Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns; Interview with "The Power Brocker" and "The Years of Lyndon Johnson" Author Robert Caro; Interview with Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute Senior Fellow Francis Fukuyama. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 19, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICHOLAS BURNS, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: We have a relatively more stable relationship with China, but it remains a difficult and competitive
relationship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Managing a big power competition. The American ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, joins me.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT CARO, AUTHOR, "THE POWER BROCKER" AND "THE YEARS OF LYNDON JOHNSON": Well, every so often, Christiane, someone would rebel, but the power was in
Robert Moses' hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- as "The Power Broker" turns 50, author Robert Caro reflects on its enduring popularity and a lifelong fascination with political power.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, SENIOR FELLOW, STANFORD'S FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE: I think what the elections show is that we're -- you know, we're not
helpless.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Professor Francis Fukuyama tells Walter Isaacson why he thinks this year of global elections has been good for democracy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. And we begin in Lebanon, where the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has
condemned the back-to-back attacks targeting the group's pagers and walkie- talkie communication system.
In a speech, he said that all the red lines had been crossed. And he called the explosions massacres. They killed dozens and injured thousands of
people. He also warned Israel that Hezbollah's forces on the border won't stop until the war in Gaza ends.
At the same time, Israeli fighter jets screamed over the capital, Beirut, appearing to drop flares. And the IDF said it is striking targets in
Lebanon. And all of this is raising concerns about an all-out war and raising those concerns to a new level, after Defense Minister Yoav
Gallant's warning yesterday that a new phase of this conflict is beginning.
So, let's get the latest from Beirut now with Ben Wedeman. Ben, you've been, you know, covering this nonstop. What has been the highest point of
tension today? What were those flights over Beirut, the capital, doing?
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, they coincided with Nasrallah's speech. And, you know, first there was that
flyover where I was live and heard a roar and saw these Israeli jets flying right overhead, dropping flares, heat deflecting flares over the middle of
Beirut. That's an obvious message, not a very subtle one. Sort of adding insult to injury after those two days of pager and walkie-talkie blasts.
And then, just about 20 minutes after that, again, two Israeli planes flying over Beirut, twice breaking the sound barrier. It's not the first
time that such events have coincided with Nasrallah's speech, but a very unsubtle message from the Israelis that this is what we can do. We can fly
our warplanes right over where Hezbollah is headquartered in the southern suburbs of Beirut and not just drop flares, but drop much more.
And it comes at a time, of course, of unprecedented tension. And I think over the last seven visits to Lebanon since this war began in Gaza, I think
this is perhaps the most tense time of all. This is an escalation, the likes of which we haven't yet seen.
Now, what was interesting in Nasrallah's speech, Christiane, is that he did concede that these pager and walkie-talkie blasts were an unprecedented
major blow in terms of personnel as well as the Hezbollah's security, but he insisted that the group will continue to support Gaza in the form of
firing upon targets within Israel. And he said the only way that they will stop, regardless of what Israel does, is when Israel stops its war in Gaza.
Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, Ben, you know, you've described the speech and he obviously did what he was expecting to do and said there'll be retaliation. But you
also said he looked a bit tired. And I wonder whether your sources are telling you what they think might happen next.
[13:05:00]
WEDEMAN: No, we don't. And certainly, he was not very emphatic about Hezbollah's retaliation for this week's blast in Lebanon. Back in late July
and early August, in the aftermath of the assassination of Fuad Shukr, that senior Hezbollah military commander, he was very emphatic that revenge is
coming. There's no question about it. He put it in very definitive terms. This time he said there will be an accounting, but we will decide when and
where that will happen.
So, he looked tired. We know that Hezbollah has been rattled as a result of this week's events, that they are feeling perhaps more insecure and more
vulnerable than they have in quite some time. You know, Hezbollah has always had a reputation as being a very tightly controlled organization,
very disciplined, very able to sort of keep its secrets. And it prided itself that it has not been infiltrated, for instance, like Fatah, the
Palestinian faction that operated in Gaza and is still in the West Bank. That there aren't a lot of traitors to Hezbollah among its ranks. Now,
there are serious questions about how good they actually are at maintaining internal security.
So, yes, Nasrallah was not his usual sort of, despite all events, somewhat jovial self. He's famous for his sense of humor. He often chuckles during
his speech. This time he looked tired and he looked very concerned. Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Well, it certainly is a really important time. Thank you. Thank you for being there and giving us that report.
Now, as war escalates in the Middle East and, of course, in Ukraine, the United States has all along said that its biggest strategic headache is
actually China, with its enormous growth and increasing global ambitions.
Both presidential candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, seeming to compete as China hawks on the debate stage. Ideology, economics, and
geopolitics are all at play here. Right in the thick of it is the long-time diplomat and current American ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, who
joined me from Washington, D.C.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Nicholas Burns, welcome to the program.
