of things you can pay back

while hopefully you're building

a profitable future for yourself.

That's the real secret for America's capitalism

is that credit availability for small and medium-sized businesses.

That literally puts the capital in capitalism.

That's exactly right.

We have a tendency to focus on the big corporations

and nothing against them for the most part,

although I have a lot against those

who see themselves not as American companies,

but as international companies,

but the real heart and soul of America's free market

are small businesses,

and so we need to be sure that we're focused on them.

Yeah, like all those small-town Americans

who went into Jimmy Stewart's little bank and loan there,

instead of Mr. Potter's big meme bank.

I got it, I watched that.

That's exactly right.

All right, you mentioned freedom to invest.

One of the categories in the index is investment freedom.

How do we stack up there?

Because I mean, from my perspective,

it seems like we have a lot of options.

I mean, we have more options here for regular Americans

to be able to invest in things

than we used to when my dad was my age.

Yeah, it's certainly improving.

There have been a couple of ebbs in the modern era,

the last 25 years there,

but that's one category where the United States

has made some strides.

The example that you mentioned in terms of just common sense,

it would strike Americans as odd

that we don't have investment freedom.

That's generally true,

but we want to make sure in particular

that Congress, that the Securities and Exchange Commission

is not overdoing the regulation and management of risk.

In other words, the real key there is,

we have to be willing to let people fail.

We have to be willing to let people take a risk,

make a dumb investment,

and have to pay for it themselves

as opposed to spreading that risk,

socializing that risk across the population.

So when you look back on 2025

and how we got to these ratings

that you gave us the US and economic freedom,

we're gonna get to the rest of the world in a minute

because that frankly teaches us even better lessons.

How much of the progress we made here was the tax relief

and the regulatory reform?

That's the bulk of it.

It's really the bulk of it.

The United States was already doing pretty well

in monetary freedom and investment freedom,

room for improvement to be sure.

At Heritage, obviously, we think the United States

ought to be number one in every category.

Singapore tends to lead the way there.

But continued improvement there,

we need to continue in the United States

to expand what is another strength,

which is property rights freedom or property rights.

That's obviously the heart and soul,

the foundation of our entire system.

Where the United States needs to improve

is in judicial effectiveness.

The United States has a real need there

to sort of embarrassing for us to be there.

But the obvious categories that continue

to be drags on that swore,

the reason it's a C minus and not something else

is because we spend too much money

and our tax system is simply too expensive.

Now, there'll be critics who will look at this

and say economic freedom is meaningless.

It doesn't matter because you can have

strong central government that controls

so much of the economy and your markets can still boom, right?

Yeah, you can, but in what history teaches us

and for that matter, the present day teaches us

is that yes, you can have that at the macro level,

but that the benefits of economic freedom

in such a situation aren't felt

across a wide percentage of the populace.

They're gonna be held in the hands of a few.

In fact, that kind of system tends to produce

an oligarchy, think Russia.

There are some people who experience economic freedom

and a lot of wealth,

but then there is a huge percentage of the population

that are the have-nots.

And so what we want in the United States

is not just a legal egalitarianism,

but an economic one, which is to say,

we all get an equal opportunity

to be as wealthy or as unhealthy as we want to be.

That's really the American system.

I see.

So you're not really measuring the wealth of the nation

of the size of their economy.

It has to do with economic freedom for the populace,

for the people who live there, the people who matter.

We human beings.

Yeah, that's right.

And one way to think about it is,

even though this particular research product, Larry,

is our most sought after by international friends

and to some extent by American policymakers,

because they want to see that macro level aggregate data

about how one country stacks up against another,

the research methodology for this is through the eyes

of the everyday person,

the person who might want to go invest,

who might want to go borrow money

to start a small business, expand a business,

who might find himself or herself

dealing with his country's legal code.

We want to look at this through the lens

of the everyday person.

It's a very typical heritage approach to policy.

And if you keep that in mind,

then those rankings really start to make sense.

So there were 184 countries globally that you measured.

And I said, America ranked a 22nd.

So that's, that's damn good compared to 100.

Although we should be number one as far as I'm concerned.

The global average economic freedom score is 59.9.

That basically means based on how you sort of label

each sort of grouping here,

that more than half of the country overall,

or excuse me, over half the world's economies

are operating under a mostly unfree scenario.

