Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with American Enterprise Institute Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Former State, Defense and NSC Official Kori Schake; Interview with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby; Interview with "Democracy's Discontent" Author and Harvard University Professor of Political Philosophy Michael Sandel. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 15, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: I nominated him for, I guess, if you like health and if you like people that live a long time, it's the most
important position, RFK Jr.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Donald Trump's polarizing cabinet picks. What will they mean for the U.S. government and for the world? Chief Medical Correspondent Dr.
Sanjay Gupta looks at what the appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr. means for healthcare. And, former national security official Kori Schake on Trump and
American power.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN WELBY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The church has to get it right. There are no excuses for us for getting it wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- accountability atop the Church of England. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigns, we look back at Christiane's
conversation with him about sexual abuse in religious institutions.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL SANDEL, AUTHOR, "DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENT" AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: The divide between winners and losers has
been deepening, poisoning our politics and setting us apart.
GOLODRYGA: -- Walter Isaacson speaks to political philosophy professor Michael Sandel about anger and division in America.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, the changing direction in U.S. foreign policy is becoming abundantly clear, even with Donald Trump months away from taking office. First, with
his controversial salvo of early appointments, charging Pete Hegseth with the exercising wokeness from the Pentagon, placing Tulsi Gabbard in charge
of national intelligence despite her well-known support for Russia, and while delegating America's global leadership on public health to vaccine
conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy Jr.
On Ukraine, Russian officials say they would welcome Trump brokered negotiations, saying any talks need to be based on the realities of Russian
advances. At present, Russian forces are advancing at their fastest pace this year. And as for Iran, the New York Times reports that Elon Musk met
with its U.N. ambassador on de-escalating tensions with the United States, marking a return of the freelance diplomacy. That was a hallmark of Donald
Trump's first term.
So, let's dig into all of this with Kori Schake, who had served at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council. Kori,
welcome back to the program.
A lot to talk about here. But first, let's just talk about the national security and defense appointments that we've seen the president-elect
announced this week, specifically Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth. He's a Fox News host. He's a decorated combat veteran, Ivy League graduate,
but he has never run an organization much less one the size of the Pentagon, the largest and arguably most significant bureaucracy in the
world. What do you make of this appointment?
KORI SCHAKE, DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND FORMER STATE, DEFENSE AND NSC OFFICIAL: Well, I
think he's likely to have some difficulty because historically, what has made secretaries of war or defense successful in the United States is
either legislative or executive experience. Because as you suggested, he's coming in to run a $780 billion a year business that has more than 2
million employees, tens of thousands of installations, and a large, disputatious, and intrusive board of directors in the United States
Congress.
Mostly, it is Congress, not the president, who runs defense policy. And so, he will have his work cut out for him, persuading not just the Senate
during confirmation, but also getting the budget pulled together and passed by the Congress, which is the secretary's most important job.
GOLODRYGA: He's also made some comments about what he views as wokeness in the military top brass perhaps, and Donald Trump has alluded this too,
replacing some top U.S. generals. But he has weighed in on women in combat as well, saying that men are more capable. He weighed in on this just days
after the election. We all -- we know that women serve in the military here honorably, and many are fighter pilots as well.
[13:05:00]
Just raising this question now in 2024, I mean, I'd like to play sound of what exactly he said, but I'd like to ask you what these signals about the
direction of the U.S. military in 2024 after we hear from him directly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, FOX NEWS HOST: I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made
us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated. We've all served with women and they're great. It just, our institutions don't have to
incentivize that in places where traditionally -- not traditionally, over human history, men in those positions are more capable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Your reaction and how do you think this would be viewed by those in the Pentagon now?
SCHAKE: So, the American military is desperate to stay out of the culture wars in the United States. And I actually agree very strongly with the Wall
Street Journal editorial board who wrote yesterday that dragging the Pentagon into this kind of, you know, policing, wokeness, and culture wars
is not helping in the urgent task of strengthening our military that the president himself is committed, president-elect himself is committed to.
So, I think it's actually going to be incredibly divisive if Secretary Hegseth is confirmed and proceeds along those lines. You know, there's been
the suggestion that a board of veterans would be impaneled to determine which military officer should remain on active duty. And that just creates
an enormous window of opportunity for American adversaries to take advantage of chaos in our own establishments.
I agree with The Wall Street Journal ed board that wokeness is not the main problem in the American military and we need to rebuild the strength of our
force with urgency, that should be the priority.
