April 7, 2025 • 35 mins
Moral clarity in foreign policy is increasingly rare in today's political landscape, which makes my conversation with Congressman Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) so refreshing. A self-described "Reagan Republican" and retired Air Force brigadier general, Bacon stands firmly in support of Ukraine against Russian aggression, even when this position puts him at odds with many in his own party.
Congressman Bacon brings unique credentials to foreign policy debates, with nearly 30 years of military service that included postings throughout the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. He argues passionately that Ukraine represents a clear case of "right versus wrong, an invader versus a victim," and warns that abandoning Ukraine would have catastrophic consequences for global stability.
We dive deep into why some politicians remain silent on these issues, with Bacon suggesting we've entered a "post-truth America" where winning political battles takes precedence over doing what's right. The toxic social media environment creates an atmosphere of intimidation that silences many who might otherwise speak out. He shares candid stories of facing attack ads and organized resistance at town halls simply for trying to have honest conversations about complex issues.
The stakes couldn't be higher, according to Bacon. If Russia prevails, the entire rules-based international order could collapse, with China watching closely as it considers its own plans for Taiwan. "I'd rather prevent a war than have to get into one," he explains, advocating for immediate defensive support to deter future aggression from authoritarian regimes.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, Congressman Bacon's willingness to stand on principle rather than partisan loyalty provides a powerful reminder that moral courage still exists in American politics. Listen now to hear from a representative who believes character and truth still matter in public service.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter https://wwwJackHopkinsNow.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins.
Today.
I'm honored to have as a guestCongressman Don Bacon from the
great state of Nebraska, and thereason I'm so excited about
having Congressman Bacon on he'sa Republican and I have watched
(00:24):
him routinely speak out as asupporter of Ukraine and
condemning either in itsentirety or certain aspects of
(00:48):
some of Trump's policies.
To me, that's a breath of freshair.
So even if you are skepticaljust because he's got an R after
his name, I think when youlisten to this you're going to
find it refreshing, a step inthe right direction and a signal
(01:12):
to others in the GOP look, comeback closer to the side of
sanity.
So, without further ado, let'sget right into this episode with
Congressman Don Bacon and, bythe way, he's got a rich
background and bio and I willpost that and or links to that
(01:36):
in the show notes.
Let's get going, okay, I amthrilled to have Congressman Don
Bacon on today.
Welcome, thank you.
(01:56):
It's an honor to be on with youjust doing the right thing, and
you have stood out in the GOPfor your willingness to support
Ukraine and to speak out againstauthoritarianism around the
world anywhere.
That's not something that'shappening among too many people
(02:20):
in your party.
So first of all, I want tothank you for that on behalf of
everyone.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Thank you.
I appreciate it and I realizegood people can disagree on this
issue or that issue, but I feelvery strongly about Ukraine and
I'd rather speak up than be onthe wrong side of history.
Ukraine wants democracy, theywant freedom, they want to have
free markets, they want rule oflaw.
They're trying to be part ofthe West.
Russia is trying to stop thatand they want to dominate
(02:50):
Ukraine and really eliminate itoff the map.
Their language, their culture,their history and we've got to
be on the right side of this.
This is right versus wrong, aninvader versus a victim, and I'm
a Reagan Republican.
I believe we stand up to this.
We try to help.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
You know, as from one veteran to another, although
you outranked me by light years,I want to talk a little bit
about what you see going on asstrategy.
I'll be 59 here in about a weekand, looking back through the
(03:28):
years I've been alive, it wasjust kind of the thing to do to
speak out against dictators likeVladimir Putin.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Can you give me an overview of what you see going
on here and why this ishappening as it is?
Well, I have moral clarity whenit comes to Russia versus
Ukraine and I know what theworld would be a better place
with a free, democratic,prosperous Ukraine and Eastern
Europe.
That's a game changer andreally that's why Russia doesn't
want it, because Russia fearsfree market, rule of law.
I mean, they have adictatorship under Putin and
(04:08):
they fear boy.
If Ukraine can do this, thenour people are going to expect
it as well.
So I think that's what's goingon there.
But when it comes to what'sgoing on in our culture, I've
done some thinking about this.
This may be a little more deepthan you want.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I want you to throw it out.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
I think I was raised in a Judeo-Christian ethic.
I mean, our culture isJudeo-Christian background and
it's more when you come from theJudeo-Christian spirit.
It's about doing the rightthing.
It's about trying to add andtrying to have a positive voice.
Yeah, you're Republican orDemocrat, but in the end you
(04:46):
want to do what's right for yourcountry and what's morally
right.
I think we've gotten to the spotnow where we call it the
post-truth America, where we'vemoved beyond the Judeo-Christian
heritage that we have and somepeople call it the post-truth,
some people call it thepost-Christian.
There's different terms for it,but when you read these books,
the underlying theme is it'smore important to be on the
(05:09):
winning side than it is to dothe right thing.
So what you're seeing I see itin our politics today there's
like no desire to compromise ormeet in the middle or find
consensus.
It's about beating the otherguy, and a lot of folks would
rather beat the Democrats orbeat the Republicans than do the
right thing, and I think thatsort of gets to what we're
(05:30):
seeing.
And I see it in our socialmedia today.
It is putrid.
I mean, it's toxic out thereNow.
I used social media because Iwant to communicate to my
constituents and news, but allthat other stuff out there.
It's really toxic.
So a lot of people don't wantto get beat up.
(05:50):
I've gotten involved in a fewissues where I had people with a
couple million followers hit meon social media.
Then you get thousands ofre-hits.
One week I had 31,000 phonecalls in anger.
Wow Right, it goes all over thecountry and it's intimidation.
That's the intent there.
I was even on the side where70% of the Americans were with
(06:12):
me, but that 30% they had thesevery active social influencers
involved.
I've been immune to it becauseI've stood up and I've.
I guess I was able to windespite all of that.
But I see so many folks aroundme.
They're scared to be in thecrosshairs of this and I think
(06:33):
that creates some conformity.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Let me ask you this on that topic, because we know a
lot of people have gone to thevirtual town halls.
One thing I don't hear talkedabout in the media is there a
legitimate concern aboutviolence occurring in those town
halls among the GOP?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Well, there is some, but even with the Democrats.
I mean, some of the Democratsare so angry at Democrats for
not doing enough.
They have wild town halls too.
In my town halls I was doingone a quarter.
I've probably done two-thirdsin person, maybe one-third
virtual.
I saw a fist fight at one.
I had about a 400-pound guy tryto run me over in one of the
(07:18):
town halls, but thankfullysomebody got in between them.
So I don't have to have lawenforcement there as a
precaution, so I don't have tohave a law enforcement there as
a precaution.
My take on town halls, thoughit's more of an opportunity for
the move on dot org orindivisible In my case,
democrats may have other groupson the other side doing this,
but it's really for them to tryto get me on film being yelled
at and screamed at or mycolleagues and you see it, those
(07:42):
are do it it.
One of my colleagues had a ladyyelling f you but saying it the
whole time during the entiretown hall, and they want to get
that on video.
Now I want to address all thehard issues.
I did a virtual town hall lastweek.
Roughly I got 17,309 people onit and I didn't avoid a single
hard issue we had.
(08:02):
I told my guys I want everyhard issue and put it on there
and then we can have a civildiscussion and I think it worked
out pretty well.
But I could have 17,000 people,or I could have 300, with 150
of them organized by moveonorgright now or Indivisible, and
they don't want a town hall.
They want to create chaos andanger videos.
