Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Palestinian-American Journalist and Author Laila El- Haddad; Interview with The Avett Brother Musician Scott Avett; Interview with The Avett Brother Musician Seth Avett; Interview with "Swept Away" Actor John Gallagher, Jr.; Interview with American Compass Founder and Chief Economist Oren Cass. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 22, 2024 - 13:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
As Russia hits Ukraine with a new ballistic missile, we have a special report from Kyiv on the foreign weapons turning up in the Kremlin's war.
And President Biden calls the ICC's arrest warrant for Netanyahu outrageous. We hear from Palestinian American author Laila El-Haddad, who
has family living in Gaza.
Then, from a touring van to the Broadway stage, the Avett Brothers and actor John Gallagher, Jr. join me on their hit musical, "Slept Away."
Plus, the Trump tariffs economist, Oren Cass, lays out his case for conservative policies with Walter Isaacson.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in Washington, D.C., sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, Russia unleashes on Ukraine, striking the country with a new medium- range ballistic missile. President Zelenskyy called it a severe escalation, while the Kremlin says it's a response to the, quote, "reckless decisions"
by western countries supplying weapons to Kyiv.
Ukraine closed its parliament today for the first time since the war started. Lawmakers saying they're fearful of more Russian strikes.
Meanwhile, top Ukrainian defense officials admit the situation on the frontlines is difficult. Putin's assault on Ukraine now appears to be
getting a boost from Kim Jong Un. North Korean fighters are showing up alongside Russian forces, and the Kremlin is using North Korean-made
missiles. But as Nick Paton Walsh reports, they're reliant on American components.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The scramble for the dead or the living. Horrifically commonplace in
Ukraine. Yet, this series of homes in Kyiv turned to rubble by something other, not Russian, but a North Korean supplied ballistic missile. And made
able to fly here to cause this barbarism, killing a man and his four-year- old son by circuitry from the United States.
Ukrainian officials told CNN ballistic missile attacks by Russia were rising fast, 194 so far this year, and about a third of them, at least 60,
were using North Korean KN-23s. But these crude missiles, part of growing aid as North Korean troops also come to Russia, rely on a sophistication
smuggled into the hermit kingdom.
One on display by Ukrainian investigators at this Kyiv warehouse of missile fragments. It is a house of horrors, drones that haunt the night skies,
rockets that tear down lives. They pick through the dust to learn how the killing machines work. Here, rebuilding a Shahed Iranian drone's circuits.
WALSH: Parts from a Kinzhal missile, a Shahed Iranian drone and a Russian Orlan reconnaissance drone, all things Ukraine has been subjected to for
many months, but key, these North Korean KN-23 missiles rely on -- they say, on components from the United States and the Netherlands.
WALSH (voice-over): This box, containing dozens of small bits of circuitry made by household names in the USA or Europe. Subject to sanctions
globally, but smuggled often via China to North Korea.
WALSH: When you open all this up and find American components, how do you feel?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Like sanctions are failing.
ANDRIY KULCHYTSKYI, KYIV SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC EXPERTISE (through translator): All the electronics are foreign. There is
nothing Korean in it. The only thing Korean is the metal, which quickly rusts and corrodes.
WALSH (voice-over): The journey the chips and circuits take to Russia may lead through North Korea, even China as a middleman, that, ultimately, they
are U.S. Design and make.
OLEKSANDR VYSIKAN, KYIV SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC EXPERTISE (through translator): The chips most often from the United States, but
the country of manufacture can be China, Malaysia, Taiwan. However, it means that the headquarters is in the United States.
WALSH (voice-over): As the toll from these missiles deepens, Ukrainian officials say the western firms need to be held accountable. From
Thursday's Russian launch of a new weapon to their growing use of purloined North Korean missiles, the global reach of this war grows.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Nick Paton Walsh for that important report from Kyiv. And now, the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, is still making waves in Israel, Gaza and beyond.
U.S. President Joe Biden called it weighing -- weighed in, calling it outrageous, saying there is no equivalence, none, between Israel and Hamas.
The Palestinian Authority, though, welcomed them, saying the court's decision, quote, "restores hope and confidence in international law and its
institutions." The action by the International Criminal Court comes as the death toll from Israel's campaign in Gaza passes 44,000 people, according
to local health authorities.
After the news broke, I spoke with Israeli journalist Amir Tibon, who, along with his family, barely survived the October 7th attack, having been
rescued from their kibbutz by his father. Some from his kibbutz are still being held hostage. Here's what he told me yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMIR TIBON, HAARETZ JOURNALIST: This is the kind of thing that even if you expected it is such a gut punch that it's still a shock. I think every
Israeli is going to ask, how can it be that a year after October 7, the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, and after the first few weeks
when the whole world really stood up to support Israel, and we had just an air train of world leaders coming here all the time, how did we get to a
place where today we are so isolated?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, I want to hear from another writer with a personal connection to the war, Palestinian-American author Laila El-Haddad. Many of
her family members are still in Gaza, and she joins me now from Maryland.
Laila, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. Before we get to the news yesterday about the arrest warrants
issued by, from the ICC. I know you have family there in Gaza right now. Tell us about your family and how they are doing.
