David Gergen: “We Shouldn’t Be Ruled By Octogenarians”

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, the United States and the Taliban’s tortuous relationship has roots in the Reagan era when the CIA funded Afghan guerrilla fighters, the Mujahideen, to resist Soviet occupation at the time. David Gergen served as an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. His new book, “Hearts Touched with Fire,” details lessons on leadership from the past. And he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss why the torch must now be passed to the next generation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And, David Gergen, welcome to the show.

DAVID GERGEN, AUTHOR, “HEARTS TOUCHED WITH FIRE”: Walter, it’s good to be with you. It’s an honor.

ISAACSON: Christiane has been reporting from Afghanistan. So, I wanted, in our discussion of leadership, you’ve written a great book on leadership, to talk about the leadership failures you think happened in Afghanistan.

GERGEN: Sure. Thank you, Walter, for asking that question because we’re in danger for forgetting about Afghanistan as we’ve become so preoccupied with Ukraine. But Afghanistan remains a serious problem for the United States and for the Biden administration. In my judgment, it was the turning point for Joe Biden as president. I think because there was such a high moral content to the question of how to get out of Afghanistan safely and to bring Afghanistan allies with us. And given the moral equality of the equation to leave people behind was a real dereliction of duty and it’s been — if you look at how the military view sanction (ph), you don’t leave people behind. You know, you are all one unit. And so, I think a failure came first and foremost for the lack of planning, you know, lack of sort of — you know, kind of figure out what might happen. You know, Napoleon, famously before any battle would figure out five or six ways it might unfold. So, it could go lickety-split to where was the problem was and fix it very quickly. And here, we weren’t prepared like that at all. We had a plan which shouldn’t work and we had no plan B as far as I can tell. At least not one that could end quickly. But to leave all those allies of the United States, people who were interpreters, people who put their own lives on the line to work with Americans, we had to hope that it would bring democracy to Afghanistan, to leave them behind was — it was such a disappointment. And I think it really ought to remain one of the classic case studies that you study in a place like West Point. But very importantly, also study in business schools and public policy schools and elsewhere about what the responsibilities of leadership are.

ISAACSON: You know, you talk in “Hearts Touched by Fire” with the importance of having a true north, a moral compass. Do you think that this was a moral failure but it was a practical need to get us out of Afghanistan?

GERGEN: Well, I think getting out of Afghanistan is a general proposition it was not unwise. There were many reasons why it would be good to get out of Afghanistan. And Biden had made it clear that he wanted to do that. But I think it’s how you do it that becomes all important. Ideas are plentiful, the execution of ideas is really hard. And I think when they didn’t appreciate what was coming, they closed down that — you know, the other airport, which really shut down the number of people who could get out safely. And we had chaos, and people being trampled to the ground by what was happening at the lone airport we did have. You know, and so, all of that came together, especially the fact that there are families now still in Afghanistan who are still in hiding and Taliban is shredding its various promises to be respectful. You know, it’s cracking down quietly and are getting away with (INAUDIBLE).

ISAACSON: The people around Joe Biden, you know, are very expert in foreign policy.

GERGEN: They are.

ISAACSON: They’ve been on Senate staff. But it’s not a team like Lincoln had according to Doris Kearns Goodwin of a team of rivals who had been plentiful. Do you think that’s a problem of leadership?

GERGEN: Yes, I do. I think you need more conflicting voices. You know, it helped a lot during the Cuban missile crisis. That President Kennedy had voices inside who could disagree. You know, we move from a first solution to the Cuban missile prices, we had a unanimous view of basically to bomb out of the shadows. We move to a quarantine because people began to question that first few. And among the people who questioned it the most were people who are very close and really understood crucial. And I think that we simply don’t have. We have people who are experts, but they haven’t done the big league kind of negotiations for the most part. We were greatly aided in the past by people of this stature or near stature of a Kissinger, over George Shultz, over Jim Baker, you know, of Condi Rice, of Madeleine Albright, I think those people were given more respect simply because they’ve been there and have been playing in the big leagues and sort of become masters of the game, so to speak.

ISAACSON: In your book, you talk about how a great leader needs a look at one big thing. You mentioned, you know, how each president has done that well. Well, the one big thing that Biden said during his campaign that he was going to do is bring us back together. And he seems uniquely qualified to do so as somebody who had worked across the aisle so much. And instead of doing a laser light focus on ending some of the poison in divisions in our society, he ended up pushing a whole lot of different things, some would say even move too far to the left. What do you think?