(08:24):
Essentially.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
What do you get in terms of feedback we'll call it
feedback from some of thepositions that you've taken, as
supporting Ukraine, for example?
What kind of feedback orpushback do you get from members
of your own party, and what canyou tell me about that?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, within Congress I've got mainly positive
feedback, even from Republicans.
I've had chairmen.
I don't want to mention theirnames, but they come up to me
and say, don, we need your voiceon Ukraine.
I thank you, we've got to winthis.
And I'm like thinking to myself, oh, it would help you being a
chairman, if you were alsospeaking up.
Thinking to myself, oh, itwould help you, being a chairman
, if you were also speaking up.
But sometimes they do.
Sometimes they do.
There's a few that do, likeMike McCall You'll hear him and
(09:12):
a few others, but for the mostpart people are pretty silent
about this.
I did hear from a couple of mycolleagues that are more
pragmatic and they didn't sharemy views of the Oval Office
meeting.
I thought it was our president,particularly our vice president
, I thought was beingdisrespectful to our guest in
the Oval Office, whereas theywere trying to say no, zelensky
was being disrespectful.
(09:33):
I saw it the other way around.
So I did have a littledisagreement with a few on that.
We didn't see eye to eye.
But the vast majority of theRepublicans in Congress have
said thank you to me for beingthere and I have about the guy
by myself Joe Wilson's out there, brian Fitzpatrick, mike Lawler
, mike McCall, I mean there'sMike Turner, so there's others
(09:53):
with me, maybe not quite asvocal, but they're there.
Now I hear from in our socialmedia and a lot of them aren't
even real people.
A lot of them have likepseudonym names.
Now some of them aren't evenreal people.
A lot of them have likepseudonym names.
Now some of them aren't happyat all.
So I get pushback on socialmedia from people who don't even
know who they are.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
I'll tell you an interesting thing, though
Republican businessmen that Iknow in Omaha are universally
behind what I'm doing.
I hear from so many Republicansthey're the old-school
Republicans, right?
Sure, we've got to stick up toUkraine.
We got to push back on Russia.
What's happening in our party?
That they don't want to do that.
So I'd say and when you look atpolling, the last poll from
(10:33):
Gallup was 69-31 in favor ofUkraine Right, so I could tell
the White House this is awinning issue.
I don't know why you're not.
Don't be on the 31% side, be onthe 69%, right?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, for sure.
You know, with your militarybackground and leadership roles
that you had in the military, Iknow the chain of command is
incredibly important to you.
I mean you live and die by thechain of command, correct With
that.
And I realize politics it's nota one-for-one, it's not exactly
(11:11):
like the military, but wouldyou agree that there is a chain
of command from the president ondown?
Could we agree on that?
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Surely from the president on down with our
military absolutely.
Now at Congress, at congressfor an equal branch.
So I don't see him as my boss,although the 700 000 people in
omaha are my boss.
Um, if you want to go that way.
But you're right, in the chainof command of the military it
starts with the president yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So my question, my specific question on that,
because for me and I've talkedto a lot of other people who
feel similar to me on this whenI take that chain of command map
to Musk and Trump, that's whereI have trouble figuring out
kind of how that interaction andthat role between the two works
(12:00):
in some of the decisions thatseem like they've kind of been
Musk's decisions rather than thepresident.
What are your thoughts and infoon that?
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Well, surely, when it comes to the bureaucracy,
president Trump is in charge ofthe executive branch there.
So I think we have problemsreally on.
Musk and his team are makingfiring decisions, and some of
them were rash.
They had to take them back.
So finally, the cabinetsecretary spoke up.
This is about two weeks ago.
(12:32):
Three weeks ago, the cabinetsecretary spoke up and said this
has got to stop.
We have to approve anybodythat's fired, and the president
agreed with him.
So you'll see, after about twoor three weeks ago, it went from
Musk making these decisions toMusk making recommendations to
the cabinet secretaries and thenthe cabinet secretaries having
to decide whether they're goingto follow the advice of Musk or
(12:53):
not.
That's a much better way to goabout doing this, because I
think it's more legal.
Sure, also have a secondaryissue.
Some of these programs were putin by Congress, funded by
Congress, approved by, in thiscase, not only the previous
president, but it's law, and sothe president can't just get rid
(13:14):
of those agencies that fallunder that criteria.
Now, some of these are allcreated by the executive branch.
That's different.
He can just get rid of them ifhe wanted to, but if the
Congress funded it and thepresident signed it into law.
This president can't just stopit right, but he was trying to
do that anyway in some cases andhe's lost in the court system
(13:34):
on this and we've had thesecourt battles that go back many,
many presidents with the sameproblem.
So that's a separate issue.
Even if the cabinet secretaryagrees, there's some things by
law that the president can'tjust get rid of.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Thank you for that.
I want to ask you there are somany people from so many
different areas of life that areconcerned, namely people
getting social security benefits.
Myself, as a veteran, I kind oflook at the veteran issue,
probably because I'm not yetable to get social security, but
(14:14):
I'm a veteran always.
What would you say to ourveterans out there who maybe
they're drawing disabilitycompensation and they're drawing
disability compensation andthey're in a situation where, if
they would lose that or have itsignificantly reduced, there
would be some financial chaos intheir household, Right?
(14:37):
What are your insights on thatand where we might be going?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Well, I don't think we're going to be cutting any VA
benefits.
I don't see anything on thehorizon.
No plans, no discussion.
I'd oppose them if they were.
There's no plans to cut SocialSecurity.
By the way, I'm about a yearand a half older than you, so
I'm 61.
But there's no plans to cutSocial Security benefits.
But there's another issue outthere that some of the media has
brought up to me that some ofthe manpower in Social Security
(15:05):
agency has been cut.
And it's true there have beensome reductions, which hurts
customer service and I knowfirsthand customer service right
now is not good in SocialSecurity agency.
My mother-in-law passed away amonth ago and we had a hard time
getting a hold of anybody justto say, hey, please stop paying
her benefits.
She passed away a month ago andwe had a hard time getting a
hold of anybody just to sayplease stop paying her benefits.
(15:26):
She passed away and I try notto use any special my special
context as a congressman.
I wanted to see how this worksand it was very painful, very
hard.
So I feel for constituents thatcan't get a hold of social
security.
But there's no plans to cutsocial security.
There's no plans to cutMedicare.
There are some reforms we wantto do to Medicaid, like
workforce requirements, butreally we want to preserve the
(15:47):
health care that Medicaidprovides and we've got to
preserve the money that thehospitals are getting.
If we want to keep hospitals,our local communities, they need
Medicaid income on there.
But there are discussions howto do some reforms to Medicaid.
I'm not going to deny that.
But Medicare Social Securitybenefits.
They're safe.
There's one thing that we shouldbe honest though they're both
(16:10):
going to go and solve it in 10years if we do nothing, and so
we've got to have some problemsin the room and figure out how
are we going to save SocialSecurity and Medicare, and I
think it's going to be acombination of things that need
to be done, but nobody wants totake that on right now, and if
we worked it today it would beeasier.
But I know how Congress works.
They'll probably wait untilnine years and 10 months.
(16:32):
Ooh, we had a problem withSocial Security.
What are we going to do?
But we should be working onthat now and try to fix it.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
And how much of that, to the extent that you can say
how much of that just comes downto hey, I'm still going to be
running for elections.
I don't want this to become ahot topic associated with me.
Is that a factor?
And I mean, I assume it wouldbe.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
It is.
I'll give you an example.
When I first ran in 2016, Isaid we want to save Social
Security.
