For Antiwar.com and Chaos Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas, I'm Scott Horton.
This is Antiwar Radio.
Alright everybody, I'm Nick Hancock.
I'm sitting in for Scott Horton here today.
And yeah, first is the guest, and the guest is Adam Kokesh.
Adam, say hello to the people.
Hoorah, thanks for having me on Nick, and hello everybody.
It's a pleasure to be with the Antiwar audience this morning.
Thanks for listening.
Oh yeah, so yesterday I was listening to Scott interview Dar Jamal.
It was a really great interview.
And he mentioned, he mentioned, well a lot of stories from different soldiers that he had heard.
But one in particular, he mentioned a young man named Adam Kokesh, and you have the same name.
So maybe he was talking about you.
It happened.
Now he, I want to make sure that the facts all add up, and that you can tell, you know, your perspective.
But he was, he was saying that, I don't know if he was saying that you talked to him in February 2004, or you were serving in Iraq during February 2004.
Could you talk about your experience?
Yeah, that's a really interesting way of putting it there.
Because actually in February 2004 I deployed to Iraq, and I was in Fallujah during that time.
And incidentally, Dar Jamal, as an unembedded reporter, which is a very brave and very important thing to do, that we have, you know, truly independent media voices covering armed conflict, he was actually in, I don't know about February, but he was in Fallujah at the same time as I was in April of 2004 for that first battle of Fallujah, the Siege, as we called it, which is, you know, again, a very interesting time to be there.
And when I came home and got active speaking out about foreign policy, and, you know, Iraq in particular, I did several interviews with Dar Jamal, and, you know, and then I got to read some of his work, and got to see what our military actions looked like from the civilian perspective.
Because he was, you know, he was hanging out with Iraqis who lived in the city of Fallujah, you know, and getting to see it from their perspective was really, really, really a very cool part for me coming home and getting to see that and see the other side of what we were doing.
Well, what was that moment that made you see it from the other perspective, me personally?
No, no, no, I just mean reading, I mean, I'd often, before this, you know, especially as someone in civil affairs, been able to empathize with the Iraqi and the local perspective, but it was just reading some of his stories, you know, reading some of his accounts of the battle of Fallujah, the first battle of Fallujah, rather, from his perspective as an unembedded reporter, it was just fascinating, you know, for me, and really kind of filled it.
I had kind of a concept and a framework, and he really filled in the blanks for me.
Does that make more sense?
Yeah, so there was a moment where it wasn't just something that existed inside your mind or inside your heart, but that was manifested in your actions and how you led your life.
Is that accurate?
Well, yeah, and what the effect of being able to read Darja Mail's work and see that perspective, you know, was very reaffirming in terms of, you know, my take, because, you know, when you've got that, you know, flak jacket and Kevlar on, you know, and like I said, I was in civil affairs, so really our job was to interact with the people as much as possible and really get out there, but there's still, you know, that big filter that I'm seeing things through, and you want to assume that the, well, at least I wanted to assume that people in Iraq are people just like anybody else in the world, and they, you know, want to live their lives, and they want to live their lives in peace, and they want to be able to raise their families and take care of themselves and each other, and, you know, that was the perspective that I got really reaffirmed from Dar and reading his stuff, and it was definitely reaffirming in my work as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, speaking out and being able to share that perspective that I gained from my experience with a little more confidence.
Do you still have that card with the rules of engagement?
Yeah, it's somewhere in my office, somewhere in my little green monster notebook that I carried in Iraq.
It was my, you know, field notebook, but we're actually in Farmington today on the campaign trail.
You know, I'm running for Congress here representing Mexico's 3rd District, and we've got a district that's larger than the state of Pennsylvania, so we've got a lot of ground to cover.
I'm actually in Farmington, which is a town on the northeast, excuse me, northwest corner of the district here.
Well, there's another Iraq veteran running for Congress, R.J.
Harris, who apparently yesterday got a strong endorsement from a conservative political action committee.
So is there hope for the right to come around to, you know, whatever you want to call it, whether it's an anti-war mindset or a non-interventionist foreign policy or a policy of armed neutrality?
Are you able to articulate this message better now?
Yeah, well, how about just a consistent, you know, fiscally conservative foreign policy, where we, you know, or a constitutional foreign policy where we ensure the only time we're using force is when it's absolutely necessary to defend our country and save American lives?
Obviously, we're not there.
