The Wall Street Journal
WSJ:
All Things with Kim Strassel
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3b, 2026
2/3/2026 5:40:00 PMShare This Episode
Ben Shapiro on the State of the Conservative Movement
ベン・シャピロが語る保守運動の現状
In recent appearances at Turning Point USA's America Fest and the Heritage Foundation, Ben Shapiro called out the danger from conservative commentators who host Hitler apologists and indulge in conspiracy theories. On this episode of All Things, Kim Strassel talks to the Daily Wire co-founder about the response, the current state of the movement, the growth of an anti-free-market right, the upside of Donald Trump's robust foreign policy, and how it's not enough to simply tear down left-wing institutions.
- the state of ~ ～の現状
- conservative movement 保守運動
- call out 名指しで批判する
- Hitler apologists /əˈpɑːlədʒɪsts/ ヒトラー擁護者
apologist（非難されている人物・思想・行為を）弁護・正当化する人 - indulge in /ɪnˈdʌldʒ/ ～にふける
- conspiracy theories 陰謀論
- co-founder 共同創業者
- anti-free-market right 反・自由市場的右派
- upside プラス面
- robust foreign policy 強硬・積極的な外交政策
- tear down 破壊する・解体する
- left-wing institutions 左派系の制度・組織
a
Kim Strassel: We're going to take a break. When we come back, more with Daily Wire co-founder, Ben Shapiro.
Welcome back to All Things with Kim Strassel. I'm here with Ben Shapiro. Does part of this have to do with giving our kids as well, all Americans, better tools that we equip them with to make these distinctions and rational decisions? Just a question related to this, a bigger cultural question, not on any one cultural topic but more broadly. For decades, for way too long, the right has largely surrendered the intellectual battleground of the left when it came to so many of the cultural institutions that we interact with on a day-to-day basis. Not our government, but our universities, our civic institutions, the arts, whether that be movies or music or comedy. We were even doing this to an extent most recently in our economic institutions when you look in the way that woke was taking over corporate boards, and oil executives saying, "Well, we can't drill for our main product anymore because that might upset the Greens." I mean, it's just insane, but we seem to be clawing a little bit of that back. We've had some changes on campuses, at least lip service being paid to more viewpoint diversity. Melania, I saw this weekend, the box office taking $7 million. It's a conservative documentary. I mean, there's a lot more to do. What more do we need to be doing so that the rest of society that surrounds our young people every day is giving them some better ways of looking and making decisions about things?
- equip [someone] with /ɪˈkwɪp wɪð/ ～に…を備えさせる、道具・能力を与える
- make these distinctions /meɪk ðiz dɪˈstɪŋkʃənz/ 物事を区別する
- intellectual battleground /ˌɪntəˈlɛktʃuəl ˈbætlɡraʊnd/ 知的戦場、思想的争点
- civic institutions /ˈsɪvɪk ˌɪnstɪˈtuːʃənz/ 市民的機関（図書館、博物館、自治組織など）
- lip service /ˈlɪp ˌsɜːrvɪs/ 形だけの賛同・口先だけの支持
- viewpoint diversity /ˈvjuːˌpɔɪnt daɪˈvɜːrsəti/ 視点の多様性
- woke /woʊk/ 社会正義・差別問題に敏感な立場を象徴する言葉（批判的文脈も多い）
- clawing back /klɔːˈɪŋ bæk/ 徐々に取り戻す
- whether that be ～ 「～であろうと、～であれ」
FEBRUARY 3b 10：57
Ben Shaoiro: I mean, I think this is totally right. The one thing that the right has spent decades doing is tearing away left-wing institutions, which of course is necessary. The problem is if you don't have replacement institutions, then what you end up with is basically chaos or apathy. I think one way that you've seen that is the death of the experts has not led to the rise of a new class of experts. It's led the right to come to the wrong conclusion. Instead of don't trust the experts ... which, fair enough ... they move to trust the non-experts, which is not the logical corollary, but that is where you move. And so it's like, "Okay, Homeless Jim over there, we're going to ask him about his opinions on COVID because Anthony Fauci got it wrong. And well, what if we go and talk to Dr. Bhattacharya, who actually does know what he is talking about when it comes to COVID?" And so offering good alternatives to these things is absolutely necessary. That's why I think it's great that people like Joe Lonsdale and Bari Weiss have launched alternative universities or that Bari is involved over at CBS News. I think that trying to course-correct major institutions and rebuild them is big. I think we live in such an anti-institutional moment that one of the critiques that I have of the right is we're so addicted to tearing down institutions that even when the right tries to build an institution, there's now an attempt on the right to tear down the institution, because any institution is going to have to have doors and those doors are sometimes going to have to be closed. And this is one of the points that I made at Heritage Foundation. The night before I spoke at TPUSA, I spoke at Heritage, and one of the things that I said at Heritage is Heritage was supposed to have standards. Things have definitions and words have definitions and terms have definitions, and by nature, those definitions are exclusive to other definitions. If you say something is conservative, it ought not be liberal. If you say that you are for a peace-through-strength foreign policy, then you are not for an isolationist foreign policy, right? A is not B. And so noting that requires us to make those distinctions, but the right is so addicted to the idea that institutions must be torn down that the minute you say that I want to reestablish some form of ideological border control, as I called it, now you're a censor just like the left, because you're behaving censoriously. No, the problem was not having standards. The problem is that the standards that existed before were wrong. But you do need a set of standards, otherwise you're just wandering around in nihilistic fashion across a wasteland of politics.
