Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Standford's Hoover Institution China Expert and "The World According to China" Author Elizabeth Economy; Interview with "Challenger" Author Adam Higginbotham; Interview with "The Mattering Instinct" Author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 30, 2026 - 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.
China and Britain standing side by side. Beijing's strategy to expand its power in the New World Order. Foreign policy analyst and former Biden
official, Elizabeth Economy, joins me to discuss this new frontier.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM HIGGINBOTHAM, AUTHOR, "CHALLENGER": The idea that seven astronauts could die live on television in a space shuttle, you know, that was also
kept carrying the teacher in space, the first citizen astronaut, seemed totally inconceivable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a true story of heroism and disaster on the edge of space. Forty years since the U.S. space shuttle Challenger exploded and shocked
America, I speak to best-selling author Adam Higginbotham about his minute- by-minute account of the tragedy.
Then, "The Mattering Instinct." Acclaimed philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein joins Walter Isaacson to discuss the driving force behind human
behavior.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin in China, where British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is on a multi- day trip, the first in eight years for a U.K. leader. Beijing says the trip is a chance to deepen their, quote, "mutual trust and practical
cooperation." At the heart of that cooperation, economic trade.
Meantime, Canada is also expanding its own relationship with China. Prime Minister Mark Carney hailing their new strategic partnership after his own
meeting there last week. All of this comes as Trump's tariffs continue to alienate Europe and Canada and possibly push the West further into the arms
of Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
It's also been a busy week domestically for Xi, with an ongoing purge at the highest ranks of the country. On Saturday, he ousted a top military
general. So, as Trump upends decades of foreign policy and China posits itself as a reasonable trading partner, where does all of this leave the
world order?
My next guest was a senior adviser on China for the Biden administration and is author of "The World According to China." And her latest article for
Foreign Affairs analyzes what she calls Beijing's strategy to seize the new frontiers of power.
Elizabeth Economy, welcome to the program. It's really good to see you. It's a very sharp piece that you've just written for Foreign Affairs. And
as we've noted, we have the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, signaling a ruptured global order as he is signing new trade deals with
China. And Keir Starmer, for the first time in eight years, you have a U.K. prime minister visiting China and potentially signing trade deals of their
own.
Does China see this moment of Western disarray as an opening to lock in its influence longer-term?
ELIZABETH ECONOMY, CHINA EXPERT, STANDFORD'S HOOVER INSTITUTION AND AUTHOR, "THE WORLD ACCORDING TO CHINA": Absolutely. I think for Xi Jinping, he
sees the Trump administration and sort of the disruptive element that the United States has become as an opportunity for China to displace, if not
replace, I think, the United States.
And that's probably an important distinction to make, because I think while China's very interested in reshaping the international system in ways that
will support China's interests, whether we're talking about trade and development or human rights, it's not really that interested in becoming
sort of the global policeman, bearing the burden of global security or of, you know, global foreign assistance. So, this is about basically seizing
the moment to advantage China's economic and security and political interests.
GOLODRYGA: And this comes, as we also noted, Xi Jinping purging a top military ally, the top general there in the country. And according to The
Wall Street Journal, actually, he's removed or placed under investigation some 60 military and defense officials and executives in just the last
three years alone.
And in fact, given the most recent purge, former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had actually met that ousted general, said this, quote, "It's
fair to say this is a seismic event for Mr. Xi to take out somebody who he has such a long history with is striking and raises a lot of questions."
[13:05:00]
From your perspective, does this consolidation make China more strategically coherent or does it actually expose internal weaknesses
within the country?
ECONOMY: Yes. I mean, you know, on the one hand, it's clearly a display of Xi Jinping's personal power that he can eliminate the number two leader
within the Central Military Commission, which is basically China's -- the military body that governs, you know, the People's Liberation Army. It's
the party body. And now, there are only two people out of six left in the Central Military Commission.
So, the fact that he can simply push out Zhang Youxia, who's widely considered to be a very competent, well-respected general, someone who was
close to Xi Jinping. They've known each other since kindergarten. Their fathers fought together in China's Revolutionary War that, you know, led to
the creation of the People's Republic of China. So, the fact that he can move him out is definitely a display of Xi's, you know, personal power.
And, you know, in addition to the 60 odd people that he has purged from senior military officials that he has purged over the past couple of years,
he's basically detained or disciplined four million party officials since he came into power. So, you know, that's part of it.