It's going to go insolvent inlike 15 years at this point.
I mean, I can't remember what,but it's changed a little bit
since then, but this was in 2016.
I said so.
We need to have a discussion.
Are we going to adjust the capsbecause you stopped paying it
at a certain level?
Do we need to adjust toretirement age?
(17:19):
I think we should look at allthat, and I had like $2 million
in TV ads because I made thatstatement against me.
There were attack ads sayingDon Bacon wants to take away
your Social Security.
Don Bacon wants to, you know,throw grandma off the cliff.
They had this one TV ad wherean old man with a cane looked
like he was in his 80s wascarrying a cake.
(17:40):
He put the cake down.
He goes.
That was my retirement cake,but Don Bacon took it away.
Gotcha, gotcha, people see whathappens with me and I was just
trying to have an honestconversation with them.
We want to save this and I gotattacked for it, so people were
scared to talk about socialsecurity and Medicare.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
It's a shame and it's unfortunate in that we know,
and it's unfortunate in that weknow, at least statistically,
what the data shows.
Attack ads work yeah, they do,so the chances of them going
away is probably not too good.
But do you think that that?
I do think this.
I'm wondering if you do theattack ads from either party.
(18:19):
I feel like they just cloud theissue, they make it muddy so
that nobody can really focus onthe real points, and the real
issues Is that your feeling.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Attack ads have like 10% truth to them.
So I have said we ought toconsider adjusting the
retirement age for youngerpeople.
So how that gets translated inthe attack ads.
They'll say Don Bacon wants tocut your benefits.
So if they said Don Bacon wantsto adjust, maybe, their
retirement age, it actuallypulls high because most
(18:52):
Americans know that somethinghas to be done.
So my opponent for a while theywere saying Don Bacon wants to
adjust their retirement age.
And it actually helps me outbecause most people know that
I'm trying to tackle a problemand I think they like that right
.
I'm going to adjust theretirement age.
That actually helps me outbecause most people know that
I'm trying to tackle a problemand I think they like that right
.
I'm willing to tackle a problem.
But when you say someone wantsto cut benefits, that supports
drops.
So the only way to defeat thatis you've got to be very much in
(19:15):
the public and make your casewhy and I've been able to defeat
attack ads largely just bybeing out in the public, many
events and telling my story onradio news.
The problem is they want to getyou to do counter ads on that
(19:40):
particular topic.
And then they got you, becausenow you're spending money
defending yourself on theirattack ads versus wanting to get
your own message out.
So I've tried to stick with mymessage on my advertising and
campaigns.
Then you've got to defeat theuntruthful ads when you're doing
radio interviews and TVinterviews and things like that.
I've been able to do it, butit's not easy.
The last few cycles it's beenabortion ads.
(20:02):
The last few cycles it's beenabortion ads and the accusation
was I wouldn't even supposedlysupport the claim, even for a
life of the mother.
I was against abortion, whichis just baloney, right, right.
But I think people know thatand I've studied politics my
whole life.
I liked Ronald Reagan at 13.
(20:22):
So I'm an avid reader.
I was reading National Reviewon Human Events as a teenager.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah cool.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
I find that when people overreach in these attack
ads, it backfires.
You've got to have a legittarget when you're doing an
attack ad.
You know, for me, my opponentwas in the protest against the
police in the summer of 2020.
All I needed was to talk abouthey, he protested our police.
It was truthful, that's a legitattack ad and people know it's
(20:52):
truthful and it works.
When someone says you're noteven for abortion for the life
of the mother, most people think, eh, that doesn't sound like
Don Bacon, right?
Yeah, and so attack ads work ifthey're truthful.
And how?
Speaker 1 (21:04):
does the?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
10% true.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
How does the legality of that play out?
Do some of those attack adsborder on crossing a legal line?
Or in politics, is it just kindof anything goes?
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Well, we were successful to get one tv ad
pulled because it was just anout out lie.
And just last month thedemocrat national democrats put
up billboards in my districtsaying don bacon, cut medicare
or medicaid, and it's not true.
So our lawyers said hey, if youdon't pull those things down,
we'll sue you.
And they took them down.
So there is some ways to goabout this.
(21:45):
But it's got to be clearly alie and in this case these
billboards were clearly liesfrom the National Democrats.
Yeah, Listen.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
That's a lot of why I wanted to have you on.
To have you on because we livein an era now where somebody's
full of BS.
If they have a certain letterafter their name, that's in the.
So nobody listens and we don'tfind out anything that we should
(22:19):
be using to base decisions onor our feelings about somebody.
And for Democrats, what themost that a lot of them are
going to ever see about you isgoing to be in the form of
attack ads.
You know, because mostDemocrats don't follow a lot of
Republican accounts.
So it comes close to electiontime and now your name pops up
(22:42):
and that's all you see.
But in this format one-on-one,just kind of a coffee shop
conversation I think more andmore people need to get to know
people in the opposite party,especially when they have such
positions as being pro-Ukraineand speaking out against
(23:04):
authoritarianism.
So let me talk a little bitmore about your military
background.
How much did the military andthe leadership roles that you
had in the military, how muchdid that shape how you approach
politics?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I was way into politics before I joined the
military.
I mean I joined the military at21,.
But before that I worked for acongressman, ed Madigan from
Illinois.
He was a fifth-rankingRepublican ended up getting beat
by Newt Gingrich for aspeakership job, a speakership
around 88 timeframe, or to bethe senior part of the
Republican conference in theHouse, and you know I was
(23:42):
campaigning as a teenager forour candidates.
But I think the military hashelped me immensely because I
have a lot more experience withforeign policy and national
security.
I mean I served in the MiddleEast many times, so I understand
Iraq, afghanistan, iran.
I lived in UAE, bahrain, qatar,different portions of my life.
(24:05):
I lived in Germany.
I've worked with NATO.
I know the importance of NATO.
So I'm so fond of EastEuropeans.
I love the Polish.
The Poles, the Baltics are hugeAmerican supporters.
I think this president,unfortunately, has undermined
some of that support, which isunfortunate.
But East Europe, they're verystrong for freedom.
(24:26):
I mean they lived under theSoviet heel and they want their
freedom and so I love workingwith them and the Air Force gave
me that opportunity.
I also stationed in thePhilippines, I've been to Korea,
I've worked with nuclearweapons and so I guess the
bottom line is this experiencehas helped me in the House,
especially being in the ArmedServices Committee.
(24:46):
I'm the chairman of the CyberSubcommittee and I feel like I'm
a better advocate for ourdefense because of my nearly 30
years in the Air Force.
And I think also the Air Forcemakes it clear and the military
does with all the services yourcharacter is what's most
important and if you have astrong character and people
trust you, you can get more done.
(25:07):
But if people don't trust youit's hard to get things done.
I learned that in the military.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
And I think that truth still exists in the
political world as well.
I think I learned how tocommunicate say what's important
, you know.
Try to get cut to the chase andsay what's important.
I learned how to communicatesay what's important, you know.
Try to get cut to the chase andsay what's important.
I learned that in the military.
I tried to do the same thing,you know, in office.
In fact, I'm one of the fewpoliticians, if you will, I know
how to speak on time.
When you give me three minutes,I'm done at two minutes and 55
(25:34):
seconds right.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And that I would assume that takes a knack, that
takes some experience to do that.
I know just from having givenspeeches and doing podcasts.
Not just anybody can do thatunless they've really worked at
it.
Yeah, and in politics, and howfast the world moves today, you
know.