LAILA EL-HADDAD, PALESTINIAN-AMERICAN JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Thank you so much for having me. That's right. About half of my family is in the north
of Gaza, specifically in Gaza City, where almost no aid has entered for about two months now. So, they, as well as my family, my uncles and my
cousins in central Gaza, are struggling to survive. There's no other way to put it, and I feel like we've been saying this over and over again, but
they've been surviving solely on whatever canned foods they can get their hands on. They haven't tasted any sorts of fresh produce or fresh protein
for months upon months.
And it's heartbreaking and we do our best to try to amplify -- you know, they don't complain, but we do our best to try to amplify their situation
and their voices and to advocate on their behalf when they feel like the world has abandoned them.
GOLODRYGA: And you've been talking to us and the world about your family basically as a medium, as a voice from America who has constant
communications with your family in Gaza for over a year now. Tell us about -- I mean, the fact that -- as you said, they're not complaining. It's just
-- it's quite shocking actually how people can acclimate to war in such dire conditions. What are they telling you over a year into this war now?
EL-HADDAD: Well, they're telling me, first and foremost, that it's not a war, it's a genocide. And that has become abundantly clear. And that they
wish that the world would have caught on to this much sooner because they certainly understood it as that very early on when it was clear to them
that what was being targeted had nothing to do with any kind of, you know, sort of military infrastructure, but was civilian in nature, whether it was
hospitals or their schools and their universities. You know, my -- both of my uncle's houses were completely leveled, destroyed to the ground for no
reason whatsoever.
And so, really, what they are telling me is they want people to keep speaking up, whether it's individuals or courts, they want people to pursue
every avenue at their disposal to put an end, you know, today, before tomorrow to this genocide so they can begin to try to rebuild on return to
some semblance of normalcy.
GOLODRYGA: And we should note that both the United States and no court, and there's a case up before the ICJ, but the United States says this is
not a genocide, notwithstanding that the human toll and the suffering there. I do want to get your reaction and then your family's reaction.
EL-HADDAD: Well, there is plausible -- right. They found that there are plausible acts of genocide, and I think that's really significant to note.
It's not a wholesale thing per se, you know, it's either or. So, certainly, acts of genocide have been found to have been occurring.
GOLODRYGA: Let me get your reaction to the ICC news yesterday of the arrest warrants of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Former Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant. And then, I'd like to hear from you how your family has reacted to the news there in Gaza.
[13:10:00]
EL-HADDAD: Well, I think it was certainly a welcome decision for Palestinians, the world over, including for my family members in Gaza, whom
I've had a chance to speak with about this. I think that not just because of what's been happening, what's being done to us, for Palestinians who
have suffered obviously decades of systematic Israeli oppression.
And it's really a rare moment, I think, of validation for Palestinians and, you know, a sense or a step towards accountability. Because for so long,
really, the reason that this continues is because of Israel's impunity and of course, unflagging and unwavering support of the United States. And so,
they are hopeful and they see this as sort of one building block, if you will, on top of many others.
And as we know, you know, there's no statute of limitation on genocide. So, it's not as though there -- you know, but there's still this urgency and
the sense that something must be done to stop it. And that's really the only conversation we should be having right now. And so, in that sense,
this was very welcome.
Of course, they also wish that they could see tangible results and that this would translate on the ground in terms of immediately ending the
genocide, but also, in terms of actually seeing arrests of Israeli officials and, of course, in the long-term, an end to Palestinian suffering
by way of dismantling the occupation and Israeli apartheid and so on.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's what I was going to ask you and follow up on because as we noted, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas both welcomed the
decision by the ICC. The Palestinian ambassador to the U.K. said yesterday, the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant is not only a step
towards accountability and justice in Palestine, but also a step to restore the credibility of the rules based international order and its judicial
system.
That doesn't mean that we're going to see Prime Minister Netanyahu or Yoav Gallant behind bars any time soon. There have been several European nations
who are signatories to the ICC who said that if they do travel to their countries, they would be forced to oblige. But of course, Israel and the
United States are not signatories.
So, in the immediacy, what do you think the impact for your family, for those in Gaza right now is of this decision? What does this mean for them
today, tomorrow, in the weeks to come?
EL-HADDAD: I think, first and foremost, it is a validation of what they have experienced of their suffering at the hands of the Israeli military.
And it gives them hope. And hope is so crucial at a time when we are facing the fastest pace, deliberate destruction of a society and starvation of a
people in recent memory.
And even though this has been the most well documented genocide, it is equally the most denied. And so, to be able to have the ICC come out and
issue these arrest warrants and to be able to give them this glimmer of hope, not just hope in the international order, which, of course, Gaza has
exposed so well, the hypocrisy in that and double standards, but hope, again, for Palestinians and for my family in Gaza, that the world has not
forgotten about them, that there are people working to ensure that their suffering comes to an end immediately. And that is so, so important, as I
said, when it feels like the world is colluding to ensure their destruction and their erasure.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the arrest warrants, we should note, were not just limited for Netanyahu and Gallant, but also for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif,
who Israel has noted that they killed earlier this summer. And we would have expected, I assume since we've -- that we've seen requests for arrest
warrants against Yahya Sinwar and Ismael Haniyeh who've subsequently been killed as well.
How are Palestinians reacting to those charges, and I guess more importantly, in terms of what it means for Gaza, is there a role for
leadership in the future?
