A Catholic Alternative for President? (Guest:  Peter Sonski)

[00:00:15] Speaker A: The presidential candidate for the American Solidarity Party joins us to talk about his party's platform, why he's running, and what they hope to accomplish this election season. Hello, I'm Eric Simmons, your host and our chief of Crisis magazine. Before we get started, I just want to encourage people to smash that, like, button. Subscribe to Channel, let other people know about it. Also, you can follow us on social media at Crisismag or go to our website, crisismagazine.com comma. Put in your email address and we'll send you our articles every morning, usually around 09:00 a.m. we'll send you articles, our articles every morning. So you can just easily find them there. Okay, so let's go ahead and get started. Here we have Pier Sonski. Here he is the 2024 presidential candidate for the American Solidarity Party. He has nine adult children and six grandchildren. He has more than a dozen years experience as an elected official, having served previously as municipal board or finance, a finance member, a chairman and board of selectmen, city council member. He also has worked for National Catholic Register, I believe the shrine of the immaculate conception. Is that silica in Washington? Various other things. Welcome to the program, Peter. I really appreciate you being here, Eric. [00:01:20] Speaker B: I'm grateful for the invitation. Thank you. [00:01:23] Speaker A: You are my first presidential candidate. So. So there. [00:01:26] Speaker B: There we go. [00:01:27] Speaker A: So I will say, I. I did email JD Vance a couple of months ago, ask him, but I didn't get a response. But, you know, I assume he's pretty busy. I was like, hey, I'll have you on. I'd have on, I'd have on Harris or Trump or anybody if they want to come on board. [00:01:41] Speaker B: I'm awfully glad to hear you say that, because, I'll be candid, there have been some outlets that have said, no, no, no, I can't have you on because, you know, we don't want to have the others on. Why on earth would you not want to get Harris or Trump? To answer your question? [00:01:57] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh, I would just love an interview with Harris. I mean, that would. I mean. And Trump. Trump, I feel, would be like trying to herd cats. I've heard interviewing him is almost impossible. [00:02:05] Speaker B: Careful what you say about cats and dogs. [00:02:07] Speaker A: Oh, yeah. [00:02:08] Speaker B: Goodbye. [00:02:11] Speaker A: Yes. Good point. I gotta read the room here. Okay. So, um, well, why don't you tell us a little bit first about your background? Just like before politics and all that. Kind of. Are you crayo, catholic convert? Kind of your business experience? Just kind of like your perspective that, you know, life, that you've grown up with. [00:02:31] Speaker B: Sure. So cradle Catholic? Yes. Born here in New England, living now in Connecticut, born in Massachusetts. Mom and dad were both blue collar folks from blue collar families. My mother's family came from French Canada, post civil war era. My dad's family came from Eastern Europe, post world War one era. I both Catholics, you know, so I was raised in a catholic household, went to some catholic and some public schools, went to catholic university. I've got two degrees from catholic university, undergrad and grad. Most of my career, as you noted before, has been in what I would call communications. I've been both on the side of the table that you're on, Eric, you know, doing the actual production, journalism, editing, etcetera, as well as, like, what I did at the basilica in Washington, the PR side, the communications side of things, as you say. I've got a large family, very blessed with a large number of children and a growing number of grandchildren. And I've been interested in politics for the majority of my life. I had a foray into it very early in my married life when my, before my children were born, or at least before the early ones were very old. And then I've returned to it after, you know, the children have, have grown and I've had more time to devote to it. So it's been something that's fascinated me. I started my life as a Democrat. I was brought up in a blue household. Now, 1960s, the Democrats were a little different than they are in the 20, in the two thousands, and even, you know, going back to really 1980 or so, I think 1980 was the last time we had two pro life candidates, Carter and Reagan, that were opposing one another. I couldn't stay with the Democrats very long, Eric, because, well, call themselves the party of the little guy, but as I say to so many, they forgot about the little guy in the womb. And when they went decidedly in a progressive direction on social issues, particularly abortion, I said, I can't stay because I don't believe in those positions. I was a Reagan Democrat for a time. I was a Reagan Republican and stayed in the Republican Party until sometime in the nineties. And then I went unaffiliated because I really didn't feel as though the Republican Party was doing all of the outreach that I felt was essential either. And so I was politically homeless for like, two decades until I encountered the American Solidarity party, actually voted third party in 2016, Trump, Clinton, and I didn't know about the ASP at that time, founded a couple of years later in the midterms, and fell for it immediately. It fit me like a glove. And so I have been identifying as an ASP member of my local or my regional board of education until my term. My second term recently ended, and earlier last year, I put my name in the ring with seven other people, six other people to serve as the party's nominee and was pleased to win the primary vote of the members. So here I am. [00:06:18] Speaker A: Yeah. So when you were kind of homeless, did you look into some other third parties, like the constitution party or the Reform Party? I mean, that was nothing, didn't last that long. But, you know, Perot and Buchanan, some others. I mean, did you look into any of those parties to see if they kind of fit? And what was your kind of conclusion? [00:06:35] Speaker B: Sure. I mean, there were things that were appealing about them. There were things that were appealing about the Republican Party. There were things that were appealing about the Democratic Party. It's just that there was a. I couldn't find everything that was important to me all put into one until I came upon the aspen. Then I said, wow, look at all of these issues that are important to me, and they're all under one umbrella in the Asp. So the answer is yes. I found things that appealed to me, but it just wasn't complete appeal. [00:07:07] Speaker A: Right. Right. So what I think most people know who know about the American Solidarity party, which, you know, it's small, it's not that well known, but it's more well known in catholic circles. I think that the general thought is, okay, they're the ones who claim to be kind of the catholic party, at least follow the catholic social teaching. So why was the american solidarity, when was it founded? And why was it founded? [00:07:32] Speaker B: Sure. Well, here in the United States, the ASP dates back to 2011, 2012. That was kind of when it first was introduced, and it was introduced as the Christian Democratic Party because christian democracy is a movement that exists elsewhere in the world. It began in Europe. It spread through Latin America and has been successful there. But it hadn't been manifest here in the United States until then. And there were some people that were ahead of the curve from me in being aware of this movement and wanting to have a christian democratic party in the US. So it was called that at first, and