Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate. That’s not what debating is about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, no more presidential debates then? The White House COVID outbreak reportedly is wider than first known. I asked veteran Washington
correspondents, Susan Glasser and Peter Baker, whether things are spiraling out of control. Authors of the new book, “Profiling Leadership and the
Republican Party.”
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STELLA MCCARTNEY, FASHION DESIGNER: We’re very aware. And I think that’s the important thing out of all of this is a level or awareness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Designer and environmental activist, Stella McCartney, talks about her new COVID manifesto.
Then, our Michel Martin speaks to Reverend Samuel Rodriguez about the evangelical vote in this high stakes’ election.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
And fasted your seatbelts because it’s going to be a bumpy ride all these last few weeks to the election. Today, President Trump said that he would
not take part in any virtual debates, then he said he would do it in person but later. The Biden campaign has rejected that.
Meantime, the White House COVID hot spot gets hotter. At least one military aide who carries around the nuclear football, that’s the briefcase with the
nuclear codes, has been infected with the disease. In addition, President Trump is calling for his army of “polite poll watchers” to monitor the vote
on November 3rd. And it doesn’t stop there. The latest is that the FBI has foiled a plot to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan, who is a
frequent target of President Trump. And last but not least, some are raising serious concerns about the president’s erratic mood and behavior
since he contracted COVID and since he’s been taking a cocktail of drugs.
How are we meant to process all of this? My first guests tonight are amongst the most experienced Washington watchers. They are the new yorker
journalist, Susan Glasser and “The New York Times” chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker. And their new book, “The Man Who Ran
Washington,” about the former Republican secretary of state, James Baker, may help us figure some of this out.
So, welcome both of you to this program.
I mean, seriously, how are we meant to process all of this? That list that I just read, I mean, you cannot make it up and it all happened within the
space of a few hours. Peter, let me ask you, what is going on inside the White House? You’re a White House correspondent.
PETER BAKER, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CO-AUTHOR, “THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON”: Yes, it’s a place of shell shock right now. It’s a place that
doesn’t understand what to do. The aides are either sick themselves, trying to get tested, staying home or trying to figure out what to do to get
information.
They’re very frustrated. They haven’t, in fact, been given information about their own safety. They’re very frustrated about the political
situation. They don’t know what to do with a president who won’t stay isolated in the residence as he has been advised to do. And I think it’s a
place that feels very unhinged at the moment. It’s very, very — it’s become the number one coronavirus hotspot in all of Washington, D.C. And
so, you’ve got a president who is lashing out like a caged lion because he’s frustrated and looking at polls that are very, very bad for him right
now.
AMANPOUR: And as you mentioned, a lot of the senior tier is infected, including his campaign manager. Hence, this hullabaloo about whether he
will actually agree to a debate or not by his own conditions. Biden says he won’t agree to what President Trump is putting forward.
Susan, how does this look if there’s no more debating, is that a problem?
SUSAN GLASSER, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER, CO-AUTHOR, “THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON”: Well, look, Trump is the one who needs to somehow change the
dynamic in the campaign. So, you know, you would think that normally someone who is behind who want to debate and, in fact, would seek every
effort to try to get himself in front of the people and change the dynamic. Except, of course, that Trump’s performance in the first debate was such a
debacle and, you know, I think it will probably go down in history as the worst presidential debate in U.S. history.
And so, in a way, it might have seemed like a face-saving way out, especially, Christiane, because the debate that was supposed to take place
next week was a debate — a town hall style debate in which regular Americans were going to ask questions. And that is not, to say the least, a
format that favors President Trump. He did one recently on ABC, that was really a disaster for him. He’s not used to facing skeptical audiences
outside of his sort of Fox News bubble and, you know, rallies of adoring fans.
So, you know, interestingly, you know, he may have reckoned that it benefitted him not to have that second debate. But, you know, he’s behind
in the polls and it does appear that Biden’s lead, which was already substantial, is widening a bit since that disastrous debate performance
last week.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you talked about Fox News. He also told Fox News that Kamala Harris, Senator Harris, who is vice president Biden’s vice-
presidential running mate, had her debate with Mike Pence, the vice president last night. We understand it is one of the biggest audiences ever
for a vice-presidential debate. The numbers are coming in and they way outnumber those who watched the vice-presidential debate in 2016.
I mean, never has it been more important, this notion of being a heartbeat away from the presidency, whether we’re talking about a COVID-infected
President Trump or, you know, an elderly but not COVID-infected, we don’t think, Joe Biden. Tell me a little bit, you know, Peter, how important you
think this debate was.
BAKER: Well, I think as a matter of substance it was very important because for the reasons you just said. One of these two people has a much
better than average chance of becoming president someday. And in the not too distant future (INAUDIBLE). The two oldest people we’ve ever had
running for president against each other. Each of them will outpace Reagan, who was the previous oldest president we’ve had if he’s elected.
Joe Biden would be 82 in his fourth year if he’s elected. And Donald Trump, as you point out, is, you know, just getting out of the hospital with a
deadly disease. So, there’s a lot of attention and a lot of importance placed on the number twos.
In terms of changing the race, I don’t think the debate changed anybody’s mind or at least not a lot anyway. I think it probably did — it was
important for Kamala Harris who’s never been a nationwide elected official before. The only one of the four appearing in the last two weeks who hasn’t
been, to show that she is a credible and plausible not only vice president and potential president, and I think she probably did that last night.
AMANPOUR: So, she’s the first African-American woman to — a vice presidential candidate woman to be on that stage, in that kind of, you
know, position. And Mike Pence himself paid tribute last night to the historic nature of her candidacy. Only for the president today to revert to
his, you know, somewhat, some would say misogynistic terms that he uses against women. He used to be nasty. Now, he calls her a communist and a
monster.
Susan, as a woman, you don’t have to be a woman to comment on this, of course, but how do you think that would go down at this moment, those kinds
of words about somebody like Senator Harris?
