Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Labour Party's David Lammy; French President Macron's Big Gamble; The Promise And Pitfalls Of Longer Lifespans. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 23, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:45]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, THE GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you from London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Today on the show, polls predict that Britain's Labour Party will win big in next month's election after being out of power for 14 year. If that happens, my guest, David Lammy, is likely to become the country's foreign secretary. I'll ask him what Britain would do differently in Ukraine and the Middle East, and how he would deal with a potential President Trump.

You have called him woman-hating, Neo-Nazi, sympathizing psychopath. It's going to be an awkward meeting in the White House.

(Voice-over): Across the channel, France will hold elections even sooner. It's one of the most dangerous political gambles in recent memory played by President Emmanuel Macron. I'll ask "The Economist's" Paris bureau chief Sophie Pedder whether it can work.

And a sneak peek at America's mess with Mexico. My new primetime special.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take."

In June 2016, the Brexit referendum alerted us all to the rising power of populism and signal that Donald Trump had a real chance of winning. Visiting Britain now on the eve of its general election, I felt I caught another glimpse of where politics might be headed in advanced democracies.

Democrats facing a resurgent Donald Trump this fall should pay close attention. No matter what poll you look at the ruling Conservative Party appears headed for a catastrophic defeat. One poll in particular has captured everyone's attention. Conducted by Savanta for "The Telegraph," it predicts that Labour will beat the Conservatives, also known as the Tories, by 21 points.

A statistical model from Savanta and another firm, Electoral Calculus, translates these numbers into parliamentary seats. Based on polling a turnout estimates projecting that Labour will win over 500 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons. And the Conservatives will get barely 50. That would amount to the fewest seats won by the Conservative Party since its founding in 1834. According to these projections most of Britain's senior most cabinet ministers would lose in their own constituencies, including Rishi Sunak, who could become the first sitting prime minister to be so humiliated.

I should caution that other models relying on different data don't expect the results to be this bad for the Conservatives. But they still forecast a crushing defeat.

This fall from Grace is particularly stunning because in the last British elections in 2019, the Tories gained a majority of 365, the largest since the Margaret Thatcher years, and Labour had its worst night at the polls since 1935.

What explains the Conservative debacle? Rory Stewart, the Tory politician and author of a brilliant memoir, "How Not to be a Politician," argues that over the last decade the Conservative Party lost one of its most treasured attributes, seriousness. He told me the Labour Party has usually been seen as well-meaning, with its heart in the right place, but feckless, rash and often incompetent.

The Tories were seen as tough, even heartless but assuredly competent. That reputation has been trashed by the chaos of Boris Johnson, Theresa May, et all. But it's more than just incompetence. The Conservatives face a problem that afflicts the right almost everywhere. What do they stand for? Since 2010, the Tories presented themselves under David Cameron as the party of traditional fiscal conservatism, which meant austerity.

Then they pivoted to Trump-style populism under the Boris Johnson. And then to Thatcherite free market ideology under Liz Truss. Recently the populist hard-right Reform U.K. Party led by Nigel Farage has been climbing in the polls and dividing the Conservative vote, which might give Labour an even larger parliamentary majority than it would already have gotten.

[10:05:08]

As I've argued before, politics is moving away from the left-right divide over economics to an open-close one centered on cultural issues like immigration, identity, and multiculturalism. As the Tories remain internally divided on these issues reform presents itself squarely as advocating for more closed Britain. Assuming that the Tories do suffer a humiliating defeat, it's conceivable that Nigel Farage will find a way to take over the Conservative Party and make it thoroughly populist as Trump has done with the Republicans.