NICHOLAS BURNS, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: Christiane, thank you very, very much.
AMANPOUR: I want a temperature check of China and the United States, because there was balloon gate, there were all these things, you know,
diplomacy came to a screeching halt for a while, and now it's back. The latest arrival in Beijing for talks was Jake Sullivan, national security
adviser. Describe is it high tension, or is there a bit of give, is there a bit of thaw?
BURNS: Christiane, we have a very competitive relationship between the United States and China. We disagree on our security rivalry in the Indo-
Pacific, on technology, on human rights, trade and investment. So, we have to negotiate lots of different, very important differences between the
countries.
I think that's systemic. I think that's with us to stay for many years to come. We do think that we've been able to stabilize our relationship
somewhat because of the flurry of meetings that we've had. And frankly, our ability to create some communications channels at a very high level,
President Biden and Xi Jinping, Secretary Tony Blinken, Secretary Janet Yellen have both been in China in recent months.
And you referred to Jake Sullivan, our national security adviser. He and I had a series of meetings with the Chinese leadership, with President Xi,
with the foreign minister, Wang Yi, with the senior PLA officer, General Zhang Youxia, and I think, you know, that builds in some predictability and
an ability to communicate when there's tension and when there's disagreement that we did not have before.
So, I would say we have a relatively more stable relationship with China, but it remains a difficult and competitive relationship.
AMANPOUR: It seems, interestingly, that China is pretty much a bipartisan issue in the United States. Pretty much Republicans and Democrats pretty
much agree on China. In this case, on being tough as nails on China, whether it's out -- trying to out compete each other on trade tariffs, I
don't know, a lot of chest thumping, a lot of what seems in public anyway, some quite belligerent and almost, you know, language that could lead to
conflict.
So, how do you assess, for instance, the tariffs? President, you know, Trump put them on when he was in office. President Biden didn't take them
off, and in fact, is talking about more tariffs. Doesn't that sort of raise the temperature a lot? Does it really help the American consumer? They have
to pay that price, that tax?
[13:10:00]
BURNS: Well, look, you know, we are in a very competitive situation with the Chinese leadership. We have a number of substantial agreements, not
just on tertiary issues, but really vital issues. So, it is normal and it is not just understandable, but necessary that we compete with China and
that our allies join us in some of that competition.
I'll just give you two examples. China is a major supporter of the Russian war effort in Ukraine. Thousands of Chinese companies have been exporting
dual use materiel and technologies to the Russian war machine. It's strengthened the Russian defense industrial base. It allows Russia to fire
those missiles into apartment buildings to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. So, we have a real problem with that.
And we've been sanctioning Chinese companies that are helping the Russians. And this is a major disagreement between us. And frankly, for the European
allies. Also, a major disagreement, you've heard from the NATO and E.U. countries. So, we make no apologies about the need to compete on that
level.
The second issue, Christiane, that I referred to before is the fact that China is now manufacturing two to three times beyond domestic demand in
China in lithium batteries, in electric vehicles, in solar panels, and dumping those products below the cost of production into Europe, into Latin
America, into countries like Turkey, and trying to the United States.
And so, you have tariff barriers going up, not just from the United States, and we've certainly imposed tariff barriers, 100 percent, on Chinese
electric vehicles. But Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Chile have all imposed tariff barriers on China because of this worldwide Chinese flooding
of the zone with artificially low price products. That's a very serious disagreement.
But beyond the competition, Christiane, this gets to the heart of your question, we're going to compete because we're structural competitors
economically and militarily, I think, for the next decade or more, but we also want to make sure that we drive down the probability of any conflict
with China. That gets to the importance of our military leaders meeting, and we've made some progress in that score. It gets to the importance of
Jake Sullivan visiting and spending three days with us in Beijing a couple of weeks ago, and the real importance of President Biden maintaining an
ability to work with President Xi Jinping.
Obviously, the United States wants a peaceful relationship with China. We don't want to see a situation where we get close to a conflict, and so we
take great care to do that. And this all -- the competitive part of it and the engagement part of it make up a very complicated relationship between
us and the Chinese.
AMANPOUR: What about Taiwan, then, because the issue of war is pretty much considered likely only over Taiwan at this point? Has the temperature there
cooled? Do you think that issue is everybody understands each other or not?
BURNS: I don't think it's cooled. We've seen a higher level of Chinese air and naval activity in and around the Taiwan Strait since Speaker Pelosi's
visit, and that was more than two years ago. And so, we are continuously cautioning the Chinese leadership about making sure that they do not use
force to try to resolve the cross straight differences. We think that China should commit itself to a peaceful resolution of that dispute.
