Return to Transcripts main page


Billionaire Businessman, Michael Bloomberg, Running for Democratic Presidential Nomination; Kevin Sheekey, Campaign Manager, Bloomberg 2020, is Interviewed About Michael Bloomberg; Through Positive Eyes; HIV-Positive People Communicating with the World; Richard Gere, Actor and Activist, and David Gere, Director, UCLA Arts and Global Health Center, are Interviewed About HIV and Aids; Britain's Chief rabbi Rebukes Opposition Labour Party; Jeremy Corbyn Refuse to Apologize to U.K. Jewish Community; Interview With British House of Lords Member Julia Neuberger; Interview With Ford Foundation President Darren Walker. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired November 27, 2019 - 13:00   ET



[13:00:00] CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.


FMR. MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He is an existential a threat to our country, to our values and our national



AMANPOUR: U.S. elections and a billionaire's bid for the presidency. Michael Bloomberg's campaign manager tells us why he thinks he's the man to

beat Trump.

And, British elections, the row over anti-Semitism.


JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER, LABOUR PARTY: I am determined that our society will be safe for people of all faiths.


AMANPOUR: Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn refuses to apologize after the chief rabbi rebukes the party's handling of anti-Semitism allegations. We

discuss with Rabbi Baroness Julia Neuberger.

Plus --


RICHARD GERE, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: This is a story about real people.


AMANPOUR: Actor, Richard Gere, and his brother, David, tackle the stigma of aids through positive eyes. A moving collection of portraits from those

living with HIV.

Then --


DARREN WALKER, AUTHOR, "FROM GENEROSITY TO JUSTICE: A NEW GOSPEL OF WEALTH": And when hope is asphyxiated, the American dream is asphyxiated.


AMANPOUR: A bold new philanthropic vision. Ford Foundation president, Darren Walker, tells our Walker Isaacson about moving from generosity to


Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.

After a flurry of campaigning in Virginia and Arizona, the former New York city mayor, Michael Bloomberg, will pause for Thanksgiving but probably

only briefly, because he's got some catching up to do.

On Sunday, the billionaire businessman declared that he, too, is running for the democratic presidential nomination. Quickly laying out $37 million

of his own fortune to fund a missive two-week ad blitz as he immediately got on the campaign trail.


FMR. MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am running for president to defeat Donald Trump and to unite and rebuild America.


AMANPOUR: Kevin Sheekey is Michael Bloomberg's campaign manager and he's joining me now.

Kevin Sheekey, welcome.


AMANPOUR: I have to ask you the Ted Kennedy question, if anybody remembers that, why does he want to be president?

SHEEKEY: Listen, I think Mike has stated himself, he thinks Donald Trump was an existential threat across issues that he cares about like guns, gun

control and the environment and public health and other issues. And he thinks that if he doesn't get in this race and actually shaking up Donald

Trump is slated to win.

AMANPOUR: You say that very boldly and boldly. What do you mean? His polls are high. I mean, right now, particularly on the economy. Let us

just say what we know about his poll. We'll put the thing up there.

Look, Trump approval, 55 percent on the economy and, you know, 40 say no, but that's generally what puts a president or an incumbent or a challenger

over the top, right, the economy.

SHEEKEY: Yes. I think, listen, Trump is a complicated, obviously, individual. He has extraordinarily high personal negatives. The economy

is obviously doing quite well, your poll shows that. But when you really look at presidential campaign, we don't have a national campaign. We have

a campaign that happens in six states. It happens Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florid and Arizona today.

And the "New York Times" polled earlier this month, we've polled it ourselves. And if the election was occurred today, Donald Trump has a

pretty clear shot, according to the "New York Times," of actually winning all six states. He only needs to win three or four of them. But if he had

an election, you know, and it was in those states today, he would win.

AMANPOUR: Even with the impeachment process?

SHEEKEY: Yes. Listen, I think I worry a lot that we're setting ourselves up here to impeachment, acquittal and re-election. You know, there are --

listen, we're all outraged by what is going on. Anyone who looks at those things, you should be outraged by what this president has done. Except

it's not helping in the places where this election will ultimately be decided.

There are about 31 congressional districts in this country that are swing districts. Mike Bloomberg spent an enormous amount of money and time and

his own leadership to focus on 24 of those races last year. All Republican. We elected 18 Democrats, 15 of them were women.

But if you're in one of those districts today and you're a moderate member of Congress, almost all of them would tell you today, these impeachment

hearings are threatening their re-election. Now, if you think about that, those are the districts too where we tilt the presidential election, which

by definition, it means, hey, listen, these impeachment proceedings are making the president's re-election more likely not less likely.

AMANPOUR: Many Democrats will not like to hear that. But I want to ask you because Mike Bloomberg in his, you know, announcement said, I have

taken on Trump and I have won. Are you talking about those local and congressional elections that you supported and you've just said, you want

to hand amount --

SHEEKEY: Yes. Back to what I said. Listen, I think the president should be impeached. I think, fundamentally, he has violated his constitutional

responsibilities. But, you know, back to those districts, hey, listen, Mike Bloomberg took on in its scale in way that no one else has, changing

congressional districts around the country that were Republican districts. Mike Bloomberg took on the issue of coal and led a campaign that's closed

300 coal plants in the United States.

AMANPOUR: How much will that endear him to the people he [13:05:00] wants to wrest away from President Trump?

SHEEKEY: You know, listen, our polling shows that in those districts that people want change, right. They want responsible leadership, right. They

want someone who can end the fights in D.C. and actually lead them into good-paying jobs and good health care and good education, right. And Mike

Bloomberg has done all of those things.

Listen, there is really no one else in the history of this country that has taken on the type of fights that Mike hasn't and won like NRA, like

climate, like public health and won, particularly in the face of a president who stood against all of those issues.

