Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX); Interview with Democratic Candidate for New York State House John Avlon; Interview with "Left Adrift" Author Timothy Shenk. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 30, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Donald Trump has spent a decade trying to keep the American
people divided and afraid of each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's the final sprint, and both candidates make their closing pitch. I asked Republican Congressman and former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw why
he thinks Trump can unite the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Next Tuesday you have to stand up and you have to tell Kamala that you've
had enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As power in Washington hangs in the balance, Democrat John Avlon on his congressional race, which could determine who controls the house.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHY SHENK, AUTHOR, "LEFT ADRIFT": Ever since Donald Trump got on that golden escalator, Democrats have become the party of resistance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Left Adrift: What Happened to Liberal Politics." Michel Martin talks to author Timothy Shenk about his new book exploring the
transformation of the Democratic Party.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. In this most nail-biting American election, candidates are making their so-
called closing arguments to the American people. Speaking from the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. last night, Where Donald Trump had rallied his
supporters on January 6th, Kamala Harris reminded voters of the Capitol insurrection and Trump's outspoken threats to democracy.
Meantime, the GOP is feeling bullish, looking at the number of ballots being returned by registered Republicans, with far more voting early than
four years ago. And yet, Donald Trump continues to stoke fears of widespread voter fraud, making unfounded allegations to assert that if he
doesn't win, the whole thing is rigged.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw was among a handful of Texas Republicans who voted to certify the 2020 presidential election. Today though, he is sitting
firmly in Trump's camp and promoting his vision for America. And he's joining us from Texas right now. Congressman Crenshaw, welcome to the
program.
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, we have a little bit of a delay, but I'm just saying that for our viewers to know. Now, the vice president last night,
basically, or recently, held a rally in your neighborhood in Texas, in Houston, which we know is not a battleground state, but she called Texas
ground zero in the fight for reproductive freedom.
Given the fact that there's this big gender gap, as you know, particularly amongst young people in this election, how is that message moving the
needle and for Republicans?
CRENSHAW: I mean, it depends on the state. It's not going to move the needle in Texas. We've had multiple statewide elections since we put into
place one of the strongest prolife policies in the country, and Republicans statewide continue to win by 10 points.
And you know -- and I think more and more people are waking up to the fact that reproductive freedom doesn't necessarily mean kill a baby. You know,
let's be honest about what we're talking about. Let's not use euphemisms for the actions that are being taken. And so, look, Republicans like myself
are going to continue to be pro-life and continue to fight for that because it's the common-sense thing to do, it's the human thing to do, it's the
right and moral thing to do.
So, does it affect Texas? I'm not so sure. Does it affect other states? It really depends. It's state by state and it depends oftentimes on what is on
the ballot. Democrats have been clever in getting this question put on the ballot. And then, they complain that Roe v. Wade is overturned, but all Roe
v. Wade did, being overturned, because it was a terrible legal decision to begin with, any lawyer would admit that, all it did was democratize the
issue, which I thought was -- what we were supposed to do in America, have policy debates about difficult issues and decide them at the state level,
which is what's happening.
AMANPOUR: Well, as you know, what Trump and the Supreme Court did put the fear of -- I mean, I'm just going to use a phrase, put the fear of God into
people all over the country and has caused a lot of anxiety, hardship, expense, and even health dangers, to the point that conservative Liz Cheney
has said she believes that women will be the deciding factor for Kamala because of this issue.
[13:05:00]
So, I guess I want to ask you whether, generally -- I mean, you're a politician, generally, the Republicans have an answer to what has been a
losing vote for your party over the last several cycles.
CRENSHAW: Yes. Look, I understand the pitfalls politically, but that doesn't matter to me when we're talking about doing what is right and
standing for what is right. And it's not exactly true that this is such a losing issue. Trump's position is widely held by the vast majority of
Americans. I mean, any poll that you've seen for the last 20 years shows that about 60 to 70 percent of people think that abortion past 12 weeks, it
shouldn't be allowed. It should be illegal.
And Trump's position has been to -- actually to not even do that, but to say that there should be no federal ban and that it should be left to the
states. So, Trump is a far more moderate candidate if people are actually being objective about what moderation is.
The extreme position in this case is to be in favor of what just about every Democrat is in favor of, which is abortion on demand at any time in a
pregnancy. That's not the case in Europe, and just about every country in Europe would scoff at that idea. Since the -- since European laws are
usually prevent abortion in the past 12 weeks. Only here do we have these extreme abortion measures that Democrats support. And I think people should
understand what the difference is.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because you talk about, you know, principle and pragmatism. I mean, as you know, the majority of Americans are pro their
rights under Roe vs. Wade. But let's just move on, because you -- as I said, you voted to certify the 2020 --
CRENSHAW: No, no, no. No, don't move on from that. Don't be clever about it.
AMANPOUR: I'm not being clever and I'm not debating. I'm merely actually asking --
CRENSHAW: -- what their answers are.
AMANPOUR: No, no.
CRENSHAW: People -- when people are asked, do you support Roe v. Wade, they're not really sure what they're supporting.
AMANPOUR: Oh, OK.
CRENSHAW: The truth is, and you know this, from Pew Research, that 60, 70 percent of people do not agree with abortion past 12 weeks. So, we're not
the crazy ones here.
AMANPOUR: Nobody's talking about crazy, I'm saying they support Roe vs. Wade. Let us move on, because that is a fact. The principles that you've
been talking about, for instance, and let's talk about democracy, which people in the rest of the world are watching and, as you know, has been
made a big issue by the Democrats and by this administration.