And frankly -- and thankfully, we're not alone in this. You've seen a very assertive position of the government of Japan, the government of the
Philippines, the government of the Republic of China -- of Korea, excuse me, and also, the European leadership and members of the European
parliaments and national parliaments traveling to this part of the world to make that point.
China asserts the right to use force. We don't think that's just and we don't think that's smart. And so, what we're trying to do is two things,
convince China to resolve the cross-strait differences peacefully, and that's been the American position., Christiane, going back to Richard
Nixon's trip here in 1972. And obviously, provide for a stronger deterrent in Taiwan. That's our legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act. And
we're doing both things at once. But I think, frankly, there needs to be international pressure on China for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
AMANPOUR: And you mentioned, you know, the aggression at sea. And obviously, there are all these stories recently about how the Chinese
maritime forces are coming very close, up to the point of war on some of these Philippine vessels.
[13:15:00]
But let me ask you about the sort of more, I guess, ideological competition as well. It's also about democracy and an open system versus a closed and
more authoritarian system. But what do you think -- what are you hearing from your Chinese interlocutors about what's happening in the United States
where political violence is a matter of fact right now, two attempted assassinations, violent language in public?
Obviously, the Chinese and the Russians are just salivating at the idea of damage to American democracy. What are they saying?
BURNS: Well, we've warned the Chinese leadership in very specific conversations not to interfere with our national election or our state
elections or our county and town elections in the United States. We're watching carefully to make sure that that does not happen.
A second part of the answer, Christiane, is I think the Chinese, at least in terms of what they say publicly, have been somewhat restrained about
involving themselves in our election. I think they know that there's -- there is a bipartisan consensus. I'm in D.C. this week, Washington, and
I've been up on Capitol Hill talking to the Senate leadership, I've been talking to our cabinet secretaries.
There is large-scale Democrat and Republican agreement on the need for us to have a very tough-minded, competitive policy with China, but also, on
the engagement side, to make sure that we're talking to the Chinese about climate change. John Podesta was just over in Beijing with me two weeks
ago, our climate negotiator. We're trying to work on the fentanyl crisis here in the United States and getting some help from the Chinese government
in doing that. We obviously want to work on global health issues together.
So, this is a relationship that's incredibly complicated. On the one hand, we have high competition between the two governments. On the other hand,
we're the two largest economies in the world. We have to work together on issues like climate. And I think that's part and parcel of what we're doing
with. We -- the Chinese are intensely interested in what happens in America on November 5th. But we're warning them not to get involved and not to
cross a line. And that's a very serious warning indeed.
AMANPOUR: And potentially, I guess presumably, not to count out American democracy, which, you know, as I said, a lot of people around the world are
worried about it. Can I just ask you a question?
BURNS: Can I just --
AMANPOUR: Yes, go ahead.
BURNS: Christiane, on that point, and I'm sorry to interrupt you. I -- that's exactly what I've been saying to Chinese leaders privately and what
I've been saying on social media in China publicly. We're a strong democracy. The United States is going to get through these hurdles and
don't count us out. I think there's been a tradition over the last couple of years in China to say the east is rising and the west is falling.
They've discounted us.
We've seen a very energetic United States, Japan, Republic of Korea, Australia. President Biden's going to be hosting the quad leaders, the
Indian, Japanese, and Australian leaders in Delaware this Saturday. And so, I think the Chinese would make a big mistake if they somehow looked at a
normal election, or perhaps a highly spirited election in the United States with great divisions in the country, and conclude that somehow the United
States is weak. We're strong. So, that's my message when I'm in China talking to the Chinese public.
AMANPOUR: And just one question, follow up on the climate, you know, cooperation that you're trying to get. Why would President Biden then slap
tariffs on something like electric vehicles and solar panels from China if he wants to also, you know, push along America's and global climate
priorities?
BURNS: The reason the president did that is because we learned a big lesson during the pandemic. We don't want -- no country should want to be
reliant on a single source of supply. And we need to build up in the United States and in other countries of the west, our own capacity on lithium
batteries, on solar panels, and on electric vehicles.
And so, China's trying to dump these products unfairly and illegally below the cost of production on the rest of the world, and we're not going to let
a second China shock to envelop the United States economy and society. We lost more than a million jobs in the 1990s, the early part of this century,
and it's not going to happen again. I think we're well within our rights to take the actions that we have.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting. Ambassador Nicholas Burns, thank you for joining us.
BURNS: Christiane, thanks. Always a pleasure to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, 50 years ago this week, the great writer and historian Robert Caro published his first magnum opus, "The Power Broker." A 1,300-
page biography of master builder Robert Moses, who for decades wielded enormous power over New York's public works.
[13:20:00]
This unlikely blockbuster is now a cultural icon, still selling hundreds of thousands of copies, even becoming a TikTok hit and a podcast staple. Now,
88 years old, Caro is racing time to finish his monumental biography series, "The Years of Lyndon Johnson."