GOLODRYGA: Part of our strength here in the United States is sharing intelligence with top allies, you know, the Five Eyes allies around the
world, top secret intelligence specifically on issues that avert terror attacks sharing with one another, strategically being aligned about wars in
Ukraine, in the Middle East, et cetera.
I'm wondering how the appointment of someone like Tulsi Gabbard to run DNI impacts that, both domestically and how it's received among some of our top
allies.
SCHAKE: Well, America's allies were -- many American allies were going to be nervous about intelligence sharing with the Trump administration no
matter who the director of national intelligence was going to be.
But Tulsi Gabbard will exacerbate those concerns. Not just questions of judgment, but also questions of with whom the United States might share
allied intelligence, in particular, Tulsi Gabbard's sympathies for Russia and for Syria's Bashar al-Assad are going to make, for real concern, about
intelligence sharing even among our closest allies.
GOLODRYGA: Let me turn now to the hot wars that Donald Trump is inheriting. It's one thing to run a campaign that says, I don't start wars,
I end them. I'll end them on day one. Much easier said than done. Let's begin in Ukraine because The New York Times is reporting, the Kremlin also
confirming that for the first time in two years the leader of a large western country, in this case Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, spoke with
Vladimir Putin earlier today for about an hour. It is reported that he criticized Russia's war.
But the call itself does seem to suggest a change in strategy. And perhaps it's coincidental. I mean, obviously, Germany has its own domestic issues
as well. His coalition's sort of falling apart. They're going to be new elections in a few months. So, he himself is sort of a lame duck at this
point. But the image that sends, the symbolism of a western ally speaking with Vladimir Putin for the first time suggests what?
SCHAKE: Well, it suggests anxiety about the future of European security. And what I think President Trump and the people closest to him get wrong
about America's allies is they believe that we can be transactional, that we can threaten our allies with abandonment, and that will only cause them
to make strong choices that we would have made with them.
And I think one worrying potential signal of Chancellor Scholz calling Vladimir Putin is Europeans fearing they are going to be abandoned by the
United States and therefore, making compromises with Russia and other countries that are adversaries of the United States, because they fear they
can't protect themselves.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: You've written a piece --
SCHAKE: That's a bad outcome, not just for Europe, that's a really bad outcome for the United States too.
GOLODRYGA: And explain how so, because I want to get into a piece that you've written for Foreign Affairs, the title, "The National Security
Imperative for a Trump Presidency. House Administration Can Shore up the Foundations of American Power." Here's specifically what you wrote about
what you view as some weaknesses in the Biden administration that you hope a Trump administration can rectify.
And you say, Washington should spend less time worrying about what Russia might do and more time on getting Russia to worry about what the U.S. might
do. Instead of loudly agonizing about the prospect of World War III, the U.S. president should sternly and publicly warn the Kremlin that unless
Russian forces withdraw from Ukrainian territory, the U.S. will provide Ukraine with everything it needs to not just take back its occupied lands,
but also challenge Russian President Vladimir Putin's rule.
Now, Kori, many would agree with you, but I just don't think that many in this incoming administration would agree with that policy, everything
that's been outlined thus far and suggested, perhaps getting to negotiating table is sooner rather than later having Ukraine agreed to give up the land
that had been taken by Russia in the last year two years in exchange for some sort of security deal, obviously NATO being off the table for a
significant period of time. That doesn't align with what you're prescribing here. So, walk us through why you think where the Trump administration may
be going is wrong.
SCHAKE: Well, I think it's unclear what the Trump administration's policy is going to be. But I certainly share the concern that you just voiced,
Bianna, that they are going to force Ukraine into a bad position war ending, for the moment, negotiation.
But what President Trump himself has said is that if Vladimir Putin won't agree to terms, that -- bring the war to an end, that President Trump said
he would lift all restrictions on the weapons and the policy restraints that the Biden administration has imposed on Ukraine. And that has the
potential to shift the policy in a positive direction rather than a negative direction.
But you are, of course, right that Vice President-Elect Vance, Secretary of Defense Nominee Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Nominee
Tulsi Gabbard and others in the administration are hostile to Ukraine continuing to fight for its freedom and for its internationally recognized
territory.
So, you're right, there's cause for concern. But I also think, you know, President Trump has certain fixed ideas about immigration, about trade,
about alliances, but on many other policies, he is open to being persuaded when he thinks it will be advantageous for his main goals. And I do think
it's important for President-Elect Trump and the people around him to appreciate that forcing Ukraine to accept a deal that doesn't restore its
sovereignty or its territory is unlikely to end the war, which is President Trump -- President-Elect Trump's objective.