GLASSER: You know, Christiane, that’s one thing that never ceases to amaze me about the Trump campaign this year, is that facing an enormous deficit
in the polls with women, in particular college educated suburban women, you know, if we’re looking at the biggest gender gap potentially in American
history. Even more so than when Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump. And yet, you know, Trump seems to go out of his way to alienate these women
voters that Republicans need in order to stave off a debacle.
And by the way, I actually thought Mike Pence was also, you know, very patronizing to Kamala Harris last night. He interrupted her repeatedly. And
in fact, there was a female moderator, Susan Page. He wouldn’t listen to either one of them in a way that, I don’t know about you, but I’ve been in
that situation a million times before and I don’t think there’s a lot of women watching that who didn’t feel the painful recognition of, you know,
here’s a patronizing man who just won’t shut up, even if it’s not his turn.
And then you have Donald Trump who, of course, calls name of everyone, men and women, but he seems to have a special animus toward women and public
life. Look at how he’s demeaned Nancy Pelosi from the beginning of her speakership and, you know, to call Kamala Harris a monster, I mean, really?
Really?
AMANPOUR: It was extraordinary. Can I just ask you, Peter, I mean, you said people are very nervous inside the White House? Look, we raised this
idea that potentially there may be some, I don’t know, mood-altering or euphoria one moment and something else the next. These are the side effects
of some of these drugs we’re told that he’s been taking. We don’t get a straight answer from his doctor as to exactly how he is, when he last
tested negative. How worried or is this just media chatter? Is anybody really worried about his state of mind?
BAKER: Well, I think they’re wondering. I think they are. Because, look, the particular mix of different medications that they have given him for
the COVID-19 hasn’t been done so many times that they have a lot of experience with it. We don’t know how a lot of these drugs interact with
each other. And then the steroids themselves are known to create a feeling of euphoria and mask any pain or discomfort and, in some cases, even have,
you know, even bigger effects on a person’s state of mind. We don’t know that that’s what’s happening here, but of course people in the White House
are wondering themselves about it.
Now, the president said this morning that he’s no longer taking the other medication. He’s only still on the steroid. But the steroids by themselves
would be enough to raise questions. And we don’t have the answers. You’re right, we haven’t seen the doctor now in several days. And he hasn’t been
particularly forthcoming even when we did see him.
AMANPOUR: Let’s just talk a little bit about your book, which has been out for a bit now, getting very good reviews. It’s called “The Man Who Ran
Washington: The Life and Times of James Baker III.” Well, of course, many people remember he served presidents from Reagan on down. He was secretary
of state. He was secretary of the treasury. He was the chief of staff. What do you think — how would he handle the multiple crises that are going on
right now?
And remember, of course, he was also the lawyer for the Bush, W. Bush, who essentially won the Supreme Court vote for W. Bush after the 2000 election,
and Bush then became president. What would — what kind of leadership do you think there might be of — if there was so-called an adult in the room
right now?
GLASSER: Well, look, clearly, it’s now seems that no one can be the adult in the room with Donald Trump. So many have cycled in and out. So, perhaps
even Jim Baker could not run that White House. I suspect that is the case. But I will say this, you know, he was famous for making deals at a time
when it was so possible to do so in American politics. And that required working with Democrats across the aisle, it required working with Soviets
to help manage the end of the Cold War.
And, you know, one thing that Baker was a master at was sitting down with those who might potentially be adversaries and finding a way towards a
solution that everyone could agree upon. I mean, you know, he famously was even able to negotiate Hafez al-Assad, you know, in Syria to entice him to
participate in the Madrid Peace Conference. And, you know, that’s not easy. If you can negotiate with, you know, Hafez al-Assad, you can negotiate with
Democrats on Capitol Hill.
And right now, look at how Democrats and Republicans and Trump have failed to produce any COVID relief package for the American people since April,
despite millions of being out of work, companies going bust, you know, state and local governments suffering. And, you know, I do believe that
where Jim Baker in a position of power right now, that just absolutely would not have happened. It’s like Washington has lost the habit and the
ability and the incentive to actually do something once in power. It’s not power for its own sake right now, it often seems to be. And you know, he
taught us, I think, that, you know, you can really — you should be in government to get something done.
AMANPOUR: Yes, power, you do mention the word power a lot. And I think he is somebody who recognized power and how he would quite like to have it,
particularly for his own party. Hence, the importance of his role during the 2000 election debacle afterwards.
What about Pence refusing to answer the moderator last night about whether they would respect the integrity of the election. Peter, how do you —
well, I mean, obviously it’s a big gap not to answer that question, but what do you think is going to happen on November 3rd?
BAKER: Well —
GLASSER: Tell me.
AMANPOUR: I don’t mean who’s going to win. I mean, if it’s contested as it was in 2000.
BAKER: Look, it’s very possible, obviously, that we could have not only just Florida all over again, we could have Florida on steroids. And not
just because we might have challenges in one state or two or three or more, but because we have a president who’s made it very clear that he doesn’t
even believe in the system. That he’s tearing down the credibility of the very fabric of the system itself. He says the whole thing is rigged. The
whole thing is corrupt. And basically, has made clear that any result other than a victory for him is going to be something he’s going to question.
And you wonder whether or not, if it went all the way up the Supreme Court the way it did in 2000, whether he would accept a ruling that went against
him because it’s not clear he would. Whatever you say about Florida, as tough as it was and disappointing as it was to some people, in that moment
you had Jim Baker, Al Gore, George W. Bush, people that have fundamental respect for the system. And when the fight was over, they all basically
said, OK. It’s now over. We accept the outcome and we’re going to move on.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, if this new Scotus (ph) appointee, if it actually does go through and everything happens as the Trump administration
wants it to happen, there will be a heavy balance in favor of the conservative viewpoint.