As his hometown celebrates "The Power Broker" with a special exhibit at The New York Historical Society, Robert Caro took time out to join me and
reflect on his legacy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Robert Caro, welcome back to our program.
ROBERT CARO, AUTHOR, "THE POWER BROCKER" AND "THE YEARS OF LYNDON JOHNSON": Great to be here.
AMANPOUR: And, oh, my goodness, 50 years on "The Power Broker," more popular than ever. How do you account for that?
CARO: People have always been interested and now, they're sort of worried and concerned about the unelected power, unchecked power, and the fact that
it might be coming for America.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you then, because, you know, Robert Moses was sort of the guy who built New York, let's say, and most people, I guess,
who don't know a lot about him think, wow, look what he did, what a city. But what do you -- to you, what does Robert Moses stand for?
CARO: Well, he stands for two opposite things. One is a form of genius. You know, in 1924, when he was still only a young man, he drew a map of New
York with all the roads, all the parkways, all the expressways, most of the bridges, and parks. And he spent the next 44 years in power filling in
those spaces, building the roads, building the parks. And he created New York in his image. And it looks the way -- it looks and works the way he
wanted it to work.
AMANPOUR: Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
CARO: Well, I happen to think it's a really bad thing. And the emblem of how bad it is that it is a city in which such a high percentage of the
people have to drive to work and home from work every night, no matter how far away they live.
Like right now, the heavy commuting on Long Island from Manhattan is a place called Port Jefferson. To get from Manhattan to Port Jefferson, or
the other way, is two and a half hours each way. That's five hours a day commuting, 25 hours a week, 1,000 hours a year. And that's tiring. You get
home tired at night.
And the thing is, I know, because I'm familiar with what Robert Moses did, that it didn't have to be this way. When he was building the Long Island
Expressway, Long Island was mostly farms. Land was very cheap. He could have built a light rail line down the center of the Long Island Expressway,
and everybody said, please do that.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
CARO: He was so insistent that no light rail line be built that he wouldn't build it. And more than that, he built the foundations underneath
so light that you could never build it.
AMANPOUR: Oh, wow.
CARO: And every time I'm driving in from Long Island, and you see two and a half hours of headlights coming towards you, bumper to bumper traffic,
you say, it didn't have to be this way.
AMANPOUR: OK. That's really interesting, really interesting for anybody who knows that stretch of long and clogged roadway. Why do you think he did
it that way then?
CARO: Because he wanted to do it that way. Robert Moses listened to nobody. And he created a form of power where he didn't have to listen to
anybody. He could do it the way he wanted. He was never elected to anything, Christiane. He was never elected to mayor or governor, but he had
more power than any mayor or governor, and more power than any mayor and governor put together.
AMANPOUR: So, another thing he did, and maybe this is part of what you're telling me now, he moved, I don't know, tens, hundreds of thousands of
people out of their residences in order to build this infrastructure. Tell me about that and, again, how did he get away with de homing all these
people?
CARO: You know, what you just asked, excuse me, almost nobody knows, but it's astonishing. I was trying to take -- get a number so conservative that
he couldn't argue with me of the number of people that he dispossessed, threw out of their homes, for his expressways and parkways, his bridges,
and his parks, and a very conservative number is 500,000 people, half a million people.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Wow. And nobody politically rebelled against that?
CARO: Well, every so often someone, Christiane, would rebel. But the power was in Robert Moses' hands.
AMANPOUR: So, you had this mission to, essentially, you know, examine Robert Moses' warts and all. Did you interview him, and how did you get on
with him?
CARO: Well, you know, he had kept any -- a lot of famous writers had started to write books about him. But I suppose he said to them exactly
what he had his aides say to me, I'll never talk to him. My family will never talk to him. My friends will never talk to him. And then, he had this
phrase, I'm not sure I remember the words, but what it meant was, anyone who ever wants a contract to do work for the city or state will never talk
to him.
AMANPOUR: And then he must have loved you even more after the book was published?
CARO: He was not in love with the book. But in fact, as soon as I started asking him questions, that you or I would call a hard question, he ended
the interviews right there. I never saw him again.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the process, because it's always really interesting. And as you know, because you're a part of it, a documentary
has been made of you and your long-time editor, the late Robert Gottlieb. He apparently insisted that you remove, let me count them, 350,000 words
from your draft of "The Power Broker." How do you feel about that all these years later? What was missing?
CARO: I feel sad. You know, I wrote the book with a million fifty thousand words. Bob Gottlieb, trying very hard, got the maximum number of words you
could get on a page and make it a readable nice page, the maximum number of pages you could get in a book then because they didn't have as good binding
as they did now, and that came out to 700,000 words.
