This is the artificial intelligence voice of Ben Shapiro narrating this pod slice summary of the Ben Shapiro Show.

In a recent episode of the Ben Shapiro Show, a debate between Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and Governor Gavin Newsom of California was discussed. The debate was aired on Fox News and featured both governors’ views on their respective governing styles and policies.

Governor DeSantis criticized California’s policies and leadership and shared how people leaving California have expressed satisfaction with Florida’s governance. He shared a story of a man moving from California to Florida, who happened to be Newsom’s father-in-law as an example of Florida’s popularity. DeSantis pointed out the higher migration to Florida and the outflow from California as perceived fallout from Newsom’s leftist ideology. DeSantis explained that the choice for America was to either adopt the California model nationwide or stick with conservative principles.

On the other hand, Governor Newsom attacked DeSantis for allegedly banning books and questioned the reasons for doing so. Newsom also accused DeSantis of having inconsistencies in his policies about COVID, lockdowns, and quarantine measures, claiming that DeSantis followed Fauci’s advice in the early stages of the pandemic only to succumb to his party’s fringe elements later.

DeSantis countered these accusations with facts, highlighting California’s failures in managing the pandemic, damage to livelihoods, failure to reopen schools when Florida did, and the ensuing impact on children’s literacy. He also ridiculed Newsom for attending an unmasked dinner at The French Laundry while imposing restrictions on Californians, and pointed out issues in San Francisco’s governance, using a map showing areas with human feces as an example of the city’s decline.

Interestingly, DeSantis challenged Newsom’s stance on parents’ rights, particularly around the topic of sex-change operation decisions for minors, stating that California allows teens from other states to receive sex-change operations without parental consent.

The debate highlighted the contrasting visions from both sides, but Shapiro layers another angle claiming America deserves a debate over these serious policy differences, but what it needs is a debate that addresses why the likely presidential candidates for the upcoming election are unpopular, elderly individuals from both parties. He suggests that for Democrats, party bosses control who runs, pointing out Newsom’s hesitation to admit he might be running. Meanwhile, it’s highlighted Donald Trump currently leads the Republican party polls despite his wide-ranging stances on pivotal subjects, suggesting that in the Republican party, the power doesn’t reside with party bosses.

Deep into the show, Shapiro highlighted some pressing questions about the state of the nation’s political landscape. He suggested that the ultimate debate should focus on whether America still has the capacity for productive discussion. He questioned if our nation has become so polarized that policy debates lack substance and weight. Shapiro also contemplated the possibility that the nation no longer deserves a serious political debate due to its trivial attitude during a critical time.

Continuing, he addressed a deeper issue of radicalism from the American left, suggesting it usurped institutional power in corporate America, in courts, and in media which perhaps made it too late for any compromise.

Subsequently, Shapiro switched the narrative to focus on an interview with Elon Musk, calling out corporate leaders who pretend to do good while abetting evil. Musk boldly declared that Tesla is a leader in environmental progress, having done more for the environment than any single human on earth.

Shapiro then discussed how Disney drew Musk’s ire by withdrawing advertising from Twitter (referred to as ‘X’ in the transcript), due to his tweets. Noting the difference between advertisers disassociating from an outlet and advertisers making public announcements to create public pressure, he accused Disney and similar companies of trying to pressure Musk into conforming to their desires.

To challenge this narrative, The Daily Wire took over Twitter with a $250,000 promotional campaign for their new film, “Lady Ballers”. They view Musk’s Twitter as a platform preserving free speech, something they claim Hollywood and big tech platforms are stifling. Their new film aims to provoke a conversation about the societal absurdity of men transitioning to women and dominating women’s sports.

Shapiro fears that if companies like Disney successfully boycott platforms like Twitter, it’ll trample free speech. In an act of defiance, he urges everyone to keep subsidizing businesses they like and have common ideals with, especially those that champion free speech.

As Shapiro continued to provide commentary, he transitioned to discuss the Middle East situation, detailing Israel resuming its offensives in the Gaza Strip, a response to Hamas breaking the ceasefire agreement.