- apathy：無関心、無感動、冷淡 ：/ˈæp.ə.θi/
- course-correct = 方向修正する、軌道修正する
- tearing away /ˈtɛərɪŋ əˈweɪ/ 引き剥がす、破壊する
- replacement institutions /rɪˈpleɪsmənt ˌɪnstɪˈtuːʃənz/ 代替制度・組織
- death of the experts /dɛθ əv ði ˈɛkspɜrts/ 「専門家を信用しない風潮」
- logical corollary /ˈlɑːdʒɪkəl ˈkɔːrəˌlɛri/ 論理的帰結
必然的帰結、当然の結果、論理的帰結 「ある事実・前提から自然に導かれる結果」 - nihilistic fashion /naɪ.əˈlɪstɪk ˈfæʃən/ 虚無的なやり方
価値や規範を否定し、すべてが無意味だとする態度 - ideological border control /ˌaɪdiəˈlɑːdʒɪkəl ˈbɔːrdər kənˌtroʊl/ イデオロギー上の境界線を守ること（概念的な制限）
- censoriously /ˈsɛnsəriəsli/ 検閲的に、批判的に
- peace-through-strength「軍事力によって平和を保つ」という外交理念
Kim Strassel: Yeah. You just need the correct standards, better standards, ones that we define, that we agree with, but you can still have standards. Speaking of standards ... and this is a slight shift here ... the hate-mongering, the conspiracy theory wing of the conservative movement is obviously extremely concerning, but also concerning to me as a free-market person is the growth of a wing in the party that's now becoming a big-government right. Now, having big policy divides in the GOP isn't news, but new. By the way, one thing that I actually love about the right is that we tend to have healthy and open debates about things, unlike the left, where they get their marching orders from the top and then they shut down any dissenters. But that being said, the wisdom and the success of free-market policies has been to me so clear for so long, defined back to Reagan. I've been spending a lot of time wondering where this new impulse comes from. And when I hear conservatives and some elected Republicans now talking about getting rid of right-to-work states to make nice to union bosses, or demonizing entrepreneurs and markets, or calling for more regulations on drugs or other price controls, I sometimes find it hard to believe that this comes from some well-thought-out belief that these policies will actually work. I think at best it might come from not thinking, but I think at worst, it maybe comes from some misguided belief that this is good politics, to demonize and to sort of lazily believe that it's okay to grow government as long as you're growing it for your own aims. I mean, where do you think this impulse is coming from in the party?