You know, and if anything, what we see today in modern conservatism is such a great contradiction, is that, you know, that being conservative has come to mean being pro-war, meaning police the world, meaning, you know, big government solutions to all of our foreign policy problems, which is contradictory to really the core concepts of conservatism.
And I think a lot of people are waking up to that as we see Obama, who is clearly not a conservative, try going out and trying to be president of the world.
And that is really getting people to think, well, wait a second, if Barack Obama is for all of this, if Barack Obama wants to continue the occupation of Afghanistan, wants to escalate in Afghanistan, you know, he wants to send more private contractors to Iraq, you know, what is this?
What is the pattern here?
And I think if Barack Obama had lived up to his campaign promises and truly started drawing down on Iraq and really getting to, you know, a more diplomatic foreign policy, although, to be fair, he did say while campaigning that he was going to escalate in Afghanistan.
By then, most people who believe in a more humble foreign policy, you know, had already drunk the Kool-Aid or seemed past it or they were against Obama anyway.
But it is interesting to watch the conservative movement coming around to a more non-interventionist humble foreign policy.
I mean, this is what Bush ran on in 2000.
Of course, he didn't really live up to it, but he came up with some pretty good excuses for why not to.
So there's still that neoconservative element, which, of course, isn't really conservative.
It's kind of an authoritarian moderate position by, you know, the modern left-right spectrum, at least it's kind of moderate.
But it's a big government.
It's an authoritarian.
It's a very heavy-handed role for government in terms of its philosophy.
And that element there is resisting this.
And it's a very vocal minority, but it's also a shrinking minority.
And its power is really diminishing now that they don't have, you know, the neoconservative power like they did.
Or, you know, in some cases, I think you see people like that going well.
You know, they're acknowledging their true philosophical ground and say, well, I'm going to go with the Democrats now.
Well, is the attitude towards the foreign policy changing just because we have a new president, Barack Obama?
I mean, it seems like the youth that I speak to or, you know, my friends or whatever, they seem to be more apt to react in a moral sense than, you know, who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at this hour.
You know, so is there any chance that there are more Americans who are feeling a sense of, I don't know, moral reciprocity?
I mean, you mentioned that you were able to see it from the other people's perspective, you know, the Iraqis' perspective.
And is there any chance that Americans would be able to see it from a world perspective?
Or is it always going to be the inverted American interests first, as opposed to what we actually do to people around the world?
It's, well, I want to be against Barack Obama, and that's why I'm against the war.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, well, you bring a really good point.
In a sense, my answer there was coming from inside a certain political bubble.
But what you hit at there about, you know, the Internet generation really getting involved in politics now and having a voice in society is really powerful, because, you know, I'm 28 years old, but people who are, you know, everybody who's younger than me, it seems, really has the Internet hardwired, and they're born skeptics.
And it really totally changes the game to have that wealth of human knowledge just right there at your fingertips.
And we've seen how it's changed so many other aspects of society, but we have yet to really fully realize its impact on the political process.
And I think you're right that as younger people get more involved, you're going to see that attitude.
But I don't know how much of it is really based on international empathy so much as it is just that healthy skepticism, like, wait a second.
You know, for someone who's 20 years old, going, wait a second.
9-11 happened when I was 11 years old, and we're still in Afghanistan, and we're still spending a million dollars a year per soldier to keep 130,000 soldiers there, plus all the other costs of fighting the Taliban.
And it's just sort of like, wait a second.
People who grew up with this, it feels like perpetual war, and then they notice that the economy is suffering at the same time.
And I think people who are in the younger generations are making those connections, and they're really, like I said, they're born skeptics.
But, yeah, it's really exciting to see that kind of youth empowerment.
I'm really happy to say that we're seeing that too in this campaign.
I think more than most of the other campaigns we're seeing here in New Mexico.
We have a lot of the youth engaged, a lot of young people involved, and it's really exciting to see that that's actually changing.
And it really is, because people are fed up, and they don't buy it.
Yeah, I mean, the important thing here is that I think you always have to have your eye on the youth and the future, and the youth is plugged in to the Internet.
And the biggest story to come out of the Internet is this WikiLeaks video.
And that goes back to what I was talking about, what you started with, talking about looking at the war issue through the eyes of the Iraqis or the Afghanis or whoever it may be, just seeing it from another person's perspective and not just seeing the war issue as is it hip to be against the war now, or is it hip to be for the war now.
So with the WikiLeaks video, first of all, what was your response to that?
And then if you could follow up with anyone in your district, are average voters aware of this video?
You know, it only hit just a few days ago, and it was really incredible.