And they also should be really worried about encouraging Russian aggression towards other countries in what Russia would like to claim as its sphere of
influence and the ways that could encourage China to consider countries on its periphery fair game for invasion or subjugation as well.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly. We had another surprise announcement the last few weeks in the war in Ukraine, and that was the addition of some 40,000 to
50,000 North Korean troops fighting alongside the Russians after their mutual defense treaty was signed and Ukraine had confirmed that North
Korean troops were there fighting alongside the Russians.
How would a President-Elect Trump, in your view, how should he not only handle, obviously, ending this war in a way that would be just for Ukraine,
but then also address another potential threat to the United States that has yet to be resolved, and that is the threat of North Korea?
SCHAKE: It's such an important question. And that we -- that the Biden administration and the western coalition supporting Ukraine have done
nothing in response to this major escalation of North Korean troops joining the Russian war effort, which lifts the main restraint on Russia's
continued success, which is an increasing manpower shortage. That we have done nothing will make American threats and promises less credible.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
SCHAKE: And that's something that President Trump, as intemperate and irregular as his foreign policy could be, he could also reinforce the
credibility or restore the credibility of deterrence by the United States by, when you make threats, following through on those threats and
penalizing Russia and North Korea for the escalation of expanding the war.
GOLODRYGA: Kori Schake, always great to see you. Thanks so much for the time. We appreciate it.
SCHAKE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, more now on the controversial selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to, as Donald Trump says, go wild on the Department of Health
and Human Services. Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins me now to drill down on what this could mean for American and global health
care on a day-to-day basis.
Sanjay, always great to see you. So, this can't come as a shock in the sense that this is exactly what Donald Trump campaigned on. Nonetheless, I
don't think many Americans actually came to terms with what this could mean for their day-to-day medical needs and their lives in general. So, walk us
through your reaction to this announcement and what you're hearing from your colleagues in the medical community.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that the reactions have been pretty strong, you know, from all corners, really. And
perhaps not surprising because it's so difficult to disentangle anything from politics nowadays, including public health, Bianna. It sort of has
broken mostly along partisan lines.
So, support from Republicans, not as much support from Democrats, people -- certain Republicans saying this is a very bold, courageous move. Some
Democrats saying this is dangerous and disturbing. There have been some crossovers, you know, the Democratic governor of Colorado has supported
this nomination of RFK Jr. for this post. Former Vice President Mike Pence has said he's got some significant concerns about this, primarily over RFK
Jr.'s position on abortion.
You know, RFK Jr. was a Democrat up until recently. He was an environmental lawyer. Those are the things he was most known for, in addition to his
stance on vaccines. And I think that's what's driving a lot of this.
I think, you know, with regard to the medical community, specifically, Bianna, it's not a monolithic community. You're going to have, you know,
disparate points of view. Although, they have been pretty lockstep in terms of their overall concerns, specifically with regard to vaccines. There have
been other things that I think they're more supportive of, the concerns about food supply, for example, the concerns about toxins in the food
supply, the fact that we spend $4.5 trillion on health care in the United States and have some of the worst outcomes in the developed world. So,
those are things that I think people have recognized for a long time are a real concern, and the idea that maybe things could be done about that, you
know, I think that has much more support.
But the vaccine issue is a flashpoint, and for many people, it's also a metaphor for, I think, how RFK approaches science in general. He has these
beliefs that don't seem to be rooted in science, and he seems to have a disdain at times for the scientists who talk about these things, and that's
-- I think that's their primary concern.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, especially because he himself is not a scientist. So, he doesn't come with the years of education and the field work and expertise
that they do. He claims that he has never been anti-vaccine, but he spread false claims about vaccines for years over social media. As you know, in
the past, he said vaccines had caused a holocaust. He's made the comparisons and the links, obviously, between autism.
And I wonder if you could just set the record straight for us, for Americans who are now worried, will I be able to take my kids in for their
annual vaccine shots? Will a newborn be receiving the vaccines that they've been accustomed to for so many decades now? What, if anything, changes with
someone like him at the helm of such a large and influential organization like the HHS?
DR. GUPTA: Well, Bianna, I think the most honest answer is I don't know. I don't think anybody knows because his stance seemingly his language changes
sometimes, not just day-to-day, but even within the same interview. As you just point out, he says he's not anti-vax, but says the vaccines have
caused a sort of holocaust. He has said that he would not take away people's vaccines, but also tells the story of walking up to a mother with
a young child while he's out on a hike and making sure to convey to that mom that their child should not be vaccinated. So, I don't know what that
translates to ultimately.