So the right in Britain is divided unlike Republican unity around Trump. So the real lesson may be for the American left. In Britain, many see this election as a negative vote against the conservative government rather than an affirmative vote for the Labour leader Keir Starmer. He's not a thrilling charismatic leader. He has a lower approval rating than Tony Blair had when he won big in 1997. But Starmer has been a brilliant strategist in his positioning of the

Labour Party. Frazier Nelson, the editor of "The Spectator," a legendary Tory publication, said to me the best argument in Starmer's favor is that he would handle the country as strategically and effectively as he has handled the Labour Party. Rory Stewart pointed out that by occupying the center Starmer has forced the conservatives for the right where there are fewer votes

Starmer took over the party from Jeremy Corbyn, a hard left ideologue who faced numerous accusations of antisemitism, which he denied. Starmer purged the party of radicals assured any hint of a woke agenda and has kept labeled firmly trained on the centerground of economic growth and better government services. Labour has mostly accepted the budget cuts proposed by the current conservative government is planning no major new taxes.

Starmer has ruled out a return to the European Union, probably because he knows that any prospect of open migration from the continent would see the crucial issue of immigration to the right. In fact, in his televised debate with Rishi Sunak, he attacked the Tories on immigration from the right, accusing Sunak of being caught the most liberal prime minister we've ever had on immigration," unquote.

To me the lesson from Britain is for the left to win, it must take out the center ground. Ensure especially that it cannot be outflank on immigration. And steer clear of overly ideological vogue politics that alienates many average voters. It is not a strategy that wins plaudits from the base but it is likely to win elections, which is more important.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my Washington Post column this week. And let's get started.

As I mentioned in my take, the Labour Party is poised to win Britain's July 4th general election after 14 years out of power. If that happens, my next guest will likely become the United Kingdoms' top diplomat, managing relations with Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world.

David Lammy, a Labour politician, is the country's current shadow foreign secretary. I sat down with him earlier this week in London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: David Lammy, pleasure to have you on.

DAVID LAMMY, LABOUR POLITICIAN: Thank you very much. Great to be here.

ZAKARIA: So first give me your prognosis. It seems like Labour is in for one of the largest victories any party has had in history. Are you prepared for that?

LAMMY: Look, let me just say this is my eighth general election. I have the privilege of traveling across the country. Look, I'm feeling like Britain is about to make a change. But I would say this. When I knock on doors across the United Kingdom, because of the turmoil of the last 40 years, this last period, particularly where we've got through so many prime ministers, there is a bewilderment on the doorstep.

There are group of voters very cynical about politics. The group of people who say they don't know is quite big and people will be making up their minds right into the voting booth, and so for all of those reasons, no complacency, the Labour Party is fighting for every single vote up until July the 4th.

ZAKARIA: When we look at Britain from outside, what strikes us is what seemed like a very idiosyncratic decision, to pull out of the European Union, which has not gone very well for Britain economically. You and the Labour Party had been deeply critical of that decision. You've said it's a mistake. It's been a catastrophe. So why not take Britain back into the European Union? You say nothing about this during the campaign.

[10:10:06]

LAMMY: Look, the truth is we had a protracted divorce. It was bitter. Terrible things were said by Boris Johnson and his acolytes. And it was only settled recently with the Windsor Framework that we struck in relation to Northern Ireland with the European Union in the last 18 months. And we're offering the European Union a security pact. And that is the ability to build on our relationship, particularly with war in Ukraine, but also other opportunities like energy, we can work together.

We want to get back to regular dialogue with the European Union. So what I would say on the Brexit issue is we need to win back the trust on both sides, I think. And then we need to build on the relationship. That is where we are.

ZAKARIA: So it's possible. I mean, couples do get back together.

LAMMY: Look, I know. We're absolutely clear. We're not re-entering the single market or the customs union. Those are red lines.

ZAKARIA: Why? Why not the customs union? Again, if this was a mistake to get out, why is it -- why doesn't it make sense to get back in?

LAMMY: Well, the truth is, if you are speaking to a European leader, they are not raising the issue of Brexit and even if you were to raise that issue, they would say, well, look, is there a settled opinion here in the United Kingdom? Well, there isn't because the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, a significant part of the electorate, has set its face against it. So this is not a debate that can be reopened unless there were to be a groundswell of a change of view. And whilst I may have views, the truth is that the Conservative Party is not in that position at this stage.