I mean, I looked at the view count last night, and it was up to 4.5 million views after being online for three days, which is just incredible to see how it's making the rounds.
But I haven't heard much about it on the trail here.
My reaction was like anybody else's.
I was in a way horrified, but also not surprised.
I've seen a lot of videos of similar things to that, and I've seen things like that happening in person.
Not from that perspective.
I was never in a helicopter when it was happening.
But in a sense, I'm not surprised.
And in a way, I'm just really glad that that video came out and that people get to see that even the soldiers that were carrying out that mission thought they were doing the right thing and were just conducting themselves according to their rules of engagement, but that the situation was such that they can't tell the difference between a camera and an AK-47.
And next thing you know, they've got 15 dead people who are probably innocent.
What is that, by the way?
Is it the same thing that goes on when cops see wallets as guns?
Are you just trained in some sort of mindset where everything looks like a gun and you're just finding every reason to escalate the situation to the point of maximum violence?
Well, yeah, and I think part of the security state mentality is that hyper-paranoia.
And we're seeing that.
It's interesting you draw the connection there between troops serving overseas overreacting and cops here at home overreacting, because a lot of the guys that serve in the military are coming home to become law enforcement officers.
And this attitude, I think, has a dangerous potential to carry over and affect law enforcement here.
And there is that possibility.
It's very, very disturbing.
But already we're seeing the impact and the effects in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it's sort of just now people can, I think this was like a big dot for people to connect, to be like, well, why do they hate us?
And none of the people who had family members killed in that attack who were innocent are hating us because we're free.
They don't care.
And I think that video can have a big impact as well, or is having a big impact in kind of just challenging that mythology that's been foisted upon us by this neoconservative hyperactive security state mentality.
There's something like 5 million views of that video.
So I want to know if you have heard anyone talking about it in just your normal day-to-day activities in New Mexico.
Or is it something average voters don't know about still?
Is this just an Internet phenomenon?
Or is it out there that people are addressing the issue?
Well, 5 million, just doing some rough math, assuming they're all in the United States.
We've got a little over 300 million people here.
That's one in 60.
Just being really rough with those numbers.
So people, still the vast majority of people here haven't heard of it, aren't really familiar with it.
So we'll see, though.
I mean, it's only been online for now four days.
So I hope that more Americans see it and really have a sense of it.
But no, it's not to the point yet where people are talking about it.
And it's funny you call it an Internet phenomenon.
It's really true that I also did a Google News search for this thing when I saw it come out.
And I was thinking like, well, wait a second, how come there's not more mainstream coverage?
And I wasn't really surprised, of course.
Do you think any time a video just gets that kind of exposure that most mainstream or a lot of mainstream outlets will pick it up?
And to their credit, actually, Fox News did and had a decent story about it online at foxnews.com.
I don't know if they cover it on TV or if it's going to get talked about in the mainstream.
But as much as we can talk about the mainstream media losing relevance and dying, and I think that's true, it still has a massive sway.
It is still the mainstream.
The Internet as a source of news is part of the mainstream, but the mainstream is still dominated by those traditional media outlets.
And I don't think they've really picked up on it.
I don't think it's really become part of that mainstream dialogue just yet.
But I hope it does.
I hope it continues to seep in.
And I know it's had an incredible effect on the 5 million people that have watched it already.
If we can for a sec, I want to ask about another point that Dar Jamal brought up yesterday.
And that was the checkpoint story.
Can you tell us a little bit about what it's like working at a checkpoint?
Were you in Fallujah?
Well, I worked a walk-up checkpoint and a drive-up checkpoint at different points in time.
Which story specifically was he referring to?
Well, he was talking about how men, any man over the age of 14, was turned back into the city and women and children were let through.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now, that was something, actually, during the siege, when we decided we were going to let women and children out of the city, because we were bombing the city of Fallujah every day, and we wanted a lot of women and children out.
But yes, any male over 14 basically was turned back.
And our guidance was, if they're old enough to be in your fighting hole with you, they're too old to be let out of the city because they're a potential enemy combatant.
And it's ironic to hear conservatives now try to justify all these things and all this aggressive foreign policy and things like that.
And it just demonstrates how little they believe in freedom.
Because if you really believe in freedom, then you have to believe that human rights are – well, you don't have to believe that they're God-given, but you have to believe that they are inherent with being a human being, that they are inalienable human rights.
That what makes America exceptional is not that by some genetic blessing we are superior human beings, but that we have created the best form of government to protect those rights.