We don't know why he's, you know, pushed out Zhang Youxia. There are many different, you know, rumors out there, everything from corruption to, you
know, differences of opinion over, you know, military priorities, whether or not the military would be ready to meet Xi Jinping's 2027, you know, be
ready to take Taiwan. And, of course, the explosive allegation that Zhang Youxia was selling or providing nuclear military secrets to the United
States. We don't know why.
But I think, you know, that depending on the reason, it's also a sign of weakness for Xi Jinping. You know, if, in fact, it was simply difference of
opinion over military priorities, the inability of Xi Jinping to tolerate sort of differing viewpoints or the belief that somehow Zhang Youxia
represented an alternative source of authority and legitimacy within the military that Xi Jinping himself didn't present is actually a sign of
weakness.
You know, certainly here in the United States, we want our president to appoint military leaders who are there for their competence and
capabilities, not simply because they would agree with everything he said. And in China, I think the same is true.
GOLODRYGA: Going back to your piece, you do argue about what appears to be short-sightedness on this administration's front with President Trump
fixated on tariffs and now tech bans. You say Beijing has been shaping a world order for years now that would define their power. And going back to
even 2014, Xi Jinping said we can play a major role in the construction of the playgrounds, even at the beginning, so that we can make rules for new
games.
And this is related to every arena from the deep sea, the Arctic and space. So, is this new China's strategic advantage in your view that while maybe
the United States and its allies are being more tactical, China is really playing a longer game here?
ECONOMY: I think, you know, China and Xi Jinping, for short, definitely has a strategic vision in what they call the frontier domains. And these
are areas, as you mentioned, like space and the Arctic and the deep-sea bed, where Xi Jinping believes both the economic and national security
stakes for China are quite high. It's really important that China be able to exert influence in these areas, but also that there's an opportunity to
write the rules or rewrite them in some cases.
And so, China, even predating Xi Jinping, I would say, but accelerating under Xi Jinping, has put in place sort of the infrastructure to be able to
influence that rule setting. And that means everything from doing cutting edge scientific research, developing the hard capabilities, for example, in
the Arctic. You know, even though it's not an Arctic power and it doesn't sit on the Arctic Council, which actually sets the rules for the Arctic, it
has more polar ice cutters than the United States does. Its research shipping fleet is much larger than the United States is now.
So, I think it's putting in the hard capabilities that will allow it to shape and influence sort of the ability of China to access the resources
and to ensure its national security.
GOLODRYGA: Right. China isn't an Arctic state, as you noted, but it describes itself as a near Arctic power. Why is that so important for the
United States to understand, especially as it relates to what we saw play out with President Trump's demand to acquire Greenland, then coming down
from that demand. Ultimately, we'll see if he revisits that in the near future.
[13:10:00]
Because there was a lot of consternation among European allies about the aggressiveness that China had been playing in the Arctic and even some of
its interests over the last few years in Greenland alone.
ECONOMY: Yes. And kudos to the first Trump administration, because it really did sound the alarm bells on sort of China's growing economic
influence in the region. It didn't have the same degree of sort of military access that it does now. That's largely because of its emerging and growing
partnership with Russia, which is an Arctic country. But China had been investing significantly both to access rare earth elements and critical
minerals, but also in ways that suggested it did have longer-term military ambitions.
And so, the Trump administration did alert other countries, their national intelligence agencies began to pay more attention to sort of what China was
trying to do. And so, you found a number of Chinese projects either stalled or actually just stopped midstream. So, I think that was an important
moment. But that doesn't mean China is stopping. It's trying to find new avenues, you know, through which to exert, you know, its influence. For
example, partnering with Russia more and more, both in terms of investment in mining, but also and, you know, certainly oil and gas development, but
also in the military and strategic elements.
And it matters to us because, you know, the Arctic becomes the shortest route for ICBMs, for intercontinental ballistic missiles to go, you know,
from Asia and Europe to North America. Also, for submarine warfare, it's critical. And then, again, the huge resources that are present in the
Arctic. The United States doesn't want China to dominate in this space.
GOLODRYGA: So, from the Arctic to international seabed to space, China has not been shy about its ambitions on all three fronts. And it's -- as it
relates to space, its desire to return man to the moon, possibly before the U.S. even does so. Why is that so significant for China to do this as the
U.S. is also embarking on the Artemis project?