So, you joined a group of Republicans in Texas to actually certify the 2020 election. You didn't vote to impeach Trump, but I wonder whether you would
still certify an election if Trump doesn't win, given that already there's a whole load of groundwork being laid, at least it appears so, given
President Trump and his allies own words at rallies and elsewhere, that they already are laying the groundwork to call -- to cry foul if they don't
win.
CRENSHAW: Yes, we first have to start with a really important point, which is that the entire certification process, and I have to put that in
quotation marks. Certification process is completely illegal and unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional the last three times when
Democrats did it and it was unconstitutional last time when Republicans did it.
It's been unconstitutional this entire time. There's no -- the word certification is not in the constitution. There is no power for the vice
president or the Congress to certify or decertify an election. So, we have to start there. I think everybody should know that. Democrats opened the
door on this. They started it and it has become this accepted process ever since, which is really, really bad for our republic. So, let me start with
that.
To the extent that you don't certify -- I mean, you know, you're asking me hypotheticals in a situation that I can't predict. But I can say that the
entire process is wrong to begin with and what we should have done since then is clarify the law, because that particular law that we're in process
that we're following is based on the reconstruction era when there was actual shadow governments and shadow electors being sent to the Washington
and there had to be a methodology for sorting that out. That's obviously not what the case is right now.
So, I think we have to go back in time a little bit and tell some truth about what the actual process is and what the constitution says.
AMANPOUR: OK. As you know, this is an issue that worries a lot of people for obvious reasons. Now, I do want to go back to asking you about your
experience working across the aisle. Because you have done that, you have a reputation for sometimes bucking party orthodoxy. The Houston Chronicle
highlighted that when they gave you their endorsement.
[13:10:00]
For instance, you worked across the aisle with a very progressive Democrat, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on legislation to increase
research for funding of veterans with PTSD. You were also vocal calling Republicans that torpedoed the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill before
the bill was even released. You remember that? As the height of stupidity, that's what you said.
So, how difficult is it to actually do principled legislation when on some occasions, like this one, your party wouldn't even read it or bring it to
the floor before killing it?
CRENSHAW: Yes, those are two such different scenarios. I mean, you can unpack both. I mean, yes. A bunch of members like AOC co-sponsored my
legislation. To say we all worked together is a little bit of a stretch. But yes, they -- we -- you know, some -- a lot of times and more times than
people realize we're passing bipartisan bills out of the Congress.
I mean, most laws that get put in -- actually signed into law are bipartisan kind of by necessity. So, it happens a lot more than people
realize and we shouldn't be -- and we should applaud that. We should make people feel better.
As far as bucking your own party, I mean, I don't even think this is the case. I've bucked my own party, my own narratives pretty handedly. In this
case, I simply stated what I think is the obvious, which is how can you have an opinion on something before you've read it? You know, and that's
what I call the height of stupidity. And I still feel that way.
You know, does it get you in trouble a little bit, but you know what, that's -- the truth can and often does and people don't want to hear a
truth that they don't want to hear. That's unfortunately the state we're in America, and frankly, across the world where emotion is the -- it's the
primary language that people want to speak as opposed to objective analysis, and I think that's a big problem.
AMANPOUR: Look, I wonder whether you -- you are a vet, you've been a Navy SEAL, you've served your country. And I think Donald Trump's use of the
military, the language he uses, for those who've been injured or been killed in combat, losers, et cetera, and more -- and as importantly, when
he threatens to use the military and the National Guard against what he calls the enemy within, are you comfortable with that? This is actually a
very big question in a democracy, whether you actually set your military against your own people, which is, as far as I know, I think it's anti-
constitutional in the United States.
CRENSHAW: Yes, it would never happen. I'm not sure what, what quotes you're referring to. I know Trump speaks off the cuff and fires before he
thinks about it, right? That happens a lot. Does it mean he's going to do it? Of course not. And you might be able to justify those fears a little
bit more if you'd never seen him govern, but you saw him govern for four years. And it turns out that in those four years we had pretty normal
lives. We had a pretty good economy. We actually had pretty good foreign policy too, despite the -- many of the fears about what he was going to do
on the foreign policy front. He actually governed well.
Trump tends to understand the weight of the office that he holds and he does listen to advisers, good, smart people. So, four years to observe and
then also observe the outcomes associated with those four years, maybe I'd be more worried, but the reality is that those four years compared to
Kamala Harris' four years, I mean, they're night and day. And the outcomes associated with each of those four years, especially on the economy,
they're night and day. And especially on foreign policy as well. They're night and day. One is better. And Trump's is better. Harris' is not.
And so, that's what this election fundamentally is about. Again, I'm all for objective analysis. We can throw arrows at each other talking about
who's the worst person and who said what yesterday about so and so and how bad and mean they are because of it. Look, in the end, I want people to
think about one thing, which is what matters to you and your family at the kitchen table. And those things are the basics, right?
It's how expensive is your food at the grocery store? How fast is your -- how fast are your wages increasing under Trump? The lowest quintile of
earners wages increased like 15 percent overall 8 percent, under Biden, zero, because inflation canceled it all out. Mortgage rates doubled under
Biden. You know, the list goes on.
AMANPOUR: OK. Can I --
CRENSHAW: And all of this is indeed connected to policies that they put in place.
AMANPOUR: Can I just do a little bit of like, you know, reporting? Because you probably saw The Economist, which is a very centrist, you know,
economic newspaper here, had a front page, of a cover saying, the American economy is the envy of the world, it's the strongest in the world.
[13:15:00]
We know that the economy added nearly 16 million jobs, 6.3 million higher than before the pandemic. This is under Biden. The unemployment rate
dropped, stayed lower. Crude oil has increased production. The U.S. economy has continued to expand under Biden, growing at 2.8 percent in the second
quarter. So, the economy, according to the rest of the world -- clearly people are hurting. But in general, the United States economy is the envy
of the world.