And we really betray our own core values when we go around the world, and we're not defending people, but we're doing so.
Or even if we are defending people, we're doing so in a way that acts as though they don't enjoy those rights.
And to just, in a blanket way like that, say everybody who is a potential criminal is guilty and is going to be subjected to this kind of bombardment is a clear violation of those core American principles.
And so that's what we were doing.
And this was on the northern bridge over the Euphrates, going into the city of Fallujah.
It was a small bridge.
We called it the Brooklyn.
It was a little steel trellis bridge painted bright green.
And this was where those bodies of the Blackwater security contractors were strung up and burned on international television in front of the whole world.
And so it was certainly an epic confrontation.
And when we announced this, there were a few dozen families that tried to come out, and a lot of them were just women and children that got the message and were trying to get out of the city.
And there were a fair amount of young men that were just trying to get out that we ended up turning back.
And it wasn't like we were saying, come to this tent city where you'll have medical care and we'll be able to feed you.
It was, hey, there's a mosque across the street.
Good luck.
And, I mean, these were people whose lives were turned upside down and were completely cut off from their food supplies and everything else.
So it wasn't, you know, we thought it was very magnanimous at the time, and from our perspective it was a very noble thing to do to allow women and children to leave the city.
But, you know, you step back in hindsight and look at the situation that we were operating in and the actual effect on the people who we gave that choice to, you know, basically split up your family and, you know, have some of them have a better chance of survival maybe, or stay together and hunker down in the city and hope to survive a bombardment of Spectre gunship C-130 rounds.
So how do you begin to talk about justice in this sense?
And, you know, something that would provide a sense of reconciliation or closure for the victim or whatever.
At the end of the day, you know, people say that, well, we're all responsible because, you know, we were all, you know, compliant or in support or whatever it was.
I mean, from the top down, it's really easy to identify the top war criminal.
But how far down the line does this go?
And how do you approach the sins that, you know, you're responsible for or something?
You know what I mean?
Like, I just I feel like it's not going to be something that we're fully and completely honestly ready to move past until people pay the price for their crimes.
Well, we are paying the price.
Well, okay.
But, I mean, in terms of those who go over and occupy and you were part of an occupying force, wasn't it difficult for you to realize that, you know, you were part of that mission?
And, you know, stop me if I'm getting too personal, but it just it's so curious to me what that mindset is like to feel that sense of, you know, of wrong that you've done or something and how you address that.
And obviously going around the world and being a speaker and an activist for peace, you've done a lot.
So is that what's been the most therapeutic for you?
And what about the victims and who, you know, who owes them?
Well, definitely speaking out has been beneficial for my own, you know, my own well-being and my own content.
And, you know, I started a group home for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in a weekly peer support group for vets and post-traumatic stress disorder when I got home.
And those things were also very helpful for me and very satisfying.
But, you know, I benefited as much from organizing as I did from being a part of that peer support group, dealing with my own post-traumatic stress disorder.
But, you know, in terms of what you were getting at in terms of culpability, you know, in a sense, we really are all culpable for this, not just the soldiers who were there, but, you know, every American who supported us or paid taxes.
And if you really want to, you know, go down the line, everybody who didn't resist and had some kind of complicity, you know, has a share of the culpability for the suffering in Iraq.
But I think there's a point where you can separate the architects of the policy.
You can separate the people that were really driving it, the people that actually came up with the lies that justified it from the people that were just a part of it, that were just going along with it.
And I think that's an important thing, you know, to really recognize and separate.
But when you look at the magnitude of the suffering here and then try to apply, you know, some kind of practical or apply any kind of principles of justice and coming up with a practical policy, it always seems to fall short.
I've never heard a good one, you know, that really satisfied any absolute sense of justice.
But what I would advocate in the case of Iraq in terms of what we should do right now, that at least has on a small local scale some sense of justice is as we are withdrawing our troops to pay reparations or as we called them when we were in Iraq, battle damage claims or salatia payments, for people that at least could demonstrate discrete damage from, you know, from actions of coalition forces that were in Iraq where people were killed or injured or property was damaged.
You know, we were paying $2,500 for anybody whose children had been killed.
And that's, you know, that's ridiculous.
I mean, if I died when I was there, thanks to Service Members Group Life Insurance, the SGLI program in the military, my parents would have gotten $400,000.
So, you know, we're already at a point where having real absolute justice achieved in terms of, you know, making amends for the people who we've caused suffering to in Iraq is impossible, literally impossible.