- hate-mongering /ˈheɪtˌmʌŋərɪŋ/ 憎悪扇動、憎しみを煽る行為
-mongering = “人があるものを過剰に広める・煽る” - conspiracy theory wing /kənˈspɪrəsi ˈθɪəri wɪŋ/ 陰謀論を広める派閥
- big-government right /bɪg ˈgʌvərnmənt raɪt/ 大きな政府を志向する右派
- right-to-work states /raɪt tə wɜːrk steɪts/ 労働者が組合加入を強制されない州（米国の州法）
- marching orders /ˈmɑːrtʃɪŋ ˈɔːrdərz/ （上位者からの）命令、指示
- dissenters /dɪˈsɛntərz/ 異論者、反対意見を持つ人
Ben Shaoiro: So I think on the one hand, it's coming from an attempt at political pragmatism. We were told that the Trump era was the ushering in of almost a right-wing European style on the right, this big-government conservatism that was concerned with family formation and family preservation, but the only way to do that is by restructuring all of society's systems. We don't work for the free market. The markets work for us, therefore we should be able to control those markets in ways that are most beneficial to the people that we like or the systems that we like, and so I think that they think that that is a politically winning hand. I think it also does come from a conspiratorial belief that free markets have somehow robbed people of their birthright, and therefore free markets have to be laid low, that free markets are actually a tool of the elite. You see this sort of language used when people conflate various definitions of globalism. So they will suggest that, for example, the UN, which is a globalist institution in the sense that it wants one set of rules supposedly for the entire globe that will now overcome the interests of Americans, they use that in the same sense. They mean free trade, which is not the same thing. That sort of conflation allows for the idea that there is a conspiratorial elite that is benefiting from free trade or that is benefiting from capitalism and from private property ownership and low regulation, and those people are actually rigging the system for their own benefit, which is left-wing language, but it is very fertile ground for our populist moment. Again, when you see distrust, not only in the institutions but in all the big systems, you start to mirror a lot of the principles of the left. Some of the economics talk by say Steve Bannon is indistinguishable from the economics talk by Elizabeth Warren. And I don't think that that's a coincidence, because both are basically saying that the free market is a rigged system that was set up on behalf of an elite to benefit people who are, quote/unquote, not like you, and now they have to be laid low, and the only people who can lay them low, "Well, that person is me if you give me enough power." And that is incredibly dangerous stuff. I'm seeing it growing by leaps and bounds on the right. I think that, for those of us who love free markets and love capitalism and understand the utilitarian good of capitalism but also the morality of capitalism. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the beauty of the Cold War ... and there was not much to celebrate, but one of the things that there was ... was the idea that there was a counter that you could look to and say, "Okay, it's not that thing." We may disagree internally about the top marginal tax rate, but we know what the opposite looks like. We know what not-capitalism looks like, and it looks like this horrible slave state that keeps people in a state of penury and points nuclear weapons at everybody it doesn't like, and that's bad. And after the Cold War, I think we stopped on the right explaining what capitalism was. You could have a Milton Friedman Free to Choose program on national television in the '80s, but after the Soviet Union falls, people stop feeling the necessity to explain the morality and decency of capitalism, and then that lets in through the back door all this Marxist talk about wealth inequality and how the markets are rigged to the benefit of the few. My favorite is when people suggest that capitalism has been rigged for the benefit of particular corporations, and that's why capitalism has to end. It's like that's not capitalism, right? You create a category error and then you use that category error to push yourself into further crony capitalism, as they call it, again, a terrible term. It's just corporatism. It's further corporatism or economic fascism.
- ushering in /ˈʌʃərɪŋ ɪn/ （新しい時代・状況などの）到来をもたらす
- politically winning hand /pəˈlɪtɪkli ˈwɪnɪŋ hænd/ 政治的に勝てる戦略・切り札（ポーカー比喩）
- laid low /leɪd loʊ/ 打ち倒される、無力化される、封じ込める
- conspiratorial /kənˌspɪrəˈtɔːriəl/ 陰謀的な、陰謀を信じている
- conflate /kənˈfleɪt/ （異なる概念・意味を）混同する
- rigged system /rɪɡd ˈsɪstəm/ 不正に操作された制度・仕組み
- by leaps and bounds /baɪ liːps ænd baʊndz/ 急速に、飛躍的に
- penury /ˈpɛn.jʊr.i/ 極度の貧困、貧しい状態
- category error /ˈkætəɡɔːri ˈɛrər/ カテゴリの取り違え（論理・哲学用語）
- crony capitalism /ˈkroʊni ˈkæpɪtəlɪzəm/ 縁故資本主義、親密な利権資本主義
- corporatism /ˈkɔːrpərətɪzəm/ 企業国家主義、経済的特権組織主義
17：44
Kim Strassel: Yeah. It's a great point. By the way, I put huge blame for that failure to stand up for the benefits of capitalism too on our CEOs and members of our economic community, that just completely abdicated their responsibility on this over recent years and cannot seem to find the courage to get it back. But isn't part of the problem here ... you can tell me if you agree or not ... is that some of this intellectual confusion comes from it's not that the free market isn't working for enough people when you look out there. I think the problem is that we don't have a free enough market, in that the left has already so successfully inserted government into so many basic areas and necessities, whether it's housing or electricity prices or healthcare. I mean, it drives me nuts. Yes, we have a freer healthcare market than a socialized country like England, but it is hardly a free healthcare market. I mean, it's Obamacare. I mean, it's the worst of the worst in some ways. I mean, doesn't that add to the ability of those who want to put forward this false narrative? Because we're not even talking about the same terms here. We don't necessarily have the free markets we need.