[13:20:00]
And look, I think you know, just to be a little bit optimistic, I think it's very hard to take away vaccines or make them unavailable for people.
And pretty clearly, they've had a significant beneficial impact. I mean, some of these studies, again, are studies that he will see. But if you look
at, for example, children who were vaccinated over the last 30 years, from 1994 to 2023, you have these projections in terms of the impact, 500
million illnesses prevented, 32 million hospitalizations prevented, a million deaths prevented, and this is data that I'm sure he has seen and
will certainly be presented again if he is in a position of power at HHS. So, I -- you know, I think some of that data is hard to argue with.
The vaccines and autism issue, Bianna, I think, again, is the real flashpoint. And as you probably know, I mean, this started in the late '90s
with a paper that was subsequently retracted, but it was a paper of 12 children who developed autism who had also had the MMR vaccine. And the
authors of the paper, the author Andrew Wakefield, made this cause-and- effect sort of relationship between the vaccines and autism.
Again, the paper was subsequently retracted. It was found that the cause- and-effect relationship was not found to hold up. And it inspired lots of studies after that. And big studies following hundreds of thousands of
children who -- some who have been vaccinated, some who have not been vaccinated and basically saying, OK, let's follow these children for 15
years and see what happens. And what they found was that there was no relationship between the vaccines and autism. Those studies were
subsequently replicated. And that's why we arrive at this position in the medical community that we're still not sure what causes autism, but it's
very clear that vaccines do not.
I should also point out, just because I'm a neuroscientist, that neuroimaging has improved over the last 25 years. So, we now see changes in
the brains of very young children, even within the womb, certainly, before they've been vaccinated, we see autism related changes in the brain. So, we
know that something's happening much earlier than vaccines would even be given. Again, we don't know what those things are. It could be some
environmental influence. But these are important data points.
And again, you know, studies that he has seen and still despite that, just as recently as a few months ago, he says, I believe vaccines cause autism.
He said that specifically. That's a disdain not only for the science, but I think for the messengers who created that science and he might be in charge
of many of them if he's in this position.
GOLODRYGA: What you just walked us through is something that actually required a bit more time, it's more nuanced, it requires actually reading
the information and the data and the research and sadly, that's not something that fits into 52 characters, 152 characters, whatever people
turn out to in social media where many people get their news information.
But should we be reassured, assuming he goes through the confirmation process in the Senate, always viewed as sort of the adults in the room, the
more sophisticated and mature chamber of the two, that four of these senators, they're all Republicans, we should note, are medical doctors.
They're trained as medical doctors. What are some of the questions you would hope they ask him during this confirmation process?
DR. GUPTA: I think the -- what's been lacking is sort of the specifics of what he might do with all these beliefs that he has, and how much credence
he would give to the science. He always says he's open to looking at the data. I just want to look at the data, he says. As I just pointed out, a
lot of that data already exists.
So, I think as part of these confirmation hearings, here is the data, maybe some of the data I just talked you through, for example, about vaccines and
autism and basically see how he responds. Like, what does he do with that?
I think the concern is, and, you know, Bianna, in medicine and public health there's an acknowledgement that we live in a probabilistic world.
There's not certainties. People -- you know, two plus two doesn't always equal four. It's not a hard science in that regard. So, how does he deal
with uncertainty in this regard? The prevailing evidence is that vaccines don't cause autism. Have there been children who've received vaccines and
then, shortly thereafter, had an autism diagnosis? Absolutely. And it's very emotional. Like, how does he sort of put that all together?
And at the same time, you know, this other issue, which I think, again, has more support about reforming our food industry, about recognizing that
probably 70 percent of chronic disease in this country is preventable. And a lot of that is due to how we nourish ourselves, how is he going to
actually deal with that? I think those are some of the questions.
[13:25:00]
But I keep coming back to the vaccine thing, in part, because it's important, but also, I think it gives people a little bit of an insight
into how he might approach things. I believe vaccines cause autism, but all I want is more data. Trying to reconcile this sort of two parallel trains
of thought, I think, are probably what a lot of the questions will revolve around.
GOLODRYGA: It's dangerous, and we know that the United States has historically paved the way for much of the world's research and medical
advancements in science. You just look at the cooperation in developing the COVID vaccine, case in point.
I'm wondering how concerned, how closely our allies are and internationally in the medical community and scientists around the world actually are
watching this and concerned about what impact it could have on their work?
