December 3, 2020

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.”

Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT-ELECT: America is back, ready to lead the world, not retreat from it.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): President-elect Joe Biden promises to restore America’s global leadership. But how does the rest of the world feel about

that?

A look ahead with foreign policy commentator Peter Beinart and former Pentagon official Kori Schake.

Then:

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY): The first vaccine delivery to New York will be 170,000.

AMANPOUR: The COVID cavalry is on the way to New York. But, as hospitalizations rise there, I ask New York Mayor Bill de Blasio if the

worst is still to come.

And:

W. KAMAU BELL: Do you think that maybe Joe Biden has John Kerry and Al Gore like on speed dial on his phone, and actually just hit

the wrong one? Like, they’re…

(LAUGHTER)

AMANPOUR: Our Hari Sreenivasan speaks to comedians W. Kamau Bell and Hari Kondabolu about that irreverent new podcast, “Politically Reactive.”

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

President-elect Biden has a clear and consistent message on foreign policy: The United States is back at the head of the table — this after four years

of Donald Trump’s disruptive America first wrecking ball.

Biden says he’s been getting support for this vision from all the world leaders who he’s been speaking to since the election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: I have been struck by how much they’re looking forward to the United States reasserting its historic role as a global leader, both in the

Pacific as well, as the Atlantic, all across the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But while many world leaders may welcome a restoration of stable U.S. policy under Biden, does his vision of America as the world’s

policeman or even its moral leader fit anymore? In other words, should America lead, partner or get out of the way?

Foreign policy analyst Peter Beinart raises this very question in a column for “The New York Times.” It’s called “Biden Wants America to Lead the

World. It Shouldn’t.” And joining him is Kori Schake, a former official at both the Defense and State departments. She’s a Republican who’s advised

traditionalists like John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Welcome to both of you.

Let me first ask you to set up your thesis, Peter, which runs contrary, obviously, to the president-elect and many of the leaders, anyway, over

here in the alliance.

You’re saying that the idea of leadership is almost a misnomer, misunderstood, and potentially even dangerous. Why do you say that about

America?

PETER BEINART, “THE NEW YORK TIMES”: So, first, I think you to have define the word leadership.

It doesn’t just mean motherhood and apple pie. It means being in charge. Joe Biden himself said, it means being at the head of the table. I think

the United States needs to be at the table, but not necessarily at the head of the table.

First of all, the United States doesn’t wield anywhere near the relative power that we did in the — at the beginning of the Cold War. Back then,

our GDP was about half of the world’s GDP. It’s now about one-seventh. By many metrics, China already has a larger GDP, and that gap is going to

grow.

So, it’s first unrealistic. Secondly, it’s not what most Americans want. It reflects a real gap between foreign policy elites and the American people.

Poll after poll shows that Americans want America to be engaged in the world, but in a shared partnership. They specifically reject the notion of

American leadership in favor of partnership.

And, finally, we have to ask ourselves as Americans hard questions about whether we have earned the moral right to claim that we are leaders. We’re

the only country that left the Paris climate change agreement. We left the WHO in the middle of a pandemic.

We have turned — we have — the Trump administration has wrecked the World Trade Organization. And even before the Trump administration, our post-9/11

wars had created, by one estimate, 37 million refugees.

I think we need a little bit of humility. We can be part of the solution, but we have not earned the right, nor do we have the power to be in charge.

AMANPOUR: So, that is a lot there.

And I just want to ask you, Kori Schake, having been in the rooms where it happens, so to speak, in the Defense Department, in the State Department

advising presidential candidates on a more traditionalist foreign policy, should America be at the table, and not at the head of the table? What kind

of difference would that make?

KORI SCHAKE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It would make an enormous difference, because being at the

table, being just one of many is not sufficient to sustain the existing order against the challenges that are being pushed forward by China and by

others.

There’s a reason that the countries that have the policies that Peter is advocating for the United States, those are the very countries that

desperately want a return to American leadership, because they understand that, unless the United States gathers around us like-minded countries to

establish and enforce the rules, somebody else will, and you will like those rules a lot less than you will like the rules that the United States

and its friends created out of the ashes of World War II.

AMANPOUR: But, just quickly, before I turn it back to Peter, what about this notion that it’s true, not a majority of the American people — I

don’t know what the actual number is, but polls have been going on for a long time — they want a major role, but not the leading role. That’s the

popular view.

And then the idea that America is not as, let’s say, economically strong as it used to be, when it could wield a huge amount of power. What about those

issues?

SCHAKE: So, I don’t see polls of big general questions like should America lead or participate are nearly as instructive as specific polls. Do you

think the government of China should be able to put a million of its citizens in concentration camps, or do you think the United States should

organize other countries to oppose that?

I think you would get an overwhelming American support for that, because the values that undergird the American system, Americans believe are

universal, and our friends believe they are universal.

And we want an international order that helps advance individual human rights and human dignity and human opportunity. And if you ask the question

that way, you actually get an enormous amount of American support.

And on the second question, which is that the United States isn’t as powerful relatively as it was in 1945, that’s certainly true. But you don’t

need as much power to sustain a positive order as you needed to establish it.

And, moreover, it’s true that the United States all by itself is only roughly 20 percent of GDP globally, but if you add up the European Union,

Mexico, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the countries that share America’s vision of the international order and support America’s vision of

the international order, you’re well over two-thirds of international global power.