AMANPOUR: What is he going to do when he's constantly going to be asked what I'm going to ask you and constant, you know, quotes and soundbites on,

you know, saying that he wouldn't run for president? I've asked him many times. He had said, if I thought I could win, I would run. What has

changed? In March, he said that he wouldn't run. He wrote, "Should I devote the next two years to talking about my ideas and record knowing that

I might never win the Democratic nomination or should I spend the next two years doubling down on the work that I'm already leading and funding? I've

come to realize that I'm less interested in talking than doing."

SHEEKEY: Yes. So, there's no interest, he changed his mind, right. The longer answer is, is that he thought that it would be enough to sit on the

sidelines and make a difference. He has said that he would devote this year to removing Donald Trump from office. And he ultimately concluded

that it wasn't enough to sit on the sidelines.

Listen, we're going to do two things. We're going to run a campaign against Donald Trump, which we started weeks ago. We're going to try to

make Mike Bloomberg now the nominee for the Democratic Party. We're going to try to bring those two things together.

But there is no question that Mike's entry into this race will have a demonstrable effect on reducing Donald Trump's chances for re-election

regardless of what the primary decides.

AMANPOUR: What does that say about the current candidates who have been in, slogging their way on to the debate stage, you're not going to get onto

the debate stage, you're not contesting the early caucuses and primaries?

Biden, Vice President Biden's numbers are up. They stay up. What can and where can Mike Bloomberg place himself because Biden is sort of the

Bloomberg, he's kind of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the party?

SHEEKEY: I think that we fundamentally have a primary process, which is really challenge. I don't want to say it's flawed, but we have a process

which can give us a nominee who ultimately is not capable of winning the general election.

If you told your international audience, hey, we have a campaign and we're going to take all of our candidates and have them spend a year in one

state, right, with all of the resources they raised from around the country to decide how to win that state, right, that state, by the way, is going to

vote for Donald Trump in November. There's very little question about that.

Neither Democratic and Republican pollsters would disagree at this point that Iowa is a state. And you could focus on that state so that you can

win 1 percent of the delegates that you need to win. Or, by the way, at this existential period, you can travel the whole country and look at the

next wave of states, which is going to be 40 percent of that vote and tie people together from coast to coast, southeast to northwest, how would you

spend your time?

And if you're an international viewer of CNN, you'd say, well, of course, I'm not going to spend all my tie in that small state. This is an

existential crisis, right. I'm going to try to poll this country together in the broadest possible coalition to defeat this man and remove him from

office. And that's what Mike's going to do.

AMANPOUR: So just how does it -- what does it look like? What is the pragmatic visuals that we're going to see? Where is he going to go? What

is he going to say where he goes?

SHEEKEY: Listen, Mike was in Arizona yesterday. He was in Virginia the day before. You know, those were the first two days of the campaign.

Someone went on TV before Mike was there and said, you know, Mike Bloomberg is in the battleground state. Virginia is not a battleground state. No

one is there fighting for a primary and it's not in play in the general election, right, but it's an important state, right. And it's an important

state to get people activated, right.

Same thing -- you know, Arizona, we think will be a swing state in the general election, right. And so, we're there to include those -- the folks

in Arizona in what a campaign needs to look like and start activating them on the ground, right.

We started a campaign out in Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and soon Florida and soon North Carolina because we have to start bringing the

fight to Donald Trump where he is now. Donald Trump has been running a campaign in those states for four years. Democrats on the current pace

aren't scheduled to be there until August, and this campaign just can't wait.

AMANPOUR: I have interviewed Mike Bloomberg when he was mayor and as head of the foundation on many issues. As you say, he's been successful on

moving the dial, climate, guns, other such issues. But -- and he's used his own money in many, many of these areas. But the sort of national

feeling for billionaires is not as warm and cozy as perhaps you might like. And certainly, the progressive wing of the party are already going after

him on this issue. We're just going to play this.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections. That is why

multibillionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Elections should not be for sale. Not to billionaires, not to corporate executives. We need to

build a grassroots movement. That's how democracy is supposed to work.



SHEEKEY: You know, there are two things that annoy me about that. Listen, Mike Bloomberg grew up in a household. He's father died young. He never

made more $6,000 a year. He paid himself through [13:10:00] college, right. He went to work, got fired and then built one of the greatest

American businesses. And he's truly the American success story.

And then, what does he when he gets this great fortune? Very early in his career, he says, you know what, my goal is to balance the check to the

undertaker. I want to make sure that I give it back. I'm not going to hand my company to my children. I'm not going to let them work in my

company. I have a no nepotism rule, right. And I am going to do everything I can to get this great fortune and put it towards good, right.

Focusing on issues like the environment. Focusing on like the issues of education.

And so, suggest that anyway I'm not quite sure what you're to do. Are you supposed to fail in business? Are you supposed to keep your money to

yourself? Like I'm not quite sure what that attack means.

And then, the second part, which I think is totally dismissive, hey, listen, if you want to hate Donald Trump because he inherited his money,

has done little with it other than divide people, I'm with you, right. If you want to hate someone who not only made a fortune, has pledged a balance

to the undertaker but has truly been one of the great chief executives in American history, both in business -- you know, both in government, 12

years as mayor of America's largest city, brought New York City back after 9/11, like I have a lot of respect for the senators that are running but I

don't know they have the same credibility to bring back a city like New York at a time like it did.

I appreciate their service, I don't think it's on the same level, quite frankly. And so, I see those things. I don't know who they're talking

about. But I guarantee you this, they're not talking about Mike Bloomberg or they're ignoring the facts.