DR. GUPTA: You know, it's interesting, I've talked to some colleagues around the world over the last couple of days when this announcement first
happened, that he was going to be nominated for this position. And, you know, I think -- while in the United States, I think for some people, there
was like this real disbelief, even though they knew it was likely to happen, there was still this disbelief that it was actually happening and
the real concern about the impacts on public health. I think in other places around the world, I think there's still this sort of suspended
animation almost, like what is going on over there?
As you correctly point out, that some of our scientific institutions, we certainly saw what they were able to do during the COVID pandemic, but
they're sort of held up. The NIH has held up as a worldwide center of excellence when it comes to scientific advancements. The CDC, there are
other countries around the world that try and replicate their infectious disease organizations based on the CDC here in the United States. So,
there's a huge impact.
He has said, you know, basically -- I don't have the exact quote, but he goes, for the next eight years we're not really going to think about
infectious diseases or something like that. That's a really frightening prospect. You know, we just came out of a pandemic. We have viruses like
H5N1 that are circulating. Who knows if another virus might start to, to become problematic. The United States has long led the way when it comes to
these sorts of things. So, I think maybe disbelief is still the adjective that I'm hearing from people really all over the world.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, including here as well. Dr Sanjay Gupta, always great to have you on. Thank you for your honesty, for your expertise, and for
bringing us the facts.
DR. GUPTA: Thanks, Bianna. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, up next, a dramatic resignation and a rare moment of accountability within a religious institution. Church of England Archbishop
Justin Welby is stepping down in the wake of a report into abuse by John Smith, a lawyer associated with the church who abused dozens of boys and
young men for decades.
In 2013, Welby was alerted to Smith's actions. Now, a new report criticizes his failure to alert authorities. Smith died a few years ago, having never
been brought to justice. And in 2014, the following year, Christiane spoke with Justin Welby at a Vatican event on modern slavery and sex trafficking.
It bears noting while senior Catholic clerics have been defrocked, no pope has ever resigned amid after admitting a failure of accountability for such
abuses. In the light of recent events, we wanted to take a moment to look back on Welby's answers then and how the Church of England might go
forward. Here's part of that conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: We also have emerged and are emerging from a world in which many of our institutions have been
condemned and are busy apologizing for sexual abuse of children in their care, whether it's here in the Vatican, whether it's television, whether
it's parliament, wherever it is, it seems every time we turn around, there's another outrage that's being committed against children. Can you
tell me what you are doing to address this scourge in your own church?
JUSTIN WELBY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: We have in the last few years, 10, 15, even 20 years now been steadily tightening up the current practice, and
it is very, very tough now. And where someone seeks to abuse children today. As far as we know, they are -- you can never be sure that
everything's done right, but on the overwhelming majority it has stopped and they are instantly reported to the police and to the local authorities
and the issue is tackled.
[13:30:00]
The biggest issue for us is the legacy of past abuse, in the days when in, if I may say so also, television and all kinds of areas, it was considered
relatively acceptable. We -- you know, so and so was known to be a bit dodgy, but nobody made too much fuss. That dreadful nightmare era.
We are going through all our files. We've gone through every file, back file of every living clergy person in the church of and looked for any
signs that there was a problem and followed them up where there was. Diocese by diocese, we're now beginning the huge task of going back over
all files, back for decades, in many cases, back to 1950, including deceased clergy, and again. looking for any evidence.
Where we see any evidence, following it up to see if the survivors are still alive so that if they want to engage, if they want to ask. to
acknowledge the dreadful evil that was done to them, we will do it, but they are treated as the important people, their interests come first,
whether the perpetrators are alive or dead, survivors must come first.
It's a huge culture change in our whole society. The church has to get it right. There are no excuses for us for getting it wrong.
AMANPOUR: How did you yourself feel and react when you came across your first evidence case of this?
WELBY: Well, the first one was -- it was some years ago, we reported it, we dealt with it. I was astonished. I -- and then when I began to realize,
particularly in this role, since I took office as archbishop, the extent to which things are being covered up. It is the most dreadful and traumatic
part of the ministry I have. It is the bit you listen to people and you are filled with shame and horror and disgust at what was done to them. And
anger at how the church could have behaved in that way.
AMANPOUR: When do we think we might see the first woman bishop in England, in the Church of England?
WELBY: Whenever they're chosen. It has to go through for the royal assent, for the Queen to approve it before they're announced. We won't have an
announcement before early 2015, but I would expect to see women bishop announced in the first quarter of next year.