But I think if we did this, you know, if as we withdrew, we at least empowered the civil affairs units that are already operating in the country and gave them a significant amount of money, you know, still it would be insignificant in terms of the overall cost of the occupation now, which is $3.5 trillion.
I think it would go a long way to at least showing that we acknowledge, you know, our culpability in the suffering.
But, I mean, look at the magnitude.
You know, by conservative estimates now, a million people have died violent deaths as a result of our presence in Iraq, and there are 2.5 million internally displaced and 2.5 million externally displaced.
You can't – there's no I'm sorry that makes up for that.
There's no, oh, well, here, take some money, and there's justice.
You know, there's no making up for that.
And so, you know, I just think the best thing we can do is, you know, stop causing the pain, and for the individuals that we know that we have the power to in the course of withdrawing, at least make their lives a little easier.
I think we have an obligation to do that.
Is the number one issue on your, you know, would-be constituents' minds probably things like the health care or economy or whatever, but because you're a unique special case, does the war come up more often with you?
I think it does come up, but it's not, you know, because it's something that's of concern to voters, which is kind of sad, but because it's a part of my story, and people who want to know my background want to talk about my time in Fallujah and how that connects to my anti-war activism.
And, you know, most people here, you know, are concerned with the economy, and they're concerned with people who are unemployed.
I mean, by government statistics, employment's about 10%.
You know, whenever the government tells us anything, the reality's far worse, and if you include underemployed and discouraged workers, even by government statistics, it's closer to 20%, which is scary.
I mean, you know, you have that many people unemployed.
When you have soldiers coming home, and now, you know, I just read on CNN.com that the unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is 50% higher than the general population.
That's a scary proposition to have that many, you know, disgruntled, usually armed, well-trained, fit young men who are pissed off at their government running around this country, and I think it's a great opportunity for those of us who want to seek real change, who want to see, you know, a real philosophical shift in the direction of this country.
So, really, that's the stuff that's more on people's minds, but you can talk about our foreign policy and say, well, look, the Iraq wars cost us $3.5 trillion.
And in Obama's State of the Union address, he began with, I think, an unintentionally ironic pairing of pairs.
He said, presidents have given this address in times of peace and prosperity, and in times of war and poverty, or something to that effect.
And it was like, well, there's a connection there.
When there is peace, there is prosperity.
When there is war, there is suffering, both violent suffering as well as economic suffering, because you are taking resources out of the productive sectors of the economy that contribute to quality of life and investing it in something that doesn't have any return in that sense.
So, clearly, I don't think he meant to suggest that, but the American people are starting to make the connection, especially in the Internet generation, people who are your age, who are seeing that going, wait a second, why am I being taxed to fund the 10th year of this war in Afghanistan, where we're not only trying to fight a Taliban, which isn't our real enemy who caused 9-11 by any stretch, and we're rebuilding schools there, and our education system in the United States is falling apart.
And people are seeing that, and they're seeing past the dogma, and they're seeing these underlying dynamics, especially the young people.
So that's really exciting, and I think that's where that connection is being made most strongly.
Well, Adam, it's always a pleasure having you on, because, you know, I think, well, I guess I was remembering the last interview that I did with you for Year of Youth Radio, but I remember listening to you with Scott before on Anti-War Radio here, and...
Yeah, you're a lot easier than Scott is.
And that's his job, you know, and I'm so thankful that he is tough on, you know, politicians of every bit of background.
He doesn't let you off the hook, for sure, no matter what.
But, you know, your position, since it's so real and personal, it defies any sense of argument or back and forth.
I hope you are giving everyone in your district a real learning experience and an understanding, you know, because I think if we could get back to what I was mentioning before about, you know, who's responsible and how do you uphold justice or account for wrongdoings, I think what you were saying about how there is no practical policy to address those things, what it comes down to is, you know, a human understanding of what it is we're talking about.
So, I just, I get a little cynical because everything is still about, you know, opposing Barack Obama's war policy or still, you know, opposing this figurehead or that figurehead, instead of understanding the idea of what it's like to have, you know, a bomb dropped on your town.
Do you think it will take that sense of literal experience for the American people before they're able to understand it any other way?
I mean, do you think more attacks on this country will make people realize the true, I guess, repercussions of our foreign policy as aside from financial?
You know, I don't think more attacks on U.S. soil are going to have that effect because we've seen that when that happens, there's a certain degree of confusion and fear that is always manipulated by politicians to support more big government policies or more aggressive foreign policy.
And I hope that that doesn't happen.