then shortly after renamed the American Solidarity Party. So they've had nominees for president in 2016 and then 2020, and then now I'm the 2024 nominee. So christian democracy, if you'll allow me, is based primarily on catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching is a term that I think a lot of your audience, you're probably familiar with, but I. It really is an expansive collection of predominantly encyclicals, but other writings from popes that have spanned us a period of roughly 100, close to 40 years, from 1891 until now. Rarum Nuvarum is usually credited as being the first of these social encyclicals, and quadrissemo Anos and Tasimis Annus and paciminteris. And, you know, there's been several. And really, Eric, what it means is that we're looking at the world through a catholic lens, and we're offering a catholic perspective on what life should be. And we've applied those principles because they apply in even a pluralistic society such as ours. Even though it's catholic social teaching, it's not as though it is trying to be trying to convert the world to Catholicism. It's not as though we're trying to. To make government catholic. We understand who we are as the United States and that we are in the minority of the population as Catholics. But at the same time, we think the perspectives we have are beneficial for the common good. [00:10:25] Speaker A: Yeah. So I want to talk a little bit more about the catholic social teaching, but real quick, does the ASP have any other candidates for, like, local election, senate congressmen, state, state represents or anything? State representatives or anything like that? [00:10:41] Speaker B: At this election, there's only a couple of other individuals running at the federal level, and I think one other member running at the local level in this year. In years past, we've had more. The focus is predominantly on lower levels of government, municipal and county levels. And I can get into that, but I. [00:11:05] Speaker A: So that is the focus of the party? So that is the focus of the party being more on the local level. [00:11:13] Speaker B: You're familiar with catholic social teaching. You're probably familiar with the term subsidiary. Subsidiary means really, you know, giving those, those entities at the lowest level, the lowest competent level, both the authority and the opportunity to implement solutions that benefit them directly, rather than having edicts come down from above. So we're very much in favor of that form of government, and we think that we are best applying that form of government when we are running for municipal and county level positions in government. [00:11:52] Speaker A: Now, I know in America, third parties, everything about our system works against third parties. I mean, essentially, it's all set up. [00:12:00] Speaker B: For the finding that out very, yes, very keenly. [00:12:04] Speaker A: I've been involved with third parties in the past, and it just is. The unit party does everything it can to bring down the third parties, not give them. And so what has been the ASP's success at trying to set up as official parties in various states or in various municipalities and things like that. How has that gone? Cause you've been around for about ten, little bit over ten years now. Have they had any success? [00:12:30] Speaker B: Sure. Well, in a lot of places in a municipal level, positions are elected that are nonpartisan. Right. So you can run without. Without usually even having to have political endorsement. It might mean that you need to obtain a certain small quantity of signatures in order to petition your way out to the ballot, but it's doable when you get to higher levels, obviously, at least at the state level and certainly at the federal level, you've got to do a lot more work in order to be able to be credible either as a ballot line candidate, where you are printed as an option on the ballot, or as we've had to have recourse to, in so many states, what you might call certified or approved write in status, where they actually acknowledge Peter Sonski is a candidate for president of the United States. And we will count votes, write in votes that are cast for Sonski. It's tough, Eric, because to your point, a moment ago, the two major parties agree on one thing, limiting competition. [00:13:47] Speaker A: Right. [00:13:47] Speaker B: Right. Because if one party's got 51% and they've got control, they slip and lose a couple of percent. Now they're 49 and their opponents are 51, and they take control, and they call all the shots. But the quickest way to get back there is to be very close. And so introducing competition makes it challenging for one or the other parties to get that coveted 51% threshold. There are many political systems in the world where there are numerous parties and there has to be consensus. But in the United States, we've had this two party system for a long while, and it's what most people know, it's really become a paradigm. [00:14:36] Speaker A: Yeah. You could really see it this election cycle with RFK, because he has millions of dollars, he has huge name recognition. He had tons of people support him. He had, at one point, the polls are saying around 20 something percent support, and he had no chance getting into debates. He's had, it's been almost impossible for him to get on the ballots in a lot of states. And now, isn't it hilarious now that he's, like, saying, vote for Trump, now they won't let him off the ballot because it's like, whatever. You know, it's like. I mean, clearly, if he's got that kind of problem, and he's probably the best person who could be a third party candidate as far as like name recognition, money, influence, all that stuff. And yet completely. Yeah. [00:15:15] Speaker B: He couldn't even get everything going for him. Every. I mean, the name Kennedy is synonymous with american politics. [00:15:23] Speaker A: Right, right. [00:15:24] Speaker B: And so to your point, he's. He's obviously a man of wealth and a man of means, a man of influence, but he couldn't crack through. He couldn't get the Democratic Party to give him an opportunity they wanted Joe. Right. And they were going to do everything they could to prevent him from being successful as a democratic candidate, which they did. And his goal of it alone didn't work out. It's very difficult to achieve ballot access in enough states in order to secure the 270 electoral college votes to get you over the threshold. So he found it out. Now, I don't know what his reasoning was and why at this juncture he decided to get out. Maybe he's got. Maybe he's negotiated himself a plumb position and administration, if indeed President Trump prevails again. But it remains to be seen. It is a difficult, difficult situation. [00:16:23] Speaker A: Yeah. About how many states are. Is the Asp on the ballot? Is your name on actually all about access right now? [00:16:31] Speaker B: Seven. [00:16:32] Speaker A: Seven. Okay. And then how many are you, like, if you write in your vote, they'll actually count it? [00:16:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I. I don't have a firm count, but it's more than two dozen. It's. It's probably somewhere around 26, approaching 30. We're still at the juncture, Eric, where we're submitting and waiting for confirmations from the various secretaries of state, but it's. Is probably going to be somewhere in the total number of, say, 32 or so, I hope, when we're done. And there are some states in which either they don't require or don't give that certified status to write ins, and some states just don't admit write ins at all. You have to be on the ballot or we're not going to count you. [00:17:18] Speaker A: Okay. Now, I want to go back to the catholic