ECONOMY: Right. I think, look, China has for a long time, dating back to Mao Zedong, actually, you know, when the United States and the Soviet
Union, you know, launched satellites into space, you know, Mao in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, the greatest upheaval, you know, in
contemporary Chinese history, basically, you know, self-imposed revolution, you know, Mao Zedong said, we're going to launch satellite two. And China
did in 1970.
And so, you know, the dream of space has been present in China for four decades now. And for Xi Jinping, I think it again represents not only, you
know, there's the scientific element of it. There's the sort of leadership that it demonstrates on the global stage that China has arrived, but
there's also the potential for economic gain, right? China believes that there are enormous resources to be sort of developed in the moon and more -
- you know, more largely in other parts of space.
And then the security element of it, too, because, of course, any sort of future military engagement is going to involve satellites and, you know,
cyber-attacks. And so, maintaining sort of a presence, if not a dominance and capability, military capabilities is also essential.
So, you know, it's not so much about just that moment of being first back to the moon, as it is what that represents in terms of China's leadership
in this space, its ability to define sort of the path forward. I think that's really what this symbolizes.
GOLODRYGA: So, in response, you outline now three choices that the United States has, that is either to step back, cooperate or to compete with
China. You say competition is the only one that is viable at this point. If you can explain to our viewers everything that you've just laid out on
these three fronts specifically. Is this competition that the United States is losing as it relates to where China is or a competition that it hasn't
just fully shown up to fight?
ECONOMY: Yes. I mean, I think at this point it's a competition. We, you know, haven't shown up fully to fight and we haven't lost, you know, the
game. And when we haven't picked up our marbles and walked away like we have in some other arenas like climate change or the human rights space,
you know, we're still in the game. And the Trump administration has issued some, a number, frankly, of executive orders that speak to the capabilities
that we would need to compete more effectively, like saying we're going to invest more in shipbuilding and polar ice cutters.
[13:15:00]
At the same time, you know, we're cutting funding from NASA. And so, are we taking ourselves partially out of the game there? I think we probably are.
So, you know, what we need is a vision for where we want to be in these spaces in 5, 10, 20 years. And then how are we going to get there? And I
think that vision can't be just about the United States. It's a vision that's going to have to include our allies and partners because we don't
have the capabilities. We don't have the resources. We don't have the ability simply to dictate. And we're not going to invest the resources
necessary to compete with China one on one.
And so, then it becomes how do we forge, you know, partnerships with our allies in ways that will enable the United States and our allies and
partners to sort of ensure that as these spaces are developed, both economically but also militarily, they're done in ways that reflect our
values and our national interests.
GOLODRYGA: And cooperate with another area that we have a leg up as it relates to China, and that is our robust private sector as well. A really
smart piece, Elizabeth. Hopefully somebody in this administration has read it as well and taken a lot of notes. Really appreciate the time. Thank you
for joining us.
ECONOMY: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Still to come, a look at the U.S. space program and its sometimes tragic results. We revisit the Challenger space shuttle
disaster 40 years on. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, to a moment that shook America. This week marks 40 years since the Challenger disaster. On January 28, 1986, 73 seconds after
takeoff, the U.S. space shuttle exploded. Millions of Americans watched in real time as seven astronauts lost their lives, including Christa
McAuliffe, a civilian who was selected for the NASA teacher in space project.
This is the moment that disaster struck live on television, footage that even 40 years later is still hard to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Engines beginning throttling down now at 94 percent. Normal throttles for most of the flight, 104 percent. We'll throttle down
to 65 percent shortly. Engines at 65 percent. Three engines running normally. Three good fuel cells. Three good APUs. Velocity 2,257 feet per
second. Altitude 4.3 nautical miles. Downrange distance 3 nautical miles. Engines throttling up. Three engines now at 104 percent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Challenger, go at throttle up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Challenger, go at throttle up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One minute, 15 seconds. Velocity 2,900 feet per second. Altitude 9 nautical miles. Downrange distance 7 nautical miles.
Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously, a major malfunction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: The tragedy unfolded as Christa McAuliffe's parents and students were on the ground in Florida watching it live. And nearly
everyone watching on television that day remembers where they were when it happened. But how did it happen?