AMANPOUR: And do you eventually expect to see a lot -- I think I read you say that eventually -- or not -- in the not-too-distant future, half the
bishops may be women.
WELBY: Why not? Why not? More than half the congregations are.
AMANPOUR: Might you say something to the pope about that?
WELBY: I'm not going to say what I say to the pope. That was a low question.
AMANPOUR: What do you say about your own Anglican Church, which is split on this issue and other issues of sexuality? Do you think that there is a
crisis in the Anglican Church?
WELBY: The split within the Anglican Church over women bishops has become far less important. There's -- we've moved much closer to a point where
people accept different views as legitimate, certainly within the Church of England, there is a formal declaration that accepts both views as
legitimate views and we remain part of the family. You don't chuck out family.
On the issue of sexuality within, particularly within the Church of England, there are conversations going on, structured conversations, which
will continue for the next couple of years, and I'm not going to preempt those by commenting on it.
AMANPOUR: And yet, I've heard you say and be quoted as saying that the church could face a very serious schism over these issues.
WELBY: Indeed, it could. And part of what we're trying to do is, if we disagree, to disagree well. I mean, the kind of thing we were hearing about
today, the faith leaders together, we heard references obliquely to the fact that around the world, a lot of our disagreement, particularly in the
last few years, has become extremely violent, destructive disagreement.
The part of the role of the church is to demonstrate that even on things people think are fundamental, incredibly important, that they can disagree
well and in love. That is part of our example.
AMANPOUR: There are politicians in our own country, in England, here in Italy, in France, elsewhere, which are making -- who are making a big deal
about the other, the foreigner, the immigrants.
WELBY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What do you make of this as the church leader, as the head of the Church of England?
[13:35:00]
WELBY: Two things. First, the United Kingdom, England, is a very, very crowded country. Since 2010, The Financial Times this morning reported
we've had net immigration of over 600,000 people. And immigration is something that has to be handled carefully because it is a cause of strain
in communities where very large numbers arrive. It always has been. There's an amazing chapel in Canterbury Cathedral, in which the dean of the
cathedral gave a space for worship to Huguenot refugees from religious persecution in the 16th century. He gave it to them temporarily. It's still
there. They still have a Sunday service every week.
It is the great tradition, secondly, of this country, to be a place of asylum and safety and rescue and hope for people from all around the world.
It is deeply embedded in our tradition of hospitality.
AMANPOUR: Do you feel some of that is being lost on certain more populist politicians in England right now, in Great Britain?
WELBY: The issue has become a very, very live issue in recent months and years. There is a grave danger of using language that is simply appealing
to emotion. We have to hold together our pride in the country I love for its generosity with a recognition that communities must be supported and
strengthened when there are rapid changes in the makeup of that community.
Human nature is what it is. It's no use pretending it's otherwise. But our tradition is so great in Britain of welcome and reception. It is something
to be proud of and to go on living out.
AMANPOUR: Archbishop Justin Welby, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
WELBY: Thank you very much for inviting me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that was Christiane's 2014 interview with Justin Welby, who, as a reminder, resigned this week.
Well, now, to make sense of Donald Trump's presidency, we must understand the discontent that put him in office. That's the theory of our next guest.
Harvard professor and political philosopher Michael Sandel. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss how polarization fueled Trump's campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Michael Sandel, welcome back to the show.
MICHAEL SANDEL, AUTHOR, "DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENT" AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good to be with you, Walter.
ISAACSON: You know, when the election results came in, I was re-reading your book, "Democracy's Discontents," the new version of it, and I said,
this is the best explanation of what just happened. Explain to me how democracy's discontents that you write about will manifest in the election.
SANDEL: In two ways, Walter. First, people feel that they don't have a meaningful say in how they are governed. It's really a crisis of self-
government. People feel overwhelmingly that their voice doesn't matter. That's one. And secondly, people have felt for some time that the moral
fabric of community has been unraveling, from family to community to the nation, people hunger for a sense of belonging, a sense of pride, a sense
of solidarity. And people feel unmoored.
And so, I think these are two deep sources of the discontent that this election was about, that Donald Trump managed to tap into, connected also
with the grievances of working people, those without university degrees, who felt that elites looked down on them.
ISAACSON: You talk about those grievances, and you actually call them legitimate grievances. Explain why.
SANDEL: Yes, the -- for decades, the divide between winners and losers has been deepening, poisoning our politics and setting us apart. Came to a head
in 2016, when Donald Trump was first elected by speaking to those grievances.