AMANPOUR: So, Peter, I want to put to you — let’s just quote what secretary of state nominee Antony Blinken said: “Whether we like it or not,

the world simply does not organize itself.”

And I guess we have kind of seen that. America has been at the table and not leading and at the head of the table for four years under President

Trump. And a lot of allies and a lot of analysts sort of bemoaned the fact that — for instance, let’s just take the COVID pandemic.

America’s traditional leadership role in gathering a coalition and actually organizing its way and the world’s way out of something like this, which

has been seen in the past, whether it’s Ebola, the financial crisis, et cetera, has led us to where we are right now.

Do you not see that kind of organizing role that actually only America can do?

BEINART: I think America can be part of playing that role, but I think the problem with the vision that Kori Schake laid out, as sincere and earnest

and well-meaning as it clearly is, is that it is based on a deeply naive understanding of how the United States has actually been conducting itself.

In many ways, it is the United States that has been the greatest wrecking ball for these principles of liberal international order that we claim to

advance. It is the United States that has repeatedly gone to war and invaded other countries without the imprimatur of international law.

It is the United States that has taken upon itself the right with to essentially extrajudicially kill people through drone attacks across the

world, across the Middle East, and more recently assassinate the major official of a foreign country.

The United States has repeatedly interfered in foreign elections. So, I think the United States has the capacity to do great good around the world.

But I think — the reason in my piece I quote Martin Luther King speaking in 1967 when he calls America the greatest purveyor of violence in the

world, I’m not talking about inside the country. Obviously, China has been far more repressive than we are internally.

But I think when we think about our role externally, the harm that we have done to the liberal rules-based international order that foreign policy

elites claim to support, by leaving the Iran deal, by leaving the Paris climate accord, by our wars that have produced so much devastation, we need

to be a little bit more humble and think a little bit more, as doctors do, about being Hippocratic, first do no harm.

AMANPOUR: Kori, I mean, there’s quite a lot of facts and truth to that.

What do you say about, for instance, us not being part of the ICC, which is the International Criminal Court, the whole business about what Peter was

just saying, drones and the post-9/11 policy that actually has created quite a lot of pushback around the world for U.S. — quote, unquote —

“leadership”?

SCHAKE: Yes, I think the United States very often makes bad choices.

There reason that so many countries still want the United States to be the organizer and the dominant power in the international order is because the

alternatives are worse, Right?

Think about Zambia, a country that has just defaulted on its international loans. They just appealed for American and international help because the

government of China is trying to break the existing rules of order and force priority repayment to Chinese state-owned companies.

That would prevent Zambia from being able to get future loans if they don’t treat all debtors equally. So, it’s those kinds of rules that the United

States has established, where we didn’t wring the maximum amount of advantage for ourselves. We put forward rules that worked to the security

and the prosperity of the majority of countries.

And that’s why, despite our mistakes, so many of America’s friends around the world and so many countries that benefit from the existing order really

want the United States to step back into its traditional role, despite our mistakes.

AMANPOUR: So, let’s just…

(CROSSTALK)

BEINART: Sorry.

AMANPOUR: Yes, go ahead, Peter, because I want to play a little bit of an interview I just did with the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who said the

same thing.

I mean, obviously, NATO was President Trump’s favorite wrecking ball — or, rather, punching bag. And many in Europe were afraid that a second Trump

term might see the U.S. pulled out of NATO altogether.

Just want to play this, and then I will get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY-GENERAL: For me, the most important thing is that we need to have the United States and Canada present in Europe.

Of course, I welcome E.U. efforts on defense, but E.U. can never defend Europe. Eighty percent of NATO’s defense expenditures are coming from non-

E.U. allies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: For instance, the United States, Canada, Britain, et cetera.

And let’s not forget that NATO always says the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked, all for one, one for all, was for the United States by all

the other countries after 9/11.

I mean, Peter, there are areas, like America’s superiority in lift and all those sort of logistic abilities that it has, that the world would be

pretty much — or at least the alliance would be pretty much worse off without, wouldn’t you agree?

BEINART: Sure.

I am not arguing that the United States should not play a significant role in trying to solve common problems. To the contrary. I mean, I think the

United States should be doing that.

But I think we need to try to do that with an honest appraisal of how we have actually behaved. And rather than creating a kind of a — rather than

being naive about our own role, let’s just talk about — talk about what Kori was talking about, about China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

China has gone all over the world and given countries capital to develop, because they wanted it and because it was not available from the United

States at the same level.

And, yes, there have been abuses, certainly, but if you talk to people in Africa, for goodness’ sakes, in other parts of the world, about their

experience with aid from the IMF, with institutions dominated by the United States, I think you will not see this vision of — that the United States

has been pure and China, in its external behaviors, has been malevolent.

In fact, the Asian Development Bank and some of the other institutions that China has created have actually been very helpful in getting other

countries global capital.

The United States has a very important and valuable role to play. What I’m trying to argue against is this assumption that we are on the side of the

angels, and that anything we do bad might just be a mistake and exception to the norm.

And I think, if you actually look at the way people in the rest of the world look at the United States, they tend to have a much less Disneyland

perspective on us than we sometimes do.

AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a little graphic that we have, which shows, over a period of some 20 years, the Pew Research numbers of

countries and their favorable or otherwise view of the United States.

And it does show a pretty precipitous drop over the last 20 years, since the year 2000.

Kori, though, I want to ask you something. And this is quite interesting, because the United States, certainly in its dealings with China, has always

said anyway that it will play the human rights card, that human rights wherever is a central plank in the U.S. foreign policy, and a defense of

democracy and freedom and the other key values.

It is interesting to hear — and I’m sure you have been reading as well — quite a lot of Chinese opposition figures, Hong Kong opposition figures

elsewhere also in Asia who believe that actually Trump’s disruptiveness, his orthodoxy, the way he barrels into Xi Jinping or whoever else is more

effective or could be more destabilizing for these autocrats than the tried-and-tested policy-as-usual human rights of a Biden or the Democrats.

How do you work that out? Were you surprised by those kinds of, I don’t know, conclusions out there?

SCHAKE: I wasn’t surprised, because what dissidents value about the Trump administration is that it, for the first time, said China is a malevolent

actor internationally and domestically, and the United States needs to push back against that.

I think dissidents within China very much valued that. They would have also preferred that the United States acted in concert with allies, worked

together to create a common trade front against China.

So, the Trump administration understood that China’s behavior was growing darker and darker, more dangerous, both domestically and internationally.

And it took a stronger line than previous American administrations had. But China’s behavior was growing increasingly malevolent, which is why.

So I think what dissidents in China and Hong Kong and other places would like to see is the United States rightly organizing other countries,

leading other countries to take a common front against what China is trying to do to corrode and undercut the existing international order, and to

create a space beyond which no one in the international community has a right to say or advocate for human rights and individual liberties.

AMANPOUR: Finally, to you, Peter.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: Yes?

BEINART: I just wanted to say, absolutely, what China is doing in Hong Kong and Xinjiang is horrific. We should stand with those dissidents.

But we actually have more power to do things about the oppression of dissidents in countries that we fund, in countries where we sell arms. And

if you look at those countries, if you look at Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Bahrain, or you look at Palestinians living in Gaza, which the U.N. has

said is now unlivable by human beings, which receives $3 billion of U.S. aid a year, I would say that the moral responsibility starts with the

places where we have the most power to actually do something about the oppression of those dissidents.

And we have not been doing a very good job.

AMANPOUR: OK, last word to you then, Kori, because, very briefly, you have also been seeing stories about Russia and President Putin, how he has not

rushed to the defense, for instance, of Alexander Lukashenko after that fraudulent election, in terms of the results, how he has actually played

the mediator and the peacemaker in the very vicious fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh.

What do you — how do you analyze what he’s doing? And, particularly, as we know, I guess he still aims to sort of undercut the U.S. and Western

alliances and institutions.

SCHAKE: Yes, Putin’s playing a weak and weakening hand very adroitly by moving in to dominate situations like in Syria, like in Nagorno-Karabakh,

where the United States is doing exactly what Peter advocates, which is just being one of the countries participating, instead of taking a leading

role to identify a good solution and organizing other countries to help contribute to a good solution.

So, Putin’s taking advantage of where we are doing what Peter is advocating for the United States to do.

AMANPOUR: Well, we’re going to have four years to assess the incoming administration, and we will be talking to you as that gets under way.

Kori Schake, Peter Beinart, thank you so much indeed for joining us.

And, right now, we’re getting word of actually a happy update and perhaps an example of what international pressure can do. On Tuesday, we brought

you the story of Karim Ennarah and two of his human rights colleagues in Egypt who were arrested there on trumped-up terrorism charges for meeting

with a dozen Western diplomats.

Now, according to the head of their organization, Hossam Baghat, all three men have been released, this as, I say, after a major international outcry

over their arrest and, of course, an outcry over Egypt’s continuing crackdown on civil society.

Next, we turn to leadership inside the United States. And yet another shocking coronavirus record has now been said. Over 100,000 Americans now

find themselves in a hospital bed. And with COVID deaths also at an all- time high, infectious disease expert and member of Biden’s COVID advisory board Michael Osterholm has a harsh warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH: Right now, we have stretched our health care

worker staff as far as we can. And it will get to the point where the quality of care will be severely hampered if, in fact, we don’t have these

health care workers.

So you may get a bed in a hospital. But will you get the kind of trained health care workers that can care for you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: That’s certainly very troubling, but hope may be on the horizon, as the United States gets ready to roll out its vaccine in a matter of

weeks.

Bill de Blasio is mayor of New York City, where there is a worrisome rise in hospitalizations. And he’s joining me now from there.

Mayor de Blasio, welcome to the program.

These are really terrible numbers that we’re hearing. And it’s all over the country, including some dangerous spikes in your own city and state.

What can you tell us about the state of affairs right now, particularly in hospitalizations?

BILL DE BLASIO (D-NY) MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Christiane, we have seen certainly an increase in hospitalizations, although less than we expected

to date, and with less severity, in the sense of the impact on our intensive care units.

So, we are very concerned. The quote you just ran certainly typifies what I’m feeling, the concern about hospital capacity, hospital staff, what

happens if the numbers start to go up abruptly. But, to date, what we have seen is still a manageable situation in our hospitals. We still have

capacity and much better approaches to COVID patients that have led to better outcomes by far than what we experienced in the early spring.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask. You say, so far, it’s manageable unless something terrible happens.