social teaching. I think one of the things, the criticisms I've seen of the AsP sometimes, and I admit I've been one to make this criticism, is, it seems to indicate that this is the catholic position on these various prudential matters. Now, obviously, Pope Leo XIII, other popes, and JP, two others, have made these statements on various political, economic things like that. How authoritative would you give that? Because I think a common criticism might be, well, Leo was talking about this economic thing, but he's not really infallible when it comes to economics. Likewise, Francis is maybe talking about climate change, and he's not necessarily infallible on that. So how would you see how Catholics should view catholic social teaching when making their decisions? Like, how authoritative should it be in our minds? [00:18:17] Speaker B: Well, not a theologian, I'll admit that up front. You've got the theology greed, not me. But what I would say is that, I mean, clearly catholic social teaching, first and foremost, is based on respect for human dignity. Leo XIII's rare novarum was looking at the industrial revolution and the transition, if you will, of people going from, say, subsistence existence, where they might be individually farming or have some sort of a trade in which they were providing for themselves, going to an employment situation where they were doing their nine to five and working in somebody else's shop. And he wanted to be sure that their dignity was recognized, that they had safe working environments, that they had wages that were in keeping with the labor that they were providing, et cetera. And everything follows from that. So I would offer that we as Catholics, obviously put a very high level of respect for the church's teaching on life issues, and this follows from that in so many ways. Maybe not in the ways that we traditionally think of it today. We think of it more directly as opposition for abortion, opposition for euthanasia, etcetera. But all of these issues, labor issues, healthcare, you know, all of those things fall under that, that umbrella of respect for human life and human dignity. Answering your question about how authoritative it is, I mean, look, we don't claim that our platform is authoritative at all. We know that the principles that we follow and the planks that we put on our platform are informed by that, that christian tradition, that catholic social teaching in large measure, and we try to introduce them into society, into a pluralistic society, because we feel that these are values that are consistent with our own personal views, informed by our faith. [00:20:47] Speaker A: Right now, as far as, like, what would you say? You're running for president, and so you obviously have views on the state of the country and where we are and where we're going. What would you say is kind of the state of our country right now? Like what I mean, in, I mean, I know we have so many problems, but, like, you know, just in general, what would you say? I gave away what I think I. [00:21:10] Speaker B: Can'T say in general. I mean, obviously we're struggling. We're struggling quite a lot. We're a very divided nation right now in so many ways. You know, economically, we're, we're mired in this period of high inflation and interest rates have been high because the Federal Reserve is trying to throttle inflation, and we're trying to recoup from all of the impact of the supply chain issues that were real during the pandemic. And, yeah, there's, there's just a lot of adjustment that's, that's coming back. So economically, we're struggling. We've got high prices on food, high prices on housing, high prices on gasoline. And it's very difficult because wages have not met with those increases. And there's a lot of people, hey, look, my kids, you know, my daughter and son in law closed on a house a little more than a month ago. And at the age that they are now, my wife and I had three houses. We had gone, you know, we'd upsized three times. It's just, it's very difficult today. People are struggling with debt, especially with educational debt. I acknowledge all of this, so that's tough. As a government, we seem to be more divided than ever. Eric, I shared my experiences as a Democrat, as a Republican in my young life as a voter. There was still conservative Democrats and there were progressive Republicans, and they were allowed to be members of the party, and they were allowed to bring a different view, a different perspective. No more. If, if you don't toe the line completely, the parties will tell you, we will primary you and you will be gone. We will get you out. We want people who are with us lock, stock and barrel, and there's no exceptions. And we've seen it. We've seen the reality of it. They want purity in the ranks. And so what's happened is there aren't those differing views and there's very little reach across the aisle anymore. And so we've got these loggerheads and we're not accomplishing anything, and it's spilling out into broader society. We've got a more divided electorate than I think we've had in decades. Of course, it doesn't help that we're, you know, up until about a month ago, we had the same two candidates for president that we had in 2022. [00:23:44] Speaker A: Right. I mean, what do you think is kind of the foundational reasons for that divide? Because I'm a little bit younger than you, but not that much. I mean, I do remember also the eighties and the nineties. It's kind of funny because I remember every year, every election, it's like I was always on the conservative side. Conservative, say whoever the diminished nominee was with the worst ever. Like I remember them saying, Bill Clinton, you know, the worst off, most awful president ever. Well, the funny thing is now wouldn't we love to have Bill Clinton running. I mean, almost, I, hey, I almost feel like heresy to say that, but. [00:24:19] Speaker B: Really legal and rare. [00:24:22] Speaker A: I mean, I know where. Yeah, no, no. I mean, they want it everywhere and always now. And, and I don't see, and I've actually said recently that the current republican platform is looking a lot more and more like the 1990s Democrat platform in a lot of ways. But how would you say, though, is kind of what's the fundamental reason why that has happened, that we've gotten more divided, more extreme? Because, I mean, being divided is bad, but obviously, if one side is right, then, okay, you got to fight against the wrong side or whatever. What has led to this greater division where, like, I remember, another thing I remember is, like, in family members, if you disagree politically, it wasn't that big a deal. Yeah, you have a little argument at Thanksgiving and then, you know, whatever, you go watch the football game, but now it's like you won't talk to them. You'll call them a racist or a big or whatever. And so why has it happened? And what would you say? [00:25:20] Speaker B: I don't think it's the case with your audience here, but I think we are becoming, if not already there, a post christian nation. We had Judeo christian roots and we had people of faith that were populating this nation. And we've gotten away from that. We are now choosing for ourselves, choosing our own wants, our own likes, our own preferences, and we are no longer following the tenets of Christianity. And it's permeated society. It's sad. It's sad we need to be able to reclaim our true identity because that's where our form of government will thrive. [00:26:04] Speaker A: I've heard this, heard this argument recently, and I thought it was very intriguing. I want to get your opinion on it. Somebody was saying that after the 2008 recession, you had the tea party on one side, Operation Wall street or Occupy Wall street