So, I just wanted to put that out there for people to understand. But I do actually want to ask you about, you say he says things that he doesn't mean
it. Well, others say he says it, listen to him, because he does mean it. And most importantly, I want to ask you for your feeling about, OK, last
time you say we got through it, you're using we as the United States got through it, and nobody went off a cliff.
Last time people will say there was some extremely experienced people in the administration around him acting as guardrails. This time they're
saying that they won't be there. Are you comfortable that there will be experts and guardrails to, you know, potentially stop Trump from his worst
instincts?
CRENSHAW: Yes. Look, I mean, look no further than the America First Policy Institute. I think you're seeing a lot of the same names from the last
administration who will probably be in this next administration. So, again, I don't have the insider scoop on who exactly will be doing what, but I
have a pretty good idea. And this is especially important for foreign policy, let's say. You're going to have a pretty normal set of people
there.
And look, on the economy, I just want to say one thing. You have to connect policies to good economic outcomes. You can't just say, look, somebody is
president now, the economy is doing better, and I appreciate you at least said it right. Biden didn't create those jobs, the economy did, which is
exactly right. And we don't have access to a counterfactual multiverse, OK, where we can say, well, it would have been better or it would have been
worse had he not done this or this.
But you at least have to make -- and Democrats at least have to make the argument that we increase these jobs because of X, Y, and Z policies that
Biden put in place. The reality is what they've put in place, Biden and Harris have put in place, are trillions of dollars' worth of costs of
regulations, increase in taxes. They've done nothing that's pro-growth.
So, we are growing in many ways and we are doing better but that's despite those policies. And I can make the exact opposite argument under Trump when
you have tax cuts, when you have less regulations, all of these are pro- business, pro-growth policies. And so, the outcomes, are anticipated to be good, and exactly that, they were.
Biden inherited a recovering economy from COVID. You know, in the quarters previous to Biden taking office, the GDP was growing by 35 percent in one
quarter, and then 6 percent, and then 5 percent. Most of the gains of employment were happening because it was in recovery mode.
And so, you have to take all of that into context, if you're going to properly analyze who's doing a better job.
AMANPOUR: OK.
CRENSHAW: Rushing the economy and making sure that you have an easier time starting your small business.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, from what I gather, you describe yourself as a Reagan Republican. So, that is, I guess in today's landscape, more moderate than
the MAGA Republicans, that's for sure. And I just wonder whether you're comfortable then, there is so many -- I mean like scores, dozens of Nobel
Peace Prize winning and other expert economists who've said that Trump's tariffs, Trump's tax, and other policies would cause a huge inflation
spike, and that is a tax, you know, on America, as we know, on Americans.
But also, that these people who work for him, from Milley to, you know, McMaster, to Mattis, to Bolton, to Kelly, to all these names, all these
people who've served their country, they're all coming out against him. I'm still trying to figure out why you think this is the best course. Liz
Cheney, Dick Cheney, you know, these are stalwarts of the party, they're voting for Kamala Harris.
CRENSHAW: Yes, look, when I get my ballot and I'll vote sometime this week probably, early voting, here's what my ballot's going to say. It's not
going to say would you rather have Reagan? That's not what it's going to say. It's not going to say do you think Trump is the most perfect leader
ever? That's not what it's going to say. It's going to say, do you want to vote for Trump, or do you want to vote for Kamala Harris? That's what the
ballot's going to say.
So, that's why it's so easy to vote for Trump. Because, look -- and I mentioned this before. This is a unique election in that we have two
candidates where we have four years from each and the outcomes associated with each of those policies from four years, and we can compare them side
by side, because those four years are right next to each other.
[13:20:00]
That's quite the opportunity for Americans to be objective about that -- about how they're going to vote. And on every measure, and you can pick out
-- you can pick whatever topic you want, I'll happy -- I'm happy to discuss it. Trump wins out on each of those, whether it's foreign policy, whether
it's domestic economic policy, immigration policy for sure. These are the top of the list for American voters on the policy issues.
AMANPOUR: OK.
CRENSHAW: And so, I extricate myself from the personality wars and I look objectively at what the policies are, and how they're going to affect me
and my children for the next 50 years.
AMANPOUR: Congressman Dan Crenshaw, thank you very much indeed. And I'm going to put some of that to our next guest, who is the Democratic
Congressperson -- well, running for Congress in New York, John Avlon.
So, crucial to whoever wins the Oval Office, of course, is which party controls Congress. And right now, Republicans hold a slim majority in the
House of Representatives. But it's in play, and hoping to swing the balance of power to the Democrats is, as I mentioned, Congressional Candidate John
Avlon. He is formerly a CNN political analyst. He's now turned to politics, running for New York's First Congressional District in Long Island. And up
against incumbent Republican Congressman Nick LaLota.
And John Avlon is joining me now from -- where are you from? You're joining me from New York, Long Island. John, I don't know whether you heard my
previous guest, Dan Crenshaw, basically said, you got your ballot, if it says Trump and Kamala Harris for sure, you put the two of them up against
each other on immigration, economy, foreign policy and the like, and there's no contest, Trump wins. What's your counter argument?
JOHN AVLON, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR NEW YORK STATE HOUSE: I think that was a fact challenge argument driven by partisan obligations on the part of
the congressman, much of which his record I respect.
But I mean, character counts and the idea that we were living in some nirvana, four years ago, our nation, as with much of the world, was on the
way to a million COVID deaths, there was a skyrocketing unemployment, you know, are you better off you were four years ago? No question. We're better
off than we were four years ago.