Ben Shaoiro: No, that's exactly right. I mean, one of the charts that I love showing on the show is the chart that shows which products in American life have become cheaper and more plentiful and which ones have become more expensive. And there's only one rule, which is if the government has intervened and subsidized, it has become massively more expensive over the course of time, whether you're talking about housing, whether you're talking about education, whether you're talking about medical care. And then if you look at things like food prices, those have dropped precipitously over time, because those are actually free-market driven. But one of the beauties of being on the left or on the populist right is that you can blame the free market for problems that you caused. So we obviously saw this, I think most clearly, with the Great Recession, where it was government-involved housing policy that clearly and obviously led to the collapse of the housing market and then to all of its spillover effects through the rest of the economy. And then Barack Obama would get up and say, "Capitalism has failed. The only way to save capitalism is to kill it. We need to move toward a significantly more intrusive government regime." And this is always ... again, I come back to the conspiratorial point because I do think that that is a form of conspiracy theory. "There are people who are rigging the system. The only way to overcome the rigging is for us to rig the system ourselves. If we fail, it's because we didn't rig it hard enough, so we need more power to rig it even further." And that is incredibly dangerous, and you see why it's politically sexy, because for an individual, if things aren't going right for you, you have a choice, and it's the same choice that Cain was given. You can go to Abel and figure out what he did right to have a sacrifice accepted, or you can just kill Abel. And I think that the political pitch is always, "Well, I'll help you kill Abel and you'll feel better about yourself. It's not your fault. You didn't do anything wrong. The system has failed you. I will fix it if you give me that sort of power." And again, I think you're seeing that on the right. People have asked before, I would never run for office because it seems awful and I have young kids. I'd never ever do it. But if I were to run ever, what I would run on the basis of is, "I can't get rid of your problems. All I can do is get things out of your way so you can solve your own problems."
Kim Strassel: Correct.
Ben Shaoiro: And that's all government really can do, is just get things out of your way so you can solve your own problems, but no politician's ever going to get elected to national office on that basis probably.
Kim Strassel: Oh, I don't know. Ben Shapiro for president. I'll get on board. I always said I'll never work for a campaign, but I could support that. We're going to take one more break. When we come back, Ben Shapiro on foreign policy.
Announcer: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is All Things with Kim Strassel.
Kim Strassel: Welcome back. My own view, by the way, just last thing on this topic, but when you look at the populist right and those making those claims, my view is that a lot of them have got out more on their skis than Donald Trump ever was. Look, he came to office in 2016, and there were a couple of discrete areas where he definitely wanted to rip down the establishment viewpoint on things, in particular on trade and on immigration. It almost feels to me as though there's a younger generation in the party that's like, "Well, it worked on those two issues. We'll just double, triple down in all different areas." I'm not quite sure he's always been on board with it, but does it concern you at all to now hear him? He seems to have been persuaded in some ways, calling to regulate drug prices, impose caps on credit card fees, the vice president trashing on businesses. How alarming is that to you?
Ben Shaoiro: I mean, it's very alarming. And again, I think that the thing to understand that everyone who watches him closely knows about President Trump is he's totally non-ideological. He will stick his finger into the pie and then if it's good, then he will taste it, and if it's bad, then he won't. And so he'll experiment with big government interventionism in particular areas until it doesn't work, at which point he will stop it. But I think that people read that as he wants to gobble up every pie he sees. And they're looking for the cracks that he created in the old conservative edifice not as flaws that are chips away at it, but as him attempting to full-scale explode it, and so now they're going to come and they're going to absolutely just devastate the entire field of play.