on the other side. And they both had a very similar target, which was the elites. They looked at differently what the solution was, but it was the elites, basically, who caused the recession in so many ways. And so they both were coming from a different direction. And I think there was a recognition by, this is how the theory goes. And I think it's intriguing, but I don't know. There is recognition by elites like, oh, shoot, both the left and the right are starting to get point. Like, the problem isn't, you know, left right as much as it is us against them. Like, you know, the elites, the powerful versus the regular, the normal people. And so then they started to create, whether or not this is all intentional or coordinate, I'm not saying that, but, like, essentially started to create a lot of division over, like, starting to promote, you know, gay marriage all of a sudden became a big thing. Then transgenderism, and that became a thing because if you look at, like, Google searches, like, searches on, like, transgenderism, racism, homosexual stuff like that, they skyrocketed in around 2011, 2012, something like that, because all of a sudden it became, this is, this is where such a terrible, you know, we're divided, all this stuff. But it was a way to basically say, okay, keep those people divide. That way they won't point their fingers at us. We can just continue to rule them. What do you think about that theory? [00:27:40] Speaker B: Well, I think there's some merit to it. I mean, I'd really have to give it a lot more thought. But I'd also acknowledge that the elites that you cite have become very influential in both of the two major political parties. And if you look at what the parties stand for today, they don't necessarily stand for the common person. They don't stand for the rank and file who are voting for them. They stand for the interests of those party elites, the donor class, if you will, and party leadership. And look at the democratic situation. Okay, how is it that Kamala Harris got zero votes in the primary and without anybody blinking an eye, she's the democratic nominee? Now, how does the rank and file allow for that to happen, at least in the manner that it did? If she's going to be nominated, let's go through a process and do it in a very transparent way. But what's happening now is that the parties are in complete control and everybody has to toe the line or they're out. So I got off the track there. But when you were talking about, you know, that, that concern that people have, the average middle class people and people in the lower social classes, you know, there's some validity there. And I shared at least a manifestation that I've seen of proof. [00:29:20] Speaker A: Now, I know presidential candidate is not supposed to answer a question like this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. And that is kind of your view on Harrison Trump. Do you think, would you say one is better than the other? Or would you just say they're kind of basically both bad in different ways, and so it's not, you know, they're not really that much difference? [00:29:39] Speaker B: Well, you know, neither one of them appeals to me. I mean, certainly Kamala Harris doesn't appeal to me at all in her policies and what she stands for. I'll give her credit for having a good debate earlier this week. She was obviously very well prepared for her debate. President Trump, while I might identify with some of his policies and appreciate the fact that the economy was strongest in the nation last while he was president, I also realized that some of his policies have led to the issues we have today. And certainly he's capitulated on a lot of issues that are very important to me, and he's got some character issues. [00:30:26] Speaker A: The understatement here. Okay, so I want to talk. I want to go through a little bit through the party platform, kind of where the ASP stands on various issues. I'm going to real quickly just assume on abortion, you guys are 100% pro life, no exceptions and all that, correct? [00:30:43] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. And that's a very important point. [00:30:46] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:30:46] Speaker B: You know, no exceptions. [00:30:48] Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. [00:30:50] Speaker B: We would support a federal amendment to make abortion illegal, and we would call for that. So to separate ourselves from some of the other policy that's being put forward now, I would sign a measure that arrived on my desk that made abortion illegal, and I would call for such an action. [00:31:12] Speaker A: Okay, good. I mean, I should. I don't want to dismiss it because it's so important. I just. I think most people know that. But that is. We should be clear about that. [00:31:19] Speaker B: But it's an important point, too, because we're hearing a lot. Oh, you know, everybody wanted it to go back to the states. Well, no, that's not true. Everybody wanted it to go back to the people. And the people have the opportunity to make it their law, not. Not a judicial edict that was imposed upon them, but it should be federal law. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, we've got a 14th amendment that is already saying that it's, you know, you cannot take somebody's life. [00:31:47] Speaker A: Right. Okay, so 100% pro life federal law. Great. Now, one of the big issues, of course, is immigration. And there's just. I mean, this. This one is probably the economy, probably the biggest one impacting the election cycle. What is the stand of the ASP on immigration? [00:32:08] Speaker B: Sure. Well, the AsP is in favor of the common good. And so the common good has to begin with safeguarding the people who are citizens of this nation. So we need to have secure borders, and we need to provide for their safety, the welfare of the people here. So that means that we need to control who is coming into this country, whether they're coming in as. As legal immigrants, whether they're coming in as refugees, as people seeking asylum, whatever the circumstances. They have to come in through the front door, and we have to be able to manage them. But we need to be receptive to that. We need to be open to that. The problem, Eric, is that, you know, it's been like 40 years, I'm thinking it was in the Reagan administration when we had any meaningful legislation that dealt with asylum issues. And while we were working toward that, several months ago, it got scuttled. And again, it goes back to my statement earlier where the two sides just won't agree. But we recognize sovereignty of America. We recognize that we have to have safe borders. But there are solutions. We can deal with this. We have the resources, not just federal agents that are along the, the borders, but if we need to, we can deploy military to help us to secure our borders. And we have lots of technology today to be able to control those borders. We need more immigration judges. We need to be able to process people, and we need to get better definition as to how people will be permitted into the nation. We make a big deal of it, and it is an issue because the borders have not been properly managed, but they can be. [00:33:57] Speaker A: Now, this is something where the catholic bishops primarily have mostly been either silent or they've leaned towards a more open borders, haven't really talked about security of the border. And of course, there is the issue of catholic charities. It's been taking hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in the processing of immigrants. And I know for a fact that at times that's not always done. You know, it's not always legal immigrants that they're helping. And so what do you see? Do