Best-selling author and journalist Adam Higginbotham digs into that question with his book "Challenger: A True Story of Heroism and Disaster on
the Edge of Space," tracing forensically how it all went wrong. And he joined me from New York to discuss the lasting impact and lessons learned
from this catastrophe.
Adam, thank you so much for joining us. This is such an important book. It's so well-researched. Why do you think it had such an impact on how
Americans, how the world view the space program?
ADAM HIGGINBOTHAM, AUTHOR, "CHALLENGER": Well, I think there's a few reasons for that. But the main one is that, you know, by 1986, NASA had
really built a reputation for being able to do the impossible on a regular basis. And even their failures in the past had, you know, been recast as
these amazing achievements of last-minute innovation and derring-do.
So, you know, the Apollo 13 accident, where, you know, three astronauts were almost marooned in space to die of suffocation, you know, a quarter of
a million miles from Earth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've had a problem here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Houston. Say again, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Houston, we have a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HIGGINBOTHAM: You know, the engineers in mission control managed to engineer a last-minute solution and bring them back and rescue them. And
so, that was recast famously as an event in which failure was not an option. And so, by 1986, you know, having sent men to the moon, having
rescued people in Apollo 13, having sent up Skylab, they seemed to be able to do anything they put their minds to.
So, the idea that seven astronauts could die live on television in a space shuttle, you know, that was also carrying the teacher in space, the first
citizen astronaut, seemed totally inconceivable. And so, I think that's one main reason why it's lodged in the minds of Americans in a way that the
Columbia accident hasn't, because in 1986, nothing like that has happened before. You know, it was completely unprecedented.
GOLODRYGA: So, walk us back in 1986. Where was the NASA program relative to the great space race versus the Soviet Union? And how many missions was
NASA undertaking each year?
HIGGINBOTHAM: Well, the space race had effectively been won when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon in 1969. At that point, you know, the Soviets
were sort of left behind, and they had begun developing their own space station program.
But really, the American space program and NASA were kind of leagues ahead of them. And the whole idea of the space shuttle program was that NASA was
going to make space travel routine. It was designed really to function as a sort of space truck that would launch, you know, eventually, as frequently
as once every two weeks or once a week.
And NASA had really succeeded to a certain extent in bringing that about in 1985, because by the end of the year, they had four space shuttles in
operation, a fleet of space shuttles, and they launched almost once a month. So, they'd succeeded really in kind of making space travel seem
almost quotidian by that point.
The problem with that is that it really kind of cut against what NASA had become convinced they needed to do even before men landed on the moon,
which was that they, in order to keep funding going for the space program, they needed to keep public engagement, they needed to keep Congress keeping
the money flowing, they needed to keep doing one amazing, exciting, technological leap after another in order to keep people engaged with the
program.
But when they started launching once a month, you know, the American public really kind of got bored with space flight, to the extent that the three
national networks actually stopped broadcasting space shuttle launches live, because they seemed to be happening so frequently. And the initiative
that they introduced in order to try and re-engage people with the space shuttle program was the space flight participant program, which was the
idea that they were going to bring space travel within the reach of ordinary citizens. And the first group of people that they chose to select
their initial candidate from were American schoolteachers.
[13:20:00]
And so, the Challenger launch was going to be the first of these space flight participant launches. And it therefore carried Christa McAuliffe,
who was a high school teacher from Concord, New Hampshire, who'd been selected from 11,000 candidates to be the first citizen in space.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And she won over all of the other astronauts who were on board the Challenger with her who were initially skeptical, right? They
thought that the civilian space program was a bit too gimmicky. It wasn't taking their profession that seriously. And then they met Christa. They
worked with her through her training. And she won them all over with her dedication to the mission at hand as well.
And you do such a beautiful job not only telling Christa's story, but of all of the fellow astronauts there. Ellison Onizuka, who was the first
American of Asian descent in space and his family life and his history back in Hawaii. Commander Francis Scobie, who was a veteran test pilot and his
incredibly close relationship with his wife. And Judy Resnik, her intensity. She's the second woman in space. Ronald McNair, an African-
American who faced racial adversity to overcome, though, through his dedication and hard work, I believe, to graduate from MIT. And he became a
physicist, also a saxophonist as well.
All of the personal stories that you uncovered and that you researched, which one of these astronauts stood out to you the most?