AMANPOUR: And they're probably talking about coming in late and funding a big ad blitz. But I do actually need to ask you the following question

because you're going to get these questions, they're going have to now be answered. A quote from a "New York Times" article where he, you know,

announcing Mike Bloomberg's decision to join the race. "Mr. Bloomberg faces immense obstacles to winning the Democratic nomination starting with

his own political baggage that includes a history of making demeaning comments about women and a record of championing law enforcement policies

that disproportionately targeted black and Latino men with invasive searches."

SHEEKEY: You know, so Mike has run for mayor in America's largest city for three times. He's done it by bringing large coalitions together, right, of

every possible group you could possibly imagine.

I think, listen, on the issue of policing. People like to focus on what happened in stop and frisk, and I think Mike has addressed that. What they

don't focus on is that for decades people simply turned their eye to the issues of what was going on in the inner-cities around America. And Mike

decided, I'm going to try and do everything I can to get guns off the street. I'm going to do everything I can to take on the NRA. And I'm

going to do everything I can to keep people out of prison.

And so, over the same period of time that we're talking about, where the prison population in the United States went up by 6 percent, it came down

by 36 percent in New York City because Mike was just as passionate about thinking, how do we people out of the criminal justice society? And so, we

will start talking about that on the campaign.

But Mike's legacy is one of not turning his back on problems. And listen, America has big difficult problems, right. Guns is certainly one of those

issues. And I think it is important to talk about not just one part of that but that Mike Bloomberg is willing to take on those issues, right.

Hey, listen, Mike Bloomberg, took on the issue of public health and gets, you know, no end of crap for it all the time, right. He took on Big Soda,

right, and I think a lot of people derived that. But obesity is an enormous issue in this country, right.

And so, Mike Bloomberg is one of those people. He's just not willing to turn his head. And right now, he's not willing to turn his head and sit on

the sidelines while Donald Trump looks at an election that some of us think unimpeded, he will win.

AMANPOUR: We will be back to you as this race continues. Kevin Sheekey, thank you very much indeed.

SHEEKEY: Appreciate you having me.

AMANPOUR: Now, Britain's late Princess Diana was a champion of many good causes. But perhaps her most significant work, helping to change the

attitude to aids. Today, HIV is not the death sentence it once was, but many people still don't get access to the treatment they need. And in many

places, it is still a taboo.

For World Aids Day on Sunday, a collaborative photo storytelling project by 130 people living with HIV and aids around the world is on exhibition in

L.A. Art critic and activist, David Gere, is at the center of the project through positive eyes. His brother, actor and fellow activist, Richard

Gere, wrote the forward to the moving book that accompanies it. And I spoke to both of them about their passion for this project and how they've

been personally impacted by the loss of friends to aids.

And welcome to the Gere brothers. Richard. It's good, right. David.

RICHARD GERE, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: I knew I'm looking at my brother over here right now. I don't think we're been referred to as the Gere brothers.

AMANPOUR: Well, I'm just breaking the ice.

RICHARD GERE: Other than from my father.

AMANPOUR: There you go. So, listen, I mean, look, this is a spectacular book and it's a different way to tackle this persistence issue. I want to,

first, ask you. It's called "Through Positive Eyes." I mean, am I just reaching or is there a play on words, HIV positive or not?



RICHARD GERE: Of course, it is. I mean, you should be talking to my brother because he organized this. He's been working on this for -- since

the '80s, since the beginning [13:15:00] and progressively doing extraordinary things in Africa and the Caribbean and India. Some of that

we've crossed over.

The work I was doing in India and other places, we were able to work together. But finding ways to communicate from the very beginning in

diverse cultures what is going on with HIV/aids has been an extraordinary challenge.

AMANPOUR: So, I'd want to ask you because you write in the forward or in the introduction, you say "Undue stigmas through photography," you've

talked about how this kind of creativity has, you know, changed minds, opened hearts and creativity and compassion and determination go hand in


I guess I'll ask you about that, David, because actually have a creative and health joint operation, if you like, at UCLA. How did you even come to

put those two together?

DAVID GERE, DIRECTOR, UCLA ARTS AND GLOBAL HEALTH CENTER: By the way, hello. And hello, brother. Good to see you.


DAVID GERE: On opposite coasts. So, it was about 10 years ago, I want teaching a course at UCLA. I run the Art and Global Health Center there.

And in the middle of that course, my colleague and my friend, Robert Sember, handed me a book. And the was called "A Broken Landscape" with

photographs by Gideon Mendel.

And I thought that the photographs he was producing were incredibly extraordinary because they did not victimize people living with HIV.

Instead, they provided a sense of agency and also love and compassion, which really came through in these photos.

But really importantly, alongside the photos were texts. And these first- person texts, these stories serve to humanize people living with HIV in a way that I thought was really unusual and rare and unique and essential.

So, I called him and I found him in London. I called him. He answers the phone, I told him that I was working with my students and sharing his book

with them. So, what ensued was a beautiful conversation and an invitation for Gideon to come and spend time with us in Los Angeles at UCLA and to

begin developing a project which has now turned into the "Through Positive Eyes" concept, which is the book you're holding in your hands.

AMANPOUR: The pictures are beautiful and the texts are really profound. You came to it through a personal, Richard, relationship. You had a friend

who was a photographer and, as you say, was -- had an irrational fear, at the time, of divulging it.

RICHARD GERE: This is a story about real people. So, 1981, you know, we had friends who were sick at that point. So, we've seen this thing evolve.

Now, we understand each other by how we feel about things. And even more so, how we feel informs how we create. And I think that David has done an

extraordinary job, in all the work he's done, whether it's dance or it's puppets or it's theater. In this case, it's photography for HIV-positive

people to communicate with the world as human beings.

AMANPOUR: I even remember, obviously, when it was first discovered or at least first talked about, which was in the '80s. Ronald Reagan was


RICHARD GERE: Who refused to even say the word.

AMANPOUR: Right. And, David, as well, you must remember how it was such a scary thing. The president refused to talk about it. It condemned so many

people basically to death. I mean, who didn't know how to say what they were going through, how ill they were or where to seek help.