Let me ask you this as well. You see how many Republicans, whether they’re former military, former diplomatic, national security, even the Republican
chairman of the RNC, the former, Michael Steele, who came out and endorsed the Democrat, Joe Biden, have said, you know, we can’t do Trump this year.
We might like a tax cut. We might like what he does about the Supreme Court, but we can’t. What did James Baker say to you about that? Is he
going to vote for Trump?
GLASSER: You know, Christiane, you think he would be almost a natural never-Trumper, you know, but we’ve talked with him over the last five
years, we’ve been working on this book as Trump has risen and, you know, asked him that question over and over again. And, you know, he’s been
tortured about Trump, I think, in a way that helps you to understand why it is that even after everything, you may well see 41 — 45 percent of the
American people still voting for Donald Trump.
You know, Baker is very clear he thought Trump was nuts. That’s a word he used. Crazy, that’s a word he used. Just yesterday, we were at an
appearance with him and he went on about how Americas alliances in the world are in a disastrous state because of Trump. And yet, he voted very
reluctantly for Trump in 2016, he told us. And he, at one point, told us he might vote for joe Biden this year, but I think he’s made it pretty clear
at this point that he sees his Republican identity and the conservative priorities of, you know, more judgeships and the like as outweighing his
personal qualms about Trump. It’s a little hard to square with the man and his record, but I think it’s very telling, actually, about the state of the
modern GOP.
AMANPOUR: Let’s get back to the state of the current election and the issues. Last night, the whole idea of health care, obviously, in this COVID
pandemic was brought up, and next week the Supreme Court could make another ruling on the Affordable Care Act. This is a couple of, you know,
interventions by both Pence and Garris. Let’s just listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA) VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you have a pre- existing condition, heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, they’re coming for you. If you love someone who has a pre-existing condition, they’re
coming for you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Senator Harris.
HARRIS: If you are under the age much 26 on your parents’ coverage, they’re coming for you.
MIKE PENCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: The Obamacare was a disaster and the American people remember it well. And President Trump and I have a plan to
improve health care and protect the pre-existing conditions for every American.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What should, Peter, American voters listening to that take away from that? Because certainly, in 2018, the worry about taking away
Obamacare was one of the things that propelled the blue wave in Congress?
BAKER: That’s true. It was a very useful issue for the Democrats two years ago and it maybe again this fall. I mean, Democrats are trying to make a
lot out of the Supreme Court case to say, look, this is on the ballot as well, that basically this is a stake and they can take away your health
care. Some legal experts we have talk to say that maybe overstating the impact of that case might be or overstating the possibility that they would
take such drastic action.
But even if not the case, you know, Vice President Pence says, we’ve got a plan, and they don’t. They haven’t produced a plan. They’ve been asked and
they’ve never actually produced. But they have had a promise, a promise of not eliminating pre-existing conditions but they haven’t produced a plan
for how that would work. And that’s a pretty important distinction, four years into the administration, not to actually tell us how they plan to do
it.
AMANPOUR: And finally, let me ask you, maybe everybody can see that you’re sitting really closely together. There’s no social distancing. There’s no
masks. Well, you’re married. You’re in your own bubble. And you’ve written this book together. How was it? How was writing this book together?
GLASSER: Well, the good news, Christiane, is that we’re still on speaking terms. So, you know, that is good. You know, luckily, we have done this
before. We wrote our book about Russia and Vladimir Putin’s Rise, and actually, that was the very same day our son arrived early. So, that was
actually much harder. This has been a long time in the making. But, you know, a great project to do together.
AMANPOUR: Peter baker, Susan Glasser, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us.
And now the U.K. and much of Europe are in the grip of the second COVID wave and the U.S. has never even got out of the first. As governments
struggle with testing and tracing, a vaccine is still the holy grail. Here in Britain, the government is the first in the world to consider allowing a
unique vaccine trial where volunteers are deliberately exposed to coronavirus, and thousands of them say they are ready to take part. Many of
these would be volunteers are young people who, of course, are often blamed for the resurgence of the virus right now. Correspondent Phil Black speaks
to some of those who are eager to participate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHIL BLACK, CNN CORESPONDENT: Like so many, Estefania Hidalgo has quietly endured the challenge, the inconvenience of living through a pandemic. But
she wanted to do more.
ESTEFANIA HIDALGO, 1DAY SOONER VOLUNTEER: This was a way for me to take control of the situation, to be like, OK, I can do this to make it better.
I chose not to be in fear.
BLACK: So, she volunteered to be deliberately infected with the coronavirus.
HIDALGO: I was shaken but then I just — without knowing, I just typed my name in and it’s like, let’s go for it.
BLACK: Shaken?
HIDALGO: Yes. Because it can be scary, right? Like you’re going to be potentially exposed to the virus.
BLACK: Alastair Fraser-Urquhart is also very keen to be infected.
ALASTAIR FRASER-URQUHART, 1DAY SOONER VOLUNTEER AND COORDINATOR: I’ve just got the e-mail.
BLACK: He helps with running the recruitment campaign Estefania has signed up to. 1Day Sooner finds volunteers, so far tens of thousands around the
world and has been lobbying the U.K. government to make use of them through potentially risky research.
FRASER-URQUHART: I wake up thinking about challenge trials and I go to bed thinking about challenge trials.
BLACK: Challenge trials involve giving young, healthy people a potential vaccine, like this one developed by London’s Imperial College. Then later,
testing it by deliberately dosing them with the virus. Proponents say it’s faster than waiting for test subjects to be exposed to a specific virus in
the real world. With numerous COVID-19 vaccines being developed, some scientists think challenge trials could help identify the best of them
sooner.
FRASER-URQUHART: By taking that small risk on myself, I can, you know, potentially protect thousands of other people from, you know, having to be
infected without consenting to it.
BLACK: Critics say challenge trials have limited use because the young, healthy people who take part don’t represent the broader population. They
have been used against other viruses.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Welcome FluCamp.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Free to quarantine?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, yes, yes.