And I think the way they arose, Walter, is that for decades, Democrats and Republicans alike had carried out a kind of neoliberal market friendly
globalization project that delivered enormous rewards to those at the top, but left the bottom, half of the country basically with stagnant wages and
outsourced jobs.
So, there was widening inequality of income and wealth, but not only that, the governing elites, Democrats and Republicans, had told working people,
if you want to compete and win in the global economy, go to college. What you earn will depend on what you learn. You can make it if you try. What
they missed was the insult implicit in that bracing advice.
[13:40:00]
If you're struggling in the new economy and you didn't get a degree, your failure is your fault. That's the implication. So, it's no wonder that many
working people felt not only dispossessed and economically squeezed by the new economy, but also insulted, looked down upon by governing elites.
ISAACSON: Hey, but the Democratic Party used to be in favor of the average working person. Why do you think they got tagged as the party of what you
call the meritocratic elites that look down on others?
SANDEL: It's really an important question, Walter, because you're right, there has been a reversal. Traditionally, the Democratic Party, going back
to the New Deal, was the party of the people against the powerful. The party of working people and affluent (ph) folks tended to vote Republican.
Those with college degrees tended to vote Republican. Those without college degrees and working people tended to devote a Democratic.
By 2016, this had flipped. Donald Trump did very well among those voters without college degrees. And those of us who spend our time in the company
of the credential can easily forget the fact that most of our fellow citizens don't have four-year degrees. Nearly two-thirds do not. But with
the Democratic Party, the way it evolved during the age of globalization, there was a kind of market triumphalism, but also a kind of meritocratic
triumphalism.
Though there was such emphasis on getting a college degree as the avenue to success, and also to respect, then by 2016, the Democratic Party had become
more attuned to the values and the interests and the outlook of credentialed elites and professional classes than to the blue-collar voters
who once constituted their primary base of support.
ISAACSON: Why has social mobility stalled and how does that fit into this?
SANDEL: We have long consoled ourselves in America that we don't have to worry so much about inequality as those old European countries, because in
America, it's possible to rise. No one is consigned to the fate of his or her birth. But what's striking is that the rates of intergenerational
upward mobility are higher in the more egalitarian European countries than they are in the United States. And that's because having a strong welfare
state, strong public education and housing and health care provide the kind of stability and strength that actually enables people to rise.
And so, what we found is that we have widening inequality, but also stalled mobility. And yet, the story we tell about ourselves that in America, you
can make it if you try is demoralizing under conditions where many people found over the last few decades that no matter how hard they worked, they
couldn't get ahead.
So, not only was their economic inequality and job loss and wage stagnation, but there was also a demoralizing message pronounced,
especially by credentialed elites, who said, if only you work hard, you can make it. If only you get a degree, but it's on you, you can make it. And
that, in a way, prevented, I think, progressives, in the Democratic Party in particular, from stepping back and asking a fundamental question, if
Donald Trump is as unfit and as serious a threat to democracy as we say he is, why is it that half the country -- now more than half the country
prefers him to what we've been offering?
That's a sobering question the Democrats need to ask themselves looking in the mirror and asking, how do we need to rejuvenate the mission and purpose
of progressive politics or the Democratic Party if we're to address these sources of grievance and discontent, Walter?
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: Will you talk about Trump and why he appealed to things? Break down the reasons for me. To what extent was it economic? To what extent was
it cultural, social issues? To what extent was it a condescension amongst the elite?
SANDEL: I think it was all of those things. The election itself, I think, boiled down to one fundamental question, which candidate would be able to
prevent -- to present themselves as the candidate of change? Because people wanted change. They were not happy with the way things were going. Donald
Trump won that argument. Kamala Harris was not able, for various reasons, successfully to present herself as the agent of change.
But beyond that, we have debates in the postmortems, was it economic grievance or was it cultural anxiety and anger and grievance, or was it
elites looking down? It was all of those things. And I think we make a mistake, both as analysts trying to figure out and comment on the election.
But also, I think the political parties make a mistake by distinguishing too sharply between economic issues, things like inflation, jobs, economic
growth, distribution of income, on the one hand, and cultural grievances.
They're closely connected because the economy, of course it matters how well the economy does in producing jobs and keeping prices down and so on,
but it matters, above all, as a system for allocating social recognition and esteem.
And this connects to the cultural question. Part of what's turned working people against the Democratic Party in recent years is the sense not only
that they've been left behind economically and the Democrats participated in deregulating the financial industry and promoting market driven
globalization, that all mattered, but Democrats didn't focus on the dignity of work, didn't focus on honor, respect, social esteem, and recognition.