you see that as attention? Because, you know, you're talking about, you know, supporting catholic social teaching, but yet we have catholic bishops who are, if not silent or at least kind of, and sometimes even promoting more, you know, more open borders and being sympathetic to that. [00:34:48] Speaker B: Well, again, I think what we're trying to do as a political party is to emphasize the fact that as catholic Christians, we need to be welcoming of the stranger in the pure form in which we do that. We also have to do it in a structured way. The church may be speaking as at times more in ways to counsel, inform us, but a political party has to do something that's an actual protocol, an actual regulation or law that allows or disallows some sort of activity. So I'm not trying to dodge your question, but what I'm saying is obviously when we would, as a political party, be looking to address these issues, we'd have to do them in a very formal and transparent way, through government entities to manage the processing of people coming into the nation, speaking to or trying to judge what individual catholic institutions are doing. I mean, I've read the story, Eric. I admit that at this point, I have not been recently to the border to experience this firsthand, but it's my desire to do so and to perhaps have a better insight as to what sort of circumstances truly are taking place. But look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that people are coming here for either opportunity or to escape circumstances that are unfavorable in their own homelands. And I want to be receptive to people when they legitimately have a cause and a desire to be here and can contribute in a productive way. But I certainly want to keep vice, and I want to keep trafficking, and I want to keep drugs, and I want to keep all sorts of other negative influence, harmful influences outside of our country. [00:37:13] Speaker A: What about the millions of illegal immigrants that are here right now that have, I mean, because they've been coming years. Yeah. What do you do with them? I mean, because I know, I know you hear them. Conservatives say, deport them, and then the liberals say, you know, leave them here. I don't think it's as easy for. I think both answers don't satisfy me. [00:37:35] Speaker B: At least I can't wrap my hands around that in a very practical way just yet, in a pure way. If we were to do as President Trump suggested, which is go to door to door and deport them, I think we would spend all kinds of resources in order to do that in a practical sense. Many of these people have hearings that are up coming. And I would like to think that if they are willing to adhere to scheduled hearings, we can have a better opportunity to process them. But moreover, we got to start today to make sure that as people enter, we're handling it right so that we're not creating these issues that go down the road. I just don't think it's practical to expect that we're going to be deporting millions of people. I'd like to think that if we had some sort of an amnesty program, we could invite people to come and be processed and to work toward possible citizenship or what have you. But let's be honest, so many of them have integrated into our society that the ability to do what is being proposed is just not realistic. [00:38:44] Speaker A: Right. Right. Okay. Another big one I want to talk about is, like, american foreign policy, particularly military engagement in place like Ukraine, Israel, like that. There does seem to be in this one a difference as well between Republicans and the Democrats, at least on some level. Where does the american solidarity party stand on foreign, foreign policy and, like military intervention in other countries and NATO and things like that? [00:39:16] Speaker B: Sure. You know, can I, can I just preface that by saying how much of a change you said that you're somewhat comparable in age to me, so you've been a political observer. Isn't it interesting how things have shifted and how the Republican Party, you know, the party of Reagan. Right. [00:39:34] Speaker A: Okay. [00:39:34] Speaker B: We wanted to speak softly and carry the big stick type thing. And I know I'm mixing my presidents, but the reality is he very much wanted to have that strong presence and he wanted to have a lot of foreign diplomacy and he wanted to have a strong military. And now it's gone the other way and it's Republicans that want to be isolationist and stay out of things and the Democrats that seem to be reaching outward. [00:39:56] Speaker A: Yeah. Where did the anti war left go? I mean, it just disappeared. [00:40:01] Speaker B: No, I mean, so many things have been inverted. I mean, labor, I mean, blue collar people today are now identifying much more closely with the Republican, since we're free. [00:40:10] Speaker A: Speech that's flipped now. I mean, yeah, it's crazy fascinating. [00:40:16] Speaker B: And, you know, well, anyway, let's get back to foreign, foreign affairs. The american solidarity party obviously is in favor of having peaceful diplomatic relations and having a peaceful society, peaceful in our neighborhoods, peaceful, you know, in the world. We are in favor of intervention if we can do it in a diplomatic way and a peaceful way. We're not in favor of selling a lot of arms and deploying a lot of troops to be in a lot of places. I mean, certainly there are cases where our american forces need to be deployed and it's beneficial to be deployed. We'd like to work toward a reduction in nuclear arms. We'd like to work toward ways in which we have relationships. And you mentioned NATO. I mean, you know, NATO is a coalition of nations that have come together for the purpose of pledging to be united in support of one another if one is militarily attacked. And I think coalitions like that are valuable. To my knowledge, in the history of NATO, I think the United States is the only nation that's ever had to call in those chips and say, hey, we were attacked during 911. You know, we need your, we need your backing. But the reality is coalitions such as that are valuable not just for mutual defense, but for a lot of other purposes. So we're in favor of those kinds of alliances. I don't know if you want to talk about, you know, situations like China and Iraq. [00:42:14] Speaker A: Why don't we just talk about Ukraine? I think Ukraine a good one, because I think an argument against a coalition like NATO is that it ends up causing an escalation when there might not meet, when there could be a local conflict of. So if Poland and, you know, whoever, I mean, like a NATO country and a non native country get into a conflict, why do we all need to jump in on it? Because all that does, it turns into another world war, because that's, of course, world War one. That's the history of world War one, was all these alliances ended up leading to a conflict that was supposed to be local, turned into the great war. And so with, and if you see with Ukraine adding then the NATO, that's been, that was the big issue with Russia. Right? [00:43:00] Speaker B: Putin. [00:43:01] Speaker A: Yeah, adding them. And so, like, what is the american role? We can talk all we want about, like, what Russia did and stuff like that, or Ukraine, whether or not it's a democracy, all that. But, like, ultimately, what's the american role in a conflict like the Russian Ukraine one? [00:43:19] Speaker B: Well, just a headline a few moments ago before we got on board, something, to the extent that President Biden was going to give more leniency for Ukraine to be using american weaponry to exact strikes on the interior of Russia, which. [00:43:36] Speaker A: I saw that, and I saw Putin said that would be considered an act of war by the