DAVID GERE: Absolutely. You know, we know, again, from friendship circles how deeply affected people were.

And, Richard, I felt as though, you know, Christiane, was kind of reaching out for you to perhaps talk about Herb. And I think it would be great to

talk about Herb partly because his foundation after his death supported this book project, but also to talk about your relationship with each


RICHARD GERE: I think he dies in 2002.

AMANPOUR: This is Herb Ritts, the great photographer.

RICHARD GERE: Herb Ritts, as you say, one of the most celebrated and one of the very best. Herb was a very, very close friend of mine. One of my

dearest and closets friends. And he was diagnosed very early on. And he was in a profession where even he, who was quite open about being gay,

didn't want anyone to know he was sick. He thought his career would be over.

And up until the end, still, he didn't make it public he was sick. You know, he told his closest friends, but even his family he didn't tell. The

loneliness and sadness of that, the needless pain on top of the illness itself. We've seen, certainly, some movement. I know my brother can speak

to this, but, still, there are people who are ashamed.


RICHARD GERE: And society has made them feel ashamed for being sick.

AMANPOUR: That's true. And in some societies, as we know, it's still a crime, like in parts of Africa where it's prevalent still, it's a crime

actually to be gay. We're going to get to that in a moment. But I want to use some of the exhibition that you have in Los Angeles.

There's about 130 HIV-positive activists [13:20:00], these art activists living with HIV/aids from 10 cities around the world who you have profiled

in this book. They tell their stories in their own words and through their own lenses, so to speak. We're going to play something from Kelly.


KELLY, "ARTIVIST": An HIV diagnosis is a loss, just like if you were to lose a friend or a loved one. For me, I feel like I lost my youth and my

youthful state of minds. With this new diagnosis, I now had to adjust to having a permanent, murderous, uninvited house guest. I have is a virus in

my body and if I don't learn how to be a good host, take care of myself and it, I will develop aids and eventually die.

The most important way I did this was by committing to taking medication. One pill once a day is sure to keep the aids away.


AMANPOUR: It's amazing. Just explain to the viewer, David, why art? Why this kind of agency, for want of a better word, can help with the cure,

with living with it, with -- you know, with all the things that should happen to stop this?

DAVID GERE: Oh, I think you probably would agree with me that storytelling is the way to convey information. That it's in the -- the sharing of

tales. It's in the -- you know, the back and forth dialogue that you're involved with this very minute. You know, that's how we all get connected.

And in fact, not only Kelly's story but there's seven people who are sharing stories in the banishing stigma room at the UCLA Folwer Museum.

When they speak, I can feel the energy in the room. You know, the thing that happens there is almost like a rope has been tied between me and as a

viewer and they as storytellers. And I feel connected and identified with them. I think that that has to happen in order for us overcome stigma,

which is really the big issue.

AMANPOUR: So it, obviously, is a massive issue and a big, big, big issue but also are the facts that not everybody is getting the life-saving drugs

that they require, they need and that could save their lives.

So, I want to play another little clip, which is both of you brothers talking about this exhibition, about this project.


RICHARD GERE: Did you lose any of these people in the process?

DAVID GERE: Yes. We thought there were 10 that we lost and turns out there were 11. We found out a couple of days ago, in different parts of

the world, you know. Some from Washington, D.C. The person that we just found out about was from London.

RICHARD GERE: And treatment was available in all these places?

DAVID GERE: Yes. And yes, I think that points out that not everyone on treatment is surviving.


AMANPOUR: You get to the real nitty-gritty there, Richard. I mean, you know, as much as one can banish the stigma, not everybody gets the

treatment. How did you feel when you met some of these people and, you know, when you know that sometimes they get diagnosed late, sometimes they

don't have the treatment, particularly if they live in the poor parts of world?

RICHARD GERE: Yes. I mean, look, this has changed radically. And even 15 years ago, David, this was still a death sentence. And it was the sadness

that we had. Herb was my closest friend of that time, and the tragedy that he was living, to me, was ripping my heart out. There's nothing I could

do. And here is somebody who had resources. He was living a very well-to- do life. He had money. He had connections. He was able to get the best treatment that was available and it wasn't enough.

Now, things have changed pretty radically. We do have strategies now. We have medical strategies to help. But in Africa, if they're not getting

them enough. In the Caribbean, they're not getting enough. We still don't have -- we don't have complete openness about who is sick and who isn't.

AMANPOUR: To both of you, I'm just going to read some of these stats that we have, because it is pretty awful because in the United States, for

instance, 69 percent of newly infected people in 2017 were African- Americans or Latinos. In 2017, African-American women counted for 6 in 10, 59 percent of new HIV diagnoses amongst women. Eight of the top states are

in the south by aid rate.


AMANPOUR: Half the Americans of living with HIV are still not receiving the regular treatment they need. It's one thing to destigmatize and it's

another thing to really get the regimes and the treatment routines that they need.

DAVID GERE: Right. I would say, you know, in our case, what we're trying to do is to work as artists to support all the things that need to happen

medically, and they do need to happen medically. Medical doctors as opposed to people in the humanities and arts like myself need to be

stepping in, and they are.

In this particular case, I can just mention that UNAIDS and other international organizations have set targets, and these targets are --

they're reachable. And if we can help to reach them through artistic practice and storytelling, we want to do that. The main target that

everyone talks about is the 90/90/90 target, which is the idea that 90 percent of people who are living with HIV should know that they're living

with HIV. It shouldn't be a mystery to them.

And then 90 percent of those people should be receiving [13:25:00] treatment. And then 90 percent of those who are receiving treatment should

get to the point where their viral presence in the body is undetectable because a person who is undetectable cannot transmit HIV to another person.