Not just because I want to make sure that we're not attacked in this country, but also because I don't think it has, you know, the effect on the general population that you suggest there.
You know, and I think that this video now seen by five million people, I think things like that go a long way.
And the longer the war goes on, you know, the more of that we're going to see.
You know, the more people are going to realize what the true nature of occupation is.
You know, when from a helicopter you shoot somebody with a camera, you can't just go to their family and say, oh, sorry about that.
There's really no making up for it and that there are going to be repercussions.
And I think people come around.
What's really going to wake them up is when you get into their bubbles with this.
And the way to do that, or the way that that is going to happen rather, is when people start really suffering here economically.
I think things are going to get worse before they get better.
And they're going to start saying, wow, we're spending trillions of dollars on this ridiculous foreign policy that's not making us any safer.
And then they're going to look for the justification for it.
And then they're going to go over and say, well, you know, it's not making us safer because of blowback and the threat is really overblown and the spending on this is really, really overblown.
And I think that's how it's going to happen.
And, you know, in a way, talking about the economy here too, that is the silver lining in the cloud that is the economy today, that all of the hidden costs of changing economics going back almost a century, which have previously been hidden, are now becoming really clear.
And, you know, last time we were on the reservation, I was at a Navajo chapter house, and someone asked me a question about Bill Richardson, our notoriously corrupt governor here in New Mexico, about his hiring policies.
And the next thing you know, we're having a conversation about labor allocation theory.
And I think when people see how these things affect their daily lives, you know, because we've been so isolated from the cost of these wars for almost a decade now, for most of the decade, you know, we've had these wars going on, we've been spending an incredible amount of money, and the American people have been paying for them, although often, you know, with borrowed loans from China.
And now more Americans think that that debt to China is a bigger threat than terrorism by a two-to-one margin.
That's incredible.
And so when people really start making those connections, I think that's when we're going to see things change.
But it's going to have to actually affect people's daily lives.
It's going to have to be, you know, seeing veterans in their communities coming home and struggling.
It's going to have to be people losing their jobs because, you know, the government can't afford to keep paying them.
Or, you know, all the different things that are supported by federal spending start to collapse.
Or just the economy continues to suffer as regulations and taxes become more burdensome, and it becomes impossible to start a small business or get a small business loan and create jobs.
And people see their communities suffering, and they go, wait a second, why is this happening?
And until that happens, then no, I don't think people are really, in a broad sense, going to wake up.
But all those things are starting to happen.
And that is exciting to see that the people are waking up because they are making those connections, they are asking why, and they are seeing some of those underlying dynamics.
And as much as people wake up to the sense that the foreign policy that we have is bad, isn't there still an uncertainty on taking the next step in changing the foreign policy?
Because as bad as the foreign policy is, it's what we know.
And people get comfortable with what they know.
It's like a sense of Stockholm Syndrome.
No matter how bad your victimizer is, he's, you know, he's the one you know.
And so you maintain a sense of comfort in that, as illogical or twisted that may sound.
It seems to be the reality of American culture at this point in time in regards to foreign policy.
So how do you begin to have people understand and feel comfortable with the idea of armed neutrality, or non-intervention policy, or whatever word you want to put on it?
People don't know what it looks like or what it sounds like or what it feels like.
So how do you normalize that sense of foreign policy with them?
Well, I think what you point out there is very true.
But I don't think it's something that, you know, really has to be actively combated.
It's just something that's going to happen with a certain lag and reluctance.
And that psychological dependence on the status quo is one of those things that is going to be overcome.
And we're very fortunate in this country to have an electoral system that gives us a certain amount of turnover.
Inevitably, every two years, every four years, really every eight years at least, you know, as we've seen with our last two presidents both having served two terms.
But, you know, that turnover has to happen and people have to face those choices.
You know, unlike in a normal abusive relationship that can just continue indefinitely.
And, yes, there are elements of our government that perpetuate despite changes in the faces of politicians that have an abusive effect on the American people.
But the change is inevitable and there is a certain reluctance there and it's going to take time.
But I really fully believe that for people, you know, of your age, within your lifetime, you are going to see that change fully manifest in our political process one way or another.
The way I see it happening is a shift in perspective with your position towards the world in general.
And that would be, I think it would take a form of a more decentralized state.
I don't think, you know, in my lifetime the state is going to go away.
But I think there's a movement towards a more decentralized state and a decentralized state of mind maybe with your perspective out towards the world.
And so that brings me to a political question again.