GERGEN: Yes. Well, I think, you know, you can’t blame Biden for having, you know, a left in the Democratic Party, that’s been sort of traditional. I do think that he would have been better served had he — had his focus gone on bipartisanship and done — had taken very steps. You know, early on, I think it would have been wise to start using Camp David to bring people to their who were of different views and beginning to work with the leadership on the other side of the aisle and to make some concessions early on to Republicans in exchange for some concessions on the part of the Republicans to do things that both sides can agree on. There were a few things they could. And I think it got away from him because he started trying to do so many things and he was being pummeled from so many different angles. It appeared that if you were watching closely, he was changing his policies to fit the people who came after him and put pressure on him. And that is never a wise policy because it just invites more pressure from different groups and a lot of resentments. When I hear from friends who are in the administration is that what Biden ultimately did was bring a lot of people at home Senate office staffs. And so, you had people who are masters of the hill but it never really worked in the executive branch as — in the same way. Not very many. And that lack of years at that level is a problem. You know, I would point to one of my mentors, like Jim Baker. I thought as chief of staff to Reagan, he had it about right, he really helped Reagan bring — have an assortment of people across the board so that Reagan was able to resist pressures from the right and indeed, have a relationship with Nancy Reagan. I mean — between Kate Graham and Nancy Reagan that really helped him in the governing process. And you don’t see any of that today. There was a time when Kate Graham could invite people to her house and the matter who they were and no matter their background, they would all show up. And you knew if you want to Kate Graham’s, there were going to be people there who will not like you, who disagreed with you. But they came because out of a sense of there is a higher loyalty here.

ISAACSON: You talk about the need for experience, elder statements to be running things. And yet, the theme of your book, in some ways, is how we really have to pass the torch now to a new generation. There have been older people clinging to power too long.

GERGEN: Yes, and I’m glad you brought that up. There’s no question my mind that we’re on an unsustainable path here in the United States and we need to change directions. And when I think of the people who are most qualified to change direction overtime or not the people who were in power today. You know, I think as time goes on and people get older, I think they have a responsibility to step back. And from my point of view, I just turn 80, for example, and I can just see, you lose some of your focus, you lose some of your memory, your brain. It does not bring quite the same way. You’re a little — you become very fearful of falling. There’s a lot of things that begin to happen to you in your age. And (INAUDIBLE) indeed in your 70s that I think the leaders who are in charge today, we shouldn’t be ruled by (INAUDIBLE) going forward. The United States is facing — and a hugely powerful country we face very, very complex problems. We need fresh energy. We need fresh ideas. We need fresh blood. And I think the earlier that we passed the torch to the younger generation, that would include generation X, by the way, who have been — the people who have been waiting on the sidelines somewhat impatiently as recently as they should be. But I think they need to turn it back. What I would suggest is, have — you know, have one or two older people around. You need somebody in the mix, some with gray hair person in the mix. You don’t necessarily need them running people — running things but you need to create a mix of people. Reagan was a prime example of that. He brought a lot of people in from California. But as you, he got a whole group of people call The Pragmatist, led by Jim Baker, to be there with him and to bring voices of experience. And so, Reagan had a nice mix and contrast that with presidents who just brought their buddies, it doesn’t work very well just to bring your bodies.

ISAACSON: And when you look at the people leading in the House, in the Senate even, you look at Mitch McConnell, you know, you look at Diane Feinstein, who is staying on even though she’s in her late 80s, and you could look at Nancy Pelosi in the House, you said that it’s a problem having a country run by people pushing 80. Do you think Joe Biden should not run again?

GERGEN: I think he ought to be leaning towards now running just as Donald Trump should be leaning towards not running. I think the country needs time, you know, to think this through. But as a general position, I would come down on the side of saying, Mr. President, you’ve done some great things in life. It’s time to — time has moved on. We need your continued advice. We need your council. We need you — we’d like you to do some special diplomatic missions for us. But the time has come to, respectfully, for — to pass the torch. And I think that same thing, obviously, clearly ought to apply on the Republican side with Donald Trump. And — but there are other people who are octogenarians too. In the Senate, we still have — we don’t have enough voices who are young in the House and the Senate. I think the encouraging thing, Walter, and I try to say in the book, is I’m a short-term pessimist. I think the next few years are going to be rough. But I’ve increasingly become a long-term optimist because I do see people, young people, coming up now, especially the veterans coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, I think they make great leaders. But there’s another set of people not less talked about, and that is people of color, especially black women. They have become moral standard bearers in the country on issues of equity. And I’m glad they have stepped forward with it. You know, I don’t share their politics, usually, the left of me, but I celebrate the fact that they’ve gotten into the arena and are pushing for change. We need more change agents among the young. They can really be helpful over the long-term and integrate in the society and bringing us back together.