I'm sure you find a lot ofsituations where you've just got
(25:58):
two or three minutes and you'vegot to pack it in.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yeah, now, most politicians, though, say the
same thing five times, and Isaid this is a different world.
If military, I would have gotkicked out of the office.
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
For sure, for sure.
By the way, just kind of alittle bird told me and I think
it's one of the coolest callnames I've ever heard Bits.
That when you were in the Bacontold me and I think it's one of
the coolest call names I'veever heard Bits, bacon Bits.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
I was Bacon Bits, or Bits Bacon, for 30 years.
A lot of people don't even knowmy real name, yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
I learned that and I thought you know what I was with
F-14 Fighter Squadron inMiramar, vf-24.
So I'd been around some callnames and I said that's the best
one I've ever heard.
You know it fits perfectly youknow it's funny.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
We all know what bits means here in America.
You know you put it on yoursalads or baked potato.
Sure it's a dirty word inAustralia.
Is that right, and so I flewwith.
I was on a base with halfAustralians, half Americans
during the invasion of Iraq andthese poor ladies from Australia
would get red in the face.
They couldn't call me baconbits.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
That's funny, oh boy.
No, I didn't know that.
I'll have to look that up, tellme.
I've got a couple of otherquestions here for you.
What danger and this may soundlike a dumb question because so
much of it is obvious, but whatdanger does Putin pose to the
world if he goes unchecked?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Well, if Ukraine falls, I believe Moldova will
definitely fall.
It's not NATO, but it's putsome right on the border with
Romania and southeastern Europe.
There, I think Georgia couldeasily be knocked.
Some of the stands in CentralAsia could fall.
Putin wants to restore his oldborders and Ukraine was a threat
(27:56):
to him because they're Slavicand they wanted democracy.
And suddenly that puts pressure.
Okay, now they're going tothink Russians think they can do
it and that became a threat afree and democratic free market.
Ukraine was a threat to Putin'slifestyle and his power.
(28:17):
I worry about the Baltics.
The Baltics are under a lot ofpressure.
There's 8 million of them.
We tabulate the three countriespressure there's 8 million of
them.
We tabulate the three countriestogether.
That's not much, and they'revery vulnerable, even though
they're part of NATO.
I also think China's watchingthis whole thing.
If they see a lack of resolveby United States, why not take
Taiwan?
And we know that China wouldlike to be able to do so in 2027
(28:42):
.
That's how they've positionedtheir forces and they think 2027
, I don't know they're going todo it, but 2027, they want to be
able to do it Right.
So they're watching us and Iranis watching us.
North Korea is sending troops toRussia Now.
They're up to about 15,000North Korean troops, of which 40
percent of them have alreadybeen killed About a 40 percent
(29:03):
attrition rate with the NorthKorean forces there.
I think worse yet, if Russiaprevails this whole notion of
the rules-based internationalorder where you respect borders,
it's gone.
Now, if you're stronger thanyour other guy, hey might makes
right.
That's not good.
(29:23):
We don't want to be in a worldthat's that way, and I think
America's credibility is on theline right here.
What kind of powerful countryare we going to be?
Are we going to be every manfor himself, hide behind our
borders, or are we going to be acountry that can work with NATO
, can work with Japan and try toprotect the values that we hold
(29:43):
dear?
That's what I am and I don'thear that from this
administration.
This administration is more.
It's totally a realistphilosophy, whereas I have a
blend of realism and idealism.
You've got to protect yourcountry.
That makes you a realist, but Iwant to have good ideals that
we promote and support, and Idon't see that in this
(30:04):
administration.
It's a strictly you know what'sin it for me mindset and I
don't think that's a goodforeign policy.
I think it would be better.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Do you think and this is something I've been
wondering, I know, in years pastI was confident of this.
But do you think, if China wereto move on Taiwan, do you think
that the United States wouldmount an aggressive support role
, or as aggressive as we oncemight have, as?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
aggressive as we once might have.
You know we say we will, and Iknow Joe Biden said multiple
times that he would.
Then his staff would say youcan't say that, so they would
backtrack.
And this happened like three orfour times, which was a little
bit humorous.
President Trump I don't know ifhe's been so clear, but I will
tell you we have plans I've seenthem OK To help protect Taiwan
(30:56):
in an invasion.
Now, whether the president willdo that or not, I'm not sure,
but what's more important, weshould deter an invasion.
Part of this deterrence is howwe're going to handle Ukraine
right.
That communicates to China.
We're willing to stand up toauthoritarianism and an invasion
.
I think it's even moreimportant.
We got to get the right weaponsin Taiwan right now, and we had
(31:19):
a huge backlog.
I remember I went to talk toSecretary of Defense Senator
Biden and I said what are youdoing to get this backlog?
He says, well, we got to think.
We put together a group ofpeople to study this.
And I go you're the Secretaryof Defense, put your fist on the
table.
So you want sea mines to Taiwantomorrow, and the anti-shipping
(31:40):
missiles should be there nextweek and the air defense stuff
should be there.
So what Taiwan needs is airdefense missiles that can shoot
sink ships, sea mines and thingslike this to prevent an
amphibious invasion.
And they should have that rightnow, because that's how you
deter an invasion, and I'drather prevent a war than have
(32:01):
to get into one and try to stopChina because it would be ugly.
A war with China will be ugly.
I'd rather deter it, but I'vegot to tell you China's looking
at how hard it is for Russiaright now.
They're like maybe this isn'tso easy.
That's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Right.
So in your mind, if we don'tplay an aggressive role with
Russia and Ukraine, thatprobably increases the
likelihood then of China movingon Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yeah, the United States is going to intervene.
You know America's interventionis a strong deterrent.
But if you don't think Americahas the will or the desire,
suddenly, if you're the powerfulneighbor, you just attack your
weaker neighbor, and you'regoing to see that not just
Ukraine, you're going to see alot more of it from other
countries too.
And we created thisinternational order, rule-based
(32:53):
order, and it's been a good one.
And I worry that we're backingaway from it, that we're backing
away from our alliance system,and that void will be filled by
Russia and China.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Yeah, Militarily, how are we?
Let's say, something breaksloose hot and heavy with Iran
and China moves on Taiwan andall hell breaks loose with
Russia and Ukraine.
Are we stretched thin in asituation like that, or?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
are we okay?
We used to say we wanted to beable to fight two wars at once
and we had that capability, butwe've done so many massive cuts
since 1990.
Our force structure is lessthan half of what it was just 30
years ago and I don't reallyblame it because it was the
peace dividend.
The Soviet Union fell.
China wasn't really a threat inthe 90s, but we did have Iraq.
(33:50):
You know, they invaded KuwaitRight and then we had 9-11.
So there's always bad guys outthere.
We have overwhelming capacityto crush Iran if we wanted to.
China's a tough fight.
They got a bigger Navy than wedo now.
We have a bigger Air Force thanthey do, but a Taiwan fight is
in their backyard.
It's a long reach for us andthey have long range weapons
(34:13):
that will make it hard to getinto the Taiwan area.
That's why it's so important tohave the right weapons in
Taiwan now, so that they havewhat they need, and that's a
deterrent and that's what we'vegot to do.
Obviously, Russia is a clearthreat to its neighbors.
That said, look how weak theirmilitary has been.
(34:35):
I mean Ukraine has delivered abutt.
Kick into these guys and it'san embarrassment to Putin and
his military.
I mean they've lost thousandsof tanks, 800,000 Russian
casualties.
I mean it's appalling, Ukrainehas outfought them, but they're
only one-fourth the size ofRussia.