As you're running for Congress, can you describe for people how you view your role as a congressman and what your proper authority is and where you get that authority?
Where does the authority come from that puts you in the House of Representatives?
Well, I don't know if I can answer that really directly without, you know, getting really, really deep into the philosophy.
But I do want to step back and respond to what you said a second ago in terms of, you know, not seeing, you know, seeing a decentralization and a localism.
And I think we're actually seeing that already in, you know, in this campaign.
I mean, our theme, if anything, is localism and pushing power back down.
And we talk about states' rights and we're talking to conservatives.
But you can talk about, you know, individual rights and community empowerment to liberals.
And at this point, when people see all of this power the federal government has taken on at the expense of the people, it really plays well across the board, and a lot of people are embracing that concept.
And so, you know, I wasn't suggesting with what I said that humanity will evolve within our lifetimes to the point where the necessary evil of government becomes completely unnecessary, but that we are going to see a significant paradigm shift along the lines of what we're talking about.
So to answer your question as a member of Congress, to be, you know, just to be an advocate for this from that platform is something that's really important to me, but also to vote the Constitution every time.
I mean, America is great on paper, and all we're saying to America is let's be true to what we're saying on paper here.
And let's be true to the Constitution, let's be true to the idea of God-given inalienable rights, let's respect the rights of individuals and communities and make sure that we acknowledge that government is what George Washington called it, it is not eloquence or reason, but force.
And like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master, and that we apply force only when we know that we have the moral justification to do so.
And I think that paradigm shift, that attitude towards government is going to become much more pervasive within our lifetimes.
I think we're going to see a significant shift in our political system as a result of that change in the paradigm of the American people towards government.
What can I do as a member of Congress?
I think what I can do is submit legislation that creates rallying points.
And I think when we saw what Ron Paul did with his bill to end the Fed and then HR 1207 to audit the Fed is a really great example of this.
Every term Ron Paul has submitted a bill to end the Fed in 30 days, and it's like that's not only unreasonable and impractical, it's incredibly impractical as a piece of legislation, and he never got more than a handful of co-sponsors.
Then he does audit the Fed, and next thing you know he's got over 300, and I don't want to get into the whole legislative process of yes, how that got mangled by Barney Frank and the rest of the House there.
But what he demonstrated was that when you create legislation that is a simple rallying point that the American people can get behind, that no one else on Capitol Hill had the guts to come up with and propose, but also very few members of Congress were stupid enough to not sign on to something like that.
There was a simple call for transparency that they knew their constituents would have supported.
And so creating those rallying points that we can get people from all over the country to get behind and lobby their congressmen to support, I think we can make a lot of real change happen.
I think I can make a significant amount of change happen as a single congressman.
Not that me on my own I'm going to be able to do anything, but I think with the support of people who believe in this message all over the country, I think we can make some real change happen.
And it's not about the big fundamental things, but I think we can start taking baby steps in the way that most of the American people want to see those changes made.
And I think there's a lot of stuff, too, in taking care of our veterans that I'm very passionate about that most Americans would get behind.
And most have no idea now that over a quarter of the homeless men in this country are veterans, and we've lost more veterans to suicide than we have to combat since 9-11.
And that's shameful.
And there aren't a lot of members of Congress that are real champions of veterans' issues.
I mean, there are a lot that will consistently vote with veterans, but no one is taking on any of the underlying dynamics in the disability claim system or in the VA bureaucracy as a whole that are really going to address these and look at some of the root causes.
So I think there are a lot of opportunities right now when we see that, you know, what I've learned from traveling around the district here is that the grassroots and the bases of both parties and of independents, you know, they're so grossly misrepresented by our national leadership that we have more in common with each other than anyone in D.C.
And clearly there's a divide there.
And it's not a left-right divide.
It's the American people versus Washington divide.
And I think there's a lot of pieces of legislation that we can create that will have that effect as rallying points that people can get behind, and we can start taking those baby steps in the right direction within the next few years.
And the people versus Washington divide.
Right now it seems like the narrative is, well, let's take back Washington or let's take back the Congress, take back the Constitution, all these things that they never really had in the first place.
And if they feel like, you know, and that's the thing is people have this sense that it was stolen from them recently.
And if we could only get it back then.
And so once they have that back, that sense of things are going to be done my way now, I mean, that almost seems like they're chasing a white dragon or something.
Like, is that the type of language that's appropriate for people that want to take Washington back?
Or should it be, you know, to take your sovereignty back or take your, well, your, I don't know.
It's like taking anything back is really the right terminology here.