But more to the point, the idea that Trump wasn't able to do much damage. I mean, put on your history lesson lens. You know, we had an attack on our
Capitol in the base back of a lie that Trump propagated. If a Democratic president had lied about an election, tried to overturn it that led to an
attack on a Capitol, I think Dan Crenshaw would be condemning that person and he'd be right to do it.
We need to stop this situational ethics. We need to put country over -- party principles over party. And the fact is, as you pointed out, that 40
of 44 cabinet officials who work for Donald Trump are warning that he's a threat to the Republic. Take that seriously. Take that real serious. And
that's the prism with which I think we should look at this election, the message America sends to the world if we reward someone for trying to
overturn an election on the back of a lie that led to an attack on our Capitol.
And then there's everything else from questions of reproductive freedom to rebuilding the middle and rebuilding the middle class and the policies in
action and why we need to make that change. Because one of the many arguments of this election, it seems to me, is that if God forbid, from my
perspective, Donald Trump is re-elected, Democrats controlling the House is a vital check and balance.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you about that in a second, but I want to ask you, because you bring up the democracy piece, and obviously that's what
Kamala Harris has been, you know, doing. Do voters, let's say where you are, trying to get -- you know, trying to win this seat, do they feel that
is the most important issue for this election or is it about the economy?
And, you know, I cited a whole load of statistics from economists and others, which basically say that Biden's economy has been very strong, even
though prices have gone up for people and it's very painful for a certain sector of the population that -- in any event, what are you hearing about
the issues that matter most right now?
AVLON: First of all, democracy is foundational. I think people are exhausted by the chaos. They want to move towards common ground, but
there's certainly kitchen table issues that have more immediacy issues of affordability. You pointed out that American economy is the envy of the
world, and I'd say the diner conversation around the economy has changed, but there's still a lot of frustration around affordability, particularly
here on Long Island. And that's where we talk about restoring the state and local tax deduction that Trump brought back -- took away, or, you know,
expanding the child tax credit.
But also, reproductive freedom. This is a fundamental issue and we're seeing very high turnout among women in particular in early voting. This,
as you correctly pointed out, a 75, 80 percent issue. I believe that decision should be between a woman, her doctor, and her God, not the
government.
[13:25:00]
And my opponent, for example, supports a 12-week abortion ban, said he'd vote for it, cheered the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That's incredibly out
of step with the vast majority of voters here, even a majority of Republicans are pro-choice here in the New York's 1st District. So, that's
a driving issue as well.
And there's frustration about border security for sure. But as you pointed out, Trump pulled the plug on a bipartisan border security bill that I'd
vote for on day one. So, I think those are clarifying issues that are at the top of people's mind, but don't dismiss democracy as an issue that
motivates people. Our country is something that people love and they are tired of the chaos and they want to move towards common ground.
AMANPOUR: John, I wonder whether you think, and you're a retail politician now having, as I said, being a CNN colleague, being, you know, editor in
chief of the Daily Beast, an author, you know, an independent, you were registered independent at that time. Do you believe that on these big
issues, the economy and on immigration that the administration has actually told a successful story around the numbers?
Look, Trump claims that at least 21 million people have illegally crossed the border during the Biden administration. We checked the facts through
September, the country has recorded under 11 million nationwide encounters with migrants during the Biden administration, including millions who are
rapidly expelled from the country. The high-end estimate is that about 2 million have crossed during the Biden administration. So, that's one set of
facts on migration and immigration.
And then, of course, violent crime has gone down in cities. That -- I don't know whether it's getting out. You tell me what people are saying. And as
we said, the economy, as you said, people hurt, but in general, the macroeconomy is doing better than in most parts of the developed world.
AVLON: Yes. And that's a compared to what people can't feel. I think a lot of these things are lagging indicators. And I think the administration can
tell the story more strongly, particularly around immigration. We've seen border crossings down dramatically since July, but they were too high in
the first place. And we need that bipartisan border security bill.
On the economy, I think, you know, we're moving in the right direction, but it'll never be fast enough. That's why it's important to point out facts.
We can have a fact-based debate. It's important to have a fact-based debate around crime. I'm a tough on crime guy, worked for Rudy Giuliani once upon
a time. But the fact is that violent crime rose under Donald Trump and it's fallen under Joe Biden.
I think narratives are stubborn things, particularly in an era of partisan -- hyper partisan media ecosystems, where people get their talking points,
and you see people become captive to those talking points, particularly in partisan structures. You heard Dan Crenshaw just do it a moment ago, where
he couldn't confront certain facts because he's got a party to answer to, even though he can be independent on some issues.
The other night in my debate, my opponent couldn't -- Nick LaLota couldn't even bring himself to criticize Donald Trump's praise of Hitler, which I
thought was the lowest bar in American politics, but apparently, it's not because of this atmosphere of fear. And I think that's what people are sick
of.
You know, I've been focused on rebuilding the middle of our politics, rebuilding the middle of our economy. We need to take action on areas that
are of deep concern, like border security, so that -- just like Democrats in particular need to be tough on crime because people -- you know, if
people feel unsafe, they'll put other things to the side.
But the fact is, there's more than unites us than divides us. Polls show that. Our politics doesn't reflect it. But that's what people need and want
to see. And when Republicans take positions that are outside the vast majority of the American people, like on choice, they're on the wrong side.
Look at Mike Johnson taking a shot across the bow of the Affordable Care Act today.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
AVLON: Which covers pre-existing conditions. Non-forced air. That's going to hurt.