BLACK: This is corporate video from a London facility that recruits, exposes and strictly quarantines people to test influenza vaccines.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve got a wonderful safety record that we’re all proud of.
BLACK: But there are always risks, especially with a new virus that’s already killed more than 1 million people. And epidemiologists say it’s
likely some volunteers would be needed for a control group to make sure the virus does can cause disease. It means they would be exposed to the
coronavirus without receiving a vaccine. The real potential for doing harm to volunteers would be closely scrutinized by regulators.
PROFESSOR SIR TERENCE STEPHENSON, CHAIR, ENGLAND’S HEALTH RESEARCH AUTHORITY: A challenge trial would have to make the cogent argument that
the benefits to society greatly outweighed the risk and that that evidence of those data could not be achieved in a simpler, safer way.
BLACK: Phil Black, CNN, London.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: We’ll be watching that.
And the pandemic and the global uprising for racial justice are pushing many businesses around the world to rethink sustainability and social
responsibility. But my next guest has made this part of her brand’s DNA from the start. Fashion designer, Stella McCartney, is out today with a new
spring/summer collection and a new manifesto called “A to Z.” She tells me that she came up with this road map for her future while forced to hit the
pause button during lockdown. I went to see her in her studio here in London to find out what’s changed.
Stella McCartney, welcome back to the program.
So, the last time we spoke was obviously before COVID. You have had a moment of pause, right? What have you been doing through the lockdown? How
has it affected your work?
STELLA MCCARTNEY, FASHION DESIGNER: Well, I mean, I think like everyone, I found myself asking sort of bigger questions really of what I do and why I
do it. Why do you come to Stella McCartney if you can buy anything from any brand in the world and why would you come and work here? And I found what I
was really proud of is that I believe so deeply in what we do here and how we have a completely new approach to the business of fashion.
And I think coming back to fashion as a consumer, if you can come back with a more conscious level of consumption, lots of Cs, and that’s what kind of
hit me, really. You know, we focused a lot on the collection on how we could reduce what we produced, how we could do more with less. And just,
you know, really challenge ourselves to be the best sustainable fashion house on earth.
AMANPOUR: So, sustainability is your thing. And this is where you have pioneered, I think, the fashion industry. Just want to ask you just out of
interest, have you noticed people buying different things during lockdown? I mean, are people buying more loungewear other than more than going out
wear?
MCCARTNEY: Well, I mean, the ball gowns aren’t exactly rushing out of the stores. Yes, there’s been a big difference in the way people buy. You know,
one of the biggest things that we do that people maybe don’t even understand or we assume people understand is wear a vegan brand. And, you
know, that probably has the most positive footprint for us as a house, that we’re sort of buying into animal agriculture. And what is a vegan? You
know, I don’t think a lot of people know. So, I think that sort of —
AMANPOUR: So, your definition of a vegan as it applies to fashion?
MCCARTNEY: Yes. Is no animal products. All of our accessories, for example, are using vegan glues as opposed to animal glues, which are boiled
down bones, which is not that sexy. So — and obviously, faux leathers, faux furs and just sort of talking about what we do and trying to also keep
it sexy and fun and like not telling people off and just giving it an alternative. You know, creating a solution that doesn’t in any way
sacrifice what you want from fashion.
AMANPOUR: Do you find that you’re not pushing on such an uphill boulder?
MCCARTNEY: I think so. I think for a few years now I’ve noticed that the fashion industry, which has normally been very fickle and weirdly takes
longer sometimes to see the fashion in food, the fashion in lifestyle, people’s choices have slowly been coming to this sort of way of thinking.
And, you know, I think it’s because the next generation of people are afraid for their future and they’re having to buy things and live their
lives in a different way and be more conscious.
So, it’s finally come to the door of fashion. And, yes, I think I’m less of a sort of eco-weirdo in the room now. I think I can have these
conversations with my fellow designers and people in the industry, and it’s something that is welcomed.
AMANPOUR: And we’ve spoken before. I mean, your mother was considered even more of an eco-weirdo than you were because just about the first in public
life to talk about vegetarianism and the kind of things that you’re pursuing now. But that, of course, brings me to one thing that you have
been working on, an alphabet. The new Stella McCartney alphabet. What is that all about? It’s the a to zed of?
MCCARTNEY: It’s the A to Z really of the house. You know, I did kind of — I had a couple of weeks in the COVID lockdown period where I — like I said
before, I was reflecting on what we do here at Stella and why people come to us. And I kind of woke up, you know, in a spelly sleepless night. So, I
sort of read a manifesto. So, it’s an A to Z or A to Zed, however you want to pronounce it, of words that put into place the belief system here at
Stella.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to take A first. A for accountability.
MCCARTNEY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Tell me about that, because you’ve picked a fairly new young artist. He’s a black American artist. So, the accountability is what?
MCCARTNEY: You know, you can translate it however you want to translate it. You know, for me to be accountable is to be present in and the impact
that I have, both in my interactions with people, in my actions, with myself. You know, how I am as a human being inhabiting this planet with
fellow creatures.
So, I think the great thing about the alphabet is that you can make it what it is to you. And you can personalize it. It’s not me telling you how to
be. It’s, I guess, asking yourself questions and wondering if you’re fully being accountable and if you want to, you know, be a better citizen.
AMANPOUR: So, this artist is Rashid Johnson who did the A.
MCCARTNEY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And in particularly in the fashion history, I mean, there haven’t historically been that many black models, black catwalk models,
black, you know, front cover of magazines. Do you agree, do you think fashion has taken its eye off historically the racial justice and the
representation ball?
MCCARTNEY: Yes. I mean, I think everything has, everyone has, that’s why we’re having this conversation. It’s not just fashion. It’s broadcasting,
it’s film, it’s literature, it’s the arts, it’s, you know, politics, it’s everything.