Amid weighty discussion about the political climate in America and its inherent radicalism, Be Shapiro turned the attention towards the blurring boundaries between corporate gains and societal protection. Elon Musk, as an example, balanced on the fulcrum of environment sustainability and corporate profit. Shapiro raised concerns over the influence and pressure corporations are able to exert, as evidenced by Disney’s power play against Twitter.

The discussion then moved to the entertainment sector, focusing on The Daily Wire’s film, “Lady Ballers”. The film seeks to stimulate discourse on gender roles and identity, particularly in sports. Shapiro, stressing the need for an open public forum, urged listeners to support businesses aligning with their views, highlighting the risk of censorship if companies successfully boycott platforms that enable free speech.

The conversation then transitioned to the escalating Middle East situation. Shapiro briefly explained the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, discussing the recent ceasefire breakdown that led to Israel resuming offensives in the Gaza Strip.

In the next section, Shapiro delved deeper into the issue of children’s wellbeing, criticizing those who rush into decisions that impact their children and the environment they live in. He also talked about the societal messages broadcasted in modern day Hollywood movies, which often propagate the idea that divorce doesn’t adversely impact children. He contends that this narrative is harmful, supporting the stance that divorce can have severe negative effects on children, despite Hollywood’s portrayal.

Shapiro underlined the role of free speech, advertising the exclusive screening of “Lady Ballers” on Daily Wire plus, as not just entertainment, but a stance against societal views propelled by the left. The podcast then turned its focus back to the Middle East situation, presenting harsh realities and unsettling footage depicting Hamas’s atrocities.

Through the narrative, he elucidated on the traumatic experiences of hostages held by Hamas, calling for acknowledgment of the terrorism enacted on innocent civilians. He went on to criticize the tepid response from the American left and the international community, arguing for stronger action against Hamas.

Furthermore, Shapiro slammed the United States’ inconsistent stand, focusing on the Biden administration’s plea for a more perceptive approach from Israel while simultaneously advancing the interest in a Palestinian state. He professed this as a contradictory message that may result in fostering more terrorist violence. Lastly, he censured Tony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, for his impotent rhetoric that does not contribute to resolving the crisis but inadvertently risk escalating tensions.

As the conversation continued, Ben Shapiro shifted his focus on the events unfolding in Central Gaza. He highlighted the need to ensure the protection of civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, power stations, and water facilities, and prevent further displacement of civilians. However, he questioned the practicality of these measures, particularly if civilians aren’t allowed to move from one area to another during conflict. Shapiro argued that these suggestions are likely to contribute to a lengthening of the conflict and an increase in the number of Hamas attacks.

Interestingly, he also delved into the economic transactions pertaining to his show. Introducing Beam’s Dream Powder as a part of their regular use for a good night’s sleep, Shapiro offered a special discount to his listeners. Shifting his attention back to the entertainment sector, he emphasized exclusive screening of “Lady Ballers” at Daily Wire Plus as not just a form of entertainment, but a stance against societal views driven by the left.

Shapiro then critiqued the inconsistent stance and alleged cowardice of the political left in the US, especially regarding foreign policy matters such as the Israel and Hamas conflict. He argued that due to this confusion and fear, the US’s foreign policy is failing. He offered his critique of Ben Rhodes, the former Deputy National Security Advisor, who blamed the fall of the Berlin Wall on materialistic desires rather than on substantial foreign policy moves.

The discussion took a heated turn as Shapiro condemned Rhodes’ take, identifying the economic downfall of the Soviet Union and the rise of pro-western foreign policy as the key forces that led to the Wall’s collapse. Furthermore, he criticized Rhodes’ argument that America’s supposed hypocrisy is the reason for the global rise in autocracy and ethnic nationalism,

While addressing the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza, Shapiro refuted Rhodes point, suggesting that other countries are perceiving the US as being selective in embracing international laws and norms. Instead, Shapiro proposed that the tension in the Middle East could be attributed more to underlying regional dynamics and power play rather than US foreign policy alone.