(34:55):
That's the problem.
They're having to beat acountry four times its
population size.
But Russia's military is notgood.
They make good tanks, they makegood missiles.
They have poor leadership.
Their leadership does notcommand from the junior soldiers
(35:16):
and have them move out and getthe job done.
They've learned from ourmilitary how to delegate, how to
trust.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Okay, congressman Bacon, understandably you've got
other things to do today.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
I've enjoyed it.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well, I have too.
Hey, thank you so much forcoming on and speaking as openly
as what I've watched you do inrecent months, so thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Well, it's an honor to be interviewed by you, so I
look forward to doing it again.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Thank you, so do I.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Bye-bye.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
Bye-bye.
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins.
Today.
I'm honored to have as a guestCongressman Don Bacon from the
great state of Nebraska, and thereason I'm so excited about
having Congressman Bacon on he'sa Republican and I have watched
(00:24):
him routinely speak out as asupporter of Ukraine and
condemning either in itsentirety or certain aspects of
(00:48):
some of Trump's policies.
To me, that's a breath of freshair.
So even if you are skepticaljust because he's got an R after
his name, I think when youlisten to this you're going to
find it refreshing, a step inthe right direction and a signal
(01:12):
to others in the GOP look, comeback closer to the side of
sanity.
So, without further ado, let'sget right into this episode with
Congressman Don Bacon and, bythe way, he's got a rich
background and bio and I willpost that and or links to that
(01:36):
in the show notes.
Let's get going, okay, I amthrilled to have Congressman Don
Bacon on today.
Welcome, thank you.
(01:56):
It's an honor to be on with youjust doing the right thing, and
you have stood out in the GOPfor your willingness to support
Ukraine and to speak out againstauthoritarianism around the
world anywhere.
That's not something that'shappening among too many people
(02:20):
in your party.
So first of all, I want tothank you for that on behalf of
everyone.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Thank you.
I appreciate it and I realizegood people can disagree on this
issue or that issue, but I feelvery strongly about Ukraine and
I'd rather speak up than be onthe wrong side of history.
Ukraine wants democracy, theywant freedom, they want to have
free markets, they want rule oflaw.
They're trying to be part ofthe West.
Russia is trying to stop thatand they want to dominate
(02:50):
Ukraine and really eliminate itoff the map.
Their language, their culture,their history and we've got to
be on the right side of this.
This is right versus wrong, aninvader versus a victim, and I'm
a Reagan Republican.
I believe we stand up to this.
We try to help.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
You know, as from one veteran to another, although
you outranked me by light years,I want to talk a little bit
about what you see going on asstrategy.
I'll be 59 here in about a weekand, looking back through the
(03:28):
years I've been alive, it wasjust kind of the thing to do to
speak out against dictators likeVladimir Putin.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Can you give me an overview of what you see going
on here and why this ishappening as it is?
Well, I have moral clarity whenit comes to Russia versus
Ukraine and I know what theworld would be a better place
with a free, democratic,prosperous Ukraine and Eastern
Europe.
That's a game changer andreally that's why Russia doesn't
want it, because Russia fearsfree market, rule of law.
I mean, they have adictatorship under Putin and
(04:08):
they fear boy.
If Ukraine can do this, thenour people are going to expect
it as well.
So I think that's what's goingon there.
But when it comes to what'sgoing on in our culture, I've
done some thinking about this.
This may be a little more deepthan you want.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I want you to throw it out.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
I think I was raised in a Judeo-Christian ethic.
I mean, our culture isJudeo-Christian background and
it's more when you come from theJudeo-Christian spirit.
It's about doing the rightthing.
It's about trying to add andtrying to have a positive voice.
Yeah, you're Republican orDemocrat, but in the end you
(04:46):
want to do what's right for yourcountry and what's morally
right.
I think we've gotten to the spotnow where we call it the
post-truth America, where we'vemoved beyond the Judeo-Christian
heritage that we have and somepeople call it the post-truth,
some people call it thepost-Christian.
There's different terms for it,but when you read these books,
the underlying theme is it'smore important to be on the
(05:09):
winning side than it is to dothe right thing.
So what you're seeing I see itin our politics today there's
like no desire to compromise ormeet in the middle or find
consensus.
It's about beating the otherguy, and a lot of folks would
rather beat the Democrats orbeat the Republicans than do the
right thing, and I think thatsort of gets to what we're
(05:30):
seeing.
And I see it in our socialmedia today.
It is putrid.
I mean, it's toxic out thereNow.
I used social media because Iwant to communicate to my
constituents and news, but allthat other stuff out there.
It's really toxic.
So a lot of people don't wantto get beat up.
(05:50):
I've gotten involved in a fewissues where I had people with a
couple million followers hit meon social media.
Then you get thousands ofre-hits.
One week I had 31,000 phonecalls in anger.
Wow Right, it goes all over thecountry and it's intimidation.
That's the intent there.
I was even on the side where70% of the Americans were with
(06:12):
me, but that 30% they had thesevery active social influencers
involved.
I've been immune to it becauseI've stood up and I've.
I guess I was able to windespite all of that.
But I see so many folks aroundme.
They're scared to be in thecrosshairs of this and I think
(06:33):
that creates some conformity.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Let me ask you this on that topic, because we know a
lot of people have gone to thevirtual town halls.
One thing I don't hear talkedabout in the media is there a
legitimate concern aboutviolence occurring in those town
halls among the GOP?
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Well, there is some, but even with the Democrats.
I mean, some of the Democratsare so angry at Democrats for
not doing enough.
They have wild town halls too.
In my town halls I was doingone a quarter.
I've probably done two-thirdsin person, maybe one-third
virtual.
I saw a fist fight at one.
I had about a 400-pound guy tryto run me over in one of the
(07:18):
town halls, but thankfullysomebody got in between them.
So I don't have to have lawenforcement there as a
precaution, so I don't have tohave a law enforcement there as
a precaution.
My take on town halls, thoughit's more of an opportunity for
the move on dot org orindivisible In my case,
democrats may have other groupson the other side doing this,
but it's really for them to tryto get me on film being yelled
at and screamed at or mycolleagues and you see it, those
(07:42):
are do it it.
One of my colleagues had a ladyyelling f you but saying it the
whole time during the entiretown hall, and they want to get
that on video.
Now I want to address all thehard issues.
I did a virtual town hall lastweek.
Roughly I got 17,309 people onit and I didn't avoid a single
hard issue we had.
(08:02):
I told my guys I want everyhard issue and put it on there
and then we can have a civildiscussion and I think it worked
out pretty well.
But I could have 17,000 people,or I could have 300, with 150
of them organized by moveonorgright now or Indivisible, and
they don't want a town hall.
They want to create chaos andanger videos.
(08:24):
Essentially.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
What do you get in terms of feedback we'll call it
feedback from some of thepositions that you've taken, as
supporting Ukraine, for example?
What kind of feedback orpushback do you get from members
of your own party, and what canyou tell me about that?
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, within Congress I've got mainly positive
feedback, even from Republicans.
I've had chairmen.
I don't want to mention theirnames, but they come up to me
and say, don, we need your voiceon Ukraine.
I thank you, we've got to winthis.
And I'm like thinking to myself, oh, it would help you being a
chairman, if you were alsospeaking up.
Thinking to myself, oh, itwould help you, being a chairman
, if you were also speaking up.
But sometimes they do.
Sometimes they do.
There's a few that do, likeMike McCall You'll hear him and
(09:12):
a few others, but for the mostpart people are pretty silent
about this.