HIGGINBOTHAM: Oh, I think definitely Ronald McNair. I mean, because when I began reading about all of his achievements and, as you say, the over the
adversity that he'd overcome, I kind of couldn't believe that he hadn't already been the subject of his own biopic.
You know, he grew up in the Jim Crow South in a segregated town and the conditions in which he and his brother used to go out when school was out
to pick cotton in the fields to make extra money. And yet he went on to graduate with a doctorate in laser physics from MIT. He was also a black
belt in karate and became a gifted jazz saxophonist. I mean, it was as if there was nothing that he could not do. A fascinating character.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. He really moved me as well. And I just felt like I wanted to learn more and more about him. I believe he actually did play the
saxophone in space, but it wasn't recorded. Is that correct?
HIGGINBOTHAM: Well, it was it was recorded. And then they inadvertently taped over the recording that he successfully made.
GOLODRYGA: Right. So, then, obviously, there's the tragedy itself and you really set up how the tragedy unfolded. In fact, it's a miracle that it
didn't happen sooner than it already did. You talk about NASA redefining the risk that was acceptable to the organization. Engineers at the
aerospace contractor that was building the rocket boosters had been warning specifically about the cold temperatures, unusually cold temperatures at
Cape Canaveral in Florida before the launch. It had been delayed, which is routine a number of times because of the weather.
But talk about the meeting the night before the launch where you had engineers on the record saying they did not feel that it was safe for the
shuttle to take off the next day, given the temperatures and they were overruled. You really pinpoint that meeting and the gravity of it,
obviously, given the aftermath.
HIGGINBOTHAM: Yes. I mean, that's one of the most kind of dramatic turning points in the story is that when the engineers at the Morton Thiokol, who
were the contractors who were responsible for manufacturing the solid rocket boosters, heard news of the impending weather at Cape Canaveral
overnight on the 27th and 28th, they immediately got together and called their bosses to organize a teleconference with NASA officials at Cape
Canaveral and the Marshall Space Flight Center to call for the launch to be delayed.
And so, they had this late-night meeting that was right on the eve of the launch. And they presented their data and they said, look, you know, we've
seen information and evidence from previous launches in cold weather that that the seals in the solid rocket boosters might fail if they've been left
out in the cold overnight before a launch. And if they do, there will be a leak in the rockets and there will be catastrophic results. And you stand
an extremely high risk of losing the solid rocket boosters and with it the shuttle and its crew.
The problem was that NASA was under enormous pressure to get this launch off the ground because it had, as you say, been repeatedly delayed. And it
was also an extremely high-profile launch because of the presence of Christa McAuliffe on the mission.
[13:30:00]
So, although the engineers presented all of their data and they felt that they had presented a very convincing case as to why the launch needed to be
delayed at least until weather improved and the temperatures rose. The NASA officials to whom they presented this data made it very clear, without
explicitly saying so, that they really didn't want to hear this, and they wanted to go ahead with the launch regardless.
And so, when they realized this, the managers at Morton Thiokol then asked for a recess in the meeting to go offline and talk about it amongst
themselves. And they used this opportunity to then actually decide to reverse their recommendation, which had been given in writing as a no-go
for launch, to make it a go for launch. And they did so despite the objections of their own engineers in the room at the time. So, then they
went back at the end of the caucus and they agreed to reverse their recommendation, and then they gave the go-ahead for launch.
GOLODRYGA: And then obviously we know the tragedy that occurred after that, and you write about the devastating impact, the torturous, I would
say, next few years, rest of their lives really for those engineers who felt so guilty, on the one hand vindicated, but no one wants to be
vindicated in that sense, given that all on board had been killed just moments after takeoff.
And in the immediate aftermath, you also talk about how NASA not only emphasized resilience and continuity, but they really tried to control the
narrative here in terms of their owning the story, their owning the investigation, and that led to the Rogers Commission.
But then suddenly that changed because specifically of one infamous moment now, and that relates to the O-rings that were demonstrated by Richard
Feynman, who was a theorist physicist, and he was terminally ill at the time. His involvement, though, in this investigation was crucial. Just tell
us more about that.
HIGGINBOTHAM: I mean, Feynman's role was at its most important, I think, in the way in which he was able to crystallize in the minds of the public
the proximate cause of the accident, because one of Feynman's many gifts was in making complex concepts easily digestible to a wide audience.