ZAKARIA: Do you believe that Britain is able to fight a long sustained, protracted war with Russia over Ukraine? I mean, are you thinking of it in those terms that you will do what it takes and if that means more defense spending, you're going to have to do a lot more? LAMMY: I never believed that I would sit here and my major criticism

of the British Conservative Party is that they have reduced our armed forces to a size that we haven't seen since the Napoleonic Wars. That is how bad it is. When the British Labour Party left office under Gordon Brown, we were spending 2.5 percent of GDP on defense. Our party is committed to returning to that 2.5 percent as soon as the fiscal climate allows.

We will have a defense of strategic review that will begin on day one so we can chart a course to get to that 2.5 percent. And we must lead and encouraging others to Europe to get to that point. I'm pleased to see 20 nations in Europe now meeting 2 percent, their NATO commitment. But there are still those under 2 percent unbelievably. And look, I've got to tell you, I see 2 percent as a floor, not a ceiling over the coming years.

ZAKARIA: There are people who say the battle lines in Ukraine are roughly where they are likely to be. That is going to be very hard for either side to gain substantially. And maybe we should start trying to look for a way to negotiate and to settle this so that, you know, you don't have the kind of massive bloodshed that you're going to have if the war continues. What do you say?

LAMMY: Look, in the end, this is in the hands of Vladimir Putin. He has set his face against leaving Ukraine. We're having this conversation as he meets with the leadership in North Korea. I'm hugely concerned to see North Korean shelves being used in Ukraine, to see Iranian drones being used in Ukraine. This growing strategic alliance across these autocratic states, we should be very concerned about.

My view is that Putin remains a systemic threat beyond the issue of Ukraine and the U.K. government, we have been absolutely clear as the Labour Party that we've not been partisan on this issue with the Conservatives. We're absolutely clear that we stand by Ukraine in our efforts. The whole of the free world needs us to win this fight.

ZAKARIA: Turning to the Middle East, you have said that were the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu, Britain would honor that.

[10:15:01]

So I just want be clear, what you're saying is if that arrest warrant were issued, you were foreign secretary, you would arrest Bibi Netanyahu, where he to step on British soil?

LAMMY: Let's just step back with the starting point. The architecture that was created after the Second World War, the rules-based order that we believe so much in and, you know, the international legal structure, one of the big architects of that was Churchill in our country. It's something that has been a guiding light for the United Kingdom over many years. And that's why we are signatories to the statute of Rome, and we believe in the ICC and the ICJ.

Now, I've seen what the chief prosecutor has said about his desire for warrants. There is a process, a court process that will determine whether they will be granted. But we have been very clear in the Labour Party that we believe in the rules-based order. We believe in international law. We also believe in the separation of powers, very important in democracy. So it is not for me as a politician to start quizzing or debating the determination that are made by senior judges whether domestically or internationally.

ZAKARIA: I agree, but I'm asking --

LAMMY: I have to comply with that.

ZAKARIA: Yes. So you will comply.

LAMMY: I have to comply with that, if an order is issued. That is an if. Let us see where we get to down the line.

ZAKARIA: But if it is, you will comply?

LAMMY: Here in the U.K., we will comply and that will be the same across Europe. I know that the United States is not a signatory to the statute so there will be a different debate in the United States about these issues. I recognize that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I'll ask David Lammy whether he could find common cause with a President Donald Trump, given his strong critiques of the former president in the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: You have called him a woman-hating, Neo-Nazi sympathizing psychopath.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:21:37]

ZAKARIA: And we are back with the British shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy. I sat down with him earlier this week in London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Your most important ally is the United States of America. Were the election to take place and it looks like there's a 50 percent chance Donald Trump would be elected president, you have called him a woman-hating, Neo-Nazi sympathizing psychopath, it's going to be an awkward meeting in the White House.