So, we had to cut -- we really didn't have a choice of cutting 350,000 words. Some of those chapters that were cut, I really thought were among
the best -- in my opinion, the best stuff I ever wrote. So, if you want to know what it was like, it was a sad time.
AMANPOUR: So, what's happened to them? Are they in some archive? Do you have them?
CARO: Well, I have huge boxes full of cut pages. I don't know what's in there and what isn't. I've never been able to look.
AMANPOUR: Oh, my God, you still haven't looked at them. Well, somebody needs to look at them because there's another book to be written,
obviously, or to be published. I want to play a little bit from that documentary what Lizzie Gottlieb basically said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIZZIE GOTTLIEB, DIRECTOR, "TURN EVERY PAGE": You know, these books are about very urgent things, they're about how power works in America and the
effect of power on the powerless. And they're things that we all really need to learn. And Bob Caro feels, and I think my father agrees, that
unless the sentences are as compelling and riveting as possible, no one will read the books and no one will care.
So, for them, as he says, everything is important, every single detail. And they're very opinionated, and they're very strong-willed, and they each
think they're right. And so, they really get into it sort of in the nitty- gritty and on the big picture issues as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Can you just sum up your memories, your appreciation of Gottlieb?
CARO: Well, we were both rather strong-willed people. He cared as much about writing as I did, but that doesn't mean we agreed about writing. And
we were having a lot of really violent fights at which one or the other of us would stalk out of his office. Now, he was the president of Knopf, so he
could stalk into someone else's office and talk to them about some other problem, a project. I had no place to go except the bathroom. So, people at
Knopf must have thought I had a really weak bladder.
AMANPOUR: Oh, Bob Caro, you are a funny man. But let me ask you this. So, you've -- obviously, your other major oeuvre has been on Lyndon B. Johnson.
I actually want to ask you one question. Lyndon B. Johnson, I guess was the latest and the last president you voluntarily decided not to run for a
second term because of the pressures and the public reaction against the war in Vietnam.
[13:30:00]
What went through your mind when you saw Joe Biden pulling out for different reasons, but nonetheless, not going for a second term after
thinking that he would?
CARO: Well, very different thoughts, Christiane. You know, with Biden I felt there was something very poignant. I was glad that he stepped down
because I felt he was aging. I feel being president is a man killing job and I felt he wasn't up to it anymore. But the fact that you have -- you
want to be president all your life, you get to be president, and then you have to give up the presidency, you give up what you wanted all your life,
that's poignant.
Johnson was a very different situation. He had sent 600,000 men, 600,000 men to Vietnam. The death rate among those soldiers was rising every week.
There were 58,000 had already been killed, 350,000 seriously injured for a war that really had no reason. So, I didn't feel the same way about Johnson
stepping down as I did about Biden.
AMANPOUR: Talk to me a little bit about the pressure on a vice president when they seek the office of the president they're following, whether it
was Johnson seeking the office having -- you know, had it thrust upon him by John F. Kennedy's assassination and then being elected. And now, Kamala
Harris in the same similar position. What's your reflection on that?
CARO: Good question. I think it's the toughest thing to decide how to assume the presidency, to what extent are you going to stay with the
policies of your predecessor? To what extent, if you think those policies are wrong, are you going to change them? And what are people going to say
about the fact that you're changing them without being elected?
AMANPOUR: But, I mean, how would you say Johnson took Kennedy's agenda forward?
CARO: That's fascinating. You know, Kennedy's legislative agenda had been almost completely stopped by the southern committee leaders in Congress. I
think -- I forget the year. But I think of the 17 great standing committees of the Senate, I think southerners were the chairman of 11. And because
Kennedy was pushing civil rights, they were really stopping his whole legislative agenda.
So, four days after Johnson is going to -- after the assassination, Johnson has to give a speech to the Joint Session of Congress. He's not even in the
Oval Office yet. He's still living in his private home. He's upstairs sleeping, and down in the kitchen, four of his speechwriters and advisers
are working on the speech he has to give to Congress.
Somewhere around midnight, Lyndon Johnson comes downstairs and basically says, how are we doing? And they say, well, we haven't gotten agreement on
a lot of things. The only thing we're really agreed on, you must not make civil rights a priority, like Kennedy did. If you do that, the southerners
are going to stop your whole legislative agenda. It's a noble cause, but it's a lost cause. Don't fight for it.
And Lyndon Johnson says, well, what's a presidency for them? And in his speech, he says, our first priority must be to pass John Kennedy's civil
rights bill. A thrilling thing to me. I still get goose flesh when I see him making that statement while all the southern leaders of Congress are
seated in a row in front of him.
AMANPOUR: Well, somebody might say it's ballsy, a ballsy move. And I wonder whether today politicians have that moral courage and the courage to
deliver what they believe in. So, what was it like and what has it been like to this day to live with Johnson for so long? And will you complete
the fifth installment of your majestic biography?