And so, what he did when he was on one of the public panels of the Rogers Commission live in front of TV cameras is he had obtained a sample of this
synthetic rubber material that was used to manufacture these O-rings, and he had clamped it into a glass of ice water, which he put onto the desk in
front of him. And then in front of the cameras, when questioning one of the Morton Thiokol executives, he produced this sample and unclamped it from
the glass of ice water and demonstrated that it became inflexible if you made it extremely cold.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD FEYNMAN, THEORETICAL PHYSICIST: I did a little experiment here, and it's not the way to do such experiments, indicating that the stuff
looked as if it was less resilient at lower temperatures than the temperature of ice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HIGGINBOTHAM: And it was at that moment that a wide audience was able to understand for the first time exactly what the problem was with the seals
in the solid rockets.
GOLODRYGA: So, the scientific explanation there and closure on that front, but obviously this was happening as the nation was reeling. This impacted
the world. But really here in the United States, I was a third-grade student in Houston, Texas, obviously NASA's headquarters there. You can
understand how we were impacted as students watching this play out on television, given the world's attention to this launch.
And the president of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan, was set to deliver his State of the Union address. That was postponed. Nancy was
watching this also happen live. The first lady, he was in a meeting and rushed in with aides telling him exactly what happened. And it was that
speech that really is still so indelible. And that as a comforter in chief, as president of the United States, stands as one of the most impactful.
Let's play a clip of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy, but we feel the loss and
we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, give
me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy. They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve and they did. They
served all of us.
And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it's hard to
understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance
and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the faint hearted. It belongs to the brave.
[13:35:00]
The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us with the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time
we saw them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It was that last line, especially that really has a story behind it. This was a speech that was written by a young speechwriter at
the time, Peggy Noonan, who had included a famous poem that the president obviously was very familiar with as well. Tell us the story behind that.
HIGGINBOTHAM: So, yes, Peggy Noonan wrote the speech and she had to write it at great speed because what happened was, as you mentioned, Reagan was
due to give the State of the Union address that was then canceled when news of the accident first came through. But he decided that he needed to
address the nation about the Challenger accident.
And Noonan was sitting in a room watching the footage being replayed again and again on television of the launch and then the disintegration of the
spacecraft. But included amongst it was the footage of the crew waving goodbye from outside the crew quarters that morning. And she felt that she
wanted to encapsulate what she was feeling and what schoolchildren who are watching might be feeling, and also the president's own feelings about what
he witnessed, about what he'd heard.
So, she based the speech on remarks that he'd given to the press in the immediate aftermath of news coming through about the accident, but then
wanted to add a sort of final poetic touch. And she remembered this poem named "High Flight," which was actually a poem that had been carried into
space by previous astronauts, including Michael Collins, who flew to the moon with Armstrong and Aldrin, and a copy of it was also being carried by
Christa McAuliffe on Challenger, who was a World War II fighter pilot who'd written the poem about the sensation of flight.
And she deliberately added this as a sort of coda to the speech because she knew that Reagan, if he didn't recognize the lines himself, was unlikely to
actually read it. So, she structured the speech that she wrote in such a way that it could end before those lines. And if Reagan recognized and
liked the words of the poem that she'd included at the end, he could include them or he could stop before that point.
And as it turned out, unbeknownst to Noonan, those words had actually been written on the wall outside the elementary school that Reagan's daughter
attended in Los Angeles. So, he saw them every time he dropped his daughter off at school in the morning. So, when he got to that point in the speech,
he recognized the lines and read them. And as you say, that became one of the most defining moments of Reagan's presidency.
GOLODRYGA: Forty years later, there's still so much that we are learning about the Challenger tragedy, about those brave astronauts. You give us
more information about their final moments before the explosion. And it's just notable. Here we are 40 years later and about to send humans back to
the moon with the Artemis program. How far this program indeed has come. Thank you so much, Adam. I really appreciate it. I loved the book. And
thank you for your time today.
HIGGINBOTHAM: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, what gives us meaning in life? It is a question countless intellectuals and ordinary citizens have spent years pondering. Award-
winning philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein says it's our desire to matter that drives us. She argues that this most crucial and basic instinct
shapes our identity, culture, relationships, and even our conflict with one another. Goldstein shares her insight and analysis with our Walter
Isaacson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, welcome to the show.