EL-HADDAD: Yes. I mean, those are all great questions. I think that based on my conversations with my family members, the only thing they're thinking
about now is how they're going to survive the next day. You know, one conversation was very illuminating where they said sometimes when the bombs
are falling you know, I should mention that U.S. provided bombs, they sometimes think about where it is that they should shelter or sleep because
that will impact how they die, and they want to be able to die in the least painful way possible.
These are the decisions that they're having to make day in and day out, what to feed themselves, how to survive from one day to the next, where to
get the cleanest water. You know, those who have children, like, my cousin, is how they can continue to educate them because they haven't been able to
attend schools for more than a year.
[13:15:00]
And I think they're hoping also to see accountability, not just for Israel, but for the United States as well. And to make sure that, you know,
equally, Blinken and Biden and all the rest of them are brought to account for their role in all of this and providing unflagging military, financial,
diplomatic support without which none of this would have been possible, of course.
GOLODRYGA: I'm wondering, as a journalist, as an American here, to see what have been rare these days, and that is sort of bipartisan
condemnation, both from the Biden administration and from many Republicans, most Republicans in Congress, to this ICC ruling of saying there's no
legitimacy here for these arrest warrants, the incoming NSA director, Mike Walsh, said the ICC has no credibility. We heard from President Biden in
his statement -- let's play sound from a spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We fundamentally reject the court's decision to issue arrest warrants for senior Israel officials.
We remain deeply concerned by the prosecutor's rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision. The United
States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter. You've heard us say this before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: As an American who also has such a personal stake in this war as well, what is your reaction to that?
EL-HADDAD: I mean, I think that it's very telling that the United States welcomed with open arms, you know, the ICC's arrest warrants charges
against Putin, Russia and called -- and that Biden then came around and called this particular series of events that rest warrants against
Netanyahu and Gallant, quote, "outrageous." And I think if anything is outrageous, it is the glaring double standards that this has exposed,
right, in the post-World War II rules-based order, as you said. That there will always somehow be an excuse, a justification for Israel. And that is,
again, at the heart of the problem.
And I think increasingly, not just Israel, but the United States will find themselves isolated and pariahs when you are going to continue to defend a
plausible genocide and the slaughter and extermination of the people, at what point will you finally draw a red line and say, we're going to apply
international law equally, or is it that Palestinians are simply the unhumans to which the laws of the world and of war do not apply?
GOLODRYGA: Laila, one thing that struck me -- and I'm so sorry, we only have a limited amount of time, maybe one minute here, but it struck me when
I heard an interview with you last year where you said it's turned in sort of a binary choice for your family. They either come across as terrorists
and be killed, or if they don't abide by the leaflets that are dropped, then they have to leave. And in your view, and from what you hear from your
family, why does it have to be one or the other? They don't want to leave their homes.
EL-HADDAD: Yes. I mean, and I -- another way to put this is, of course, what's been called the Smotrich plan, right? Which is that essentially
Palestinians have been left with a false choice. You either accept a status quo as unequals or you leave voluntarily or forcibly expelled, as my
cousins were from the north, or you stay where you are and you're killed. And so, it's not necessarily a choice that they have, right? As I said,
it's a false choice, but they choose to remain -- to exist nonetheless. And in that existence -- in that defiance, they feel is a sort of rejection of
what's been called the finality of genocide.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Laila El-Haddad, we wish nothing but the best for your family there. Thank you for always taking the time to be their voice for us
and we appreciate you joining us.
EL-HADDAD: It's my pleasure. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you. Well, next to a notorious shipwreck and one of America's best loved folk rock bands. It might seem like an unusual
combination, but listen. It's the inspiration behind the brand-new musical, Swept Away, which opened on Broadway this week. The show tells a dark story
of salvation and brotherhood at sea, with music from church topping siblings, the Avett Brothers.
Both Seth and Scott Avett joined me earlier this week to discuss what it's like seeing their work performed on the Broadway stage. And actor and star
of the show, John Gallagher Jr., tells me why this project is so special to him. Here's our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, Scott, Seth, and John, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for joining us and congratulations. "Swept Away" opening on Broadway.
What an accomplishment. And. Scott, this is something that has been in the works for now a decade. And I read that, collectively, as a band, you
decided to take a step removed as this was unfolding and as the production was coming together. Tell us about that in the process.
[13:20:00]
SCOTT AVETT, MUSICIAN, THE AVETT BROTHER: Yes. About removing ourselves which is one of our super powers as a band. When it became something that
we were engaged in, how we would engage in it was a moment for us to use that exercise, that power, which is the non-power. To step out and see how
it would land with the writing and the direction and the actors as it did. And then, if we felt it necessary for our love and care and the craft
interject, we would. But that doesn't happen that often when you're working with this many incredible, brilliant minds.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it came together rather well. Wouldn't you say?
SCOTT AVETT: It came together rather well, it did. And we did have personal things we want to say, but very little.
GOLODRYGA: And, Seth, this was all based on "Mignonette," your second album and the story behind it, which is based on a true story in 1884,
where a ship capsized and ultimately, the surviving members resulted to cannibalism. We'll get to that in a moment. But the story itself in the
book was brought to you by your father.
SETH AVETT, MUSICIAN, THE AVETT BROTHER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Talk about the process of getting this book from your father on the road, performing, and somehow getting the idea that we can turn this
into an album.