Kim Strassel: Wrecking ball.
Ben Shaoiro: Exactly. And I think that the thing about Trump that's actually kind of shocking is when it comes to the economy, for example, how not a wrecking ball he is, meaning there are certain things that he took a wrecking ball to, trade policy, but there are certain things that he absolutely did not. Deregulation is a traditional conservative point.
Kim Strassel: Fantastic.
Ben Shaoiro: Lower taxes, traditional conservative point. Moving authority to the states and away from the federal regulatory structure, conservative idea. These are not complete breaks with conservatism of the past, but you're seeing people formulate entire philosophies of what, quote/unquote, Trumpism is, and this is a point I make on my show a lot. There is no Trumpism, there is just Trump. There's just Trump and what he's doing. There's no philosophy of Trump. And so when you see J.D. Vance try to weave that into a philosophy of post-liberalism, and with critiques of the Declaration and critiques of individualism and the necessity for you to be buried in the town where your grandparents grew up and all that stuff, Donald Trump didn't say any of that. Maybe that's your philosophy, that's fine. We can argue about it, but pretending that that is Trumpism, that's no more Trumpism than my free-trading is Trumpism. I have my own peculiar perspective on where I think America ought to go economically, but I'm not going to attribute that to President Trump just out of political convenience.
Kim Strassel: Great point, and actually one of the reasons why I wanted to talk to you about this, because I do think we're headed for this moment. At the end of Donald Trump's second term, there is going to be a vacuum and there's going to be a lot of people rushing to fill it with all kinds of curious and interesting ideas which are not necessarily linked to Trump. I just want to finish off here. I want to talk about one last aspect of the party and the future, and that's foreign policy. And again, I think when Donald Trump came into office this last time in 2025, I was a little worried. It seemed that there was a more isolationist wing of the party that was very much on the rise within his administration, and you saw a pure standoff this summer with folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene lecturing the president that engaging in things outside the country was not MAGA, and he pushed back pretty hard. He's like, "I came up with that term, and I think I will continue to tell you what it actually means." And it's notable to me, he has spent more time on foreign policy in his first year of the second term than any year of his first term. He was actually far more engaged, obviously, than Joe Biden was even present. But given that skepticism among many in the base, what role do you think Donald Trump's I think very muscular and engaged foreign policy is playing in that debate within the party? Is this having the effect of reminding the base of the benefits of strong deterrence or the old saying, peace through strength?
Ben Shaoiro: I mean, I think that it is. And I think that I had President Trump on my podcast a couple of weeks before the election and I asked him about isolationism versus peace through strength, and he said, "I'm not an isolationist. I'm a peace-through-strength president." And he was in his first term, and I think that he is in his second term. I think, frankly, he enjoys foreign policy because it is an area where the presidency has plenary power. I mean, the president has outsized power when it comes to foreign policy that he does not have when it comes to domestic policy, and no matter how many executive orders the president signs about credit card rates, a lot of this stuff is going to get knocked down in courts and never actually happen. Whereas when it comes to foreign policy, he can actually effectuate major change by simply saying yes to things, whether that is the capture of Nicolas Maduro or whether that is the bombing of the Iranian nuclear reactor. And so I think that he enjoys that a lot on a personal level, but also on a presidential level as someone who wants to effectuate change. Again, I think there are a lot of people who looked at his rhetoric, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, some people who are in the administration, who saw his anti-Iraq war rhetoric and generated an entire philosophy of almost left-wing isolationism, a sort of Buchananite isolationism from 1997, and then said, "That's Donald Trump." And they just ignored everything that he actually did during his first term, and so some of us were not particularly surprised actually when it turned out that he was much more interventionist than they thought he would be. Honestly, I thought that the big surprise is that he was staffing up his administration in the way that he was. I was more surprised by the fact that there were people who were going into State and Defense who seemed to be more aligned with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, the PaleoCon American conservative wing of the Republican Party, than what Trump himself was said to effectuate, and I think that's still the debate inside the administration. I think there is a reason why Secretary of State Rubio has seemed to have had outsized influence. I'm not sure that it's because Rubio's had outsized influence as much as it is because Rubio actually mirrors what the president thinks about foreign policy better than, for example, the vice president seems to.