We’re seeing terrible things happen elsewhere. The mayor of Los Angeles is basically telling everybody just to stay put, don’t leave the house, unless

for absolute emergencies.

So, things are really bad in parts of the country. What kind of procedures are you putting in place to avoid any — the worst — the worst-case

scenario?

DE BLASIO: We obviously were the epicenter of this crisis. So we learned to do a lot of things differently.

And our hospitals have approached the situation very differently in terms of space and staffing and strategies. And, again, we’re seeing better

outcomes. But we’re preparing right now for the danger of a real increase.

We’re also — we have put out a Health Department order telling New Yorkers who are over 65 years old or who have preexisting conditions, like diabetes

or heart disease, to stay home and only go out for the most essential needs like a doctor appointment.

So, we are starting up that ladder. We are working with the state of New York on if additional restrictions will be needed. But I do want to note at

the same time that we have seen, thankfully, a high level of mask usage by New Yorkers, a lot of adherence to rules, bluntly, much more so than in

some other parts of the United States.

And that is having some effect. Certainly, our hospital teams report that being one of the reasons they don’t see the same intensity, is because New

Yorkers have been very conscientious about mask-wearing, and that has had an impact on the trajectory of the disease here.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about vaccines, because the whole world is talking about it right now.

As you know, this country, the United Kingdom, gave its approval, becoming the first for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. And it’ll start rolling it out

next week, we understand. We see Russia. Moscow, the mayor has said, next week, they’re starting. We see in major German cities.

And now we hear your governor saying that 170,000 doses of a vaccine is coming to New York state, I think in about — I think, in about 10 days or

just over a week. Tell me what you expect and how far that will go in New York City.

DE BLASIO: We expect, on December 15, so 12 days from now, the first major shipment from Pfizer.

We’re going to focus on the needs of our most vulnerable health care professionals, the real front-line workers, who need that vaccine to keep

safe so they can protect all of us. We’re going to focus on nursing home residents and staff.

But that work is going to begin in about 12 days. We think the number of doses is going to increase greatly over the next few weeks. So, even in the

month of December, Christiane, we expect to have reached a lot of New Yorkers, and the folks who need it the most.

We’re then going to aggressively go into January with a focus on the neighborhoods that were hardest-hit by COVID. We saw tremendous racial

disparity, particularly hard-hit neighborhoods in black and Latino communities.

As we get more and more doses, we’re going to make sure that this does not end up being a situation, in effect, where the doses go to the highest

bidder or the folks that are most privileged. We’re going to focus on people who live in public housing and folks who are lower-income and in the

neighborhoods that have had the worst experience with COVID to make sure their most vulnerable community members get the vaccine early.

AMANPOUR: So, there’s quite a dramatic statement from three former U.S. presidents, Obama, Bush and Clinton, who said that they would not only take

it, but take it publicly, if necessary on camera, to show people, as soon as it was approved, obviously, and as soon as Dr. Fauci signs off on it.

Tell me about any concerns you might have about so-called vaccine hesitancy. In other words, would you do something like that? How will you

persuade people to take this vaccine?

DE BLASIO: One, I absolutely would, when it’s the appropriate time. I think it’s really important for public officials to show that we believe in

it.

And this set of vaccines coming from a major pharmaceutical companies with so much verification, so many checks and balances in place from different

levels of health care leadership, is something I truly believe we can trust. I honestly believe the fact that the Biden administration is coming

in soon is going to increase the trust levels that might not have been there with the vagaries of a Trump administration constantly commenting on

the vaccine.

So, I think we’re in a much better situation. I do think we’re going to see distrust. There’s an anti-vaxxer movement. We have to keep answering that

with the health care facts. There’s going to be a lot of concerns in communities of color, again, who have borne the brunt and have a lot of

questions, a lot of distrust towards government at this point.

We’re going to need local leaders, trusted community leaders, activists, faith leaders to join us in showing people they believe in the vaccine.

This is going to be a grassroots effort if we really expect it to take hold. It can’t just be some government voices. It has to be from the

grassroots.

AMANPOUR: Tell me something. How troubling is it in terms of, relatively speaking, that you have these incidents? You had this mass wedding in an

orthodox community, I think in Brooklyn.

You have got this party at a mansion that was raided with 400 guests. You got a bar or something in Staten Island where thousands of people just last

night were out there hurling political epithets.

There’s a huge political drama and, in some cases, as we’re looking at this picture of the wedding, religious drama and arguments over freedom and

sovereignty, that are playing out in some quarters.

How serious are they?

DE BLASIO: They’re serious, but you — I don’t want to overrate how frequent they are.

There is an ideological challenge. Let’s be honest about that. And it unites several of the examples you have talked about. The Staten Island

situation and some of what we have seen, for sure, in Brooklyn as well has an ideological basis.

Trumpism and the message that mask-wearing and restrictions should be avoided or confronted, that is affecting the atmosphere here. But by no

means is that the majority, Christiane. It is — the vast majority of New Yorkers actually have been pretty extraordinary in their level of

discipline and adherence to the rules.

We honestly see some young people who think they are impervious. And that’s where some of the parties and gatherings are coming from.

But their fellow New Yorkers have quickly reported those situations and they’ve been shut down quickly by our public safety officers.