AMANPOUR: One of the other artists that you have in your manifesto is Olafur Eliasson. He’s famous for his climate related work and his
interactive work.
MCCARTNEY: Well, he took O because Olafur, which leads for O. I think a lot of the artists we sort of encouraged. Jeff Kuntz took K for kindness.
And, you know, we sort of encouraged them to take something that came also with their name. But Olafur is an amazing artist. I’m a huge fan of his
work. And it’s very sort of — it makes perfect sense for him because he’s a very environmental artist, I would say, very aware of mother earth and
nature and the change that we all need to make to protect her.
And so, he did a beautiful piece of work, which was laying all of these transparent colors and this beautiful O that came from that. And it’s funny
because the circle is very strong at Stella McCartney. It’s something we use in our Falabella bag as one of the charms. Our brand name is even made
up of dots. And for me, it’s the circular economy of how we work as well and, you know, really sort of being aware of waste and the level of waste
in the fashion industry.
The thing is what happens in luxury fashion, which I think is shocking that its’ — I mean, I’m still saying this, is a lot of houses — we all design
our own individual prints. And because of that, houses are reluctant to then sell them on or if there’s, you know, some excess after a production
run or something, and they don’t tend to give them away or sell them, for example. And so, instead, they bury them or they burn them. And I’ve never
been able to get high head around that, that level of waste. I find it just really excessive and vulgar and just wrong.
So, we keep all ours, but it means — and we sort of stockpiling all of these fabrics season after season. So, what we’ve tended to do for many
collections is reuse them. And so, it’s a form of sort of recycling and it’s the circular economy in the sense that it’s less linear. You’re not
sourcing and then sort of finishing. You’re sourcing and continuing.
So, we made a dress recently that was zero-waste for our spring collection. And it’s just made of strips and strips of all of our prints. And we sort
of figured out it was over 20 seasons of different prints in this zero- waste garment. And this idea that in a sense we created limited edition pieces because once they ran out, the fabric ran out, it ran out.
AMANPOUR: That was it.
MCCARTNEY: You know, and that’s not something that people want to do in my industry because they just want to sell more and more and more.
AMANPOUR: Do you think fast fashion is getting the message or is it still a big outlier when it comes to waste, when it comes to disposing and when
it comes to the fabrics, when it comes to paying people fairly?
MCCARTNEY: Every single second a truckload of fashion is burnt or buried, things — I think it’s under 1 percent is recycled. It means there’s 99
percent of waste being generated. Things are worn only up to three times if you’re lucky before they’re just disposed of. And that level of kind of
disregard, I think, is something that we all need to be responsible for.
But, you know, I — it’s easy for me to say because, you know, I’m not a cheap brand. And so, I do encourage, you know, recycled clothing, vintage
clothing, renting clothing. There’s so many different ways now —
AMANPOUR: Well, I was going to ask you — yes, because what do you say to people who buy a really expensive Stella McCartney and don’t just want to
wear it once?
MCCARTNEY: I say, wear it as many times as you want it. But I think that’s for us, T in the alphabet, for example, is by William Eggleston, and it’s
timeless.
As a designer, one of the things that all of us can do is design in a timeless manner, because trends are part of the kind of problem.
And here at Stella, it’s critical for me that you’re wearing what I’m wearing. I want to wear it over and over and over again, and I want it we
will enough made that I can do that. And I want to be able to make money off it when I’m done with it. I want it to go up in value.
And look — we work, for example, with a company called Econyl, and they take waste from fishing nets or from old fabrics and recycle it into a
nylon thread.
And we have basically contributed to tons and tons of fabric not being made, which is great. You know, that — I love that.
AMANPOUR: I want to go back to the alphabet and L.
Obviously, your mother is so much a part of your whole ethos, your ethic, your style.
MCCARTNEY: And my dad, too.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, your dad. I’m going to ask a question about your dad later.
MCCARTNEY: It’s OK, dad.
(LAUGHTER)
AMANPOUR: L, letter L in your alphabet is for your mom.
MCCARTNEY: It’s for Linda.
It’s also for Linda and, stroke, love, because I think that, for us at Stella, love is important. We put so much love into everything that we do.
And there you go. All you need is love. There you go. I will do it for you.
AMANPOUR: And you love your dad, and I’m going to insert a dad question.
And this is really off a radio interview I just heard. Your father, Paul McCartney, has been doing a historical review or something about his
partner John Lennon. And he spoke to the two sons, Sean and Julian Lennon. And do you know anything about it?
MCCARTNEY: No. But that is a really important thing, I would say, for them to do. It’s a healing process as well for all of them.
AMANPOUR: For all of them.
MCCARTNEY: And I encourage that relationship very much. And that’s lovely to hear.
I mean, I know that Sean was just texting me today, actually, saying that it’s the celebration of John’s life coming up with his birthday, so maybe
it has something to do with that.
AMANPOUR: That’s what it is, yes.
MCCARTNEY: But, yes, I think at the end of the day, all of those — you know, everyone needs to sort of reach out at a time like this, I think
AMANPOUR: Do you remember John Lennon?
MCCARTNEY: Yes. Yes, I do. Yes, yes. I was lucky enough to spend time with him as a child. Yes, I do very much. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Was he like an uncle?
MCCARTNEY: I would say he was like an uncle from — you know, in a very different way. We are really a weird set, the Beatles kids. It’s a family.
It’s very much an extension of a family. So you know, all of the kids were like, “God, we’re the only ones that get it.” Or it was like “God, my God,
How weird is this?” And we’ll have a conversation like — you know, so yes, we’re definitely a big family.
AMANPOUR: That’s amazing. One of the letters that I want to focus on because, she is such an amazing artist and photographer, Cindy Sherman,
does E. Describe that. Because we’ve got the picture.
MCCARTNEY: It’s E for effortless, and I think that’s really important.