Kim Strassel: Yeah, I think that's absolutely true. And I think that at times Donald Trump may have wondered about the wisdom of some of the people that were brought into his cabinet, not just in foreign policy realm but across the range. Last question, and we'll finally get to the news of the day, last question. What do you think about the fact that we're now seemingly going to try to talk to the Iranians? I mean, the last the Iranian people heard from Donald Trump was, "Help is on the way." And to use the president's own words, we've now put an armada off of Iran, and yet word is our negotiators are going to meet Iranian emissaries in Turkey later this week. I don't think that this bodes very well.
Ben Shaoiro: I don't either. It's very difficult to tell what direction President Trump is going to take. Remember, there were talks that we were going to talk to the Iranians before he struck their nuclear facility back in June of last year too.
Kim Strassel: That's true.
Ben Shaoiro: Literally that weekend, Steve Witkoff was supposed to be in Oman, I believe, negotiating with the Iranians, and then the United States bombed Fordow. So I think that there is every possibility that it's a head fake. There's every possibility that it's real. I would say that I think that the president is very much aware of the perception, in the public mind and internationally, that he told the Iranian people to go out in the streets and keep protesting and help would be on the way, and that if this ends with the Iranians supposedly shipping fissile material to the Russians while maintaining their ballistic missile development as well as their terror apparatus, then he will be seen as weak on the world stage. And if that his solution, by the way, he should be seen as weak on the world stage, because that's bad policy. And I don't think the president is likely to do that, specifically for that reason. I also think that he's holding off because he wants to make sure that whatever military option is used is actually effective. I think that what stopped him from doing these Obama, Syria, "You crossed the red line, let me shoot one missile," pinprick strike, I don't think President Trump likes that stuff very much either. I think that if he wants to do something, he wants it to be effective, and it's hard to tell from the outside who is in his ear. I mean, you have people who are obviously highly engaged in the Middle East for a variety of reasons, both good and bad, who are in his ear ... here I would be referring to Witkoff ... and then you also have people who are more thoroughly consistent in their foreign policy approach. That'd probably be the Secretary of State, maybe Secretary of Defense, a couple other people in the administration. So the president has had, to this point, I think almost perfect instincts when it comes to Middle Eastern policy. So I'm hoping that the president keeps that up.
Kim Strassel: Well, one thing that is absolutely certain is that if you are an Iranian government thug, you are a lot more nervous every night in bed than you ever have been, and that has all been very much for the good, the return of American deterrence. Ben Shapiro, I love listening to you and I always learn so much doing so, so I thank you so much for coming on today. We want to thank our listeners for tuning in. We're here every week. If you like the show, please do hit the Subscribe button. And if you'd like to write to us, you can at atkim@wsj.com.
What’s News
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2026
2/3/2026 5:10:00 PMShare This Episode
Disney Names Its Theme Parks Chief as Bob Iger’s Successor
ディズニー、テーマパーク部門トップをボブ・アイガーの後継者に指名
P.M. Edition for Feb. 3. Disney has chosen Josh D’Amaro to succeed Bob Iger as its CEO. WSJ entertainment reporter Ben Fritz discusses how the theme parks executive is likely to approach the role and how investors are reacting. Plus, the House approved a measure to end the partial government shutdown, but the negotiations over immigration enforcement aren’t over yet. And in Argentina, decades of financial crises mean people have kept a stash of billions of U.S. dollars. We hear from WSJ reporter Samantha Pearson about why Argentina’s President Javier Milei is trying to get citizens to put them in the bank. Alex Ossola hosts.
- name A as B /neɪm/ AをBに指名する
- successor /səkˈsɛsər/ 後継者
- theme parks chief /θiːm pɑːrks tʃiːf/ テーマパーク部門トップ
- approach the role /əˈproʊtʃ ðə roʊl/ その役割にどう取り組むか
- investors are reacting /rɪˈæktɪŋ/ 投資家の反応
- approve a measure /əˈpruːv ə ˈmɛʒər/ 法案を可決する
- partial shutdown /ˈpɑːrʃəl ˈʃʌtdaʊn/ 一部政府閉鎖
- negotiations /nɪˌɡoʊʃiˈeɪʃənz/ 交渉
- stash /stæʃ/ 隠し持つ蓄え
- put money in the bank 銀行に預ける