That might shock a lot of people.

Yeah, it might shock a lot of people,

and it should shock a lot of people.

I think especially with shock Americans,

because they get the sense that while other countries

may have some particular limitations,

particular drawbacks,

and they know that there are a few countries

that are really awful in economic freedom,

that generally the world's going in the same direction,

which is toward more economic freedom.

Two things have happened.

First of all, that general sense,

over a long sweep of time,

especially since World War II,

that the world has enjoyed greater economic freedom

is correct, so that gut instinct we have is correct.

But the second thing that's happened that is more modern,

it's more recent,

is exemplified by supernatural organizations

like the European Union.

What has happened to many European countries, for example,

is that there has been a regression,

a backsliding in economic freedom,

because there has been an over regulatory state,

a high taxation state,

at the same time that there has been

a dramatic expansion in so-called safety net

or welfare programs.

And so we have to be cognizant

that while that long-running trajectory

toward greater economic freedom

for most people in the world is true,

that some recent tendencies toward socialist governments,

certainly to high regulatory governments,

have definitely impacted that trajectory.

So it sounds like it's the same struggle

that we've for the last hundred years,

which is free markets versus state control.

You know, it's easy when you look at China,

or when you look at the old Soviet block nations,

but state control doesn't always come

with an authoritarian military style communist country,

risking state control in countries

that well sort of present themselves as free.

Now that's exactly right.

I mean, think about Western European countries

while we might pick on them as Americans,

particularly the French, the Germans.

These are really big economies.

They're obviously stable countries

on and off allies of the United States,

but they are sort of classic examples of what has happened

that take in France, for example,

even when you've had a center-right government,

in other words, a government that you would think

would begin to scale back some of that regulation,

it's actually done the opposite.

Why has Macron's government in France done the opposite?

Because they are really saluting first

to the desires of the European Union.

And we need to understand that you've got to throw off

that yoke of what these supernatural organizations want to do,

along with the sort of home-bred,

native-born tendencies toward regulation.

It's countries like that that are by no stretch

of the imagination small economies that affect

not just investment, economic freedom there

in their own countries, but sort of spread that disease

of over-regulation and high taxation across their region.

In addition to the United States being first,

which of course is our desire here at Heritage

and the index of economic freedom,

if we had a magic wand, it would eliminate that tendency

in those Western European nations to do such a thing.

Well, and as you said, you tried to shoot this sort of judgment

on economic freedom through the eyes of the individual,

the human living in these conditions

and their ability to flourish.

So as you said, when you look at the European Union,

the people making decisions there

and their central control is so far removed

from that dude who's living in a village in Brussels.

Well, and actually Brussels is closer.

Let's say Italy instead.

Yeah, I mean, I am a huge, we at Heritage

are huge skeptics of the European Union.

We think that it probably shouldn't exist.

But even if it were to continue to exist,

it ought to be a lot less powerful.

What do I mean by that?

I'm talking about the desire of the EU

to start its own military,

although that's a completely absurd idea.

We're talking about two measures of freedom.

Economic freedom in one case,

there's this tendency toward over regulation, high taxation.

But that goes hand in hand with the mitigation

or the violation rather of another freedom

and that's the freedom of speech.

Where in certain countries where we see a real attack

on free speech,

there often is a corresponding attack on economic freedom.

It's just that that latter attack on economic freedom

is more subtle.

It takes a longer amount of time

before you realize the effects of it.

That brings us to China.

I think it's a good transition because you've got

China ranked 154th in the index.

I had a score of 48.3 below the 50% mark.

I got grades like that sometimes too,

but not for the same reason.

You didn't show this to your dad, did you?

Yeah, barely made it out alive.

You are describing China as economically repressed.

But Kevin, didn't you get the memo?

I keep hearing that China is our big economic rival.

They're doing everything right.

We should be doing more like China is doing.

So they are a huge economy

and they're dominant in many areas.

So how can they be economically repressed

and still be so dominant in so many areas?

I'm glad you raised this issue

because China's the classic example

of what you were describing earlier,

which is a command economy

that has experienced tremendous economic growth.

Why has it been able to experience

tremendous economic growth because of its population?

Because it can produce a lot of goods, consumer goods

that we in the west have consumed

with an insatiable appetite.

It also of course can consume some goods in return.