Shapiro summed up his view on foreign policy as viewing the world as a prison yard rather than a playground – a place fraught with violence, lawlessness, and rooted heavily in adverse interests and ideological differences. The idealistic lens of foreign policy, as presented by Rhodes, was slammed by Shapiro who instead offered a more realist and pragmatic approach, focusing on the world as filled with adversarial interests, bad choices, and the paramount importance of raw economic and military power.

In an intriguing shift of perspective, Shapiro delved into the complexities of global power dynamics, challenging the idea that the world revolves around the actions and interests of the United States. He asserted that the interests of other countries, such as Britain, Russia, and Chile, might independently shape their actions regardless of what the U.S. is doing or not doing.

As Shapiro explained, the United States enjoyed a false sense of security for a period, benefitting from Britain’s global hegemony and its role in preserving Freedom of the Seas and fostering free trade while diminishing foreign conflicts through its colonial holdings. However, as Britain’s influence slipped and gave way to a more volatile world, the United States stepped in to fill the power vacuum.

Shapiro emphatically pointed out the imaginable chaos if the U.S. were to cease playing its global role. This is especially true considering the likely contenders to fill the power vacuum, most notably China. He chided guest, Ben Rhodes again, for his depiction of the world as a playground where everyone wants to be friends, effectively ignoring the reality of competing interests and power struggles.

Shapiro argued against the view that the U.S. could merely retreat within its borders without any global impact, terming such a notion as incorrect and dangerous. This outlook, according to him, assumes that the world is not only a benign playground but also misleadingly posits that the U.S. could remain unaffected by global events if it withdrew from world politics.

In the ensuing discussion, Shapiro took asides to promotional plugs for some of the show’s sponsors, including the tax relief service Tax Network USA and the smart hiring tool, Zip Recruiter. The promotional segments served dual function – extending tax assistance and suggesting a smart hiring solution to his audience while monetizing the show.

Returning to his critique of global politics, Shapiro flagged a certain section of people across the ideological spectrum, from the radical left to the isolationist right, who hold the mistaken belief that the world is “just a family of Nations” where everyone can become best friends. However, he punctuated his message with the reality that this idealistic view was not only mistaken but could potentially lead to disastrous outcomes in the face of real world threats and power struggles.

Shapiro ended this segment with a strong critique of Pope Francis’ remarks on Israel’s actions in Gaza, highlighting his dissatisfaction with the Pope’s stance which he found lacking in its understanding of the geo-political dynamics. By likening Pope Francis’ views to those of the radical left, he underscored the potential pitfalls of such a simplistic and benign view of global politics in an inherently competitive and often violent world. He also took aim at comedian and libertarian figure, suggesting the need for a fair examination of why they were critical of conservative icon William F Buckley.

In the conversation, Shapiro questions Tucker Carlson’s criticism of William F Buckley, the most prominent conservative of the 20th century, and a person with whom Tucker himself used to collaborate in the ’90s through National Review. He probes the rationale behind Tucker’s disagreement with Buckley, asserting that Buckley was known for the three-pillar model of conservatism – social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and a realist foreign policy against the Soviet Union.

Shapiro seems reasonably sure of Tucker’s alignment with Buckley on social conservatism, but fiscal conservatism, which supports free markets, is an area he finds Tucker’s stance to be unstable. Buckley’s foreign policy views apparently represent another point of contention. Shapiro presses the matter further, curious about which aspects of Buckley’s philosophy Carlson takes issue with.

In particular, Shapiro pushes back against what he understands as a common position of the libertarian right, a stance that paints America as the instigator of world conflicts since World War II, including World War II itself. He sought clarifying responses from Tucker about these critiques on William F Buckley’s conservative philosophies, hinting some curiosity about the seemingly unclear standpoint of Tucker at this point.

Shapiro then leads on to another important discussion, moving to the impending analysis of a New York Times report about Israel’s underestimated anticipation of what Hamas was capable of prior to October 7th. He teases the continuation of the conversation beyond the show, urging viewers to avail of the membership offers that give free access to the content for two months on all annual plans. The discussion sets a backdrop of suspense as Shapiro entices his audience with the prospect of diving into a shocking failure of the Israeli intelligence service in assessing Hamas’s capabilities. The continuous background music adds to the intensity of the conversation, further motivating viewers to join in on the exclusive content.