SETH AVETT: Yes. Well, our dad is -- he's big on stories of heroism, stories of grit, survival. And so, he passes -- he has always passed them
along to us. And he passed "Custom of the Sea" on to Scott. And you know, in that time, the early time of the band, 2002, 2003, we were in this
little van and it was us versus the world. And we talked about everything and there were long hours of conversation, long hours of solving problems
and working together. And that book, it resonated with all three of us.
And beyond just being a very captivating, incredible story, we responded heavily to the what the fundamental point of the story, which is about
truth telling, about telling the truth. And that hit us hard. And it was something that we wanted to be a part of in our songwriting and in our
performing.
And it was just a very natural sort of extended metaphor that just started to make sense to us that our van was like a dinghy and we were in the sea
of the unknown. And the songs we were writing, they fell right in line with this truth telling concept. And as we started making the record, it kind of
was revealed to us that there were too many parallels to ignore.
GOLODRYGA: And, John, this has been like a full circle moment for you and experience, I would imagine. An acclaimed actor in your own right. I've
read that Michael Mayer, the director, Michael Mayer. insisted that you participate and you play a role as a leading actor in this production. Is
it true that you are the one who actually introduced Michael to the Avett Brothers music?
JOHN GALLAGHER, JR., ACTOR, "SWEPT AWAY": It is -- it's true. I mean, I was sort of an unofficial PR rep for the Avett Brothers circa 2006 to 2008.
I was a diehard fan. I still am. I saw them play in 2005 at the Philadelphia Folk Festival when I was 21 years old and I bought
"Mignonette" on CD and I became a super fan and then just followed them up and down the East Coast.
Would go see them whenever they were playing anywhere near where I was. And then, I got involved in "Spring Awakening" and "American Idiot" with
Michael Mayer. And around that time, I was just telling everybody that I knew that they had to hear this band. I was like, you have to hear them.
They're the best songwriters. They're -- it's incredible. Their live show is second to none. It's the best.
And I got Michael into them. I had an Avett Brothers poster on my dressing room wall when I was doing "American Idiot" on Broadway.
GOLODRYGA: You didn't pay him to say any of this, right?
GALLAGHER JR.: This is all true, really.
SCOTT AVETT: No.
SETH AVETT: He's getting a cut these days, yes.
GALLAGHER JR.: So, I made Michael listen to their music and as people always do, he felt -- he fell in love with it. And then, this just also
kind of randomly came Michael's way. A few years later, Matt Masten, our lead producer, reached out to Michael. And then Michael said, well, this is
amazing. And if you're doing -- if you want to, you know, make a piece of musical theater with the Avett Brothers, you got to get Johnny because he -
- I mean, he knows the music inside and out. So, it just kind of was an organic fit.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Not only do you know the music inside and out, you're quoted by The New York Times describing yourself as a super fan. And you said they
were breaking banjo strings and sweating. Seth was losing his voice because he was screaming so hard. It was like these guys are going to die on stage
tonight. It feels like we're going to be doing them a disservice if we don't do the same thing with this show every single night.
Clearly, that is your mantra that you walk on set -- on stage with every single day, having experienced being someone who's a super fan.
GALLAGHER JR.: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we -- the gold standard really is just Scott and Seth and the band, the whole -- their whole enterprise. Like
we, it's the North Star for us. Like we wouldn't be doing this show without the songs that they wrote. And so, when we go out on stage every night, you
know, they're always on our minds because they brought us here, you know.
And so -- and we've seen what they're capable of doing on stage every night. And so, that -- they set a high bar that we just we're just chasing.
We're just chasing it every night.
SETH AVETT: And let me say this, the music -- independent of the music, the character that John is playing, if you see the show, it's a very unique
criteria to be able to play that character. Him having such a relationship with the songs I think very much helps to set a foundation, but it's his
talent and his dedication that really creates the space.
GOLODRYGA: And it speaks to the dedication that you brought to the set in that the producers insisted that the original cast remain here and to this
day. So, along with yourself, Stark Sands, Adrian Blake Enscoe, Wayne Duvall, the four main characters here. Talk about the relationship that you
build with them in this production.
GALLAGHER JR.: Yes. From the first rehearsal, it was just clear that, oh, this is -- we're family. Like, we can trust each other. We can go as far as
this piece is going to require us to go and know that that will be held by each other and that will take care of each other on stage.
And, you know, I have two sisters, but I don't have any brothers. But now, I feel this real sense of brotherhood with my castmates. We've been through
something. It's extraordinary. You know, there are lots of emotional places you can go as a performer. I've never touched any piece of material that
had this kind of unnameable magic to it that where we go on stage every night is -- it's mysterious to even us, that we kind of aren't guiding the
show, it often feels like the show really and the music is just kind of carrying us through. But thankfully, I get to do it with those three guys
because they're --
GOLODRYGA: And we should note, it's an all-male cast too.
GALLAGHER JR.: Yes. Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Interestingly.
GALLAGHER JR.: It's a big brotherhood, the whole cast.
GOLODRYGA: A big brotherhood, but biologically, you have two brothers in this show who are some of the main characters. And the relationship between
big brother and little brother. I mean, I think the dynamic between the two really stands alone on this set. And as we see the evolution of the play
and you see the difference these two actors bring to their characters, I'm just wondering, your brothers in a band together, the song performed here,
"No Hard Feelings."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What inspired that song originally?