But what hasn't happened is that the individual Chinese person

has felt the benefits of that economic freedom.

In fact, you have seen the classic example

of a small handful of people in China

be able to benefit from that wealth,

from that economic freedom.

Not just big oligarchs like what we see in Russia,

but the heads of state themselves,

while the average Chinese person isn't just middleing,

but they actually have become impoverished.

And so it's a classic example of that.

So in other words, the bottom line is that China

can be a huge economic adversary to the United States

because of its aggregate economic power

versus our economy's aggregate power.

But on the individual Chinese level,

there is a cancer of the economy.

It's actually a cancer of natural freedom

in which there is a repression against any individual Chinese

person who wants to do something in economic freedom

that's outside the desires of Xi Jinping's government.

It's a classic case for those of us

who followed the Cold War and the Soviet Union

and its satellite states.

And there to sum up here, Larry, there is no doubt

in our minds at heritage that that kind of system

is going to collapse.

We happen to think it's going to take much longer for it

to collapse just because of the sheer size of it

than some prognosticators indicate.

And that's why we think we need to confront China

not militarily, but in terms of other policy

and be prepared to confront them militarily

as we've discussed in another episode.

So this is so different than what people hear

when they turn on cable news or broadcasts.

And they got the news host there, the journalists

who will marvel at the technology of the Shanghai airport

and the high speed bullet trains and the bridges

and the highways and all the infrastructure

that China is building and they're jealous.

They think that they've got it right over there

and America is falling behind because of those things.

But what you're painting, this picture you're painting

makes it seem like that's all sort of a Potemkin village

sort of appearance that the government is creating

but underneath they've got some real structural problems

in their economy.

Yeah, in fact, I think when the history

of the modern Chinese regime is written in hindsight,

I think that's going to be in our lifetimes.

It is going to be the classic case of a Potemkin village.

The, I mean, literally the infrastructure

that they're building in many cases in China

but also abroad through their Belt and Road initiative

is falling apart.

I mean, I just got back from a trip to Latin America

and one of the things we're doing when we go in these trips

is to try to advise these new governments

in Latin American countries to rid themselves

of the Chinese influence.

And they say without fail, Larry,

or give us some example of some infrastructure project

that they had the Chinese do that's falling apart,

bridges falling in the water and so on.

But there is a second underlying, it's very subtle

but very powerful symptom of this Chinese symptom too

or a Chinese system rather,

and it is the deterioration of civil society.

So yes, Shanghai Airport can look nice.

There are a couple of infrastructure projects

in China that actually have been well built.

They look really snazzy and fantastic.

But what hasn't happened is that as we would appreciate

in the United States and Britain and the West

is that that has not come from a healthy civil society,

sort of an organic development of organizations

or small businesses, that's really the engine

of economic freedom rather than a centralized system.

It should be noted for our Gen Z and younger millennial viewers

that it was the Heritage Foundation back in the 80s

that noted correctly, accurately,

that there was some very real structural economic problems

if not basically a crisis in the Soviet Union at the time.

But all the smart guys from Manhattan

and the New York Times editorial page were saying

that the Soviet Union is still just chugging along and fine.

It was Heritage that saw that there were real problems

with the basics of their economy.

You predicted, Haraldont, you weren't there at the time.

Kevin, but Heritage predicted that the Soviet Union

would collapse when it did.

No, Heritage did.

It hats off to our longtime president,

co-founder, Dr. Ed Fulner, who saw that

and actually that recognition by Dr. Fulner

and the scholars at Heritage at the time

led directly to them asking the question in the early 1990s,

what kind of research product could we put together

that would help scale this awareness that the path to stability

to individual freedom is for federal national governments

to develop better policies toward economic freedom.

And that's when Ed started traveling the world,

especially in the Far East.

This is a sort of emblematic story.

Although you would never want to take credit for this,

the fact that the economy of South Korea,

the economy of Taiwan in particular

have become exemplars of economic freedom

is in part because Ed traveled there

something like 200 times and advised them

on the policies of free market principles.

A lot of people deserve credit for that,

including the policymakers in those countries,

the capitalists and the investors.

But there has to be a source of these ideas.

And I'm really proud of the index of economic freedom

every time it comes out.