United States against them. [00:43:41] Speaker B: Yeah. So we're certainly not looking to incite a war, especially not with a country with nuclear capabilities like Russia. I support the ukrainian people. I've been very upfront from the beginning and saying we need to provide humanitarian aid. We need to provide defensive military aid so that they can protect themselves to the extent possible. I haven't been, I haven't been at all happy with the incursion that they made into Russia a couple of weeks ago. I, I think they really tipped the scales of the war as a result of that aggression. I certainly think that they are the aggrieved party, that Russia attacked them. And Russia's in the wrong. I supported sanctions against Russia, but Ukraine has got to say, enough is enough. They're not going to win this war. They don't have the means to win this war. And nobody else wants to jump in and support them in a war against Russia for fear of having a reprisal from Russia. So inasmuch as we want to help them to defend their own sovereignty, defend their land to the extent possible, they've got to ultimately realize that this war cannot be won and they've got to look for terms and they're probably going to have to cede some of the territory. I mean, they effectively lost Crimea long ago. Um, I don't think that it's just in a pure sense, but I also think that it's essential in order to bring an end to the fighting and the loss of life. [00:45:20] Speaker A: Right. Yeah, I mean, I think. I think you're right about that. That just recognizing reality sometimes it's not, it's. We don't live in a comic book world where we can just say, okay, we're gonna get what we want. That's all that matters. [00:45:32] Speaker B: Never gonna have a fair ending. [00:45:33] Speaker A: Right. Right, that, yeah, that's a good way to put it. Okay. So moving on to another topic, one that I saw on the website for the platform, and I was a little surprised, and I admit I'm like, I can't, I would, I don't think this is something I would support, but I know a lot of people also wouldn't. But universal healthcare, that the american solidarity price supports universal healthcare. I think. I be honest, I seem to think that. I feel like there's lots of problems with that. So I want to hear the defense of universal healthcare from your perspective. [00:46:06] Speaker B: And I understand the initial reaction to that, Eric. And I think a way that I try to phrase it when I talk to people is that we want to see people have access to basic healthcare. There's a lot of people today that do not have access to basic healthcare. Now, we've got a lot of different methods of delivery of healthcare in the united states, but we still don't have a convenient, and I'm going to use the word universal way in which people can access health care. And so some people are on the outside looking in. I'm not suggesting that universal health care is in the traditional sense that we think of as a socialistic approach. [00:46:56] Speaker A: Let go by. [00:46:57] Speaker B: What I'm saying is that people need basic care. It's a pro life concern, human dignity. We want to give them a basic degree of care and access to medical treatment where they need it. And yet that's not the reality. You and I perhaps enjoy the opportunity to secure health insurance through our employment, as the majority of people do in the working class in the United States. You know, there are people who are. I'm approaching the age where I'll be securing government supported Medicine through Medicare. The VA provides also a government supported method, Medicaid, a government supported, usually, you know, partially funded federally, but delivered through the states, is another, another method of delivery of healthcare, and it seems as though we can do better. We also have a largely for profit system here in the United States, which drives up a lot of costs. We have problems with a limited number of internships, and, you know, the number of doctors eligible every year is diminishing. And we've got a number of hospitals now that are consolidating. These community hospitals that I've known and that are surrounding me are closing up, or they're becoming parts of larger consortiums and they're driving up costs and they're making things much more challenging. There's a lot of issues within the healthcare system, not just the insurance, but in the health delivery system in the United States, drugs, medical technology, that all need to be reformed. So look at it this way, and I realize that this is a bugaboo for a lot of people and probably many in your audience. But I would say that we're looking at human dignity and we're looking at people having access to basic care, whether they have it in a conventional sense, like you and I might enjoy or not. We want to make sure that people have that access. [00:49:04] Speaker A: Yeah, I think, I think my, I have two, my two major concerns with it is that I feel like when you get a universal system by the federal government down for everybody, you add so many layers of regulations, which that drives up costs much more than anything else. You also get a top down approach to a very non subsidiary approach to medicine. Instead of your local doctor telling you you have some bureaucrat in your state capitol or in, or in Washington, DC telling your doctor, you can do this, you can't do that. And then, and then the other thing. And you can address all this. But my other major concern is when the government takes over and says everybody gets basic health care, they start including things like birth control, IVF, things like that as basic health care, and now sudden we're paying for, you know, immoral practice, what we consider immoral practices. Right. [00:49:58] Speaker B: And it's, it's an important, and everything you say is valid. And everything you say I agree with. And those are real cautions for me. But I'm not advocating necessarily for a single payer system where the government rules everything. I'm advocating for a system, a multi payer system, hopefully a nonprofit based multi payer system where there are other avenues of access that people can have, but it's not universally controlled. I mean, Obamacare, the Affordable Care act, did some of the things you need to describe where they were trying to influence the way people were going to have access to healthcare and conscious provisions and whether birth control had to be included and abortion care and all of these other things. And I oppose that, but I do want to find ways in which we can accommodate people to recognize their human dignity and to give them basic medical assistance. [00:50:59] Speaker A: Yeah, I was frankly just shocked when Trump came out and said the government would basically force, you know, would either pay for IVF or, like, force insurance companies to. [00:51:09] Speaker B: Where did that come from? I mean, how can, is that. [00:51:12] Speaker A: I know, right. Exactly. It just, I mean, just, even if it wasn't IVF, if it's anything, where do we get the government paying for things or forcing insurance companies to pay for things? But that is kind of part, I mean, that's what, but it is kind of part and parcel of the Obamacare way of looking at universal health care that the government, the federal government controls all. And it can just tell you, here's what you're going to have for free, you know, and so, and that actually gets me into, I think, my last question about the ASP kind of platform. It's really just more general about the role of government. I think that's probably, probably because you call this solidarity party and so, obviously, but you've already talked about subsidiarity, which I have a hard time saying for some reason. [00:51:59] Speaker