You know, one of the reasons I started wanting to be a fashion designer at the age of sort of 9 was because I believe very much in the psychological
connection between what you wear and it reflecting who you are and how you feel.
And as a woman designer, I want to kind of encourage us, women, to feel great about ourselves.
And so Cindy is a dear friend.
She was kind enough to do E for effortless.
And she’s a tree and she is sort of embracing whatever she is embracing, but I think humor again we have H for humor by an artist called Alex Israel
in the alphabet, an L.A.-based artist, and he took the H from the Hollywood sign and took it off and it’s crashing into a car.
And humor is important because at the end of the day, these are heavy subject matters that we’re covering at Stella, and I don’t want to feel
like I’m lecturing people. I don’t want people to feel like I’m making them feel bad or that I’m just kind of greenwashing or using this for marketing,
like this is what we really do here, and we want to be sort of information driven and solution driven with a smile.
It’s like let’s have some fun. It is fashion after all.
AMANPOUR: Stella McCartney, thank you very much.
MCCARTNEY: Thank you very much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And tomorrow would have been John Lennon’s 80th birthday.
Now, 26 days to go to the U.S. election, and both candidates are after, of course, every last vote.
A Pew Research Center poll found at least 82 percent of white evangelicals are preparing to vote again for President Trump, which is his famous base,
of course. But he also has growing support amongst non white evangelicals.
Pastor Sam Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. And, here, he talks to our Michel Martin about how
he once had the ear of President Obama and why now he advises President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN: Thanks, Christiane.
Pastor Sam, thank you so much for joining us once again.
REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: For those who may not remember, you have been with us before. You offered prayer at President Trump’s inauguration in 2016. And it was a sort
of an important and powerful moment for you.
But you had been connecting with and consulting with previous presidents. This is not the first sort of president that you have been close to.
But this is the first time you were offered the opportunity to offer prayer at a presidential inauguration.
Did you vote for President Trump?
RODRIGUEZ: Well, you know me well enough that I won’t share who I voted for.
But I worked with George W. Bush, advised President Bush. I worked with President Obama for eight years. And now I’m advising President Trump. So,
I never share who I voted for. Actually, it’s just part of my covenant with God and my family.
MARTIN: It’s been reported in the media that you’re campaigning for him. So, that — is that not true?
RODRIGUEZ: Yes, no, I’m campaigning for life, religious liberty and biblical justice. That’s what I’m campaigning for in 2020.
To be very forthright, I was out there in 2008 for President Obama, because I believed in his vision for America. And I do believe that, right now —
I’m an independent, but I do believe the Democratic Party has shifted so, so much to the left on these issues, on life, on religious liberty, that I
am compelled, because of my children and my children’s children, to advocate policies that line up with our biblical world view.
MARTIN: So, to that question, President Trump has ably demonstrated that he is against abortion.
But with more than 200,000 people dead because of a COVID-19 crisis, the reporting indicates that he was not forthright about and did not take
seriously at the outset, has he demonstrated he’s truly pro-life?
RODRIGUEZ: No, this COVID-19 has impacted all of us.
I was there in the beginning for certain conversations, working on the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, giving advice as it pertains to
churches and the response to COVID and even post facto.
So, I can tell you from the get go there was a commission from this administration to deal with COVID in a very deliberate, intentional manner,
while simultaneously protecting our God-given rights.
The tension constantly has been one issue. Do we give up our rights in the midst of a pandemic or any other circumstance, as the government deems as
an emergency? And I believe that tension is real. It’s legitimate. We should have a viable conversation.
But I do not believe that President Trump has given up or forsaken or neglected the sanctity of life in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
MARTIN: But why do you think this country has the worst — one of the worst death rates? It has certainly the worst overall number of deaths in
the world. And it’s got among the worst death rates for an affluent country.
None of our peer economies, countries with comparable economies, level of resources, level of sort of access to technology are suffering the way this
country has. And I certainly don’t think I need to tell you that black and brown people are among…
RODRIGUEZ: Right.
MARTIN: … the people who have been most devastated by this epidemic. Why is that?
RODRIGUEZ: Well, with great due deference — and I have an incredible amount of respect for you — of course, with great due deference, I would
argue on the death rate.
I do agree the number of deaths is, of course, egregious, and any one life that is lost, of course, impacts all of us. But there’s a difference
between proportionality as it pertains to the population and the actual death rate in comparison to similar nations.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: The death rate — forgive me. Forgive me, Pastor. Forgive me, Pastor.
That is disingenuous. The death rate per thousand is worse in the United States than it is in any peer industrial country. We’re not talking about
India here. We’re not talking about Brazil here. And we’re not even talking about Mexico here. We’re talking about countries like New Zealand. We’re
talking about Germany. We’re talking about Australia. We’re talking about countries with similar economies to ours.
And the death rate in the United States is far worse.
So, tell me why you think that is, because the critics of this administration say it’s because this administration has failed to take the
steps that would be necessary.
(CROSSTALK)
RODRIGUEZ: I would disagree with that. Two of those three nations are two of my favorite nations,. I travel frequently every year, prior to COVID,
Australia and New Zealand. These are nations that are, of course, island nations, isolated.
So they have the luxury of being able to shut down their borders like this immediately. And they did, both Australia and New Zealand. Yesterday, I
spoke to one of the major pastoral leaders in Australia discussing the COVID reality, by coincidence.
Now, Germany, of course, we look at China travel as it pertains to those that already had the Wuhan — the initial virus. And there was great amount
of travel going around the world.
And the president deliberately stated, we’re going to make this, incorporate this travel ban, which I think had a lot of a credible amount
of foresight. He was critiqued initially as being xenophobic or racist and so forth. Again, he shut that down.
If not for that decision right there, this 200,000-plus may be two million- plus. So, I do believe — I don’t think everything has been pristine, by the way. I don’t.
I will give you an example. Let me critique not just the administration for a second, but all of us.