And the emphasis on telling people that the solution to their troubles was to get a college degree contributed to that, to a kind of credentialist
condescension.
So, people not only felt left behind economically, but they also felt that they were being looked down upon. And this is a volatile brew of economic
and cultural grievance that I think Donald Trump very successfully tapped into, and the Democrats haven't quite come to terms with it.
ISAACSON: One of the philosophical concepts that goes through all of your books, and I think the course in justice that you teach at Harvard, is the
notion of the commons. And at a time when there's rising inequality, as we said, and also a little bit less social mobility, at least there's this
concept that there's certain things we have in common. We all form a line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. We all get to use the same parks. We
all go to the stadium together. And yet, I've seen you write about this sorting of sort of a skybox phenomenon where no longer are we all sitting
together in the same common spaces.
SANDEL: Yes. And I think this is at the heart of what people long for when they feel that they're unmoored and we don't have a sense of community that
holds us together. You mentioned -- my name for it is the skyboxification of American life, because in the '90s and early 2000s, sports stadia, which
once served as a class mixing occasions and places, increasingly even sports stadia, were separated. Those who could occupy the luxury corporate
boxes, and those fans come and folk in the stands below.
And what really has unfolded during the last several decades is that the most corrosive effect of the widening inequalities has been on the erosion
of those public places and common spaces that gather us together as citizens in the ordinary course of our lives, increasingly those who are
affluent and those of modest means live separate lives.
[13:50:00]
We send our kids to different schools. We live and work and shop and play in different places. This isn't good for democracy because democracy is
about more than just voting on Election Day, it's about sharing a common life that reminds us that we are all in this together. And increasingly,
the way our civil society has unraveled, the way there is less and less encounter among people from different walks of life, in the ordinary course
of our lives, that erodes the sense of commonality that democracy requires.
And here's another thing that Democrats and progressives have missed. Even those who have seen the importance of alleviating the inequality and even
those who have called for some populist economic programs to take seriously the dignity of work need to connect those -- that economic rejuvenation
with a sense of community, and that includes patriotism.
Democrats and progressives have allowed the right and the MAGA movement to claim a kind of monopoly on national pride, make America great again. Well,
there are a lot of problems with that, but it suggests it speaks to the aspiration for national pride.
There is a tendency, understandably, to say, well, that's what, that's the MAGA project, a kind of hyper nationalism that is ungenerous to immigrants
and to outsiders and to inclusiveness. But the answer to that is not to cast a kind of suspicion on all things patriotic, but to articulate a
progressive vision of what patriotism and national pride and a sense of community can mean otherwise.
ISAACSON: Well, tell me what that vision is.
SANDEL: Well, part of it is to launch a serious project to renew civil society to, to strengthen public places and common spaces of shared
democratic citizenship. And that means investing often at the local -- state and local level. And everything from municipal parks and public
transportation and health clinics and public libraries and cultural institutions that bring people together, and especially and above all, I
should say the public schools, to bring people from different classes into a shared democratic encounter. So, that's one.
But in speaking about the economy, I think we can bring patriotic themes to bear there too. Part of what the age of globalization did was to say, to
imply and to teach national borders and national identity, they don't matter so much. We don't really need to depend on those folks who live
nearby or for that matter in our country, either for production or for consumption. We can collaborate and produce with people anywhere in the
world, and this underlay the outsourcing, but it also conveyed a certain attitude of less and less dependence on those with whom we share, a
country.
And so, I think this, too, is part of the unraveling of a sense of national community. I think it has fueled the anger that those who have broken away
with enormous wealth seem to feel less need to rely on fellow citizens closer to home. So, an economic patriotism, we've seen at the beginning of
it, with friend shoring or bringing supply chains closer to home with making public investments to manufacture key goods to support key
industries domestically, that can all be articulated in terms of a kind of rejuvenated patriotism that is connected to the dignity of work, and our
mutual dependence and our mutual obligations on one another -- for one another as fellow citizens.
ISAACSON: Michael Sandel, thank you so much for joining us.
SANDEL: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a showcase of salsa, an ode to Mexican music and even a surprise performance by Bon Jovi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The Latin Grammy Awards went big last night for their 25th year, and there was much to celebrate as the fastest growing music genre in
the U.S. Although, honoring a new generation of stars, it was veteran merengue singer Juan Luis Guerra who took home the most prestigious awards,
album of the year and record of the year. It was quite a night.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