So, it’s not a widespread phenomenon. And it’s certainly something I’m happy to say that the people across almost all demographics are being

consistent about the mask wearing in particular. You walk around New York City, it is by far the norm right now. Again, sadly, not the case in much

of America. But this city went through such a troubling experience and there is a good communal reality in New York City where people watch out

for each other and they understand wearing that mask actually is about protecting everyone else around you and your own family. And we see, thank

God, a lot of commitment to it.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you just quickly about the Supreme Court which has decided to weigh in on some of the restrictions that the governor imposed

on religious gatherings. I mean, you called this orthodox wedding and the mass gathering irresponsible. The Supreme Court has reversed these

restrictions on gatherings in religious spaces. Well, analyze that for me. How health — obviously, America is a country of religious freedom, but

here you’re in a massive pandemic where the common good presumably trumps individual rights, I guess. How unhelpful or helpful is that?

DE BLASIO: The Supreme Court decision makes our work harder, unquestionably. And in fact, Judge Sotomayor, a New Yorker who knows this

city, led the dissent in saying that it’s really the role of local government to protect people’s health and safety and we have to be given

that freedom to do that work in a federal system. But my simple analysis is this, you can have freedom to worship, but also have smart restrictions on

how many people should be in a building. I think the court overly complicated things by taking away the ability to strike that balance.

And, in fact, in the beginning of this pandemic here in New York City, faith leaders across the board, to their great credit, told their own

congregants, we’re not going to have services to protect people. We’re closing down houses of worship. That went on for months in this city. So, I

want to be fair to faith communities that actually were willing to do that voluntarily. I think the court has made a huge mistake here because they

could have continued to reinforce religious freedom while also giving local authorities the ability to strike some balance.

Some of these restrictions are just common sense. You cannot have a house of worship full of people in the middle of a pandemic that it, once again,

is raging.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you lastly because schools is a big, big conundrum all over the world, including New York City, the biggest —

world’s biggest public school system. You know, even Dr. Fauci said last week, close the bars and keep the schools open. You did order public

schools shut down, I think, last week. You’ve reversed yourself to some extent. You’ve adjusted that in the aftermath. There are many studies that

suggest that actually the virus is not transmitted as much in schools. Where are you going to come down on this? Because it seems to be this

rolling crisis all over the city, all over the state, all over the country, and in many other parts of the world.

DE BLASIO: We want to, with the new model we put in place, sustain our school system, keep it open until the vaccine is widely distributed in New

York City. The previous model worked. I want to be fair. What we did starting in September was extraordinarily safe. It was a gold standard of

layered health and safety approaches. Every adult, every child wearing a mask, unlike almost any place else in the world, that was a constant

requirement. Constant cleaning, social distancing. So many measures that worked. We had extraordinarily low levels of coronavirus positivity in our

schools. But we had said to parents, to educators, we would hold a very strict standard.

And so, we temporarily shut down. We have now come back with testing every single week. The schools, kids, adults alike, and every child has to

consent to testing. The family has to consent to testing to be able to come to school. With those additional health and safety measures, we’re

convinced we can keep school open for the duration. Right now, it’s the younger grades. It’s from pre-k up to fifth grade. We look forward in

January and beyond opening up older grades as the health care situation improves.

But, Christiane, I really believe this has been a success story, that schools have proven, certainly in New York City, we’ve proven they can be

the safest place in the whole city, in fact.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you what it’s like to be mayor of such a city like New York? I mean, I’m sure any city in the United States, but New York

is world famous, it’s storied, you rely on tourism, you rely, you know, so much on stuff that’s not able to happen right now, even the hospitality

industry. What is it like for you personally?

DE BLASIO: Well, thank you for asking. I would say, honestly, it’s been incredibly difficult. Everyone understands that. And we’re dealing with

such a moving target of an opponent here in the coronavirus. The world doesn’t understand it fully yet, the scientific community doesn’t

understand it and we constantly have to adjust.

But here’s the big silver lining. New Yorkers, famous for their strength, their toughness, have shown it again, fought back. Went from epicenter of

the crisis to one of the safest places in the whole country in the course of a few months. They’re fighting back again, they’re participating. It

gives me a lot of hope. Also, jobs have been coming back. You’re absolutely right about hospitality industries’ very hard hit. But we’ve seen hundreds

of thousands of jobs come back, thank God, since the spring.

You go around New York City today, there’s a lot of life out there but there’s a lot of people working to bring this city back right now. So, I

actually take heart from that. I can’t wait for this crisis to be over, but I got to tell you, even in the worst moments, there’s like a civic heroism,

everyday heroism we saw among New Yorkers that kept this place going, and it inspires me. It really gives me energy to get to the end point when we

can get this vaccine to as many people as humanly possible.

AMANPOUR: Yes. We all want to see that. Mayor de Blasio, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us this evening.

DE BLASIO: Thank you so much.

AMANPOUR: And it has been a rough roller coaster with public health and political crises all melded into one. Even so, our next guests believe that

sometimes all you can do to stay sane is laugh. Long-time friends W. Kamau Bell and Hari Kondabolu are comedians and writers. And together, they host

a podcast called “Politically Re-Active.” Here they are talking to our Hari Sreenivasan about what they call the dumpster fire that is American

politics and the importance of affective change.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN: Christian, thanks. W. Kamau Bell and Hari Kondabolu, thank you both for being with us.