I remember having conversations with individuals stating from our government, from our government, on both sides of the aisle, telling us
that we shouldn’t wear masks, that masks were basically a waste of time, that they would do absolutely nothing to deter the spread of the virus.
And then we come to find out that it may be the primary deterrent mechanism. So, across the board — and that came from both sides of the
aisle. Across the board, I don’t think we have been perfect. At the same time, I think things could be enormously worse if not for the actions taken
this administration.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Now, if this administration is willing — forgive me, Pastor Sam.
If this administration is willing to tell women they can’t have an abortion, why isn’t it willing to tell the rest of the country they have to
a wear a mask? This administration has steadfastly resisted guidance to the governors and ordering a national mask mandate.
How is that pro-life?
RODRIGUEZ: Well, there’s a couple things here.
One, this administration is addressing not just abortion. I think Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, not that I agree with it. I believe every life
is precious and has sanctity value that comes from God.
With that being said, this administration is basically countering late-term abortion and even post-birth abortion, i.e., the governor of Virginia. So,
this is not Barack Obama’s 2008 abortion policy.
Hence, that’s why you see now in a recent survey from last week, more Latino people self-identified as evangelicals. The numbers are up. They
seem to be inclined to vote for President Trump because of that abortion sort of unbridled commitment, this obsession on the Democratic Party’s part
of late-term abortion and even post-birth abortion.
Who does that?
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Pastor Sam, that is not the position of Joe Biden at all. It just isn’t.
(CROSSTALK)
RODRIGUEZ: I’m sorry. It is the position of the Democratic Party, absolutely.
Every single time Joe Biden, who I think is a good person, Joe Biden, when he is asked about late-term abortion, at least say late-term abortion, like
President Obama…
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Late-term abortion is not a medical term. So, I don’t know why you’re insisting he use it. It’s not a medical term. That is not a medical
term.
RODRIGUEZ: Oh, you and I both know that’s like straight away ignoring a response that would actually activate Latinos, more Latinos to vote for Joe
— for Vice President Joe Biden.
If the Democratic Party would go back to 2008, President Barack Obama’s posture and stance and even presentation as it pertains to uniting the
nation on so many issues, this election would be completely over, without a doubt.
MARTIN: Do you — you think President Trump’s united the nation?
RODRIGUEZ: No, I don’t think President Trump has united the nation and I don’t think President Trump has divided the nation.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, why was he elected in the first place? Where did he come out of? Why did President Trump become president
in 2016? What took place? And there were issues.
I do believe that the Democratic Party swayed in the second term of a president who I absolutely love, President Obama, with one of the best
first leads every, Michelle Obama, without a doubt. I do believe that at the end of his term, his second term, the Democratic Party was already
swaying so radically to the left and neglected a populist in the electorate.
Individuals who actually voted for him in 2008, President Obama, ended up flipping and voting for President Trump in 2016.
And now the Democratic Party, in my humble opinion, has been hijacked. Socialism. I’m Latino. I’m Latino. (SPEAKING SPANISH) Venezuela. Cuba.
Bolivia. Nicaragua.
How in the world can you tell this Latino, who is pastoring and ministering to Hispanic immigrants, many of them undocumented, by the way, that I’m
going to support an ideology or a party that substantiates socialism?
Are you kidding me? Again, please, please, where is the — where is the Democratic Party of President Barack Obama 2008? That’s what I’m asking
for.
MARTIN: So, you have identified two issues that you say are critical to your vote, or at least your support.
RODRIGUEZ: Three.
MARTIN: You’re not telling us who you’re going vote for. You have identified abortion. You have identified socialism.
RODRIGUEZ: Life.
MARTIN: And what’s the third?
RODRIGUEZ: Religious liberty. Religious liberty.
You can’t — I live in California. I live in California. I applauded Gavin Newsom initially. I mean, again, I’m independent. So, I just want to call
balls and strikes and be integral to me and my family and my faith. He was amazing in the beginning. Gavin Newsom was a rock star.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Dealing with COVID. You’re talking about in dealing with COVID.
RODRIGUEZ: Yes, dealing with COVID.
MARTIN: OK.
RODRIGUEZ: He was trying to preserve the economy while saving lives.
And he did it in such a practical, pragmatic way. Even in the back of my mind, I went, this is pretty amazing. He has the potential of running for
president and actually maybe winning, because he’s very in the center right now. This is a centrist movement.
All of a sudden — this is what happens when you listen to your advisers that have a myopic way of thinking. All of a sudden, casinos, liquor
stores, cannabis stores, which is weed stores, here in California, all of these things are open. Churches, you’re shut down, not just shut down.
Quote — here’s the decree. You can’t meet in your home for a prayer/fellowship gathering, bible study. What? Are you kidding me? Even
with masks? Even with social distancing in my own home? You’re telling me who I can meet with in my home?
MARTIN: To people of faith, people of particular faith practices, gathering is fundamental to faith. Gathering and prayer together, visiting
together is fundamental to some people’s practice.
RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
MARTIN: So, for some people, it is like eating. I mean, it is as essential as…
RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
MARTIN: … a sort of sustenance as food, so granted that.
But you’re saying you don’t see those as measures taken to preserve life?
RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Sure. There it is.
I’m a practical person. I’m a Trekkie. So, I’m not a fundamentalist. I’m a faith and science guy.
Yes, if everything else would line up, if there would be no exception. You can’t open up casinos and shut down churches. There are no conversations in
casinos? None? People around don’t gather in casinos? You can’t discriminate. You can’t say casinos and liquor stores are fine, churches
are not.
And not only that. Look at the protests. And my family actually hosted a protest right after George Floyd’s murder in my home state of Pennsylvania.
We were there.
And many of my church members participated in peaceful protests, without a doubt, because I’m committed to righteousness and justice. But I can’t deny
the fact that, post facto, even in surroundings around my church, there were protesters that were not wearing masks.