And that's how we're going to break the back of the epidemic.

AMANPOUR: And just one other thing which seems to be sort of a little counterintuitive. The bulk of money that is spent on this issue is spent

for care rather than prevention.

DAVID GERE: Yes. Well, luckily in this particular case, we're getting to the point where care is prevention. Because if you can establish this

untransmittable function in the body and it's -- the short form of it that is you equals you. Everybody talks about you equals you, especially people

who are living with HIV. If you can get to that point, then you're not going to be transmitting virus to new people.

So, you know, luckily care can become prevention. And we also have PREP, which is this idea that you can take a pill, if you feel you're at risk for

HIV that would prevent you from having the virus transmitted to you. So, all of these strategies are starting to blend, seems to me. They are both

prevention and care at the same time.

AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, Richard, because you have basically spent a huge amount of your career being an activist and being concerned about

communities, whether it's the Tibetan community, whether it's the community of migrants and refugees who risk their lives trying to cross from North

Africa, across the Mediterranean. You've been there. We have pictures of you, you know, on one of these rescue boats. And particularly, you have

stood up and you are still being counted on the Tibet issue. And it's cost you somewhat.

And I just want to ask you -- maybe not in dollars or cents, maybe even you don't think it has but some people say that, you know, you went from these

big, big, big, big sort of Hollywood block busters, "Officer and a Gentleman," "Chicago," "Pretty Woman," you know, on and on, these great

movies to equally wonderful indie movies but almost by (INAUDIBLE).

RICHARD GERE: Yes. I mean, look, I understand that people think that I have sacrificed a great deal. But the reality is, those indie movies that

I'm making now, which I happen to like a lot, some of them are adventurous, are also the same kind of movies that I made in the studio system. Well,

the studio system doesn't make those movies anymore.

So, I'm making the same movies. We're just finding other money of how to make them and how to put them out there.

AMANPOUR: And does it bother you that, you know, China, one of the biggest markets, is being pressured or rather big studios, maybe you're not working

with them anymore, but they're being pressured not to use you in films?

RICHARD GERE: Well, I don't make those movies anyhow. I mean, what they want is the big CGI movies, the Marvel movies. And I don't -- I'm not

drawn to them. I don't make them. They're perfectly fine, but that's not what I do. So, there's no real effect on me.

To some other people who make the movies, I think, yes, it does affect them.


RICHARD GERE: We have to speak for each other. We're in this together. We can feed each other. We can get health care for each other. We can

house each other. We can embrace each other. We could love each other. It can happen so easily. So, this crazy tribalism which destroys

communities, creates small tribes but destroys real community, is really the outlier.

AMANPOUR: I think that's a really, really good place to end. Richard Gere, David Gere, "Through Positive Eye," thank you both very, very much

for talking about this.


DAVID GERE: Thanks for having us.

RICHARD GERE: I love my brother. He's the most incredible guy.

DAVID GERE: I love my brother back.

AMANPOUR: So, that's a beautiful way to end that segment. And we're talking about coming together. But you know that we are in this tribalized

system right now. Earlier, we mentioned it talking about the U.S. elections and its equally tribalized in Britain which goes to the polls in

two weeks' time. In reality, it's an election about Brexit, but there are also other issues that are dominating.

In an unprecedented intervention, Britain's chief rabbi has rebuked the opposition Labour Party for its handling of anti-Semitism in its ranks.

While staunchly denying that he is anti-Semite, the leader, Jeremy Corbyn, refused to apologize to the U.K. Jewish community. He was asked four times

in a BBC interview. Take a look.


ANDREW NEIL, HOST, "THE ANDREW NEIL SHOW": Eighty percent of Jews think that you're antisemitic. That's quite a lot of British Jews. I mean,

wouldn't you like to take this opportunity tonight to apologize to the British Jewish community for what's happened?

JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER, LABOUR PARTY: What I'll say is this, I am determined that our society will be safe for people of all faiths. I don't

want anyone to be feeling insecure in our society and our government will protect every community against --

NEIL: So, no apology?

CORBYN: -- against the abuse they received on the streets, on the trains, or in any --

NEIL: So, no apology for how you handled this?

CORBYN: -- on any other form of life.

NEIL: I'll try one more time. No apology?

CORBYN: No. Hang on a minute. Andrew, can I explain what we're trying to do?


NEIL: You have, and you have been given plenty of time to do it. I asked you if you wanted to apologize. And you haven't.

CORBYN: Andrew, I don't...


AMANPOUR: Baroness Julia Neuberger is a member of the House of Lords and also a senior rabbi in London. She's also author of "Anti-Semitism: What

It Is, What It Isn't and Why It Matters."

Welcome to the program, Baroness.


AMANPOUR: And, Rabbi Neuberger, this is an unprecedented intervention by the chief rabbi.

Just going to put up a quick graphic of some of what he said, talking about a new poison sanctioned from the top taking root in the Labor Party,

saying, "OK, I shouldn't tell anybody how to vote, but when December 12 arrives, I ask every person to vote with their conscience. Be in no doubt

the very soul of our nation is at stake."

Rabbi, do you agree with this intervention?


I'm -- and I think I ought to explain for an international audience that I'm a reformed rabbi, sort of somewhat to the liberal end of the spectrum.

And the chief rabbi in the U.K. is of the Orthodox.

And it's quite unusual for us to be absolutely in accord in this kind of way. So we have been talking all the way through. I totally support what

Chief Rabbi Mirvis has done and said. And, actually, I'm just delighted that he did, because somebody needed to stand up and say there really is a

poison at the top of the Labor Party.

AMANPOUR: What about Archbishop Justin Welby?

To your point, he has said -- and he's the head of the Church of England, the Anglicans -- "That the chief rabbi should be compelled to make such an

unprecedented statement at this time ought to alert us to the deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews."