I did hear from a couple of mycolleagues that are more
pragmatic and they didn't sharemy views of the Oval Office
meeting.
I thought it was our president,particularly our vice president
, I thought was beingdisrespectful to our guest in
the Oval Office, whereas theywere trying to say no, zelensky
was being disrespectful.
(09:33):
I saw it the other way around.
So I did have a littledisagreement with a few on that.
We didn't see eye to eye.
But the vast majority of theRepublicans in Congress have
said thank you to me for beingthere and I have about the guy
by myself Joe Wilson's out there, brian Fitzpatrick, mike Lawler
, mike McCall, I mean there'sMike Turner, so there's others
(09:53):
with me, maybe not quite asvocal, but they're there.
Now I hear from in our socialmedia and a lot of them aren't
even real people.
A lot of them have likepseudonym names.
Now some of them aren't evenreal people.
A lot of them have likepseudonym names.
Now some of them aren't happyat all.
So I get pushback on socialmedia from people who don't even
know who they are.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
I'll tell you an interesting thing, though
Republican businessmen that Iknow in Omaha are universally
behind what I'm doing.
I hear from so many Republicansthey're the old-school
Republicans, right?
Sure, we've got to stick up toUkraine.
We got to push back on Russia.
What's happening in our party?
That they don't want to do that.
So I'd say and when you look atpolling, the last poll from
(10:33):
Gallup was 69-31 in favor ofUkraine Right, so I could tell
the White House this is awinning issue.
I don't know why you're not.
Don't be on the 31% side, be onthe 69%, right?
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Yeah, for sure.
You know, with your militarybackground and leadership roles
that you had in the military, Iknow the chain of command is
incredibly important to you.
I mean you live and die by thechain of command, correct With
that.
And I realize politics it's nota one-for-one, it's not exactly
(11:11):
like the military, but wouldyou agree that there is a chain
of command from the president ondown?
Could we agree on that?
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Surely from the president on down with our
military absolutely.
Now at Congress, at congressfor an equal branch.
So I don't see him as my boss,although the 700 000 people in
omaha are my boss.
Um, if you want to go that way.
But you're right, in the chainof command of the military it
starts with the president yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So my question, my specific question on that,
because for me and I've talkedto a lot of other people who
feel similar to me on this whenI take that chain of command map
to Musk and Trump, that's whereI have trouble figuring out
kind of how that interaction andthat role between the two works
(12:00):
in some of the decisions thatseem like they've kind of been
Musk's decisions rather than thepresident.
What are your thoughts and infoon that?
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Well, surely, when it comes to the bureaucracy,
president Trump is in charge ofthe executive branch there.
So I think we have problemsreally on.
Musk and his team are makingfiring decisions, and some of
them were rash.
They had to take them back.
So finally, the cabinetsecretary spoke up.
This is about two weeks ago.
(12:32):
Three weeks ago, the cabinetsecretary spoke up and said this
has got to stop.
We have to approve anybodythat's fired, and the president
agreed with him.
So you'll see, after about twoor three weeks ago, it went from
Musk making these decisions toMusk making recommendations to
the cabinet secretaries and thenthe cabinet secretaries having
to decide whether they're goingto follow the advice of Musk or
(12:53):
not.
That's a much better way to goabout doing this, because I
think it's more legal.
Sure, also have a secondaryissue.
Some of these programs were putin by Congress, funded by
Congress, approved by, in thiscase, not only the previous
president, but it's law, and sothe president can't just get rid
(13:14):
of those agencies that fallunder that criteria.
Now, some of these are allcreated by the executive branch.
That's different.
He can just get rid of them ifhe wanted to, but if the
Congress funded it and thepresident signed it into law.
This president can't just stopit right, but he was trying to
do that anyway in some cases andhe's lost in the court system
(13:34):
on this and we've had thesecourt battles that go back many,
many presidents with the sameproblem.
So that's a separate issue.
Even if the cabinet secretaryagrees, there's some things by
law that the president can'tjust get rid of.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Thank you for that.
I want to ask you there are somany people from so many
different areas of life that areconcerned, namely people
getting social security benefits.
Myself, as a veteran, I kind oflook at the veteran issue,
probably because I'm not yetable to get social security, but
(14:14):
I'm a veteran always.
What would you say to ourveterans out there who maybe
they're drawing disabilitycompensation and they're drawing
disability compensation andthey're in a situation where, if
they would lose that or have itsignificantly reduced, there
would be some financial chaos intheir household, Right?
(14:37):
What are your insights on thatand where we might be going?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Well, I don't think we're going to be cutting any VA
benefits.
I don't see anything on thehorizon.
No plans, no discussion.
I'd oppose them if they were.
There's no plans to cut SocialSecurity.
By the way, I'm about a yearand a half older than you, so
I'm 61.
But there's no plans to cutSocial Security benefits.
But there's another issue outthere that some of the media has
brought up to me that some ofthe manpower in Social Security
(15:05):
agency has been cut.
And it's true there have beensome reductions, which hurts
customer service and I knowfirsthand customer service right
now is not good in SocialSecurity agency.
My mother-in-law passed away amonth ago and we had a hard time
getting a hold of anybody justto say, hey, please stop paying
her benefits.
She passed away a month ago andwe had a hard time getting a
hold of anybody just to sayplease stop paying her benefits.
(15:26):
She passed away and I try notto use any special my special
context as a congressman.
I wanted to see how this worksand it was very painful, very
hard.
So I feel for constituents thatcan't get a hold of social
security.
But there's no plans to cutsocial security.
There's no plans to cutMedicare.
There are some reforms we wantto do to Medicaid, like
workforce requirements, butreally we want to preserve the
(15:47):
health care that Medicaidprovides and we've got to
preserve the money that thehospitals are getting.
If we want to keep hospitals,our local communities, they need
Medicaid income on there.
But there are discussions howto do some reforms to Medicaid.
I'm not going to deny that.
But Medicare Social Securitybenefits.
They're safe.
There's one thing that we shouldbe honest though they're both
(16:10):
going to go and solve it in 10years if we do nothing, and so
we've got to have some problemsin the room and figure out how
are we going to save SocialSecurity and Medicare, and I
think it's going to be acombination of things that need
to be done, but nobody wants totake that on right now, and if
we worked it today it would beeasier.
But I know how Congress works.
They'll probably wait untilnine years and 10 months.
(16:32):
Ooh, we had a problem withSocial Security.
What are we going to do?
But we should be working onthat now and try to fix it.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
And how much of that, to the extent that you can say
how much of that just comes downto hey, I'm still going to be
running for elections.
I don't want this to become ahot topic associated with me.
Is that a factor?
And I mean, I assume it wouldbe.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
It is.
I'll give you an example.
When I first ran in 2016, Isaid we want to save Social
Security.
It's going to go insolvent inlike 15 years at this point.
I mean, I can't remember what,but it's changed a little bit
since then, but this was in 2016.
I said so.
We need to have a discussion.
Are we going to adjust the capsbecause you stopped paying it
at a certain level?
Do we need to adjust toretirement age?
(17:19):
I think we should look at allthat, and I had like $2 million
in TV ads because I made thatstatement against me.
There were attack ads sayingDon Bacon wants to take away
your Social Security.
Don Bacon wants to, you know,throw grandma off the cliff.
They had this one TV ad wherean old man with a cane looked
like he was in his 80s wascarrying a cake.
(17:40):
He put the cake down.
He goes.
That was my retirement cake,but Don Bacon took it away.