B: It's a tricky term. [00:52:00] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. But so what would you say is, I mean, people who've watched my podcast for a while know I'm a very small government, limited government, almost no government guy. But like, you know, what is the, what would you say is the role of government in our lives? Frankly? [00:52:18] Speaker B: Sure. I mean, look, we have a need for some government. We need for government to provide for safety and security and order. So, you know, eliminating that entirely is a foolish notion, but we are very much in favor of small government. I told you, subsidiary essentially means decentralization. It means getting rid of these bulky and costly bureaucracies that exist that keep sending us mandates and edicts and telling us we have to do things. And there are several layers removed from us. Don't understand what the real needs and real problems are on a local level, but they're saying, here's your solution, you will do this, and, oh, by the way, you will pay for it. And if you don't do it, we're not going to give you any other funding or support or you're going to be found in violation. And, you know, those are very frustrating ways to do business. As a yemenite, you know, a public school board member, this is what I was dealing with. You've got to support this type of curriculum, and you've got to support this type of program. And, look, I know who my students are. I know who my community is. Why are you telling me what I need to do? These are things that I see that are relevant. But all the money goes up, Eric, in order to get it back down, you need to be in basic compliance with a lot of these things. Frustrating. So, a long, exaggerated response to your question, but we're in favor of small government. We're in favor of government closer to the people, where the problems are known, understood, and can be effectively acted upon. They could be managed by people at a lower level of government. I'm not suggesting that they. That, hey, federal government, Washington created to handle things like national defense and interstate commerce. But now we've sucked everything up. We've sucked housing up. We suck, you know, education, boy, that would be my first decision, is I get rid of the department of Education on a heartbeat. And, oh, by the way, the commissioner of education or the secretary of education is from Connecticut and was, you know, a colleague of one of my former colleagues on the board of education. And I'd say, sorry, you're out of a job. [00:54:37] Speaker A: Goodbye. Well, that sounds great. Okay, so I want to kind of my final question, I have a couple questions from the chat, but my final question from me is the number one thing that's usually said about a third party candidate is it's a wasted vote, or you're voting for this certain candidate. I think I would be willing to. [00:54:58] Speaker B: Bethe, I've never heard that before. [00:55:00] Speaker A: Are you sure you haven't been paying ditch in it? No, exactly. I think among the crisis audience, the argument is Harris is obviously almost an existential threat to our country. She is clearly anti Catholic, clearly just so extreme on things that matter, like abortion, you know, marriage, war, all that stuff. She's just terrible in so many ways. Trump, for all his faults, and I'm always, I'm always willing to, you know, admit he's got them and things like his dumb moves, like on IVF and stuff like that, he's not that threat. He will allow Catholics, at least in general, to live out their life without, like, coming after them. And you feel like Harris, if she gets some power, might come after us in certain ways. So voting for you ultimately takes a vote away from Trump, is the argument, and therefore makes it more likely that Harris, the real threat of the two people who, let's be honest, or one of those two, is going to be the next president what do you say to that argument? [00:56:15] Speaker B: It's funny you say that, because there are people that on the other side of the fence, there are, would suggest that a vote for me would be vote taken away from Harris because we do have some positions that are more common with the progressive or the democratic side. But, you know, Eric, I didn't get into this race to be a spoiler. I shared with you before at the outset that I was not finding what I felt were a harmony among policies. So many times we as Catholics, you know, we're told, right, that we have to form our consciences as faithful citizens. Is that a familiar term to you? And a lot of the issues that we're supposed to be considering are either on the left or the right side of the spectrum, and you have to pick and choose among them. And that was a part of the frustration that I had, because I do value all of these things. I value the dignity of human life. I value the rights of workers. I value, you know, religious freedom and the right to own guns. But I also value a stewardship for the environment. So all of these things are, you know, how do you, how do you evaluate them? I think that the platform of the american solidarity party is a platform that is well suited for the common good, for the benefit, the thriving of individuals and families, as well as for the totality of society. And what I'm trying to do is to advance an agenda that people will look at and appreciate. Now, I don't think any vote is wasted unless it's a vote that is not cast. And there are a lot of people in this election who have openly said, I'm not going to vote because I don't like either of these people. They don't represent me, and I just don't feel as though I have an option. Well, I'm trying to give people an option. Do you want to vote for the republican or the democratic candidate? You're welcome to do so. A lot of people say if I do that, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. But a lot of people have thanked me and said, oh, I'm so glad you're here, because I can vote for something I believe in. I can vote my conscience. I can support what you stand for. Eriche, if I thought that I was going to be relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I may not even be in this race. But the reality is I think I can advance a different way of looking at things. I would think I can advance a policy and a platform that says it doesn't have to be either the way the Republicans offer it or the way the Democrats offer it, it can be formed in a new way. And so let's have some influence. Let's send a signal to both of those parties and all of those candidates to say, no, we don't agree with the way you're doing things, and we're going to vote in protest. But one thing you can say about a third party vote, it's measurable, it's identifiable. If people vote for other than the Republicans or the Democrats, it's a check mark that you can count. If you go in and say, I really hate Kamala Harris, I'm going to vote for Donald Trump, even though I really have some huge problems with his character, nobody's going to know that. Nobody's going to be able to identify that. But if you vote third party, you're saying, I don't agree with either. [00:59:41] Speaker A: Right. [00:59:41] Speaker B: I'm standing apart. [00:59:43] Speaker A: Okay. I want to go a couple of the, if you have a few minutes, a couple of the comments and questions from the chat. I just, one is somebody asked, Richard asked, he lives in Maryland, where you're not on the ballot. [00:59:54] Speaker B: Right. [00:59:54] Speaker A: And he does not think you can make the official write in. Is there, can he still write you in or is that will actually be counted? Do you know this? Like, is Maryland a state where he could actually write you in? [01:00:06] Speaker B: There's a lot of states