ISAACSON: Well, your book begins, I think, with Greta Thunberg, with the kid from Parkland High School, where there was the shooting. What do you think is different for this new generation seeped in social media for how they’re going to lead?

GERGEN: Well, social media for starters. We’ve learned that on one hand, social media can be a way to use the springboard to prominence and to stardom. You know, look at AOC and, you know, coming of a barn, running for Congress and having a national voice and having an important voice, international discourse. She just came out of nowhere. You could never have done that in an earlier time. On the other hand, we also know it’s a double-edged sword, like most innovations. And you’re the expert on that innovation. But so often, you know, it’s used for setting up disinformation campaigns. We don’t even know who’s paying whom to get these — put these lies into our mainstream. But what we do know is that people are buying into the lies at a surprisingly high rate, so that I think one of the reasons Biden has had a difficulty governing is he started out with 30, 40 percent the country believing he was an illegitimate president. That’s a very weak foundation on which to build a robust presidency. The world is moving so quickly today that I think one of the most important qualities of a new leader today is adaptability. How do you — and that sort of order goes to the Afghanistan point. How do you adapt quickly to a very changing environment? That is a key question that comes up again and again.

ISAACSON: For 40 years, David, you have been sort of a symbol of rising above partisanship, working for both Democratic and Republican presidents. Why has the partisanship become so polarized, so bitter today?

GERGEN: I will be asking that question for a long time, won’t we? The — it is partly — so, the social media has as a role in this. I think, Walter, there was a swing of the pendulum. After — we had the — coming out of World War II, there was so much pride in the country, so much a sense of America is very special, American exceptionalism became a huge sort of underlying basis of who we were and what we are trying to accomplish. And the range passed fairly quickly after the (INAUDIBLE) years. The reign has passed to a new generation, the World War II generation. And from Kennedy through George Bush Senior, we had seven presidents. Every one of those presidents served in uniform. Every one of those presidents was in World War II one way or another. And it really influenced them when they came out, and I think they have a different sense of what the country can be. I think that the baby boom population, generally speaking, has been split since early childhood. The Vietnam War split us down the middle. It was just an axe (ph) right down the middle of our generation. There has never been — we’ve never put it back together.

ISAACSON: Your book is called “Hearts Touched by Fire,” why did you choose that title?

GERGEN: Well, you are such a good historian, you’ll understand this. But one of my — you know, I went to law school. And one of the people, sort of a hero in law school in those days was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He was a distinguished jurist in the Supreme Court from Teddy Roosevelt on through FDR. But anyway, when he was, he’s young 23 years old, Lincoln issued a call for volunteers for the — it’s the first call for the civil war. And Holmes could’ve ducked. You know, family, a lot of rich families, the sun was able to duck. And Holmes came from a prominent family. He could’ve ducked, but he decided not to. He volunteered. We went into battle. He was grievously injured on three different occasions. Left for dead in the third. Left for dead on the battlefield. And it was a mere miracle that he recovered. And so — but 20 years later, he gave a speech, Memorial Day speech, at the — reflecting on his generation and what they got from service in World War and the civil war. And he spoke proudly and happily and as if it was a great experience. He said, people should live with — in the passions of their time. That’s what makes life rich and make you — can make the difference. And so — and he was talking about his generation. He said, we were fortunate. We were fortunate to be called in an early age to serve our country. And our hearts were touched by fire. And I think the leadership is ultimately about service. And servant leadership is, you know, now become a popularized view of what kind of leaders we ought to be creating. And I think that’s right. But I do go to the point that if you want to live a life that’s a rich life and look back upon it, you to be able to be proud of what you’ve done. There’s no better way to do that than to begin by serving your community when you are young. If you do that, I can guarantee you, you’ll get the bug most of you and you’ll want to come back and do it again and again. The people I know who have thrived on public service has been the among the happiest people I’ve ever known

ISAACSON: David Gergen, thank you so much for joining us.

GERGEN: Walter, such a treat to be with. Thank you.