But I just think that people going to Congress is a great thing, and we certainly need, you know, if we can get one less aggressor in the House of Representatives, we'd be better off.
And then the important work begins, though, at the local level.
Yeah, no, absolutely, and you're very right to criticize that language.
And I hear it a lot, we're going to take back the House, we're going to take back the Senate, we're going to take back the White House.
Well, you know, it makes more sense when it comes from the Republican Party to say we're going to take back.
But that's really not what the American people need, and it's really not what's going to happen, and it's really not what's accurate in terms of what needs to happen for the American people to, you know, to have a government in a country that is true to its own values.
And just to put it in perspective, I mean, I don't have a problem with the language, we're going to take back whatever, but it's, you know, I don't think, you know, I don't use it, and I don't think it really serves the cause of freedom to say, well, we're going to take back our country.
You know, we let it go.
But to put it in perspective for myself, I mean, the way I say it is that it's not about electing me to Congress.
It's not about taking back Congress or the Senate or the White House, because we could do that.
We could elect, you know, 436 constitutionalists to Congress and 100 to the Senate and have a constitutionalist president.
But if the American people don't really embrace these values and we end up with 50 tyrannical state governments, it really doesn't matter.
You know, and it doesn't matter, you know, if I really, if I win or lose this race, it doesn't matter if we send me to Washington or not, if, you know, if the American people aren't embracing these values.
But I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't see that there were people who believed in this, who, you know, especially here in my district, in my hometown, who believe in this, who are frustrated, who are fed up, who are pissed off and want to see something different in Washington.
And when that happens, though, when people really embrace these values, when this paradigm shift occurs, when people, you know, really start waking up, you know, in a larger sense, then it's going to be manifest in our political process one way or another.
You know, I pray that it's going to be through a peaceful mechanism through the current electoral process and that it's done as smoothly as possible.
I think the Constitution gives us good mechanisms by which we can see this change manifest.
But that's not what it's about.
That's just, you know, the embodiment of the more important spirit of this country as it exists in the hearts and souls of the American people.
And that's what really counts.
And I think that what's most satisfying to me is to be able to be a part of that and to reach out to people that feel that and have the support of people who feel that.
And, you know, for me, you know, a campaign like this would not be possible without the support of people like you and people like your listeners here at Antiwar Radio.
Because when you're running on a constitutional platform, when you're running as a non-interventionist, there are not a lot of lobbies or special interests lining up to fund your campaign.
And so we really depend upon the help of people like you.
You know, every bit helps, $25, $50, whatever people can do.
That's what makes a race like this possible.
That's how it happens because we actually have a lot of those special interests really now actively working against us, especially here within the Republican primary.
But we're on the ballot for June 1st.
There's nothing stopping us now from proving just how out of touch the party leadership is with its own base.
But we really need your help.
If you can't make a donation, I hope that people will sign up for our e-mail list, volunteer, make phone calls.
We have a virtual phone bank that's a really powerful tool for the campaign.
And the way to get in touch with all of that is kokeshforcongress.com, K-O-K-E-S-H-F-O-R, congress.com.
And thanks again for having me on, Nick.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah, Adam, thanks again for sharing your perspective.
So, everyone, that's Adam Kokesh.
He's running for Congress.
And it's just one of the many ways that people are standing up against the war.
And there are just innumerable strategies out there for people to take.
And it's easy to criticize one who wants to take part in the system or one that wants to take part outside the system.
And when Adam first said that he was running, I was elated.
I was very excited.
Of course, I was just fresh off the Ron Paul fan wagon and all that.
So, since then, I've come to a few different thoughts on the matter.
And just in the sense of the urgency of the problems that we face in the country, I feel like the time for local action is now.
And we really don't need to pay much attention to those in D.C. at all.
I think the energy that we spend towards some purported enemy in D.C. is, well, it's a bit manufactured, isn't it?
And it seems to be a bit of a distraction.
That there's a lot more that we can each do as individuals to look within and to find peace within first before we go seeking political action in D.C.
That's sort of my personal perspective on it.
But all the same, if you've been following me on Facebook or see the activities I take part in, I'm certainly a supporter of Adam.
I'm not sure that running for Congress is as big of a deal as what I mean to say is that it shouldn't be our end goal.
That's all I mean to say.
And I don't think Adam – I think Adam made it clear that it's more than just getting elected.
It's about changing the values, changing the way that we view ourselves and view the world around us.
All that said, yeah, kokeshforcongress.com, check it out.