in which you can write a name in, in certain counties, they are, they're going to be tabulating the votes. It really depends on the secretary of state and whether they are going to record those votes and report them. But in most counties that I've heard of, if you're getting minimally five, five votes in a county that they're going to tabulate them and pass them upward. [01:00:39] Speaker A: Okay. Okay. This is, I thought this is a good point, is if in the, in blue states, your vote for Trump is lost anyway, a vote for Sanskrit makes a statement. And that's kind of what Kennedy was doing at first. He was constantly. Right, right. [01:00:53] Speaker B: If you, if you know what the, look, I live in Connecticut. I'll tell you what, Trump doesn't have a shot here. [01:00:59] Speaker A: Right. [01:01:00] Speaker B: So if you vote for Trump, you know, hey, I voted for the person that I believed in, that I identified with, but it's not going to do any good. You could vote for me. And like I said, then it makes a statement. The same is true in a red state. If, you know, Trump is going to carry Indiana, Indiana, for example. [01:01:20] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:01:21] Speaker B: You go in there and you vote for him. Yeah, it's one more vote. [01:01:25] Speaker A: But, and the truth is, it's another way. It's, the truth is about 35 to 40 states in which it's really not. [01:01:32] Speaker B: A race, not going to make a difference. [01:01:34] Speaker A: Yeah. And so it said, it said seven. [01:01:36] Speaker B: Or eight states, Eric, that really are going to have the impact. [01:01:40] Speaker A: Right. So, I mean, there's real, I think your argument makes sense. And especially in these states where it's already a done deal, it's a measurable way to say all of a sudden people are like, hey, wait a second, what is, you know, what is this american solidarity party? You know, it's like all of a sudden they have a bunch of votes in Indiana. Like, what is that? Or in Connecticut or whatever. I, yeah, maybe even state officials start to be like, what's going on with that? [01:02:07] Speaker B: Precisely. We've, look, we've drawn a lot of attention to ourselves, not just among Catholics. We've drawn a lot of interest among evangelicals. There are a lot of faithful Christians out there that are really put out about the changes that Trump has imposed. I mean, the talk of IVF, there's a lot of people besides Catholics that really understand that issue and know how wrong it is. The changes that he made in the platform, Eric, I just don't get it. For four decades, the Republican Party has said in this aspirational language, we really value you as pro life voters supporting our policy, supporting our candidates. We're going to make these statements. They might be a little lofty, and they may be a little bit beyond what we can actually seek to accomplish in public policy. But in recognition of you, in gratitude for you, we're going to state these things in our positions. And Trump says, no, not anymore. We don't believe this way. He had no need to do that. And he's ticked off a lot of people as a result of it. And it was completely unnecessary. [01:03:16] Speaker A: It did seem to be an unforced error, because a person, the marriage, yeah, a person who's voting on abortion and is very pro abortion isn't all of a sudden now going to vote for Trump. I mean, and so I don't know how it was really hurting him to have a pro life platform, which is what the Republicans have for, he won on with the pro life platform 2016. And so it's like, it's not like you can't win. So I, it was an odd decision because my guess is he just figured, well, the pro lifers are definitely going to vote for him no matter what, because they owe him right, right. Roe v. Wade was overturned. Do a lot because of the judges he picked. I mean, we have to give him credit for that. Absolutely, I will. [01:04:00] Speaker B: And that was a big, big victory, but it was a transactional arrangement. You vote for me, I'll give you judges. [01:04:07] Speaker A: Right. [01:04:08] Speaker B: Look, Eric, consider this. I mean, I don't deny that the judges he appointed and three judges in a one single four year term is a huge deal. You don't. Yeah, but he did it and Roe was overturned. But those judges also are very pro business and they're very pro republican policy positions. So yes, they did that, but it's not always considered that. There's a lot of other decisions that they're likely to make or perhaps have made that are also beneficial to Trump and other republican leaders. [01:04:49] Speaker A: And the truth is, Trump did not pick them with a litmus test. You're going to overturn Roe. I mean, it was great. I mean, that he did pick three that ended up doing that. But it's, that wasn't actually, you know, it wasn't like saying, okay, I'm going to find somebody who's going to overturn Roe. It just, it happened, but, but he, but they did. So, I mean, I always want to give him credit for that because it's a, did happen, but now. Yeah, the weirdness of like the IVF and just the. Yeah, I just don't understand that. So. Okay, so we've run a little bit long, but that's okay. This has been great. Where can people find out about the american solidarity party, your campaign, like volunteer for it, donate to it, find out if they can vote for you on the, on their ballot and things like that. Sure. [01:05:32] Speaker B: Absolutely. The party and its a platform is solidarity Dash or solidarity party.org dot. [01:05:41] Speaker A: Okay. [01:05:42] Speaker B: My own campaign talks about myself, talks about my running mate, Warren Onack, who, by the way, is a young mom of three, NFP instructor, Columbia University graduate. You can learn about [email protected] that's where we have volunteer forms. That's where we have contribution forms. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak with the audience of Crisis magazine. I have a great deal of respect for them and a great deal that I share in common with them in views. [01:06:24] Speaker A: That's great. I will make sure I put links to both those websites in the show notes so people can get to them easily. Peter, I really appreciate you coming on, and I wish you luck in your campaigning. I'm sure it takes up a lot of your time. It's not like you're getting paid the big bucks to do this work in. [01:06:40] Speaker B: A 40 hours job, Eric. So there are long days, but I bet, I bet if we can make some inroads, if we can convince people that the parties can have different approaches, if they can look at policy a little differently, that's a win. And, you know, I know a lot of people believe that a political party exists to win and to get control of government power. I mean, as a Catholic and a Christian, winning for me is heaven. And if I don't win the White House, I'm not going to be disappointed. If I'm winning through influence, if I'm winning by gaining people a different perspective, if I'm winning by allowing some people to vote in a way that they feel perplexed about otherwise, that's a win. If there's ever going to be change, it's got to come from within or from without. And I'm taking the without perspective because trying to do it from within the parties has proven very difficult for a large number of people. [01:07:52] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. That's for sure. Okay, well, thank you again. So, Pierre Sansky, candidate for the American Solidarity party for president in 2024. Like I said, I'll put the links to your various websites and show notes so people can find out more. I really appreciate you being on the program. [01:08:07] Speaker B: God bless. [01:08:08] Speaker A: Okay, God bless you. Until next time, everybody. God love.