REBECCA NEWBERGER GOLDSTEIN, AUTHOR, "THE MATTERING INSTINCT": It's a pleasure to be here.
ISAACSON: About 40 years ago, you wrote a very famous novel, "The Mind- Body Problem." Tell me how this book, "The Mattering Instinct," came out of that novel.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes. So, that was a surprise because I was a young, untenured professor of philosophy of science, philosophy of math. I certainly wasn't
expected to write a novel, but it came to me. And it was very exciting to hear this other voice speaking in my head.
And the editor who acquired it in our first meeting, he was as young as I, Jonathan Galassi, since he's become a very famous editor. And he asked me a
very precise, acute question, which was this. Your main protagonist is very good looking, sexually desirable, very bright, very funny, and she's so
miserable. Why is she so miserable?
And I thought about that. And then, you know, I heard her answering me. And it was in terms of this concept of mattering, what she had to tell me was
she didn't feel that she mattered in the way that most mattered to her. And that's what first got me started on this deep need that people have to feel
as if they matter. And then the great diversity of ways in which people respond to this shared need to feel that they matter.
So, it was by way of this novel, which was considered by my colleagues to be such a frivolous thing for me to be doing. And in fact, it gave me what
has been, in fact, my mattering project to try to understand this mattering instinct and the way that it operates in our species.
ISAACSON: You call it "The Mattering Instinct." Explain to me why it's an instinct.
GOLDSTEIN: It's not exactly an instinct, as I explain in the book. It's the result of two other instincts. In fact, one of the instincts is deeper
than an instinct, and that is that all living things in some sense matter to themselves. They're going to be first and foremost striving for their
own survival and flourishing. And that's kind of an organizing principle of all the instincts.
And in us, we also have this capacity because we have these enormous brains that we've evolved for other purposes, but this brain has the capacity for
self-reflection. So, we can sort of step outside of ourselves and interrogate ourselves and think, am I really worth all of this attention
that I am determined by biology to give myself? And that's what results in this mattering instinct, to try to prove to ourselves that we're really
deserving of all the attention that we give ourselves in order to pursue our lives.
ISAACSON: Is it evolutionarily caused?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes, it is. I can tell -- if I even start further back than evolution, I start with physics, the second law of thermodynamics, the
supreme law of physics, that entropy increases, which means that all living things are constantly fighting against entropy. And so, they have to be
giving their own persistence and thriving top priority to strive to defy the law of their own persistence and thriving top priority to strive to
defy the law locally of entropy.
[13:45:00]
So -- and from that we get the laws of biology, and that can take us all the way, as I tried to show, to this longing to matter, but then we're left
on our own. If free will exists any place, it's here. How we decide to respond to this longing to matter, to prove to ourselves that our existence
is worth all the attention we give it.
ISAACSON: Well, this instinct to matter in this cosmos in which we find ourselves, is that always a good and healthy thing or can it be a problem?
GOLDSTEIN: It is. I would say, in fact, our greatest achievements as a species and our greatest atrocities come from this mattering instinct,
which is not so surprising because I think it really gets to what it is to be human, what makes this species so different from even our closest
primate relatives. It's -- and so -- and we are capable of incredible achievements, incredible, you know, compassion and achievements and
knowledge and art and athleticism, all sorts of things. And -- but also, we are capable of extraordinary atrocities.
ISAACSON: How does this arise out of your philosophy of mathematics and science?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes. Well, I try to be very precise about it. I was trained in analytic philosophy and in analytic philosophy, rigor is very, very
important, defining your terms. And one of the things about analytic philosophy as opposed to what's often called sort of continental
philosophy, I mean, these are outdated terms, but is that it takes science very, very seriously.
And so, to me, science doesn't destroy these questions of meaning and mattering and values and what it is to live a good life. It doesn't
undermine them. In fact, we can use science, use the second law of thermodynamics, use theory of natural selection to try to gain insight into
why we have this need and then how we could best appease it.
It's a longing. We never really know for sure. There's a lot of doubt in living a human life. And people who don't recognize this, who are so
certain of their way of doing it and think everybody ought to do it or they are nothing, they don't matter, they often cause a lot of trouble in the
world.