You have this new podcast out. You’re both stand-up comedians. You’ve done different types of comedy before. During — what is the impetus about

bringing back this podcast that you used to have four years ago? But now, what you do? Do you guys like meet in, you know, a Denny’s parking lot in

your parked cars and like record this sort of close to each other?

W. KAMAU BELL, CO-HOST, POLITICAL RE-ACTIVE PODCAST: Honestly, Hari, not my friend for 10 years, that’s how I’ll identify you. We — if we lived

next door to each other, maybe this podcast wouldn’t exist. A lot of this podcast is about two really good friends connecting. And then when we

connect, we talk about politics. And we thought we would put the podcast down forever, but with the state of the world — you pay attention to the

news — there’s a lot going on. So, the fans of the podcast were like, when are you coming back? Look at what’s going on in the world, in this country.

And so, really, it was the fans and then the pandemic providing the time that really brought it back.

SREENIVASAN: I want to take a look at kind of the state of politics today. And you have been commenting on this as well, but heading into the Biden

administration now, it’s not like there is one tent that is the Democrat Party, that is the left, that is the progressive wing. There’s still quite

a bit of consternation on what direction Joe Biden’s administration should take and how we get there.

HARI KONDABOLU, CO-HOST, POLITICALLY RE-ACTIVE PODCAST: I mean, the grandparents have to get out of the way. I mean, (INAUDIBLE). No offense to

Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi and all the other folks that have been charged for way too long, but there’s another generation

coming up, and they’re young and they’re hungry and they’re mobilizing. And it’s just a sad state of affairs that I feel like they have more in common

with moderate Republicans than they do with a segment of their base of young people of color, women of color, members of the LGBTQ community.

Like, they’re — it almost feels they’re more comfortable hanging out at cocktail parties with moderate Republicans and doing the business of

Washington versus the business of the justice.

And so, yes, I think there’s generation shift and I think that they’re trying to hold onto what they had and getting in the way of the future I

really see happening.

SREENIVASAN: Kamau, the comeback to that is going to be, look, 72 million people voted for the other guy, that there is still a big gap between the

type of America that Hari is describing and the America that we might have today.

BELL: Yes. You make a good point. Maybe we should be two separate countries. Thank you for bringing that up. I mean, I think the thing that

honestly is happening in America, we are never as progressive as we think we are. We are never as good as we think we are.

And if you look at the history of this country, it’s about trending in more progressive and inclusive directions. It doesn’t happen as fast as you

wanted to. Sometimes two step forwards you get one step back, but we are always moving in a more progressive, inclusive, kinder direction. And so, I

think, that if you look at the history of this country, which is, luckily, we’re a pretty young country, it’s not that long, you can see that’s the

way it is.

And even when things aren’t “popular” sometimes they are just correct. For example, marriage equality was made the law of the land before the entire

country was on board with that. And a lot of the countries (INAUDIBLE) board with that doesn’t mean that marriage equality should not be the law

of the land. I always say that if slavery had been a referendum that we voted on, I might not be free to sit here and talk to you two right now.

So, there are things that are correct. It doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily popular in the time that they’re correct.

KONDABOLU: You know, also like the idea of equality and justice and freedom, those aren’t things that you can take moderate opinions on,

because eventually, like Kamau was saying, we move in the direction of progress and what was — what is progressive now ends up being seen as the

status quo later. So, you know, we’re just saying, let’s get to that faster as opposed to like this piecemeal justice and freedom over several

centuries that none of us can enjoy.

SREENIVASAN: Hari, you were mentioning on a recent podcast about the idea that we are always asking progressives to quickly endorse the dominant

candidate, but that that’s — we got to wonder why — what’s in it for them to do that when ultimately the result is to water things down once you get

into office.

KONDABOLU: Honestly, it angers me to no end because that is always the — how come Bernie Sanders didn’t support Hillary soon enough, endorse her

soon enough? How come Elizabeth Warren didn’t support Joe Biden? How come Sanders didn’t support Joe Biden immediately? It is like — whether what’s

in it for the progressive left? Because what’s going to end up happening is that we’re supposed to be good soldiers, right, and support the candidate

of the Democratic Party and then the candidate gets elected and forgets us.

I mean, John Kerry is currently the climate envoy. Like, no offense to John Kerry, but was he this big environmentalist all these years? I don’t

remember. Like Al Gore, at least it’s like, OK, it’s kind of a mainstream choice. But fine, John Kerry never really made this — this wasn’t part of

what he was using — you know, this wasn’t what he was saying on his pulpit, that’s what I’m saying.

And so, it’s ridiculous that all these environmentalists, all these young people who are driven to save the planet and you choose someone that nobody

has seen work on these issues.

BELL: Actually, I just thought of something, Hari K. Do you think that maybe Joe Biden has John Kerry and Al Gore like a speed dial in his phone

and actually just hit the wrong one? Like they’re — oh, John, yes. Oh, man.

KONDABOLU: I mean, he definitely — he doesn’t have that issue with Jon Edwards, but, yes.

BELL: Yes, he probably deleted him a while ago.