Because we know that when we highlight

that whether it's for our country or others,

they need to improve an economic freedom,

what we're talking about is what God has written on our hearts.

And that is yes to be economically free.

But to be economically free is to be free period.

And to spread this message of freedom

properly understood, of course,

is the great passion of Heritage.

You've helped me segue into our next segment here

because this is so important for everyone to understand

that we conservatives obviously were America first

and were interested in the flourishing of our neighbors

and our brothers and sisters here in our country.

But ultimately to be a conservative,

it is to embrace and celebrate humanity

and the flourishing of the human spirit.

And you talk a lot about that in this report

that economic freedom is linked to better health outcomes,

education levels, innovation, environmental performance.

If anyone cares about the environment,

they should want to embrace economic freedom, right?

That's exactly right.

And that's always been part and parcel

of the index of economic freedom.

But as we enter this or live through this season

in the United States and in the conservative movement,

when there are so many pressures

that want to divide the movement and divide the country

in between this kind of conservative

and that kind of conservative,

we wanted to make sure that we were being very explicit

about the benefits of economic freedom in other realms,

but also to be very explicit

that what we're saying is that the measure of economic freedom

is not a country's GDP.

It's a very important metric.

We want the GDP to be higher rather than lower.

But to instead emphasize that what flows out of policies

of economic freedom are policies

of other kinds of human freedom,

but ultimately something even more important than freedom itself.

And that's, as you said, human flourishing.

The understanding that we can wake up,

not just in a free country, but no.

We have the freedom to do what we ought.

We can fail, we can succeed along the way.

We believe it heritage that each of us

has a moral obligation to the other.

It helps us build a society with a great rule of law

when the United States great principles, great realities.

And so that leads us to later this year reprising

an old research product that had sort of been put on the shelf

called the index of cultural flourishing,

which we'll talk about on a subsequent episode

because we're trying to emphasize

even to those countries that fare well in economic freedom.

Let's be sure that all of your other measures

of cultural flourishing, human flourishing, are doing well too.

Well, I'll be all over that.

That sounds awesome.

All right, so I can already hear them now,

whether it's ASEA or Bernie Sanders

or Zora Mondani or Gavin Newsome

or all those weenie brains over there

at the Center for American Progress.

They're all screaming back at us right now, Kevin.

They're saying free markets produce inequality.

Inequality is the real problem here

and you're not addressing inequality.

Does the index address inequality?

The index addresses inequality,

but not in the way that those people

who need to learn a little more about economics understand.

In fact, you get a drag everybody down from the top

and that makes us equal, isn't that how you do it?

That's exactly right.

Well, give your little history a lesson

and you know this well, the audience knows it well.

The greater the economic freedom,

there tends to be greater equality, if you will,

but greater access to economic success,

is probably the most accurate way to put it.

Why is that?

Because if everything else in the country is relatively free

as it is in the United States,

we get regulation out of the way,

education is improving,

then we have basically equal opportunity to succeed

or to fail.

What is going to happen is that we're all going to benefit

from this rising tide.

What happens, what creates inequality

is over government involvement.

And that's the kind of thing that we have to be wary of.

We're seeing that in New York City already.

Yes, in fact, I called the people at center

for American progress when we need brains.

I love them by that, by the way.

All right, now go back to your introduction

because it was actually quite moving.

I know I get moved by the introduction

to a report on economic freedom,

but you made an important point.

And that is that economic progress and wealth

is not an end to itself.

The whole reason for this economic freedom index

and to be able to be economically free

is to support families, to support our communities

and our churches and what you call the permanent things.

Expand on this because it really is something

that conservatives lose focus of sometimes

because it's all, sometimes we look at it

as just wealth, wealth, wealth for wealth sake.

Yeah, we in the conservative movement

have become victims of our own success.

And by that, I mean, we were so successful in the 1980s

and 90s in leading the way to defeat communism,

both militarily but also economically,

that we sort of put the cart in front of the horse.

And the carts are perfectly fine thing.

In this case, the cart is the free market.

The free market's a good thing.

What we sort of got out of order

was that the free market flows out of a healthy society,

healthy families, healthy civil society.

And if you go back to early America, for example,

the free market that was established there

came as a result of a very stable society in New England

and an increasingly stable society

and southern colonies like Virginia and South Carolina.

It really is a sequential thing.