Gotcha, gotcha, people see whathappens with me and I was just
trying to have an honestconversation with them.
We want to save this and I gotattacked for it, so people were
scared to talk about socialsecurity and Medicare.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
It's a shame and it's unfortunate in that we know,
and it's unfortunate in that weknow, at least statistically,
what the data shows.
Attack ads work yeah, they do,so the chances of them going
away is probably not too good.
But do you think that that?
I do think this.
I'm wondering if you do theattack ads from either party.
(18:19):
I feel like they just cloud theissue, they make it muddy so
that nobody can really focus onthe real points, and the real
issues Is that your feeling.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Attack ads have like 10% truth to them.
So I have said we ought toconsider adjusting the
retirement age for youngerpeople.
So how that gets translated inthe attack ads.
They'll say Don Bacon wants tocut your benefits.
So if they said Don Bacon wantsto adjust, maybe, their
retirement age, it actuallypulls high because most
(18:52):
Americans know that somethinghas to be done.
So my opponent for a while theywere saying Don Bacon wants to
adjust their retirement age.
And it actually helps me outbecause most people know that
I'm trying to tackle a problemand I think they like that right
.
I'm going to adjust theretirement age.
That actually helps me outbecause most people know that
I'm trying to tackle a problemand I think they like that right
.
I'm willing to tackle a problem.
But when you say someone wantsto cut benefits, that supports
drops.
So the only way to defeat thatis you've got to be very much in
(19:15):
the public and make your casewhy and I've been able to defeat
attack ads largely just bybeing out in the public, many
events and telling my story onradio news.
The problem is they want to getyou to do counter ads on that
(19:40):
particular topic.
And then they got you, becausenow you're spending money
defending yourself on theirattack ads versus wanting to get
your own message out.
So I've tried to stick with mymessage on my advertising and
campaigns.
Then you've got to defeat theuntruthful ads when you're doing
radio interviews and TVinterviews and things like that.
I've been able to do it, butit's not easy.
The last few cycles it's beenabortion ads.
(20:02):
The last few cycles it's beenabortion ads and the accusation
was I wouldn't even supposedlysupport the claim, even for a
life of the mother.
I was against abortion, whichis just baloney, right, right.
But I think people know thatand I've studied politics my
whole life.
I liked Ronald Reagan at 13.
(20:22):
So I'm an avid reader.
I was reading National Reviewon Human Events as a teenager.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah cool.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
I find that when people overreach in these attack
ads, it backfires.
You've got to have a legittarget when you're doing an
attack ad.
You know, for me, my opponentwas in the protest against the
police in the summer of 2020.
All I needed was to talk abouthey, he protested our police.
It was truthful, that's a legitattack ad and people know it's
(20:52):
truthful and it works.
When someone says you're noteven for abortion for the life
of the mother, most people think, eh, that doesn't sound like
Don Bacon, right?
Yeah, and so attack ads work ifthey're truthful.
And how?
Speaker 1 (21:04):
does the?
Speaker 2 (21:04):
10% true.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
How does the legality of that play out?
Do some of those attack adsborder on crossing a legal line?
Or in politics, is it just kindof anything goes?
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Well, we were successful to get one tv ad
pulled because it was just anout out lie.
And just last month thedemocrat national democrats put
up billboards in my districtsaying don bacon, cut medicare
or medicaid, and it's not true.
So our lawyers said hey, if youdon't pull those things down,
we'll sue you.
And they took them down.
So there is some ways to goabout this.
(21:45):
But it's got to be clearly alie and in this case these
billboards were clearly liesfrom the National Democrats.
Yeah, Listen.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
That's a lot of why I wanted to have you on.
To have you on because we livein an era now where somebody's
full of BS.
If they have a certain letterafter their name, that's in the.
So nobody listens and we don'tfind out anything that we should
(22:19):
be using to base decisions onor our feelings about somebody.
And for Democrats, what themost that a lot of them are
going to ever see about you isgoing to be in the form of
attack ads.
You know, because mostDemocrats don't follow a lot of
Republican accounts.
So it comes close to electiontime and now your name pops up
(22:42):
and that's all you see.
But in this format one-on-one,just kind of a coffee shop
conversation I think more andmore people need to get to know
people in the opposite party,especially when they have such
positions as being pro-Ukraineand speaking out against
(23:04):
authoritarianism.
So let me talk a little bitmore about your military
background.
How much did the military andthe leadership roles that you
had in the military, how muchdid that shape how you approach
politics?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I was way into politics before I joined the
military.
I mean I joined the military at21,.
But before that I worked for acongressman, ed Madigan from
Illinois.
He was a fifth-rankingRepublican ended up getting beat
by Newt Gingrich for aspeakership job, a speakership
around 88 timeframe, or to bethe senior part of the
Republican conference in theHouse, and you know I was
(23:42):
campaigning as a teenager forour candidates.
But I think the military hashelped me immensely because I
have a lot more experience withforeign policy and national
security.
I mean I served in the MiddleEast many times, so I understand
Iraq, afghanistan, iran.
I lived in UAE, bahrain, qatar,different portions of my life.
(24:05):
I lived in Germany.
I've worked with NATO.
I know the importance of NATO.
So I'm so fond of EastEuropeans.
I love the Polish.
The Poles, the Baltics are hugeAmerican supporters.
I think this president,unfortunately, has undermined
some of that support, which isunfortunate.
But East Europe, they're verystrong for freedom.
(24:26):
I mean they lived under theSoviet heel and they want their
freedom and so I love workingwith them and the Air Force gave
me that opportunity.
I also stationed in thePhilippines, I've been to Korea,
I've worked with nuclearweapons and so I guess the
bottom line is this experiencehas helped me in the House,
especially being in the ArmedServices Committee.
(24:46):
I'm the chairman of the CyberSubcommittee and I feel like I'm
a better advocate for ourdefense because of my nearly 30
years in the Air Force.
And I think also the Air Forcemakes it clear and the military
does with all the services yourcharacter is what's most
important and if you have astrong character and people
trust you, you can get more done.
(25:07):
But if people don't trust youit's hard to get things done.
I learned that in the military.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
And I think that truth still exists in the
political world as well.
I think I learned how tocommunicate say what's important
, you know.
Try to get cut to the chase andsay what's important.
I learned how to communicatesay what's important, you know.
Try to get cut to the chase andsay what's important.
I learned that in the military.
I tried to do the same thing,you know, in office.
In fact, I'm one of the fewpoliticians, if you will, I know
how to speak on time.
When you give me three minutes,I'm done at two minutes and 55
(25:34):
seconds right.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
And that I would assume that takes a knack, that
takes some experience to do that.
I know just from having givenspeeches and doing podcasts.
Not just anybody can do thatunless they've really worked at
it.
Yeah, and in politics, and howfast the world moves today, you
know.
I'm sure you find a lot ofsituations where you've just got
(25:58):
two or three minutes and you'vegot to pack it in.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yeah, now, most politicians, though, say the
same thing five times, and Isaid this is a different world.
If military, I would have gotkicked out of the office.
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
For sure, for sure.
By the way, just kind of alittle bird told me and I think
it's one of the coolest callnames I've ever heard Bits.
That when you were in the Bacontold me and I think it's one of
the coolest call names I'veever heard Bits, bacon Bits.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
I was Bacon Bits, or Bits Bacon, for 30 years.
A lot of people don't even knowmy real name, yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
I learned that and I thought you know what I was with
F-14 Fighter Squadron inMiramar, vf-24.
So I'd been around some callnames and I said that's the best
one I've ever heard.