(LAUGHTER)

LAMMY: Look, let me just say that if I am elected foreign secretary, I don't think there will have been a foreign secretary in the U.K. history quite as Atlanticist as I am. I have family in the United States. My father died in the United States. I studied at Harvard in the United States. I worked in the United States as a lawyer.

It's also the case that the nature of the U.K.'s relationship with the United States means that whoever is in the White House, whoever is at Number 10, the nature of our intelligence relationship, our military relationship and the fact that we see the world largely through similar eyes means that that partnership is important for us, but it's also in part important for many other countries in the world.

It's been really important for me over many years now to have built partnerships, not just in the Democrat Party, but amongst Republicans, and let me say --

ZAKARIA: But do you -- look, but you've got to admit, it's going to be much harder for him to warm to you. Do you regret saying that?

LAMMY: Oh, come on. Our current foreign secretary, David Cameron, called Donald Trump a xenophobe and a misogynist. You will be hard pressed to find any politician across the globe who in that first period, Twitter particularly was high, who did not have robust things to say, but the business of our freedom with war here in Europe and the sovereign responsibilities I have in this country if I become foreign secretary and to the world mean that, look, I'm sorry. This is way beyond Twitter words.

This is the key partnership that the United Kingdom and the U.S. have. It goes beyond political party. And I look forward if that is the decision of the American people to change leadership in the United States, to working with Americans. And that is why I continue to work with the Republican Party on the seven trips that I have made to D.C. since becoming shadow foreign secretary.

ZAKARIA: Do you worry that Donald Trump will weaken America's commitment to NATO? And what would that mean for Europe?

LAMMY: Look, I recognize in Donald Trump quite another rhetoric. It's quite noisy. But I also recognize what Donald Trump last time delivered in office. And the truth is Donald Trump actually upped American troops to NATO and their presence in Europe. He sent the first Javelins to Ukraine actually because he likes a deal and he likes to get things done. He's not going to want to see the United States or its partners lose any battles ahead. That is the truth of it.

ZAKARIA: And you're going to be a diplomat. So what are you going to say to break the ice with him given that history?

[10:25:02]

LAMMY: Oh, look, I mean, what I see in Donald Trump is a huge personality. Clearly someone who knows his own mind. I am known here in Europe as having friends across the political divide. I'm not particularly partisan. I might say also, I am a Christian. I was discussing with I think it was J.D. Vance my Christian faith and the commonality between the book I wrote a few years ago, "Tribes," and his book, "Hillbilly Elegy," and our assessment, particularly of working class communities here in Europe and the United States. The pressures they felt and why we are living through these times with the politics that we have. So for me in politics is about finding the common ground.

ZAKARIA: David Lammy, my pleasure to have you on.

LAMMY: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, French politics is in turmoil a week after President Macron called surprise parliamentary elections. Is the right-wing party of destined to lead the country? We'll discuss that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:48]

ZAKARIA: Last week, President Macron of France called snap elections for his country's parliament. He did so after elections for the European parliament so his party secured just 14.6 percent of the vote. The far-right National Rally party of Marine Le Pen, by contrast, won 31.4 percent, a historic vote share for her party.

Macron said he couldn't do nothing in the wake of this defeat. He hopes this new election will stave off the far-right coming to power in 2027 when France has presidential elections. But it is a risky gamble for the immediate future of French politics.

Macron's party is polling in a distant third place behind Marine Le Pen's party in first, and a coalition of leftist party is in second. So, what could the future of French politics hold? Joining me now is Sophie Pedder, the Paris bureau chief of "The Economist."

Sophie, welcome. So, first from everything you can tell what was the logic behind this? He does badly. His party gets trounced in the European elections, but he didn't have to hold elections for the French parliament. What do you think motivated him? And it appears to have been Macron's decision alone.

SOPHIE PEDDER, PARIS BUREAU CHIEF, THE ECONOMIST: Yes, that's right. And, of course, under the French Fifth Republic constitution, it is the power of the president to dissolve the national assembly when he wishes to do so. So, he is using that constitutional power.