SREENIVASAN: You know, so, Hari, you know, one of the critiques generally of the left is that on the left circles they’re wagons and they shoot each

other. The right circles, they’re wagons, and they take all comers, right. It’s that there — it is such a broad consortium, a big tent. Our other

brown brother, Hasan Minhaj, had a patriot act episode that talked about how the right essentially has — the left has the Denny’s menu, which is

all things for all people, not necessarily any of them are tasty, and the right has the chipotle menu. It’s like, we got these eight things. And if

you’re one of these eight things, you better show up and have a great time, if you’re not, go somewhere else, right.

So, how do we reconcile this in the interest of trying to go forward as a country, and as you said, you know, don’t kowtow to the moderates or

extremes on the other side?

KONDABOLU: I mean, it really is about what the party stands for. If you stand for certain values, that are, you know, are you — how much are you

willing to compromise? Because, ultimately, when you compromise on values regarding justice and equal rights and human dignity, you’re sacrificing

someone else’s human rights and human dignity, right? That’s where the compromise really lies.

And so, you know, to me it’s like, what does this party stand for? And if you’re a party that really stands for these values, you can’t constantly

moderate them. Because they’re not your rights to moderate.

BELL: I think it’s about the thing you said about like new people in positions of power. We had Cori Bush on our podcast when she was still

running for her seat and now, she has won her seat and she’s a young black woman from Missouri, who was homeless, has been an activist, has got —

lived a really hard life and now, she’s a Congress person who’s now in a position of power. And I think the more people like that you get in there

who are actual real people, who have come from being activists and come from doing the work, to get in there to do the work, the more these

conversations about how we do it change, because you’ll have a bunch of fired up people who really know what needs to be done and feel responsible

to their constituents and not responsible to D.C.

KONDABOLU: I don’t understand how the Democratic Party is confused about this. What? A person of color out of nowhere, you know, through a cult of

personality and talent taking power, how is that going to be possible? It’s like, have are you forgot those eight years already? Like they’re into this

Clinton model of moderation and going towards the center when you had this incredible figure in Barack Obama who totally did not do that. Also, for

all these claims that whenever there is a special to defund police, moderates lose in conservative counties. It’s like, that’s not why you

lose.

I mean, AOC talked about in “The New York times,” and I think it makes a lot of sense, you lose because you don’t know how to use social media. You

lose if you don’t — you’re not doing what Obama did with his, you know, campaign, which was groundbreaking in terms of its use of the internet,

you’re still doing the same old stuff you did 20 years ago. Of course, you’re going to lose. If the Republicans are beating you with technology,

that’s your fault.

SREENIVASAN: OK. Listen, Barack Obama, former president of the United States, was recently talking to, I think it was Peter Hamby on a snapchat

show and he is sort of Mr. Moderate. He was making comments — some of the comments that he was making about, for example, messaging. He said, listen,

you know, if you want to say defund the police, you know what, you’re going to get a bunch of people who already agree with your point of view to say,

rah, rah, and if you just rephrase it as reform the police, you might actually get more people on board for this idea. What’s wrong with that

notion?

BELL: I’ll take that one.

KONDABOLU: Branding? This is a branding issue?

BELL: No, Hari, let me take it because I feel like this is — it’s black- on-black here for a second. I mean, I heard that. I heard Obama say that. I do agree that like Obama’s package was more progressive than his reality. I

think he certainly was more moderate and also less than a moderate in some ways.

But I — and I — when I heard him talk about defund the police, I think the piece that he’s missing — well, there’s two pieces he’s missing. One,

after you hear the phrase, defund the police, you could google it and find out what it means and what the people who have been representing that

phrase for many years say what it means. So, you could learn about it.

And I think if you just get caught up in the catch-phrase, you’re no different than people who got caught up in Obama saying hope and change and

didn’t learn what he meant about it. So, first of all, as the guy who knows about snazzy catchphrases, misleading people, he should pay more attention.

Two, I think the other thing is like we tried to reform the police. We’ve tried lots of different ways to say, police, please stop beating us and

killing us. Please do a better job in our communities. And it hasn’t worked. So, of course, black folks were very creative. We come up with new

ways to say, OK, if you didn’t listen to this, now how about listening to this. If you didn’t respect the blues, here’s hip-hop.

So, I think what we’re saying is like, we keep trying to say different ways to ask the police to do a better job and they haven’t listened. And reform

certainly has failed around this country. Every urban environment has a new police chief every six to seven months, it seems like, where there’s always

a new police chief who is coming in from the last city where they failed to come here to tell you how to do it differently. We’re way past reform. And

I was really bummed out by Obama not actually realizing that reform is an idea that has already failed.

KONDABOLU: And with that, we will never have Barack Obama on our podcast.

BELL: I’m the only black community in America who has not met Barack Obama. I wonder why. And to be clear, I like Obama, I love Obama, I respect

Obama, Obama did things that I still feel — and when I see him speak, of course, like a lot of people, there’s a part of me that just starts to

weeps and gets shaky. So, there is a respect and a love for this man. But also, as Ijeoma Oluo said on our podcast recently, we still get to

criticize these people.

SREENIVASAN: If you continue on to do this, does humor get easier, more difficult, stay the same, when the administration is slightly more in your

favor than the last one?

BELL: Actually, I think it gets a little easier because maybe it’s not such desperate, like, anger, like it’s how I felt over the last four years.