You know it fits perfectly youknow it's funny.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
We all know what bits means here in America.
You know you put it on yoursalads or baked potato.
Sure it's a dirty word inAustralia.
Is that right, and so I flewwith.
I was on a base with halfAustralians, half Americans
during the invasion of Iraq andthese poor ladies from Australia
would get red in the face.
They couldn't call me baconbits.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
That's funny, oh boy.
No, I didn't know that.
I'll have to look that up, tellme.
I've got a couple of otherquestions here for you.
What danger and this may soundlike a dumb question because so
much of it is obvious, but whatdanger does Putin pose to the
world if he goes unchecked?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Well, if Ukraine falls, I believe Moldova will
definitely fall.
It's not NATO, but it's putsome right on the border with
Romania and southeastern Europe.
There, I think Georgia couldeasily be knocked.
Some of the stands in CentralAsia could fall.
Putin wants to restore his oldborders and Ukraine was a threat
(27:56):
to him because they're Slavicand they wanted democracy.
And suddenly that puts pressure.
Okay, now they're going tothink Russians think they can do
it and that became a threat afree and democratic free market.
Ukraine was a threat to Putin'slifestyle and his power.
(28:17):
I worry about the Baltics.
The Baltics are under a lot ofpressure.
There's 8 million of them.
We tabulate the three countriespressure there's 8 million of
them.
We tabulate the three countriestogether.
That's not much, and they'revery vulnerable, even though
they're part of NATO.
I also think China's watchingthis whole thing.
If they see a lack of resolveby United States, why not take
Taiwan?
And we know that China wouldlike to be able to do so in 2027
(28:42):
.
That's how they've positionedtheir forces and they think 2027
, I don't know they're going todo it, but 2027, they want to be
able to do it Right.
So they're watching us and Iranis watching us.
North Korea is sending troops toRussia Now.
They're up to about 15,000North Korean troops, of which 40
percent of them have alreadybeen killed About a 40 percent
(29:03):
attrition rate with the NorthKorean forces there.
I think worse yet, if Russiaprevails this whole notion of
the rules-based internationalorder where you respect borders,
it's gone.
Now, if you're stronger thanyour other guy, hey might makes
right.
That's not good.
(29:23):
We don't want to be in a worldthat's that way, and I think
America's credibility is on theline right here.
What kind of powerful countryare we going to be?
Are we going to be every manfor himself, hide behind our
borders, or are we going to be acountry that can work with NATO
, can work with Japan and try toprotect the values that we hold
(29:43):
dear?
That's what I am and I don'thear that from this
administration.
This administration is more.
It's totally a realistphilosophy, whereas I have a
blend of realism and idealism.
You've got to protect yourcountry.
That makes you a realist, but Iwant to have good ideals that
we promote and support, and Idon't see that in this
(30:04):
administration.
It's a strictly you know what'sin it for me mindset and I
don't think that's a goodforeign policy.
I think it would be better.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Do you think and this is something I've been
wondering, I know, in years pastI was confident of this.
But do you think, if China wereto move on Taiwan, do you think
that the United States wouldmount an aggressive support role
, or as aggressive as we oncemight have, as?
Speaker 2 (30:34):
aggressive as we once might have.
You know we say we will, and Iknow Joe Biden said multiple
times that he would.
Then his staff would say youcan't say that, so they would
backtrack.
And this happened like three orfour times, which was a little
bit humorous.
President Trump I don't know ifhe's been so clear, but I will
tell you we have plans I've seenthem OK To help protect Taiwan
(30:56):
in an invasion.
Now, whether the president willdo that or not, I'm not sure,
but what's more important, weshould deter an invasion.
Part of this deterrence is howwe're going to handle Ukraine
right.
That communicates to China.
We're willing to stand up toauthoritarianism and an invasion
.
I think it's even moreimportant.
We got to get the right weaponsin Taiwan right now, and we had
(31:19):
a huge backlog.
I remember I went to talk toSecretary of Defense Senator
Biden and I said what are youdoing to get this backlog?
He says, well, we got to think.
We put together a group ofpeople to study this.
And I go you're the Secretaryof Defense, put your fist on the
table.
So you want sea mines to Taiwantomorrow, and the anti-shipping
(31:40):
missiles should be there nextweek and the air defense stuff
should be there.
So what Taiwan needs is airdefense missiles that can shoot
sink ships, sea mines and thingslike this to prevent an
amphibious invasion.
And they should have that rightnow, because that's how you
deter an invasion, and I'drather prevent a war than have
(32:01):
to get into one and try to stopChina because it would be ugly.
A war with China will be ugly.
I'd rather deter it, but I'vegot to tell you China's looking
at how hard it is for Russiaright now.
They're like maybe this isn'tso easy.
That's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Right.
So in your mind, if we don'tplay an aggressive role with
Russia and Ukraine, thatprobably increases the
likelihood then of China movingon Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yeah, the United States is going to intervene.
You know America's interventionis a strong deterrent.
But if you don't think Americahas the will or the desire,
suddenly, if you're the powerfulneighbor, you just attack your
weaker neighbor, and you'regoing to see that not just
Ukraine, you're going to see alot more of it from other
countries too.
And we created thisinternational order, rule-based
(32:53):
order, and it's been a good one.
And I worry that we're backingaway from it, that we're backing
away from our alliance system,and that void will be filled by
Russia and China.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Yeah, Militarily, how are we?
Let's say, something breaksloose hot and heavy with Iran
and China moves on Taiwan andall hell breaks loose with
Russia and Ukraine.
Are we stretched thin in asituation like that, or?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
are we okay?
We used to say we wanted to beable to fight two wars at once
and we had that capability, butwe've done so many massive cuts
since 1990.
Our force structure is lessthan half of what it was just 30
years ago and I don't reallyblame it because it was the
peace dividend.
The Soviet Union fell.
China wasn't really a threat inthe 90s, but we did have Iraq.
(33:50):
You know, they invaded KuwaitRight and then we had 9-11.
So there's always bad guys outthere.
We have overwhelming capacityto crush Iran if we wanted to.
China's a tough fight.
They got a bigger Navy than wedo now.
We have a bigger Air Force thanthey do, but a Taiwan fight is
in their backyard.
It's a long reach for us andthey have long range weapons
(34:13):
that will make it hard to getinto the Taiwan area.
That's why it's so important tohave the right weapons in
Taiwan now, so that they havewhat they need, and that's a
deterrent and that's what we'vegot to do.
Obviously, Russia is a clearthreat to its neighbors.
That said, look how weak theirmilitary has been.
(34:35):
I mean Ukraine has delivered abutt.
Kick into these guys and it'san embarrassment to Putin and
his military.
I mean they've lost thousandsof tanks, 800,000 Russian
casualties.
I mean it's appalling, Ukrainehas outfought them, but they're
only one-fourth the size ofRussia.
(34:55):
That's the problem.
They're having to beat acountry four times its
population size.
But Russia's military is notgood.
They make good tanks, they makegood missiles.
They have poor leadership.
Their leadership does notcommand from the junior soldiers
(35:16):
and have them move out and getthe job done.
They've learned from ourmilitary how to delegate, how to
trust.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Okay, congressman Bacon, understandably you've got
other things to do today.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
I've enjoyed it.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well, I have too.
Hey, thank you so much forcoming on and speaking as openly
as what I've watched you do inrecent months, so thank you.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Well, it's an honor to be interviewed by you, so I
look forward to doing it again.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Thank you, so do I.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
Bye-bye.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
Bye-bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.