AMANPOUR: I meant to ask Representative Crenshaw this, but you remember at the -- you mentioned Mike Johnson, you remember at the Madison Square
Garden rally, Trump said something like, we have a secret or something, don't we, Mike? Do you know what that was referring to?
AVLON: Well, I, of course, can't get in his head. But the concern is that refers to an attempt which we've already seen. Remember, this is why
accountability is important. Without accountability, attempts to overturn elections are just practice. And already we've seen Donald Trump do what he
has done in the past, which is sow seeds of doubt in the election results unless he wins.
And there is some concern. We passed an electoral count reform, and Crenshaw was on the right side of that vote. But 139 House Republicans
voted to overturn the election after the attack on the Capitol. And the fact that the election lie has been used as a litmus test for loyalty
should be chilling to anyone who believes in a fact-based debate.
So, the concern is, is there's going to be an attempt to create uncertainty or threats of violence around the election, as we saw last time. And that's
what we can't permit. That's why there's the opportunity and the obligation to build a broad bipartisan coalition. I mean, a coalition, a big tent
that's big enough, as you said, with Dick and Liz Cheney to Bernie Sanders.
[13:30:00]
And you know, that's the biggest political tent I've ever seen because it's about putting country over party, and putting our democracy first. And
that's what we need to do right now. And the inability to call out Trump where you're saying he'd use the military against American citizens,
talking about the enemy within, he's heard those talks. He can't just dismiss them. That's a willful attempt to ignore something we've already
seen and experienced. And that's why we all need to be wide awake in America right now.
AMANPOUR: I mean, Trump did go so far as to say that the enemy within is more dangerous than Kim Jong Un. In any event, he's the dictator of North
Korea. Can I ask you about your own race? Because as we said, not just because I'm interviewing you, but it looks like, you know, these districts
in New York and your district could be amongst those that have a big ripple effect and might lead to flipping the House if you win.
So, you've gotten very close. Your district has been a Republican district, red for 10 years. The polls say the Newsday/Siena College poll has you only
three points behind, and we put this up. LaLota, your opponent at 47 percent, Avlon, you, at 44 percent. And Representative Steve Israel says
the fact that this district is even in play is pleasantly surprising for national Democrats. So, talk to me about it.
AVLON: This is a swing district. It was held before Lee Zeldin for a Republican. It was held by Tim Bishop, a Democrat. It's actually been held
by Democrats the majority of the time. But this is a classic swing district. It's a purple district in a blue state. And I think that's
exactly where we can make some gains, because it demands the politics of addition, not division. They're actually more registered independent voters
in our district here than any other district in New York State.
And I think you're seeing the enthusiasm for Donald Trump has fallen. The hardcore supporters are still intense, but there is not that broad based
support that there was. Instead, we have Republicans for Avlon, which has been an important part of building that broad coalition. Because people --
if they're Reagan Republicans, Bush Republicans, want to turn the page on this craziness. They want to move past this tribal divide. And I think
that's one of the reasons we're seeing momentum.
You know, that poll you showed was a week ago, but it showed clear momentum in our direction, and that's neck and neck within the margin of error. So,
I like very much where we are. I believe we are fighting the good fight.
And it's really about putting country over party, as you mentioned. I'm not a party first person. I'm a country over party guy. I wasn't independent
when I was a journalist, and I see this as a continuity of the fact-based fight. I've tried to wage against hyper partisanship, warning about those
dangers because they're so clear and present right now.
But here on Long Island, on the eastern end of Long Island, we're seeing that broad patriotic coalition coming together, and the energy and the
momentum is on our side, and I think that's where we can help reset American politics, rebuild the middle, and restore faith that we can reason
together again using common facts to pursue the common good. That, to me, is common sense. That's the core of this campaign, and that's why I believe
we will win here.
AMANPOUR: Well, so, this is a little bit to what you're saying. Last night, Kamala Harris sought to portray, you know, Trump as a certain way
and sought to sort of try to say that she was there to try to bring Americans together as opposed to dividing them. Let's just play this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: America, this is not a candidate for president who is thinking
about how to make your life better. This is someone who is unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance, and out for unchecked
power.
And to people who disagree with me, unlike Donald Trump, I don't believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail.
I'll give them a seat at the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, on the one hand, you know, denigrating Trump, on the other hand, talking about a big tent, as you've been saying, how does that kind
of rhetoric land in your district?
AVLON: I think it resonates well, because it has the added advantage of being true. You know, she's committed to putting Republicans in her
cabinet. There are prominent Republicans supporting her quite intensely down the stretch, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger, just
today. And I think Americans yearn for that kind of unity government, and it's up to her, should she win, and I believe she will, that -- to build
that kind of a broad coalition. That's what our times demand.
But what she described Donald Trump is not hyperbole, it's what his own generals, his own cabinet members are saying about him. And that's the
danger and the disconnect. And what I think is we just need to get past the situational ethics that seek to excuse what you would condemn in front of
anybody else, or even just think about it more simple terms.
[13:35:00]
Last night I was at a -- speaking in front of a Meet the Candidates PTA at a high school in Dix Hills. And I looked at the kids in the room and their
parents and I thought, what message will we be sending to our children? About just character, about basic virtues, about not lying and dividing and
threatening, but instead, really leaning into the belief that there's more than unites us than divides us. And trying to govern that way, that's the
challenge.
You know, the dangers to Democratic Republics always come from hyper partisanship. And that's why we need to police our own extremes on our
respective sides. And we need to really rebuild the middle. And restore a sense that we can together again, especially facing the autocratic threats
abroad that want to denigrate our democracies and divide us. The stakes couldn't be higher.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Let me ask you --
AVLON: This is -- watching, but so are our kids.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And let me ask you about the gender divide, as I asked Representative Crenshaw. Michelle Obama appealed to women, but also to men
on the issue of women's health, women's rights, et cetera. How is the gender divide playing in your district?