And but we have turned the free market unintentionally,

I think, into and end unto itself.

And it simply isn't, that's not how freedom works.

It is a symptom of a society that's working well.

And so what we're trying to do at Heritage,

with the index of economic freedom of all things,

is remind people that yes, the free market is a good.

Yes, economic freedom is a good,

but there are higher goods, human freedom generally,

human flourishing, and we need to be working

on all of those things.

And when we do, we will see that the economic freedom

improves as well.

So what about the concern from people on the right?

Sometimes worry that a focus on economic freedom

or a strong economy ends up leaving social issues

sort of in the dust, right?

That markets themselves and just the focus on markets

sort of erodes cultural institutions

because they will have trouble surviving.

How do you balance economic freedom and dynamism

with social stability from a conservative's perspective?

Well, it's a really good question.

And that's a fair critique by friends in the movement

who focus on social and cultural issues.

Because there are people on the right,

I won't describe motives, I'm maybe unintentionally

they do this, that they focus so much on economics

and the free market, that it makes it sound as if

that's the only thing we need to be worried about

in order to see society be successful

or for that matter to call ourselves conservative.

And heritage, what we say is, we reject

what is a false dichotomy.

This is not an either or picture.

This is why we famously have said for decades

we don't put a modifier in front of conservative.

We're fiscal conservative, social conservatives,

all of the above national security conservatives,

we're simply conservative because all of these freedoms

point to the same thing, which is that we're recognizing

what God, what natural law has imprinted on our beings,

which is that we have been hardwired to be free

in every respect.

It's not economic freedom versus having freedom

to build our families, to build healthy societies

and communities, it is a freedom to flourish

as the man upstairs would have us flourish,

a free will being a very powerful thing.

So what we're trying to do also with this product

is to remind friends on the right

to cut off the silly false dichotomy

and work together, even with our respective

different ways of prioritizing certain issues

towards this sense, not just of economic freedom,

but of human flourishing.

Well, and we've got to put our America 250 stamp

on our conversation this year in 2026, Kevin, it is.

I've been reading a lot of our founding documents

and the Federalist papers and the writings Thomas Payne.

It wasn't even a question back with our founders

as they were facing our independence.

Political liberty was economic liberty

and vice versa, the two were obviously connected together.

Oh, completely.

And I've been thinking a lot about the founders

this year for the reason that you mentioned,

thinking about someone who's sort of an honorary founder

of America because of the influence

that his work had, Adam Smith.

It was Adam Smith, the Godfather of the free market,

economics who said the free market flows out

of the healthy society out of healthy families

and he even quoted anthropologists,

cultural anthropologists in order to build that theory,

which obviously has has borne out.

All of that to say here in 2026

as we honor our founding in its 250th year,

if we really wanna honor the founding,

we not only need to see the United States

improve an economic freedom from this year to next

as it did from last year to this year,

we need to see the United States improve across the board

and some other avenues, some other respects,

which is the revitalization of civil society,

the revitalization of community life,

it sounds a little squishy and soft to say that,

but I've also been rereading in this 250th anniversary year,

the great work of the German social scientist William Ruppke.

And it was Ruppke who said that this quest for community life

actually enhances all of our different desires

to be free in those different respects.

We're really seeing the truth of that this year.

Well, Kevin, I will admit, as a C-minus student,

I am unfamiliar with hair to rucker.

So I'll do my reading, you all, you don't lie,

you don't know who that is either,

but now we've got our reading assignment,

we'll catch up and we'll pick up where you told us to

on that one, Kevin.

And that has to be homework, right?

Exactly, exactly.

So that doesn't for this episode,

but the Index for Economic Freedom,

you can download your own copy at Heritage Foundation,

you really should because it really does lay out the roadmap here

for so many of the decisions and challenges we've got ahead of us

in this year's election and in the critical election two years from now.

History proves it when governments get out of the way

and give their people more freedom,

a strong economy follows almost every single time.

That's always been proven true here in America.

The question is, are we going to continue moving in that direction

and embrace that freedom or will we retreat from it?

Next week on the Kevin Robert Show,

Kevin's added again, he's engaged in debates

with all those oh so smart liberal intellectuals.

This time at Yale and the proposition before the room was,

liberalism has failed.

I do think Kevin came down on that issue.

Well, you'll have to tune in next week to see it.