With the way that the Trump administration has handled the pandemic, it’s like, look, I’ve already dealing with a country that’s anti-black. I can’t

do anti-black and anti-science at the same time. So, I feel like it actually — the humor becomes more plentiful when the situation is easier

to get to and the situations aren’t so dire. But also, humor comes from pain. So, it’s just a different type of humor.

KONDABOLU: I mean, satire is back. It’s (INAUDIBLE). We’re able to give extreme examples of things.

SREENIVASAN: Kamau, in your work, are you in the fifth season now of United Shades of America?

BELL: Yes. We just finished our fifth season and I’m actually currently filming the sixth season because I am not afraid, apparently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BELL (voice over): United Shades of America has always been a space for difficult conversations. This season it’s more important than ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SREENIVASAN: Now, looking back over these seasons, what stuck out to you?

BELL: Everybody actually wants the thing that progressive wants, which is like in progressive, let’s just break it down. We want good schools for our

kids, we want living wages, we want access to health care, affordable or free, depending upon maybe how much money is in your wallet, we want good

streets, we want less people incarcerated, we want a kinder, gentler criminal justice. These are all things everybody wants. If you sit down and

go, how does this affect your life? And that’s where I’ve learned the United Shades.

I’ve talked to gang members on the south side of Chicago, I’ve talked to ex-coal miners in Appalachia and they all want the same things. The problem

is that we get distracted by the team sport element of politics and we’ve gotten distracted by a ton of misinformation and lies.

So, I think, if you can cut through the lies and misinformation and the team sport and go, what do you want? We all want the same things. It’s just

about actually — if we all understood that, with we would get there a lot quicker.

SREENIVASAN: Yes. You know, Hari, you cranked out a documentary about Apu from “The Simpsons.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KONDABOLU: Apu, a cartoon character voiced by, Hank Azaria, white guy. A white guy doing an impression of a white guy making fun of my father.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SREENIVASAN: And I don’t know if you were braced for it, but the kind of vitriol and hatred that you got online. I think anybody who was following

your social feeds saw this. What did that do to you for — I mean, it seemed for months. And there has been substantive change on the program.

Hank Azaria is no longer going to voice Apu’s character or the character night not be back. There’s other white actors who have said, I’ll no longer

be — going to be voicing, you know, characters of color.

So, there has been some progress made that that documentary started the conversation, but as you saw the responses, how did you make sense of it?

KONDABOLU: Well, it’s what I get for giving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Like, it serves me right. I thought we were going to have this

documentary and have a conversation thoughtfully about representation and race and, you know, this hazing process that all people of color seem to go

through, about the history of America and, you know, where we are as a society now compared to when “The Simpsons” came out.

Instead it was, you know, death to me. Like, that wasn’t part of the documentary. And it serves me right. I had just a little bit of hope that

just, perhaps, we would have a discussion, we would be in a national seminar class, just chipping away and contributing to each other’s points.

And it serves me right. And so, no, I didn’t brace for it. I knew there would be some pushback, but not globally considering the movie was only

available in like one or two countries.

But it tells you, you know, at the end of the day, the substance does not matter, right? It feels like there’s a template for, you know, what you’re

angry for this week on the internet. And I got plugged in for a couple years. And that’s just —

BELL: Yes. Not just for a week. There’s stuff I want to say about it that Hari maybe wouldn’t say or can’t say but I’ve seen it as being his friends.

The thing I want to say, the show has made changes. They have not credited him with any of those changes. They have not invited him to the table to

say, hey, you were right.

In fact, Al Jean, who is a producer on “The Simpsons,” has been there since the early days has been — has trolled him on Twitter a couple times. Has

come after him. Hank Azaria has never reached out to say, what you did, though it hurt, it led me to do this. Every time people talk about Apu

leaving “The Simpsons,” Hari’s name and Doc Dunk (ph) come up. It regularly happens. I see it all the time and it makes me furious. And this is once

again, white people trying to get credit for a brown person’s work because they are acting like, we just came to the point of changing this when it is

all through him.

And I think it’s totally despicable on the part of “The Simpsons” to act like this is some decision they came to because they were enlightened and

not because this dude’s Doc actually made a difference.

KONDABOLU: I’m not going to comment on that but I’m definitely not going to disagree with anything he said.

SREENIVASAN: Hari, more Haris need friends like Kamau. That’s all I got to say to that. That’s — that was —

BELL: Find — everybody should find their Kamau. We’re pretty good friends.

SREENIVASAN: All right. Hari Kondabolu and W. Kamau Bell, thank you both for joining us.

BELL: Thank you.

KONDABOLU: Thank you so much for having us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And I’m finding mine.

And finally, after a lonely and difficult and deadly nine months, residents in Britain’s care homes are once again able to embrace their loved ones

after months of physical separation. Couples like Bob and Patricia, who suffer from Alzheimer’s. They kissed and hugged through their face masks.

And Serena was able to hold her mom tightly for the first time since the pandemic began. This was all made possible thanks to a rapid COVID-19 test

that gives results after 30 minutes.

And a reminder, of course, we’ve been talking about vaccines, care home residents and staff are some of the most vulnerable. And when it comes to

the vaccine, they will be among the first to get it. The rollout is starting here in the U.K. next week.

That is it for now. Thank you for watching “Amanpour and Company” on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END