AVLON: We're seeing it in early voting. We're seeing a turnout among women higher than among men. I think that's a reflection of the underlying
frustration, and it may be hard to capture in polls, whether it's young women who are difficult to poll or Republican women who are standing up and
sending a message.
I think it's a fundamental issue in this campaign. It's a fundamental issue. And I think it's going to be one of the great stories of this
election. This isn't a chance for us to come together and get past all this, but women maybe leading the way right now, and we need to walk with
them, and Dobbs dads are part of that coalition.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting. Thank you so much for your perspective. John Avlon, running for Congress in the 1st District of New York for the
Democratic Party.
Now, one challenge that faces Democrats is securing working class votes. The party is increasingly viewed as being for the educated and the elite.
But this wasn't always the case, so how did they get there? Author and historian Timothy Shenk provides some answers in his new book, "Left
Adrift," which explores how the Democratic Party has evolved over the past 50 years. And he speaks to Michel Martin about its impact on the upcoming
election.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Tim Shenk, thank you so much for talking with us.
TIMOTHY SHENK, AUTHOR, "LEFT ADRIFT": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, your book is very much an argument against what you see as the prevailing narrative about the direction of the Democratic Party. So, just
to get us started, would you tell us what you think that dominant narrative is? And then, I'm going to ask you obviously why you think it's wrong.
SHENK: So, the core understanding of how Democrats got to where they are today, which is a party that does really well with educated professionals
and often with poor voters, but struggles with the working and lower middle class. I think that the core story often argues that this happened sort of
loss of support with working class voters took place because Democrats wanted it to, that somewhere in the '60s or '70s that Democrats win it all
in on the pursuit of affluent college educated suburbanites, and that therefore, today, they're almost being punished for their sins. And that's
a story that, to me, made a lot of sense before I started digging into the research for this book, but that started to fall apart almost right away.
MARTIN: OK. So, what do you think is right? If that's wrong, what is correct in your view?
SHENK: What I found -- and really the characters who the book focuses on, are Stan Greenberg and Doug Schoen, who are both political advisers at the
upper levels of the Democratic Party, and both of them were advisers especially to Bill Clinton during his two presidential campaigns. Now,
Greenberg and Schoen might not be exactly household names, but their partners are.
So, for Greenberg, it's James Carville. The two of them work together for the first time on Clinton's '92 campaign, then go into business after that.
And for Schoen, it's Mark Penn, who -- they were longtime partners, Penn and Schoen, they go into Clinton together. And then, Penn really becomes a
celebrity figure after Clinton's '96 campaign.
Now, the useful thing about Greenberg and Schoen is that in addition being strategists, they were also academics, or at least they both wrote doctoral
dissertations that come out in the '60s and the '70s that are looking at struggles with working class voters that Democrats and other center left
parties like Labour in the U.K. were looking at those struggles taking place in real-time. And they come up with theories to explain what's
happening, big picture explanations of the type that you don't normally get from consultants.
Now, Greenberg and Schoen disagreed about a lot of things, and the book is to an extent about their disagreement, but one area where they did converge
was the sense that, coming out of the 1960s with the rise of a whole host of culturally polarized, really divisive social issues moving into the
center of politics, that this put Democrats in a really awkward position with a lot of their historic base in the working class. And neither of them
took working class support for granted. In fact, they thought that would be essential for Democrats to win.
[13:40:00]
So, the fact that these advisers to Bill Clinton, who's often cast as the key figure in this neoliberal transformation of the Democratic Party, the
fact that his key strategists are saying no, no, no, working class voters are really crucial, to me, this indicated that something a lot more
complicated than just Democrats say farewell to the working class. Therefore, they lose working class votes. Something more complicated was
going on.
MARTIN: And, you know, your book was really interesting because it does revisit some of the ground that we're sort of plowing now in the current
campaign. The thing, though, that really stands out, though, is the way that the Republicans really have leaned in on these cultural issues, right.
I see your argument that this wasn't intentional, but is the conclusion here really that some people have to get left on some of these culture war
issues, that that's the only way to keep coalitions together?
SHENK: So, one important point to keep in mind, I think, is that one reason why the Trump appeals to that are leaning into the culture or one
reason why he has an opening today is because there were some real failures in the Biden years and especially, the fact that for a lot of Americans
real incomes fell in those first two years, that the transition from pandemic life was really hard for lots of people and that a lot of Biden
folks were saying at the same time, though this is the best economy in the world, that the economic recovery is the greatest story never told, that
that sort of tone deafness costs them a lot.
And then, I think the other point to keep in mind is that some my own politics are often they -- this book is partly about how once upon a time
the Democratic Party's base was in unions, now it is universities, like, listen, I'm a college professor, I have all the standard issue, college
professor, blue America opinions, but, one of the arguments of the book and something that I got to by seeing how Sam Greenberg and Doug Schoen, for
all their problems, whatever faults you want to point out, at their best they were really committed to trying to figure out just what ordinary
voters were thinking about the world.
And one reason why they did this, listen, they are consultants. It made for a good life. But they also had an argument. And the argument was that in a
democracy, whatever else it has to be, it should be a system for turning public opinion into public policy. Because in the long run, you're just --
there's no other real alternative.
Because if you ignore the public for long enough, then eventually someone is going to come along who responds to voters on an issue they care about.
And if you're someone progressive politics, there's a good chance it'll be someone from the right with a lot of positions that you don't like.