SETH AVETT: It's pretty literal and its nature as sort of a deathbed song. It's about considering your life at the end or the hopes you have for what
your perspective might be like at the end, that you might be able to, after, God willing, a life of letting go, that, at that moment, where you
have to finally even let your body go as well, that you could perhaps be in a place of settledness with it.
And it took about eight years to write the song, for me to live long enough for it to finish itself, sort of. But I can remember when the idea came
about, I was driving through Statesville, North Carolina, and I was driving and I'm left-handed. So, I'm driving and I had to get home. I had to get
home. I couldn't stop. And I wrote the first lines like on the console and I was crying.
And it was -- it's a funny thing to be like, oh, a song I was writing was making me cry. It feels very egotistical, but it's -- you know them when
they're -- when you're sincerely getting to be used as a channel, and that mysterious thing that the music is giving you, that God is handing you a
concept, a melody with the words at the same time, where you're working very little, you're doing basically nothing, and just sort of allowing,
that was a very pure experience like that for me in my life.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: It's rare enough for a band to last as long as yours has. You mentioned ego. I mean, ego is a big factor in band --
SETH AVETT: In all of us.
GOLODRYGA: -- in all of us and in fame among celebrities. Is it easier or harder to keep the band going as family as opposed to just friends who get
together and form a band?
SETH AVETT: I'm sure Scott has something to say about this.
GOLODRYGA: Scott?
SETH AVETT: I want to say one quick thing that I just said to my wife the other day because she was saying something about like, it's crazy how close
you all still are. Like how can you still be this close? And I was like, well, in a way, we never left each other to become so different that we
couldn't connect again. You know, we just -- we've kind of just stayed close throughout. You know, we're on the bus and we sleep in bunk beds like
beside each other.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
SCOTT AVETT: I will say about it, we are really slow in how we operate because we -- I think we look at our bonds with us and each other in our
familial group, which is our -- also our vocation and our brand our company as well. But we put that bond before we put skill. It was never going to
be, are you a good enough guitarist to let me sing for you? It was we're brothers and let's do this before people.
And as we've brought people into our world along the way, before we said, hey, we need a tour manager, we thought, who's our best friend? Who loves
us the most? Who cares? Being surrounded by people that care for each other and love each other the skill and the talent and the success and the
ambition, all that will take care of itself as long as we cultivate that other.
To your point, John, that's -- I think that is happening with this group. That happened with the way the "No Hard Feelings" was written. Eight years,
that's -- I think that's about how long it takes to write a good song, or for you to be written into a good song. And a show, 10 years in the making,
that sounds about right. I'd be kind of skeptical towards something that took a year.
GOLODRYGA: And finally, given the complexity of your characters, sort of demons that you face and the themes of the show, ranging from spirituality
to truth telling, fact seeking, redemption, and cannibalism. I mean, how do you -- how did you factor all of that in to your arc as a character?
GALLAGHER JR.: You know, it's -- it was an interesting process because when I first read the script, my first thought was, I can't do this. I had
said yes to the project before there was a script, because I was like, well, if it's John Logan writing the script, and it's the Avett Brothers,
and it's my friend Michael directing it, like, of course I want to do that. I want to be in that room. That sounds amazing. But it would be a year
before I actually read the piece.
And so, about a year later, they sent me the script. And I was like, uh, I have some thoughts. I have some questions. I'm not so sure I can pull this
one off, you guys. I really appreciate it. I respect you think that I'm the guy for this job. I think you got the wrong guy.
But I just kept -- it was a lot of blind faith. I was like, you've been called to this thing. You don't know how -- I mean, I had no idea how I was
going to play this role, but I just showed up on day one of rehearsal and I jumped in and I just listened to this music and I read the words and I
looked to my director and eventually, it just -- it rises up, you know, it comes to you, I think.
I don't -- it sounds very actory and sort of embarrassing to say it, but I don't feel like -- I feel like the characters playing me. I don't really
feel like I'm really -- I know that I'm doing the work, of course, every night, but there wasn't a ton of, like, thoughtful decision-making with
this role. It was a lot of instinct. I'm just like, OK, what's coming through the song and what's coming through the text?
GOLODRYGA: Well, you accomplish it. I mean, I saw opening night and it's just stellar. I mean, your performance, the music, the set design,
everything.
SCOTT AVETT: Major.
GOLODRYGA: Congratulations to all of you. Thank you for taking the time.
SETH AVETT: Thank you for having us.
GOLODRYGA: Can I ask if you're spending Thanksgiving together as a family?
SETH AVETT: We are.
SCOTT AVETT: We are.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, good. OK. Good. I don't know if I should go there. But, yes --
SETH AVETT: Everybody in this room.
GOLODRYGA: An extra seat at the table.
SETH AVETT: Let's do it.
GALLAGHER JR.: I'll be cool. I'll be cool. I want to just like --
(CROSS TALK)
GALLAGHER JR.: Pass the gravy, please.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you all.
SCOTT AVETT: Thank you.