CARO: Well, Christiane. I'm afraid the last question isn't really up to me. I'm going to be writing as long as I can.
AMANPOUR: What was it like, and continues to be like, living with Johnson?
CARO: Oh, it's amazing. You know, I'm interested in how political power works. I'm interested in how Congress works, how the federal government
works.
[13:35:00]
Lyndon Johnson was a genius at that. You know, in the first five months of 1965, Lyndon Johnson passes Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act, the
Voting Rights Act, a new immigration act and seven different education acts, everything we think of with the federal government and education, he
did. Just incredible that he got all these things through.
So, to watch him do it, to listen to him on the tapes that are now recorded of his letter, and you say, boy, this is how government really works or
really can work if the guy in charge of it is in a class by himself, has a genius.
AMANPOUR: And did you think that biographies of Johnson and Robert Moses would be such eternal blockbusters?
CARO: Absolutely not. You know, the first editor I had on the Robert Moses book before Bob Gottlieb used to say, explaining, I got a very small
advance to do the book, and when I asked for some more money because after four or five years I was out of money, he said, oh, you know, nobody's
going to read a book on Robert Moses and you have to be prepared for a very small printing.
I heard over and over again for seven years, nobody's going to read a book on Robert Moses. And to tell you the truth, I believed it. I believed it
was an important book to write and be read, because I thought we had to take real lessons from Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson. But I myself didn't
think, in Moses' case, it would be read.
AMANPOUR: And finally, Robert Caro, how old are you?
CARO: Eighty-eight.
AMANPOUR: Oh, my goodness. How do you -- huh?
CARO: Sorry you had to ask.
AMANPOUR: Oh, I know. I'm asking because how do you explain, what is the secret of your vigor? You are vigorous physically and mentally.
CARO: I have no explanation. I just happen to like writing.
AMANPOUR: Well, we like reading what you write. So, keep going. Robert Caro, thank you so much.
CARO: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Democracy has been getting a major stress test this year, with nearly half the world's voting population heading to the polls, and many
casting votes in a time of democratic backsliding and growing extremism.
Francis Fukuyama, senior fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute, joined Walter Isaacson. They spoke about the danger of taking
democracy for granted, and how he sees the war in Ukraine ending, following his recent trip there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane and Francis Fukuyama, welcome to the show.
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, SENIOR FELLOW, STANFORD'S FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE: Thank you for having me.
ISAACSON: You were just in Ukraine, and we've reached a milestone just this week with 1 million casualties after two and a half years of war. What
are they talking about in Ukraine about how this could end?
FUKUYAMA: There's not a clear conception except that everyone feels that the war will not end until they can put more military pressure on Russia,
and the Ukrainians are very frustrated at the Biden administration for having put restrictions on the way that some of their long-range weapons,
particularly the ATACMS, the missiles, longer-range missiles are constrained to within just a, you know, a few kilometers of the border, and
they feel that Russia is able to attack them with missiles from a safe sanctuary that they can't reach, and they're very upset about that.
ISAACSON: Would you agree with them, or do you think that it would be dangerous for U.S. to allow and the U.K. to allow its missiles to be used
into the Russian homeland?
FUKUYAMA: I don't think there's any choice there. You know, the constraint has been driven by a fear of escalation on Russia's part, especially on the
part of the president. And I think that, as the Ukrainians pointed out, they've crossed many red lines where previously we thought, well, this was
really going to get the Russians upset, and they haven't reacted. The latest one was this incursion into Russia itself in Kursk, near Kursk, and
again, the Russians have not retaliated.
So, you know, I think the feeling is that is -- we've been intimidated unnecessarily by these Russian threats, their largely bluffs and we really
don't have a way of pressuring them other than by, you know, opening up the range of these weapons.
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: But it's a fundamental precept in the Russian constitution, even that a serious attack on the Russian homeland would call for a nuclear
response. You say you think they're bluffing. Are there any worries? I mean, should we try to find other ways to put pressure?
FUKUYAMA: Well, look, it's been with more than three weeks now since that incursion, they really haven't, you know, moved at all in that direction. I
think that if the Ukrainian army were about to occupy Moscow, then maybe, you know, that might be something to worry about. But I think at the
moment, this is really been exposed to be a bluff.
ISAACSON: One of the things that's been consistent, though, is that they have a fear of having aggressive neighbors, understandably so, given the
history. And they wanted Ukraine not to be part of a NATO alliance, to be neutral. Senator Rand Paul was just on the show and said, we should
guarantee that Ukraine will not be part of an alliance, a military alliance against Russia. What do you say to that?
FUKUYAMA: Well, I think it's just silly. I mean, NATO was a defensive alliance, really to protect Europe against a Soviet attack, and it
continues to be a defensive alliance. It's never really done anything other than respond to threats. And so, it responded to the September 11th attacks
on the United States under Article 5, but the idea that somehow, it's an aggressive military alliance is just not borne out either by its doctrine
or by its history.