So that's the head of the Anglican community joining your ranks.

NEUBERGER: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: What exactly is it, Baroness, Rabbi Neuberger?

Can you explain to an American audience, which is also very sensitized to this, as well as the British and the international audience, what exactly

is it? Because Jeremy Corbyn absolutely denies that he's anti-Semitic.

NEUBERGER: He flatly denies it. He always says, I'm opposed to anti- Semitism and other forms of racism, slightly suggesting that he doesn't really think that anti-Semitism is a form of racism.

So I think it's quite important to lay that on the table. Then, to go forward, what has happened since he has been leader of the Labor Party in

2016 -- and I ought to explain that I grew up in the Labor Party, was an active Labor student.

What has happened since he has been leader is that a sort of drip, drip of anti-Semitic abuse has happened, particularly on social media, but not

only. He also has been found to not be at all sensitive to anti-Semitic tropes, to anti-Semitic murals.

There was a particular celebrated mural which was done by an American artists, Mear One, on a wall in East London. It could have come out of

"Der Stuermer." It could have come out of a Hitler journal.

It showed hooked-nose Jews bent over a Monopoly board. And the Monopoly board was, if you like, balanced on the backs of the cowering poor. And

these were the international Jewish financiers exploiting the poor.

It could have come from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was truly shameful. When the artist said to him, they're saying that they're going

to remove it, and the Muslim mayor of Tower Hamlets, in fact, insisted that it was removed, Jeremy Corbyn defended the mural.

It was only when he was forced to look at it closely he said he could even see that there was anything wrong with it. And it's gone on and on like

this, to the extent that two women Labor Jewish M.P.s have left the party, Luciana Berger and Dame Louise Ellman.

And if you were a true anti-racist, you would have stood up and said, that's terrible. How appalling that you feel taunted and terrorized in

this kind of way. You would have stood shoulder to shoulder with them, and you would probably have apologized.

But, instead, he didn't do anything. He didn't say anything. It's been really distressing. And it's made people in the Jewish community feel


AMANPOUR: It really -- it really has. And, as you said, it's been just distressing. And many, many of the Jewish community in Great Britain have

really now sort of thrown themselves into this and feel that it's an existential crisis for them, given this election that's come up.

I want to know, though, from you. I mean, you say -- you have said that you, as a reformed Jew, have banded together with the Orthodox Jewish

rabbi, so that you're sort of crossing the aisles in terms of the different poles of the Jewish faith.


But, also, we know Alf Dubs. He's a Jewish member of the House of Lords. You know him very well. He's a survivor of the Kindertransport, which got

Jewish kids out of Germany during World War II. And he has a slightly more nuanced view of this.

I do need to play it.


ALF DUBS, BRITISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER: I think he is fit to be prime minister. I do not believe he's anti-Semitic. I believe things have

happened under his leadership which should have been stopped way back. I don't believe he's personally anti-Semitic.

And I believe he will find it very, very hurtful that people accuse him of being anti-Semitic or racist or Islamophobic. He's none of those things.


AMANPOUR: Again, he talks specifically about Jeremy Corbyn himself.

I mean, we have been following this story that's been going on for practically Jeremy Corbyn's entire leadership. Is it the way that you feel

he hasn't dealt with it in the party, or is it personal?

NEUBERGER: It's both of those things.

So, failing to deal with it in the party is obviously disgraceful. And they came out and said that they had dealt with all of the cases. And as

the chief rabbi said, that is mendacious. It's simply not true.

And, indeed, Charlie Falconer, former Labor lord chancellor, an active member of the Labor Party, has said that there are hundreds of cases

waiting to be dealt with, if not thousands, and so has the Jewish Labor Movement. So he's simply not accepting that there's a real issue of cases

that he hasn't dealt with.

And, also, the people who did deal with some of those cases felt absolutely terrorized and bullied. And there was a "Panorama" program, a BBC program,

that showed that some of those people had left. They couldn't stand the pressure. There was constant political interference, and at least one of

them suffered some form of mental breakdown.

So, in that sense, he hasn't dealt with that. But it's also personal. He cannot hear himself. He can't -- he can't see himself. He doesn't realize

that not dealing with an obviously anti-Semitic mural and say that's unacceptable and should be removed makes him look, if not anti-Semitic, at

least deeply insensitive.

He can't understand...

AMANPOUR: So, Baroness?

NEUBERGER: Yes, carry on. Sorry.


I really don't mean to interrupt you, but I want to ask you, because you're speaking as a lifelong member of the Labor Party. The chief rabbi...

NEUBERGER: I'm no longer a member of the Labor Party. I'm no longer a member of the Labor Party.

AMANPOUR: OK. I apologize. You were.


NEUBERGER: I was, but not for many years.

AMANPOUR: The chief rabbi, I believe, is a lifelong Tory.

And I wonder whether you can comment on, for instance, even on the right, the conservative side of British politics, for instance, Nigel Farage,

Brexit Party leader, he's also been criticized for using tropes and conspiracy theories associated with anti-Semitism, using horrible terms

like globalist and new world order, and believing in some of the conspiracy theorists like the U.S.' Alex Jones, but also the Muslim Council of

Britain, who said, as a faith community -- well, they agreed with the rabbi's observation that politicians have shown courage, but too many have

sat silent.

But: "As a faith community, we commonly," he said, "are threatened by Islamophobia. That's an issue that is particularly acute in the

Conservative Party, who've approached Islamophobia with denial, dismissal and deceit."

What do you say to that side of the argument?

NEUBERGER: I completely agree that there are issues in other political parties.

I completely agree that the Conservatives need to get their act together. There is Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. Actually, I think there

is Islamophobia quite generally throughout British society.

But there is Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, and they need to get it together and deal with it. And they need it to be a specific inquiry

into Islamophobia, not what they say at the moment, which is a more generalized inquiry into racism within the party.