SETH AVETT: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: That was so fun. Well, now, from tariffs to tax cuts, President-Elect Donald Trump promises he'll revitalize the United States,
bringing in a new golden age. Economist Oren Cass runs the conservative think tank American Compass, which aims to emphasize the importance of
family, community, and industry to the nation's prosperity and liberty. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss changing Republican fiscal policies and
what he thinks of Trump's plans.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Oren Cass, welcome to the show.
OREN CASS, FOUNDER AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COMPASS: Oh, thanks so much for having me.
ISAACSON: You were an adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012, but after that election, you helped start a group called American Compass. And it really
helped shift the Republican Party, and your own thinking shifted, I think, away from just a growth-oriented economy to one that was more populous.
Tell me if that's right, and explain why and how that happened.
CASS: It's mostly right. I should say I think growth is still hugely important, right? I don't want to go live in a log cabin in the woods, but
I think the way that we had focused on growth was just sort of growth for its own sake and assumed that all growth was good.
And, you know, I always refer to the -- we hear so much the economic pie metaphor, right? We're going to grow the pie and then everyone can have
more pie. And we really didn't pay attention to what was in the pie or who got to help bake it. If -- maybe take the metaphor too far. But you know,
people don't just consume stuff, they -- it's very important. Their identities as workers. It's very important that we have an economy that
still make stuff, that we don't just become dependent on other countries.
And I think, you know, really, over the last decade and since 2012, we saw the cost of not caring about those things. And so, you know, my focus,
American Compass' focus, increasingly, the focus of conservatives is, yes, we want growth but what kind of growth is it? How do we make sure it's a
growth that really supports workers and helps them support families?
ISAACSON: Tariffs seem to be part part of the center of the argument of this new conservative populism. But in some ways, conservatism and
Republicans have generally been for free trade. What changed?
CASS: Well, it's funny. It depends what time frame you look at. Republicans were the party of tariffs for most of Republican history.
Abraham Lincoln was proudly a tariff man. McKinley, huge tariff man, Teddy Roosevelt, very skeptical of free trade. You know, Eisenhower has a whole
chapter -- a section in his memoir where he talks about how, yes, we started to open up free trade after World War II, but always with an eye,
first and foremost, toward protecting American workers.
Even Ronald Reagan, when it when he came to Japan, especially, he was so protectionist that the libertarian Cato Institute called him the most
protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. And so, it's really a post- Cold War phenomenon that you had a number of folks on the right of center really, who I would say, are libertarian and kind of market
fundamentalists, more so than conservatives, who joined with a lot of folks on the left of center. A lot of economists, you know, the Larry Summers of
the world, who is Bill Clinton's treasury secretary to all say, free trade is the answer, and free trade is going to somehow make everybody better
off. And the reality is that hasn't worked.
ISAACSON: We've just gone through an election in which inflation was this huge issue. Aren't you worried that tariffs could raise the price of
American goods?
CASS: Well, tariffs will definitely have some effect on prices, especially in the short run. That's in part the point, right, is to make it more
attractive to buy things made here in America. I think the right way to think about it is with reference to the past, to think about where we were
in the year 2000 when people were saying we should get rid of our tariffs, we should do free trade with China, that will make people better off.
And we have to ask ourselves, did it make people better off? Yes, it made some things cheaper, but I think the overwhelming majority of Americans
recognized that it was a bad tradeoff. And so, what we're talking about now is making the other tradeoff instead, accepting that the cheapest thing
sometimes made with slave labor subsidized by a communist party isn't actually necessarily. It's certainly not free market to be buying that, and
it doesn't actually serve families well in the long run. It doesn't serve communities well.
And so, nothing is free there. There are tradeoffs in all of our policy decisions, but if we believe we made the tradeoff wrong when we leaned all
in on free trade, then we should actually have a lot of confidence that will be getting the tradeoff right when we go the other way instead.
ISAACSON: Well, what's the point of doing that? Is it to bring back manufacturing jobs? Is it to have much more of a made in America program?
CASS: I think the fundamental goal is to bring our economy back into balance. You know, high levels of trade could be a great thing if it was
actually trade, right? And that was the story that was told to us. There are things that other people can make more efficiently for us, and we'll
make things more efficiently for them, and everyone will be better off.
And if we can do that, that would be great. But what's happened instead is things we used to make now get made somewhere else, and there isn't
anything else that we make instead. And so, the goal --
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: But isn't that on us? Isn't that a problem with our own manufacturing?
CASS: No, it's not. Because the reason that everything moved offshore isn't because there's anything wrong with American workers. In fact,
American workers are among the most productive in the world. It's because foreign countries weren't playing by the rules. China was aggressively
subsidizing, you know, paying for the cost of most of went into making things there. Helping companies exploit workers there.
You know, another good example, even in very high technology products, think semiconductors. We invented semiconductors. We were the world leader
in semiconductors. Why does Taiwan now make the world's most advanced semiconductors? Not because there's anything special about that particular
rocky outcropping off the coast of China, it's because Taiwan's government plowed all of the money into saying, come build the semiconductors here.
And so, the model did not work because economists didn't really think very hard about how the people -- how the countries were behaving.
And so, I think if we can get back to a situation where there actually is a level playing field, we can get back to the kind of free market that
certainly I want to have. And that does typically work for people, which is one where, yes, it would be great if we're buying things from other
countries, but they also need to be buying things from us, and that's what's going to create better jobs and stronger communities in the United
States, and it's just going to create, frankly, more resilience.