ISAACSON: 2024 has been called the global year of elections. I think more than half of the world's population is going to be voting. You have a
really interesting piece in Foreign Affairs because we were sort of worrying, is this going to help promote more illiberal autocracies and
populism or is it going to help liberal democracies? And I read the piece. I loved it. But the record is a bit mixed so far. Explain to me where you
come out.
FUKUYAMA: Well, yes, it's definitely mixed. I think that we've avoided the kind of catastrophic outcomes that many people were fearing from this round
of elections where, you know, populist nationalist politicians would win in many big important countries, and they have made gains in certain places,
but they've also lost in other places.
You know, I think the most important thing that this year of elections demonstrates to me is that it's possible to fight back. A lot of times
people say, well, what can we do about this democratic backsliding? It's happening all over the world and we seem to be helpless in the face of
this. And I think what the elections show is that we're -- you know, we're not helpless because in a number of countries, let's say, notably India,
where Prime Minister Narendra Modi looked like he was heading towards, you know, possibly even a supermajority in the Indian lower house, he actually
lost his majority and now has to go into a coalition, and it was a real setback to, you know, the momentum that he had looked like he was gaining.
ISAACSON: And what caused that? You say we can fight back against it. What happened in India that trimmed his power?
FUKUYAMA: You know, the answer to that is just a lot of boring stuff. The way you win elections is you make arguments, you mobilize voters, you
capitalize on the mistakes of your opponents. I mean, that's what democratic politics is supposed to look like.
The other really important thing is unity. The year of elections really started off with the Polish election last -- at the end of 2023. This
right-wing party, the, you know, Law and Justice Party had been ruling Poland for eight years up to that point. They looked pretty invincible and
the more liberal opposition was very fractured, but they managed to create a coalition. They campaigned together, and as a result they managed to win
a majority and really set the right-wing party back.
And, you know, it's not exciting stuff, but I think that as long as you're living in a country that does hold reasonably free and fair elections,
that's the way you fight back. You use democratic politics to preserve democracy.
ISAACSON: What are the lessons there for, say, European countries, especially France and Germany? Macron's now doing that coalition act.
Germany has had a right-wing party do incredibly well recently.
FUKUYAMA: Well, it's partly, you know, more of what I just described, I mean, you have to fight these election battles as they come up. The French
avoided having a right-wing national rally government of the Marine Le Pen group running the country because the left came together.
[13:45:00]
They've got a two-round voting system, and they agreed to withdraw their weaker candidates. So, at least one of the -- you know, the left-wing
parties would win and it worked. It managed to keep the national rally out of power.
You know, a lot of more democratic -- liberal democratic groups oftentimes have a hard time cooperating. They may be more numerous in total, but they
don't work together well. There are a lot of prima donnas and, you know, a lot of very personalistic politics centered around one particular leader
that doesn't want to see it or cooperate with others. And I think that, you know, people just have to get over that. They have to realize that there is
an overriding need to unify in the face of these kinds of electoral challenges.
ISAACSON: Do you think that's a lesson for the Democratic Party here in the United States now?
FUKUYAMA: Yes, absolutely. I think that they really dodged a bullet. And actually, it kind of worked out accidentally that by the time President
Biden agreed to step down, I think the Democrats were so tired of fearing, you know, the worst possible outcome, which was a Trump victory that they
rallied around Kamala Harris, you know, in 48 hours.
I think, paradoxically, if he had agreed to step down, you know, like, right after the June 27th debate, there would have actually been a much
bigger, nastier fight among Democrats for who would get the crown. But, you know, it just worked out well for them.
And that's a warning for the future, because they really do need to be, you know, put on a unified face if they are going to exploit the -- you know,
the majority -- the popular majority that they actually command.
ISAACSON: The framework, the large framework we've been talking about in the world and in your Foreign Affairs article is the struggle between
authoritarian populist nationalism, let's call it on one side, and liberal democracy on the other side. How does that new framework fit in and evolve
from what you wrote about in 1992 in your "The End of History" book?
FUKUYAMA: Well, there's obviously been a big reversal. You know, the beginning in 1989, there was a huge -- well, actually, it started a decade
prior to that with the democratizations in Spain and Portugal. But, you know, there's a huge amount of momentum behind democracy that we saw
explode across Europe, across the former Soviet Union, in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Since then, I think that a lot of things have changed. You know, people began to take democracy for granted. It didn't seem like this new thing. I
think people appreciate democracy the most when they have to live under dictatorships. And the memory of that was already fading in many parts of
the world.