It took everybody by surprise. I mean, literally everybody including his own prime minister who only learned about this decision about an hour before it was announced. And the one argument is indeed the one you've just pointed to, Fareed, it's that this could in time help make the hard-right look less electable for 2027 when the presidency is at stake, not just the government and the parliament.

And the other is that he felt himself boxed into a corner. This is an alternative explanation that he would be running a minority government for two years, the president has been. And that he was probably going to face a vote of no confidence in September when his parliament voted on his budget. And that this could have forced that kind of election on him.

So that -- you know, Macron, as you know, likes to control what he can and take the initiative when he can. And the thought that this was a way of at least controlling the timing of the election and catching everyone else unaware.

ZAKARIA: Now, an interesting development is taking place which is the old center-right party, the party of General de Gaulle, seems to have split in a bizarre way where half of them want to ally with Marine Le Pen and the other half do not. Has this all sorted itself out?

PEDDER: I mean, what I think we're looking at is the aftershocks really going back to what happened in 2017 when Emmanuel Macron was elected for the first time. And he really upended the party political system in France by creating this new centrist movement that crushed on the left the Socialist party at the time, crushed on the right the Republicans party. Those were the two parties that have dominated post-war politics in France and post-war governments.

And in doing so, in creating this center, he has sort of really shaken up the party political system. We're seeing the aftershocks of that now because we are seeing two blocks emerge, which are essentially led or dominated by the extremes, the hard-left and Marine Le Pen's hard- right. And the Republicans, all that we've seen in the psychodrama of the last few days in the Republicans party, I think, is an attempt to try and clarify where an Earth they have a future if they do have a future at all crushed between these big blocks.

ZAKARIA: So, if you're going to abandon the left, abandon the right, create the center, you then have to build that party into a really potent enduring institutional force. And it doesn't seem like Macron has paid much attention to building that party.

PEDDER: I think that has been -- one of the weaknesses of his presidency has been the institutional structure behind his movement, which was so effective for him in being elected in 2017 and then reelected in 2020.

[10:35:04]

But he hasn't enabled that to take route. But I think what has also happened is a kind of dynamic that's to do with the accelerated political cycle. You know, seven years in power, which is what he has been. He's become an incumbent that is the target of a lot of -- of that time for a change feel in the country. Seven years is not that long in power, but it feels already as if people want to see something different.

And so, it's -- it's partly about the center, but it's also partly, I think, about the political cycle. And this -- there's a very strong feeling in France at the moment that they want to have something different and that different is probably one of the extremes.

ZAKARIA: Bottom line seems to me, again, you see the center is weak, the far-right, the populous right is resurgent. And if you're going to take them on and win you have to be very clever, effective, and lucky as a centrist.

PEDDER: I think that's right. I mean, it's very difficult for the centers to hold. We've seen that across Europe.

That's not impossible. We've seen the return of centrists or a center- right government in Poland don't forget after a period of a populist government on the right. So, it isn't impossible, but it's an incredibly difficult case to make. And in this era, it seems increasingly more so.

So, that is, I think, what Macron is up against. That's what his party is up against. The mood is not positive among a lot of the members of parliament that I've spoken to and I've watched on the campaign trail. They're saying this is an incredibly tough election for them. And that could end up with really quite damaging losses for the Macron's party.

ZAKARIA: Sophie Pedder, always a pleasure to talk to you.

PEDDER: Pleasure to speak to you too, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, human lifespans have doubled in the last 125 years. That sounds like great news, right? But it does come with some massive new challenges, to health care, employment, social security, and to all of us as human beings. We'll be back with that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:41:47]

ZAKARIA: When my next guest was born in 1965, the most common age of death in the United Kingdom where he lives, was under one. Today, it's 87 years. What this marks is a seismic shift in longevity that Andrew Scott, a macroeconomist, has been studying for years now.