Of course that's the case. And there is anti-Semitism on the right, as there is in the left. What is different here is that the leader of a major

political party has been tackled time and time again about anti-Semitism.

Jewish members of the Labor Party -- and the Labor Party was the natural home of the Jewish community for probably the best part of a century. The

Jewish members of the Labor Party are leaving in their droves, and he is simply refusing to hear it.


NEUBERGER: He can't even bring himself to apologize.

AMANPOUR: We will be following this. We really appreciate you being with us to explain this.

Thank you so much, Baroness Neuberger.

NEUBERGER: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And our next guest has a classic American dream story.

Darren Walker is the president of the Ford Foundation. In his new book, "From Generosity to Justice: A New Gospel of Wealth," he lays out a bold

new vision for philanthropy in the 21st century.

And our Walter Isaacson sat down with him to discuss his route from humble beginnings to influential philanthropist.


WALTER ISAACSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, you grow up poor, black, gay, fatherless, in I think Rayne, Louisiana, and then Liberty,



How grateful are you for that?

DARREN WALKER, PRESIDENT, FORD FOUNDATION: I am enormously grateful and very mindful of the fact that I grew up in a country that believed in me,

that cheered me on, and that ensured that I would be a success in life.

And so every day I wake up, I feel gratitude to this nation and for the opportunity to live in a country that made possible my dreams.

ISAACSON: You learned, you said at one point, from being a busboy that it really helped for me your idea of social justice.

Tell me about that experience.

WALKER: I think being a busboy was the job that prepared me to be president of the Ford Foundation today, because, as a 13-year-old black kid

in a Southern town working in a restaurant, I was the lowest person on the pole.

I was the lowest person in the organization.


ISAACSON: You and the dishwasher.

WALKER: Me and the dishwasher.

But I was also invisible. As I walked around the periphery of that room cleaning up after the guests, the customers, my job was to be invisible.

And people didn't look at me, didn't acknowledge me, other than to give me the things they no longer wanted.

And that invisibility gave me insight on what it feels like to be marginalized and what it feels like to be invisible. Today, the work that

we do at the Ford Foundation is about lifting up those people who often feel invisible, left out and left by society, and ensuring that their

voices are heard, their perspectives are felt, and that their participation in our democracy is assured.

ISAACSON: When you took over the Ford Foundation, you did just that, which is, let's focus like a laser on the problems of inequality.

Was that changing the nature of the Ford Foundation? And why did you do that?

WALKER: It didn't change the nature. It brought more discipline to what had become a quite far-flung set of programmatic activities.

And what we did through the process of determining inequality as a great threat was to really excavate our mission, going back to Henry Ford's

imperative of improving and strengthening democracy as one of the reasons why he created the Ford Foundation.

So we believe that the greatest threat to democracy is hopelessness, because hopelessness as a function of growing inequality plays a deep role

in how optimistic we are, how much we believe that the American dream is still possible.

Indeed, hope is the oxygen for the American dream. And when hope is asphyxiated, the American dream is asphyxiate. So we have work to do in

this country to build a sense of hope and a sense of optimism, and to rebuild in people a belief that that mobility escalator that I got on and

rode as far as it could take me, as far as my ambition and my hard work would let it, that that's still possible.

ISAACSON: Your tale is very much one of a land of opportunity, coming from the small towns that you did, Wall Street, and now head of the Ford


Do you think that ladder of opportunity has gotten a little bit harder these days? And, if so, why?

WALKER: Absolutely the ladder has gotten harder. And I think the rungs are farther apart than they were when I was young.

To get on the mobility escalator, there are things that help you get on and determine how fast you will ride it. So, education, I was fortunate. I

went to public schools. I'm proud to say I have never attended a day of private schooling in my life. All the way through law school, I had access

to very high-quality public schools.

I had the Pell Grant and private philanthropy that financed my education. I had access to after-school and Head Start programs and summer jobs

programs, often funded by the government.

And so it is true that today it is much harder to finance that on-ramp, because education costs are higher, college, of course. Today, there is

more debt from student loans than from mortgages.


So, we have an entire generation of young people who, rather than thinking about buying a home or starting a business, are burdened with $100,000 of

student loan debt.

And so the mobility escalator is both harder to get on and, because of the way the economy today is structured, it is slowing down or, for some, it

has stopped.

ISAACSON: And so, at the Ford Foundation, you have made this a focus.

What can we do? If we were to regain that optimism we had when you were young and I was young, what could we do to help that mobility escalator?

WALKER: First, we have to make public investments in public education, particularly higher education, which is the key, I think, facilitator and

on-ramp to that mobility escalator.

So, today, higher education is unaffordable for far too many people. So, if you think about education, we have to consider the way in which the

economy is structured and why today are the highest-income people reaping the greatest benefits at a much higher rate than middle-income and lower-

income people?

And that's about tax policy. That's about challenges that we capitalists don't like talking about, like regulation and redistribution, because we


ISAACSON: Is that an inherent problem in capitalism, in your mind, that the rich will get richer?

WALKER: It is a challenge in capitalism, but it's not inherit.

We have designed a system, a capitalist system, today that distorts capitalism, and does not generate the kind of shared prosperity that you

and I knew growing up.

ISAACSON: Well, one of the things that happened is, corporations shifted their focus from thinking they had multiple stakeholders to thinking that

they only had to focus on a return to the shareholder.

Do you think we have to move away -- or move back to a form of corporate and business that looks after its workers and its communities?

WALKER: I think you're absolutely right.

Your diagnosis that they moved from a -- what I would call a stakeholder paradigm to a shareholder paradigm -- and, of course, Milton Friedman's

article and essays on this made Friedman famous, but also created, I think, and contributed to the kind of single-mindedness of the investor community

that diminished the needs and priorities of the other stakeholders, employees, customers.