I think that also people that supported liberal democracy made a number of mistakes. You had a kind of extreme form of capitalism that created a lot
of inequalities that left a lot of working-class people behind in in the rich world. You had a shift on the left to a kind of identity politics that
fractured people's, you know, senses of national unity and national identity. And I think all of those things began to feed a kind of populist
opposition to -- you know, to liberal democracy. And a lot of people were simply indifferent. They just took it for granted that things would always
be that way.
ISAACSON: Well, one of the things in your piece is that, to some extent, it's not just right-wing or left-wing when it comes to a more populist,
perhaps authoritarianism, but it's a resentment of corrupt elites and a corrupt establishment. Do you think that liberal democracies are
understanding the depth of that resentment? And is there some truth to the fact that there should be some resentment to a corrupt establishment that
tries to protect its power?
FUKUYAMA: Well, I think that that characterization is too extreme. I mean, you have to look at specific countries, and there are countries where there
is a corrupt establishment. I would say that, you know, the bigger problem is a complacent establishment that has simply accepted a certain number of
policy positions as gospel without really thinking about the impact.
[13:50:00]
So, you know, we take a commitment to free trade. There's lots of good theoretical reasons why free trade is going to make everybody richer, but,
you know, a lot of the advocates of free trade didn't understand that it wasn't good for everybody, that there would be losers if you opened up, you
know, your markets to foreign competition, they said, OK, we'll take care of the losers. Don't worry about it. But then they didn't bother to do
that.
And, you know, because there wasn't an immediate explosion, they just forgot about those people. And I think that's really what's fueled a lot of
-- you know, a lot of resentment. You know, there are other things as well that Democratic governments haven't delivered on things that, you know,
they've promised to do. I think that we've wrapped ourselves oftentimes and so many rules that we can't build things. And then, you see an
authoritarian government like China, you know, building things all over the world and people say, oh, that looks like a good alternative.
And then, finally, you know, issues like crime. I mean, I think one of the biggest challenges to our complacent democracy is going on in El Salvador
right now, because that country was completely in the thrall of these gangs, these Maras that extracted more money from the Salvadorian
population than the government took in taxes at one point.
You get a strong man like President Bukele that basically arrests, you know, 10 percent of the young male population, puts him in prison with no
due process and the crime rate goes down. And that's something that really matters to people. And it's something that, you know, the democratic
governments have not been delivering on.
So, that's not a recommendation for doing it. But I think it is a -- you know, it's a warning that if you actually don't deliver on things that are
really important to people like security, basic citizen security, like economic growth, then you're going to be vulnerable to these kinds of
populist attacks.
ISAACSON: I want to ask you a personal question based on something you wrote for persuasion. Your grandfather, I think, was from Japan in the
early 1900s. Your mother came from Japan and when you were in school, you were teased and sometimes bullied for being Asian. And then you asked your
dad and he said, just tell them you're an American.
America has been defining itself as people believe in a creed, this creed of liberal democracy. But J. D. Vance at the Republican Convention also
talked about ancestry and the homeland of America. What did that -- what did you feel about that?
FUKUYAMA: Well, I think it's terrible. I think that Americans have made a lot of progress over the years. You know, you can, in a sense, say who's an
American by who's allowed to vote in -- as a citizen in this country.
At the beginning of the American Republic, it was only white men with property. We fought a civil war that theoretically gave African Americans
the right to vote, but that was unfortunately taken away from them for the next 100 years under Jim Crow and segregation. And so, it wasn't until
really the civil rights era that they were, you know, really allowed to participate politically. Women were not allowed to be full citizens until
the 1920s.
And so, you know, the definition of who's an American became the civic understanding of an American is anyone who believes in American law, ideas,
principles, a Declaration of Independence, and it doesn't matter what their skin color is, or their national origin. And I think that that was a huge
achievement that America got to very painfully through a lot of struggle and blood, sweat, and tears by the time of the civil rights era.
That's the moment when my father told me that I was simply an American, and I didn't need to worry about where my ancestors came from. And I think what
J. D. Vance is doing is basically moving us backwards to before that period in the 1960s, where it did matter who your parents were and what they
looked like and, you know, what's your ancestry was. He explicitly said that, you know, it's not just about ideas, that not just anyone can be an
American, that you somehow have to be, you know, kind of embedded in the country for generations before you really qualify, and I think that's a
very dangerous idea that's going to exclude a whole lot of people, you know, like myself that, you know, didn't have ancestors that came over on
the Mayflower.
ISAACSON: Francis Fukuyama, thank you so much for joining us.
FUKUYAMA: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, waste is grabbing the spotlight in Paris. Theatergoers are donating their recycling and secondhand clothing to help
produce a contemporary version of Moliere's play, The Miser.
[13:55:00]
Bringing trash to life in the form of costumes and sets. After the final curtain comes down, the spectators' donations will be handed over to a
recycling center, bringing art and the environment closer together.
Now, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