ISAACSON: Well, you talk about a lot of stories in the book, some leading down a bit of a dark path. Tell me about, I think, Frank Meeink was one of
them.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes. Yes. So, he might be the most amazing person I ever spoke to. He came from a very, very poor background, a dysfunctional family. His
mother was a drug addict. His stepfather was a brute who would beat him up. And he had a real sense of not mattering. And he came in contact with some
neo-Nazi skinheads. And they told him and they used the language of mattering. You know, look in the mirror. You will see that, of course, you
matter.
He was 13 at this time. He already dropped out of school. You are a white, male, heterosexual American. You matter by your racial identity. And these
other people are stealing it from you. This was a notion of, you know, zero-sum mattering. So, that -- you know, to the extent, but it was group
mattering. He said, you belong to a certain group. You matter more than these other groups. And as they're rising in mattering, they're taking away
what is rightfully yours.
And so, he became a full-blooded, full-time neo-Nazi skinhead activist. Arrested as a felon at 17. Put away. Met some black guys in jail that he
really bonded with. And he began to see through this ideology that had made him feel that he mattered.
[13:50:00]
And he's still terrifically anti-Semitic. And he said that he held on to that with even more vengeance because it was the one thing that tied him to
his sense of mattering. You know, that somehow the Jews were behind everything. And then he met a very nice Jewish man who employed him when
nobody else would. Even though he had a great big swastika tattoo on the side of his neck and his knuckles spelled out skinhead. So, that when he
beat people up, they would know why they were being beaten up.
He completely reversed himself. He has -- I would say, he became what I call an ethical heroic striver. He has devoted himself to trying to fight
ideology. So, he's just -- you know, people can change what I call their mattering project.
ISAACSON: We have somebody on more of the other side. I think it's Lau Shuai Ying (ph). Can you tell me her story about being a scavenger but
helping kids?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes. You know, we tend to think of heroic strivers. You know, those who have some standard of excellence that they need to achieve. And
that's what makes them feel worthwhile. Whether others know about this or not. It can be very, very private. Not public. And she to me is -- you
know, it really exemplifies this kind of ethical achievement.
She was a Chinese woman. She's now dead. I spoke to her daughter, Zhu Zhu (ph). And this, she grew up extremely impoverished. She lost her parents
when she was three years old. It was during the Chinese Civil War. She -- I don't even know how she survived. But she did. And she became a scavenger,
picking up, you know, garbage, going through the dumpsters for recyclables and bringing them to be recycled and earning her very meager living from
this.
Well, it was during the period of one-child policy in China. And what she was finding in these dumpsters and public toilets on the side of the road
were babies. Little girl babies who had been put out to trash. Because if you can only have one baby, well then for various cultural reasons,
families preferred it to be a boy. And so, they left the girls out. And with a blank piece of paper pinned to them.
And she, this impoverished woman, took these babies home and took care of them. She had, she brought up at least 30 little babies. And she rescued
many more and found homes for them. And it was a -- you know, so this was an extraordinary story. And it's the last story I tell. So, you know what,
we often don't pay attention to this kind of heroic striving.
ISAACSON: Our society has been hit, we discuss it every week on this show, by populism, tribalism, authoritarianism. To what extent does that reflect
in your mind a crisis of mattering?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes, that's exactly how I see it, as a crisis of mattering. That our society, you know, we have not paid enough attention to the fact
that everybody has this longing. Everybody, wherever there is human life, there is a longing to matter, to not be nothing, to not be treated as
nothing. And we've created a society in which there doesn't seem to be enough mattering to go around.
And when -- you know, there's -- we talk so much about economic inequality, and that's a fact. But since we also judge how much people matter more and
more by how much money they have, this has made people feel as if they don't matter. Maybe only the famous, the powerful, the rich matter, and
this causes great resentment. The needs of mattering are being ignored.
[13:55:00]
And if a leader can appeal to that, especially a leader who seems to be on a higher plane of mattering, very powerful, very rich, very famous, and
say, I feel you, I'm one with you, you matter as much, especially if that leader himself may feel a dearth of mattering, being constantly needing to
prove to himself how much he matters.
So, it's very, very authentic, this anger. But it's a shared anger, and you can, given the privation that many people are feeling as to their own
mattering, it can create a very strong movement. I think we're seeing that.
ISAACSON: Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, thank you for joining us.
GOLDSTEIN: It's been a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