Where I think a lot of progressives fall into a trap is that they assume that it's either capitulation to the worst parts of politics or standing up
boldly in defense of ideals that maybe they won't be supported by the public at large now, but you'll be vindicated by history eventually. And I
think those either-or framings often do the very people we want to help a disservice. And that if, for instance, on immigration, you adopt this or
more of a both and perspective where you assume that there are a lot of people out there who don't want ultra-draconian measures of deportation,
camps, armed troops, roving cities, they don't want that, but they do want order at the border.
I don't think that's an insane position, even if it's not my own. And it is a way for progressive politicians to meet voters where they are now on
their concerns so that you can persuade them over the long run.
MARTIN: So, let's go back to civil rights, because that is generally understood as sort of the first great realignment, right? I mean, it was an
explicit strategy of Richard Nixon and his supporters to, you know, persuade working class whites that -- you know, that the Democrats had gone
all in on civil rights and that those aren't your people.
So, I guess my question is, can you look back at civil rights as like that first great kind of realignment and say, is there something that Democrats
should have done differently that would basically instruct us for today around these issues that are so -- you know, that are so emotional and so
deeply ingrained for some people, even if those aren't your politics?
SHENK: And so, one important point to keep in mind is that even if 1968 is the election where you see the crack up of the New Deal coalition taking
place, where it's Richard Nixon and George Wallace, who is running as a third-party candidate this year, combined, they went about 57 percent of
the vote. So, that is a sign that this New Deal coalition, something is going wrong there.
But another point to keep in mind, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passes in 1964. What happens almost immediately after, Lyndon Johnson, who signs that
act, wins one of the biggest majorities in American history with the support of most of the south. Barry Goldwater does pick up some deep South
states, but Lyndon Johnson does -- turns in a historically strong performance that year.
And coming out of that experience, the great civil rights strategist Bayard Rustin writes an article called "From Protest to Politics," and his
argument there is that with the major gains of the first wave of the civil rights movement having been achieved with -- because of legislation like
the Civil Rights Act, now the movement has to move on to the harder and but ultimately, more significant work of basically redistributing economic
resources. From civil issues, it has to move to economic issues.
[13:45:00]
And the only way Rustin argues that the movement can pull this off is by embracing electoral politics, working to create a majority that's grounded
in working class voters, a bottom-up coalition that crosses racial lines that will be devoted to leveling the playing field in a game that's tilted
toward the rich.
And what's striking to me is that broad vision, it's something that influences among others, Stan Greenberg, this key character in my book, who
is a grad student in Harvard at the time, he volunteers for Bobby Kennedy's '68 campaign and writes a report about how he sees that Rustin style
working class coalition taking shape for Bobby Kennedy.
And it's also influential, among others, on Barack Obama, whose own campaign strategy in both 2008 and 2012, oh, it's a lot more to this Rustin
vision of how to campaign effectively than I think is often recognized.
It's really the 2016 Clinton campaign that marks a departure from this strategy that United figures as different as Stan Greenberg, who's
architect of the it's the economy stupid '92 campaign all the way to Barack Obama.
So, one argument for the book, and this is just tied up with my own politics, is that if we're thinking about ways that we can make a
difference, especially for working class people, for poor people, it is reforms that promote greater access, greater equality for jobs, housing,
education, healthcare. This matters for people's -- it matters profoundly for people's daily life. And the way that you get there is with a big
majority coalition that can push through all the restraints that exist in the lawmaking process in the United States and really make a difference.
MARTIN: Do you think there's something fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party at this point in our history? Is there a fundamental
critique of the Democratic Party that you would make?
SHENK: So, one reason why the book is called "Left Adrift" and not left in a ditch somewhere where no hope can ever penetrate is because I don't think
that either electorally speaking that Democrats are in this disastrous state. No, no. They've won the popular vote. And what is it? It will -- if
Kamala wins this year, it will be something like eight of the last nine elections. That is a historic run.
They are capable of winning in states as diverse as Kentucky and Kansas, states that you might write off as the reddest of red will elect Democratic
governors. We see, again, the success of abortion rights measures across much of the country. So, it's not as if the Democratic Party is an
electoral shipwreck.
And I don't think it's the case that the left is in ruins either. I think adrift captures the state of the party and the state of the left because,
to me, it suggests that both a party and a movement that have many, many competing goals that it values, but no sense of real priorities. What it
means to be a Democrat, that very simple answer. I think for a lot of people, what it means more than anything now is resistance. That ever since
Donald Trump got on that golden escalator, Democrats have become the party of resistance. They've been opposed to whatever Trump is, which means that
you end up letting Trump set the agenda.
And I think that a party like that, no matter what its structural ambitions are, one, I think it's going to have a hard time winning the big majorities
that you need to push through structural change. And two, I think it is kind of an inherently conservative party, where you're giving up on the
energy that comes from taking on the status quo, when you say the status quo must be defended against Donald Trump at all times.
And while I understand the electoral rationale behind this kind of thing Charli XCX to Liz Cheney coalition right now, I think that the future of a
stronger Democrat Party would be one where it had a much clearer vision of what it stood for, which would be a Democrat Party that could explain where
it went astray in some of the Biden years with presiding over this sort of -- this spike in inflation that resulted in this downtick in standard of
living for so many Americans.
So, the failure of Harris to be able to clearly and succinctly explain why she would be different from Biden, why voters who feel so angry right now,
I think that you can't speak to that anger unless you can acknowledge that there are more things that have gone astray in our politics than just
Donald Trump. And until Democrats get that right, I think they're going to be facing a big problem.