And the communities where corporations do business were left behind in pursuit of return on investment for the shareholder. And that's a problem.

That contributed to corporations doing away with their pension programs, doing away with the profit-sharing programs.

ISAACSON: You have this fascinating book out that's going to be the great manifesto for our era when it comes to philanthropy.

It's is called "From Generosity to Justice: A New Gospel of Wealth."

Let me start with the subtitle, because the original gospel of wealth was Andrew Carnegie,. somebody who was both a rapacious corporate businessman,

but also believed in things like higher education, institutions, things that he had to build.

Tell me about Carnegie's gospel of wealth.

WALKER: In 1889, Andrew Carnegie wrote "The Gospel of Wealth." As you say, he was a rapacious capitalist. He was a reviled capitalist.

But he also knew that there was something that he could do to make a difference in the lives of people who weren't as advantaged. And out of

this new gospel came a set of ideas that led to the creation of the Carnegie free libraries across the country, because he believed that

literacy was an important intervention in the lives of people, and that illiteracy was a root cause of the poverty that we saw at that time.

He believed that generosity was important and that operating out of his religious beliefs, it was critical that he be generous and charitable.

Fast-forward to 2020. It's not enough to be generous and charitable. We know too much today. We are a more inclusive democratic society. We have

made social advances that Carnegie could never have imagined, the progress of women, people of color, LGBT.


Today, the imperative is not charity and generosity. The imperative is justice and dignity. And the question for philanthropists of this digital

era, I believe, is, what are you doing to contribute to more justice in society?

ISAACSON: With Carnegie, he breaks the Homestead Strike, in other words, workers who -- he cuts the wages of his workers. People are killed by his

guards protecting his steel mills, and that he makes some money and gives it away to great institutions.

In some way, your book is saying that model is not something we need in 2020.

WALKER: That model is not enough.

Now, again, Carnegie and Rockefeller were just remarkably reviled. I don't know what -- there is no other word. They were...

ISAACSON: Malefactors of great wealth, I think was Teddy Roosevelt's line.

WALKER: Indeed. He indeed said that.

And, in fact, Rockefeller filed a charter in 1908 to establish the Rockefeller Foundation. And it took him five years to convince Congress to

give him a charter to give his fortune away, because Congress felt that there was nothing good that could come of Rockefeller's wealth.

So these were men who lived in a time when the idea that you do bad things, and then you amass wealth, and you give back, and that's your penance.

I don't think, today, that's enough. I think, today, the scrutiny that I think goes into asking questions, how are you making your money? Are you

making your money ethically? Are you making your money because you're investing in prisons and ammunition?

I think wealthy people, entrepreneurs, captains of industry are under a kind of scrutiny that they were not during Carnegie and Rockefeller's day.

And I think that's a good thing.

ISAACSON: You deal with a lot of philanthropists. And, in some ways, they get comforted by their charity. They feel they have been philanthropic,

and so it's made up for some of the things they do.

Do you feel sometimes you have to discomfort them, to say, let me play a little bit more on your guilt and say, there are deep social issues you

have to face, not just giving away money in a charitable way?

WALKER: In the book, I talk about getting uncomfortable, that this new gospel, if you believe in it, you actually embrace the discomfort.

Charity and generosity actually make the donor feel good. So when you put the money in the bucket at the Salvation Army in front of Bloomingdale's

during the holidays, you feel good about yourself.

Giving, through this new gospel, doesn't always make you feel good, because, rather than giving money for a homeless shelter, we have to ask

ourselves, why is there homelessness in the richest nation in the world?

In a city like New York, which has a housing crisis, why do we have $25 million condominiums for sale, and the real estate developers received a

tax abatement in order to be able to build these?

So how is it that we live in a society where wealthy developers and wealthy purchasers are benefiting from an abatement in their taxes on their real

estate holdings, when homeless people are literally on the streets in front of those $50 million apartments?

We have to ask ourselves, what kind of nation do we live in that allows that, and how have I contributed to this outcome?

And so, for the donor, it does require holding up the mirror. And that's a very hard thing, because most Americans who are successful today believe in

the idea of meritocracy. How else did they become successful?

Because we have so many people who are successful who did start from very humble beginnings. And, therefore, it's hard for those people to believe

that there's something inherently unjust about America. They believe that America actually works. And, for them, America has worked.


But, unfortunately, for far too many, America is not working anymore. And that's what we have got to change.

ISAACSON: You also have been working with the Chan Zuckerberg foundation on a variety of projects. Tell me about some of those.

WALKER: Well, CZI is doing some remarkable work using technology and technologists for good.

So whether it's work on the environment, or in the biosciences, or even in criminal justice reform most recently, they are developing technology and

using innovative approaches to accelerate discovery in the sciences, to reduce the number of people who are incarcerated.

These are really remarkable initiatives that are happening in partnership with organizations like the Ford Foundation and others.

So, I'm actually really encouraged by this new generation of philanthropists that CZI represent.

ISAACSON: But isn't that another example in some ways of people making money in ways that may not have benefited society, like Facebook and what

it's done to our politics, and then trying to use that to give back?

I mean, do you have to sort of question where the money came from in terms of Facebook, and whether Facebook has been good for our society?

WALKER: Well, I think the question of whether Facebook has been good for our society and any number of the new technology companies is a very fair

one, that we support organizations who are pressing those questions around privacy, around money in politics, which manifests, of course, on

technologies like Facebook.

But, at the end of the day, we have got to ensure that every philanthropic dollar is put to the best and highest use.

ISAACSON: Darren, thank you very much.

WALKER: Thank you.

ISAACSON: It's very moving to talk to you.

WALKER: Always great to be with you.


AMANPOUR: And that is it for now.

[13:55:00] Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York City.