Scott argues that these longer lifespans are as big a disruptive force as climate change and artificial intelligence. His new book is "The Longevity Imperative: How to Build a Healthier and More Productive Society to Support Our Longer Lives." Andrew Scott, welcome.

ANDREW SCOTT, AUTHOR, "THE LONGEVITY IMPERATIVE": Thank you.

ZAKARIA: So, what do those two statistics tell us? You know, it used to be that people died -- lots of people died before they're one. Now they live into their 80s. How recent has this spur in living longer been?

SCOTT: Yes, it's been a remarkably constant trend. Roughly over the last 150 years, every 10 years, life expectancy increase by two or three years. But now it really is not about getting to 70. It's about now your chances getting to being 90 or even higher. So, it's a really persistent change, but I think it's something we haven't really noticed about.

Let's go back to that two or three increase in life expectancy every 10 years. That's like saying at the end of every day here's another six to eight hours. And I think that we don't understand this is really about having more time.

ZAKARIA: And what you point out is now we're getting into numbers, the 80s, the 90s, where as you point out, things start to break down. You point out that we age, you know, slowly and then all of a sudden. And that all of a sudden part does tend to be sort of in the late 70s.

SCOTT: Yes. No, I mean, I think, you know, the really profound thing is now as we are likely to become old. Fifty percent of children born in high-income countries can expect to live into their 90s. But we fear getting old. We worry about outliving our health, our finances, our relationships, our purpose.

So, what do we do now? Because the mistake is to think that aging is about something that happens when you're very old. It's something that happens over the whole of your life.

And the really good news is not just we're living longer and have got more time, but we can change how we age. We can influence how we age. And that didn't use to be important, but it really is now.

ZAKARIA: So, what are the most important things you can do? Because you say you got to start planning now --

SCOTT: Yes.

ZAKARIA: -- in your 50s and 60s --

SCOTT: Yes.

ZAKARIA: -- for how you want to age.

SCOTT: Yes.

ZAKARIA: What are the most important things?

SCOTT: Well, I mean, there's nothing sort of revolutionary. I mean, there's some really interesting stuff happening in science and the biology of aging, which may transform our future. But really, I think, we're going to focus on three things.

We already have long lives. We got to make them healthier for longer. You've got to make sure you're healthy for as long as possible. And we've got to finance a longer life, which means you're going to have to be earning for longer.

So, it has big implications about your careers and future-proofing your careers and how you take care of your money and your skills. But, of course, health is crucial. And there are things we can do to age better.

I'm not here to tell you anything that you don't know already. It's about eating better. It's about not drinking. It's about not smoking. It's about not being obese. It's about exercising. And the difference between people who do those things and then those who don't is about 10 years of healthy life expectancy.

[10:45:04]

ZAKARIA: What about how to pay for it? I mean for the -- first the individual because you're right. If -- you know, I think about that sometimes if you're roughly speaking in your 60s, you're going to stop working, and you're going to die when you're 95. That is 30 years where you have to be able to pay the bills.

SCOTT: Now, this is a bit where everyone doesn't like what I have to say because it's great to say, hey, you can live longer and you can be healthier for longer. But if you don't see a fall in your standard of living, you've got to produce more over your lifetime. And I think unless A.I. comes along and makes us all much more productive and solves the problem it means we have to work for longer.

I think people, obviously, don't like that. And I think that's a very valid point because you've got to think, well, what job can I do that I want to do? What's out there that's available.

As a university professor, it's relatively easy for me to carry on working for longer. If I'm a construction worker, it's not. I'm going to have to try and shift into something different. So, career has changed a great deal with this longer life.

ZAKARIA: But you have to -- you have to start planning and you may have to plan about shifting a career, really thinking about something completely different.

SCOTT: Now, the heart of my book is to say, look, for the first time ever in human history we're going to live a long life. So, we have to change how we age.

Take careers, for instance. In the 20th century, we invented what I called a three-stage life. We invented teenagers. We invented retirement, and we have education, work, retirement. And as we're living these longer lives into our 90s, we can't just stretch that out.