I think one thing we've learned in this country, particularly through the pandemic, was that if you just rely on others to make stuff for you, you
end up in a very vulnerable position.
ISAACSON: Now, you have a whole range of things that could be made in America if you put a whole lot of tariffs on, ranging from semiconductors,
which you just mentioned, to say, down in Louisiana, Mississippi, where there used to be a lot of textiles and blue jeans being made. Do you think
it should be across the board, or are there certain things that you think we should put tariffs on and specialize on in America?
CASS: Well, the nice thing about a tariff across the board is it actually does, in a sense, let the market decide. So, let's say we put a 10 percent
tariff across the board. Anything that you can make in the U.S. for within 10 percent of the cost of making it somewhere else is something you'll
think about bringing back to the U.S. And if we do that, we don't have to have somebody in government deciding. oh, that's t-shirts, oh, no, that's
chemicals. Oh, no, that's semiconductors.
It's actually much more consistent with a free market to say, look, making things in America matters. So, we're going to put a thumb on the scale for
making more things in America. But in terms of what gets made in America, who makes the investments, where the stuff gets built, I would much rather
leave that up to the market.
And then to your point about, you know, semiconductors, if there are particular things you really care about making here, for defense and so
forth, then you can have a special program to support that. And that's what we have, the CHIPS Act, which is now supporting all of these semiconductor
plants in the United States, is a very focused support because I think rightly people recognize that chips are special. But we don't want to be
going and picking and choosing every special thing. We want to have a broad policy that then lets people in the market figure out what makes the most
sense to build here.
ISAACSON: Well, you just talked about the CHIPS Act, which was, in some ways, an industrial policy along the lines of some of the things you
recommended, to get manufacturing back. Do you think that the Trump administration should keep the CHIPS Act intact?
CASS: Yes, absolutely. You know, I've been -- American Compass has been very strong supporters of the CHIPS Act. It was bipartisan legislation. It
had significant support from Republicans in the Senate. I'd actually started out several years earlier as a Republican proposal in the context
of the National Defense Act.
And so, I think so far, the indications are that it's been very successful. The chips -- you know, the plants are getting built. They're starting to
come online and perform very well. And so, I think that's the place where we're getting an excellent return on investment.
ISAACSON: President Trump's tax cuts from before are set to expire next year, and I can't quite tell from reading you to the extent that you also
subscribe to what has generally been the Republican orthodoxy, which is cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes.
CASS: Well, I don't typically subscribe to the kind of market fundamentalist view that we've had in the past few decades on the right,
that you should just always -- just cut taxes more, no matter what. And again, that's a relatively recent thing. You know, Ronald Reagan, after his
initial tax cut, left the government with less revenue than he expected. Reagan raised taxes five times to close the budget deficit.
[13:45:00]
And so, I think all things equal, of course, we should want taxes to be as low as they can be. No one likes paying taxes, but we do have to pay -- we
do have to raise enough taxes to pay for the government that we want to have. And I think what we've seen in recent years is that, you know, there
was this theory, well, you cut taxes and they pay for themselves or you cut taxes, and that just creates so much growth that we're all better off
anyway, and that just hasn't come true.
ISAACSON: When you created American Compass, you said part of its goal was to be to figure out what the post-Trump right of center is going to be.
Well, we ended up having not post-Trump, but another Trump term. To what extent is he a good messenger or a good leader for this movement? And to
what extent some of what you're proposing conflict with what Donald Trump believes?
CASS: Well, I think we've seen that, you know, Trump has done an extraordinary service to the Republican Party and the conservative movement
and as a result to the nation in disrupting and rejecting a lot of the kind of old orthodoxy that was just not serving anybody well. And he's brought a
lot of new thinking, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, on a whole range of issues. And it has really created the space for
conservatives to stop just, you know, flipping through their 1980 playbook and imagine that it's always Ronald Reagan's first term and instead say,
look, it's the 2020s. We have a different set of problems today, and we're going to have to apply conservative principles to solving those problems.
And so, I think there are some places where he's on exactly the right track. You know, tariffs and trade policy is obviously one of those areas.
There are other areas where I would disagree with him, but I think the direction is a very --
ISAACSON: Like what?
CASS: You know, labor policy is an area where, you know, I tend to think we need to focus much more on worker power and actually be concerned with
workers having leverage to negotiate against employers. I think his view tends to be much more in the traditional Republican model or mold that
says, you know, we want sort of businesses to have freedom of movement and if they do what's best for profits, then that will end up working out for
workers as well.
So, there are lots of places where I would say we're kind of in the middle of a transition. But if I look at the direction we're going, look at the
choice of someone like J. D. Vance as his vice president, now, Marco Rubio is his secretary of state, I think we are clearly heading in a direction
for a much healthier and more genuinely conservative Republican Party that is going to be serving the interests of workers and their families. And I
think what we see in the election results from this year is that the American people are noticing that, too.
ISAACSON: One of the other things you've pushed for, and this aligns with what Trump wants even more so than you do, which is stopping immigration,
having e-verify mass deportations of immigrants who are here without documentation or illegally. To what extent is that, to you, a way to help
America's workers? And wouldn't that fundamentally gut large parts of the American economy, from agriculture to construction?