MARTIN: One of the things you say in the book is, today -- you're speaking more generally about the left, you write, today, it owes more to
universities than to unions, and its coalition looks like an alliance between professionals and the poor, where the virtues of diversity are
obvious but solidarity is harder to come by, especially with the middle of the electorate.
So, OK. I know it's going to sound like a -- but what's so terrible about having a party that cares a lot about what educated people think?
SHENK: Well, as one of those educated people, I'm in no position to say that we should be completely ignored. But what I would say to my fellow
college educated blue leaning professionals is that we get to be on the bus and it is hard to imagine a winning Democratic Party that doesn't have our
votes at this point.
So, yes, we get to be on the bus, but we don't get to drive the bus, and that we don't have the numbers to justify this, and that it's very easy for
us to forget that our good intentions might not map on to a lot of people's daily lives, and that if we are as empathetic and educated and
understanding as we say we are, then having empathy for people who are just trying to make it through a daily life where things are really hard for
lots of people, and who -- a lot of working class Americans who understand that they're playing a game that is rigged against them.
[13:50:00]
If you believe in democracy, that's something that's really noble too. So, having progressive college educated Americans get out of our own heads on
this stuff, that is also part of what means to believe in democracy.
MARTIN: OK. But what is the evidence that this drift toward universities or progressive college educated Americans is leading the party astray? Give
me an example of that.
SHENK: All right. So, one point is that we do see that a shift like this is happening around much of the world today, and that as the left has
picked up ground with college educated voters it often struggles with working class voters.
And you can see, for instance, the climate change bill recently. While this is good, important, long-term legislation on climate change, it's also a
fact that for a lot of disproportionately working class Americans what they care most about is the price of gas at the pump, the cost of electricity
because paying that heating bill, especially when you have a family to feed, that is difficult stuff.
And I think forgetting to deal with the cost of energy in the short-term is one case, while you are building up climate policy over the long-term,
again, it's about delivering in the immediate run that those of us who don't worry about the heating bill in the same way, it's easy to ignore.
MARTIN: So, as you and I are speaking now we -- just -- there's just no way to know what the outcome is going to be, even if the election is
actually going to be decided on November 5th. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Kamala Harris does win, what should she do to get
the ship right as it were? To put the Democratic Party on course for a more lasting electoral victories, not just at the presidency, but in state
legislatures, for example, and the Congress, where things -- you know, where things have real meaning for people as well?
SHENK: So, I think keeping up some of those important Biden administration measures that are building up power over the long runs or keeping up the
turn toward a more pro-labor politics, for instance, I think that's essential for long-term -- the long-term health of the party. But I think
it's also crucial for Democrats to pay more attention to those crisis over the cost of living that's been unfolding around rising cost of housing,
rising cost of health care, rising cost of child care, making sure that you can show that government can make a real difference in people's daily lives
while making sure that those macroeconomic conditions, keeping up low unemployment, and making sure that inflation really is behind us.
If you have a party that can do that while also delivering on the improvements in immigration that have taken place over the last year, that
these are great of immigration and legal immigration in particular has fallen under Biden. I think one reason why Republicans aren't in a stronger
position right now is really they are running against the United States of 2021 and allowing Democrats to consolidate the gains that they've made in
the last couple of years, putting a fresh face on those policies and moving with serious solutions to address the cost-of-living crisis.
There's no guarantees in politics, and there's a lot that could go wrong. But those issues, I think, to make a real difference for the party.
MARTIN: OK. Let's do the other thought exercise and say that Donald Trump is elected president again. What did the Democrats do then?
SHENK: So, one advantage that they'll have is just the nature of the party in opposition, especially when that opposition, if you're right about
Donald Trump, and I think you are, if he's coming into office with a team of bureaucrats behind them -- who, behind him, who actually know how to get
stuff done, it is basically inevitable that they will overreach and that will put Democrats in a really strong position to speak for, again, that
middle ground of opinion, that on issues like immigration, not happy about what's happened at the by the border under Biden, but also doesn't want to
go back to family separation, being able to point to the excesses of the Trump administration and making sure that they stake out a position,
Democrats do, where they are speaking for those concerns for the majority of the country, as opposed to just assuming that whatever Donald Trump
says, the maximally opposite position is always wrong, -- is always right.
And that if the electorate didn't work out -- if voters didn't give us what we wanted this time, then the answer is ramping up on the lawfare pursuit
of the Trump administration. You know, go after Trump illegalities when they're justified, but make it clear to Americans that your concerns are
their concerns and that your position meets them where they are.
MARTIN: Five years from now, what do you want to see? If we have a conversation about where the Democratic Party is, what do you want that
conversation to be?
SHENK: A party that has moved beyond just the party of resistance and that has gone against this natural tendency to just further double down on
making -- on winning the suburbs to make up for losses with working class voters, yes, in rural America, but also increasingly with African American
and Hispanic working class voters and cities where even if they're not supporting Donald Trump, they're not showing up at the polls.
So, a party that has not just gone further down the road to this suburbanized gentrified coalition of opposition to whatever a Trumpified
Republican Party is doing, but a party that has found its voice and reconnected with a broad swath of its former electorate.
MARTIN: Tim Shenk, thank you so much for speaking with us.
SHENK: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, all eyeballs on baseball. Well, certainly that's the case in Japan, where millions and millions of people are glued
to the World Series to watch the New York Yankees try to stay in the game against the L.A. Dodgers. It's such mania that Japan is racking up higher
TV ratings than in the United States, which is nearly three times the population.
Now, what has driven this craze? Well, homegrown hero and Dodgers player Shohei Ohtani. And crowds are gathering in Japan bright and early to cheer
him on.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