There's not really anything you can learn at 20 that's still going to be relevant when you're 70 or 80. So, careers are going to become much more multi-stage. You're going to have different jumps and sequences. Perhaps sometimes you're working full-time, sometimes part-time. But you're going to have to sort of think a little bit more ahead and say, well, this is what I'm doing for now. What comes next?

We got to invest in our future now. And that's not about money. It's about health, relationships, and skills.

ZAKARIA: You're macroeconomist by training. Obviously, what you're saying has a big budgetary implication.

SCOTT: Yes.

ZAKARIA: Older people work less. They draw more in terms of pensions. They draw much more in terms of health care.

SCOTT: Yes. ZAKARIA: How do you make the math work?

SCOTT: Well, the things I'm really worried about and I think every listener should be worried about, every viewer, from the age of 50 -- in America at age 50 about 80 percent of Americans is working. By the age of 65 that has fallen to about 30 percent. And that's not because people are choosing to retire. They get ill. They have to look after someone who is ill. Their skills are out of date. There's ageism in the workplace.

So, I think that's really, as a macroeconomist, where we have to focus. How do we keep people working from 50 up to the current state pension age.

ZAKARIA: What's the most, you know, optimistic way to look at a world in which people are living until they're 95 or 100, they're working until they are 70?

SCOTT: This increase in longevity -- this increase in the number of old people, we call that an aging society, and we talk about doom and gloom. It's fewer children lost in infancy. It's fewer parents snatched away mid-life. It's more grandparents meeting their grandchildren.

This is a phenomenal opportunity. If we adapt and adjust to the new reality we have these longer lives. That's why I put up there with A.I. and climate change, which never gets our attention because if we don't adapt and adjust, we live a long life that's unhealthy, more worried about money, and it can be quite boring.

ZAKARIA: What are you going to be doing at age 80?

SCOTT: I don't know what I'll be doing at 80. If I've got good health, I've got money, good relationships, and a sense of purpose my 80-year- old self will have choices. And I think that's the key thing.

ZAKARIA: Pleasure to have you on.

SCOTT: My pleasure.

ZAKARIA: Long life.

SCOTT: You too.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I will give you a sneak preview of my latest documentary, "AMERICA'S MESS WITH MEXICO." It's about the very complicated relationship between the two neighboring nations. Back with that, in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:53:31]

ZAKARIA: Earlier this month, Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, whose party won in a landslide, garnering around 60 percent of the votes. Sheinbaum is set to take office in October and may offer a reset in relations with her country's neighbor to the north. And America's relations with Mexico, especially where the southern border is concerned, are playing an oversized role in the Biden-Trump contest.

Tonight, I'll examine it all in my new documentary, "AMERICA'S MESS WITH MEXICO," airing at 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN and CNN International. I want to show you a clip from that special that illustrates Mexico's burgeoning importance for America, whose southern neighbor is no longer just a key player on migration, but is also becoming a major economic player. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Mexico faces enormous challenges like migration, the drug cartels, and corruption. But it's also a nation of great promise that could be on the cusp of a long economic boom. JPMorgan's CEO recently said that if you had to pick one country to invest in Mexico might be the number one opportunity.

The big reason because in the great competition between the world's two great economic powers, the United States and China, the big winner could be Mexico. To understand why we need to visit a city close to the Texas border which is at the center of Mexico's hopes for a brighter future.

[10:55:12]

Monterrey, Mexico, is nothing short of a boom town these days. It resembles Southern California with swanky shopping malls, pricey restaurants, and luxury apartments. Outside of town, new factories are sprouting up everywhere. That's because this city of 5 million, a major industrial hub in Mexico, is at the center of a massive metamorphosis in the world economy, where Mexico is challenging China as America's factory.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Don't miss "AMERICA'S MESS WITH MEXICO" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on CNN and CNN International. And thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I'll see you tonight for the special and back here next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]