CASS: Well, I should say, first of all, you know, to be clear about what I want. First of all, I want to enforce the law. I think in any topic that we
are talking about, basic law and order and enforcing the laws we have has to be our starting point. And that's like, well, I don't want to stop
immigration, but I want to have an immigration policy that considers the labor market effects of immigration.
When we have a lot of workers in America, American citizens, people who are here legally, who are working in very low wage jobs, really struggling to
make ends meet, the idea of bringing in millions more workers to compete with them I think is absurd and does an extraordinary disservice to them.
And instead, what I'd like to see is to make a clear commitment, and this goes back to that basic point about capitalism, that the way to be
successful in the U.S., if you are an employer, if you're running a business, is by creating businesses that have good productive jobs that
Americans can and will do and allow them to support families.
And every time businesses are facing that challenge, they set their hair on fire and run around screaming labor shortage, labor shortage, please, we
need more cheap labor instead. And the answer has to be to say no, you don't get more labor, cheap labor, you get the enjoyment of solving this
challenge, which is make your workforce more productive. That is the secret sauce that brings prosperity to everybody. And it's what we have to demand
of our economy instead of trying to earn a lot of money without doing that.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: Let me read you something you wrote. You said, if Mr. Trump brings business executives into the government to improve customer service
and create greater space for private sector innovation, he will earn well deserved praise. Then you have a sort of but, comma, if he unleashes them,
as they seem to be asking, to shut down agencies, eliminate programs on which people can rely, and role play scenes from Ayn Rand novels, even some
of the savvier politicians in his own party will turn against him.
That phrase role play scenes from Ayn Rand novels, it almost evokes Elon Musk or maybe Vivek Ramaswamy. Are you worried about what they're doing?
CASS: Well, you know, my concern is with the understanding that you see it a lot of segments of the Republican Party still that what the American
people want is to just sort of slash and burn government and get rid of all of these programs. And what we find whenever we do research on what
Americans actually want is they're very frustrated with government that doesn't work well, that doesn't work efficiently, but there's almost
nothing that they want government to do less of.
When you actually go through the major things that government does, the kinds of support that government provides, even when you're just asking
conservative Republicans, even when you're talking about things like helping people afford health insurance, there's an overwhelming preference
for saying the government should either still doing the same or, in fact, doing more.
Now, obviously, that has to be balanced against what we can afford. And there are situations, if we're going to get our budget back in control, we
are going to have to find some ways to reduce spending. But the idea that there are huge areas of the government that people are just hoping we can
get rid of, that is a very narrow unpopular approach.
And I think, unfortunately, we have a lot of leaders, some political, but especially from the business community who don't necessarily understand
that. And so, I think there's tremendous opportunity for government deficiency, that would be a wonderful thing to pursue. But it's very
important to stay focused on the idea that what successful -- well, you want to call it populism or just good conservative government looks like
isn't getting rid of government, it's actually making it work better for people.
ISAACSON: Oren Cass, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
CASS: This was wonderful. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, we want to leave you with some reflections on the power of the possible. Christiane has been Malaga, Spain, where men's and
women's tennis has taken center stage this week. You may remember Rafael Nadal played his final match at the Davis Cup finals there.
In the Billie Jean King Cup Finals, Italy took the title. The tournament's namesake has devoted much of her life to women in sports, and she tells
Christiane that the players today are living her dream.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLIE JEAN KING, FOUNDER WTA: The original line in 1970 started women's, the birth of women's professional, September of 1970, and here's the three
things. This is where our three goals. That any girl born in this world, if she's good enough -- because this is pro tennis, if she's good enough, will
have a place to compete. Number two, that women would be appreciated for our accomplishments, not only our looks. Because everything is about our
looks. Especially -- oh, my gosh, then it was even worse. Number three, most important also, is that we'd be able to make a living playing the
sport we love. And had the passion to play. Those are the three things when we sat down.
I always love it when people say, Billie Jean, you know, you started the WTA, and it's about equality, and it's about this, and it's was about -- I
go, really? If you look at the three things why we started, those are what we put down.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So, I want to end on a sort of a business and your personal story. I've heard you say that there
have been three generations. The first three generations was about we --
KING: The first two.
AMANPOUR: The first two generations was about we.
KING: By the third.
AMANPOUR: And by the third generation, it's about I, in terms of the player's sense of community. On top of that, you, I've heard you say
before, that you could have won a lot more titles had you not been busy working for the we.
KING: Yes, but I made that decision.
AMANPOUR: I know you made it. I know you did. But --
KING: Absolutely concerted. But I sat down with myself and said, if I decide to keep doing this and trying to help the sport and women's sports
and other things, I'm never going to win as many titles. I'm just not. We had 4:00 in the morning meetings. I mean, I'm leaving, so I have to get it
ready, and no, I'm not going to.
AMANPOUR: But it's pretty extraordinary, and that also was part of the business aspect of it, and the human rights, and the civil rights, and the
equal rights part.
[13:55:00]
KING: Well, it goes back to that 12-year-old epiphany when I was going to fight for equality the rest of my life. Nothing's --
AMANPOUR: But you won 39 grand slams, right?
KING: I guess.
AMANPOUR: So, that's not too shabby.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A modest leader and inspiration. That was a great conversation to watch.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from Washington.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