And don’t give me the whole 93 percent were. I would love to know who statistically incorporated that study and how they did it. Show me the
data, the methodology.
No. A large number — some were wearing masks. A large number of individuals were not. You can’t permit protests where people are gathering,
speaking, shouting, and then say, churches, you can’t gather.
That’s religious liberty. I believe in religious liberty. I think religious liberty is the firewall against secular totalitarianism.
And we have seen during COVID, not just in California, but in Michigan and other states, coincidentally driven by Democratic governors, who are
infringing upon my God-given right to gather, which I do believe is essential, and worship.
So I do — it’s life, not this idea of stopping a woman from having an abortion. That phraseology doesn’t line up.
I have feminist daughters, Christian feminist daughters.
MARTIN: OK.
So, let’s go back to that as a matter of policy. So, presumably, one of the policies that you agree with is appointing judges who will overturn Roe v.
Wade, at least with the intention of overturning Roe v. Wade.
What is your vision of the way America will be if that occurs?
RODRIGUEZ: Yes, my inclination is to see judges appointed to the highest judicial branch or the highest judicial appointment in the land that look
at the Constitution not as a fluid document, but look at the Constitution and adhere to and respect the original intent of that document.
Some have argued it’s a sacred document. I don’t think — I’m not committed to idolatry. But it is an important document, indeed.
So, I’m committed to that. I think Amy Coney is amazing in her commitment to preserving, to applying the letter of the law, rather than reading into
it.
(CROSSTALK)
RODRIGUEZ: This idea of legislating from the bench…
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: The president’s made it clear, Amy Coney Barrett has — her entire sort of area of research is focused on overturning precedent.
So, I don’t — I don’t see how you can say that the goal is to overturn Roe. It clearly is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The president said that’s the
whole — his whole framework in selecting judges are people who are reliable conservatives.
So, I’m just asking you the question, what is the vision of America after – – if Roe is overturned.
(CROSSTALK)
RODRIGUEZ: My vision of America would be to see every single life protected in and out of the womb.
As it pertains to overturning Roe v. Wade, every single person who has come up to the bench of the Senate has argued that Roe v. Wade is the law of the
land.
So, even though I am staunchly pro-life, from the womb to the tomb, from the moment of conception, I do believe that we can find a practical area
where at least we can all come in agreement that late-term abortion is unacceptable, unless it’s a medical emergency, and, by medical, the death
of the mother, right?
MARTIN: So should women be prosecuted for having an abortion?
RODRIGUEZ: No, of course not. Of course not. Of course not.
And it’s not even about women being prosecuted. No, no, no. No, this idea that it’s anti-women is a misnomer. Quite the opposite.
That’s why we’re seeing millennials, even millennial young ladies, who are lining up with an ethos that is more pro-life. And that’s Pew Research, not
me.
MARTIN: So, Pastor Sam, obviously, there’s kind of a lot to talk about here.
The president remarked about contracting COVID. He said, “I think this was a blessing from God that I caught it.”
How do you respond to that?
RODRIGUEZ: That’s a Trumpism. Again, that’s a Trumpism.
That’s President Trump being President Trump with his commentary, descriptors, nomenclatures and vocabulary and language that is germane to
the reality of Donald J. Trump.
I don’t see — I personally don’t see COVID as a gift from God. I understand what he’s saying, that it enables him to understand the reality,
and, if it is a gift, to understand the suffering of your fellow man.
I don’t know if it’s a gift. It may be a — a blessed burden would be the theological phrase. That may be a better application. But…
MARTIN: Do you think he understands the suffering of his fellow human beings?
RODRIGUEZ: I actually do.
I mean, I know the man on a personal level. I have seen him become emotional. I have seen him express great concern, even angst and
consternation regarding some of the social melees taking place in America.
So, I do. I think it’s hard to understand President Trump unless you met him and know him personally. I wouldn’t support anyone — the depiction of
President Trump in the media would be someone I would never support, in the media, in the mass media.
But I know this man personally. He is a human being. He is emerging in his faith. He loves his family. He loves America. He wants people — he really
is committed to one thing. Instead of seeing Americans survive, he wants them to thrive.
And that’s what he’s fighting for. I don’t think he does it perfectly. No president does it perfectly. But I do think his heart is in the right
place.
MARTIN: Pastor Sam Rodriguez, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And just a reminder that we in the media are committed to looking at the truth and bringing the facts, no matter where the story is.
And, finally, the other race of our lives, and that is the one to save our natural habitat. The Earthshot Prize, named after President Kennedy’s
Moonshot program, is the brainchild of Britain’s Prince William.
And he announced today that it will award five one million pound prizes each year — that is about $1 million over the next 10 years — for anyone
coming up to swift solutions to catastrophic climate change.
William was inspired by the world’s most important naturalist, Sir David Attenborough. His own climate manifesto, “A Life On Our Planet,” is airing
now. And he will be one of the judges of this new prize.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, NATURALIST: The thing that strikes me is time is shorter. I am well aware, in my travels, I see problems that are right now.
And they are building. I mean, we really have to be getting onto our — onto it as fast as we can, do we not?
PRINCE WILLIAM, UNITED KINGDOM: This next 10 years is the critical decade of change. We have to have made huge strides in repairing the planet before
2030.
Otherwise, irreversible change, and that tipping point has happened. And so it really is — time is of the essence, which is why we believe this very
ambitious global prize is the only way forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, how many remember that William’s father, Prince Charles, was urging climate and environmental care way before it was cool?
Back then, people thought he was dotty. Those are his words. Not anymore.
And tune into tomorrow’s program for our interview with former CIA chief John Brennan. He knows more about threats facing America than almost
anybody. And he’s deeply worried about this election, and he will tell us exactly why.
That’s it for now. Remember, you can follow me and the show on Twitter. Thank you for watching “Amanpour and Company” on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.
END