Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RISHI SUNAK, INCOMING BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I pledge that I will serve you with integrity, and humility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The third Tory prime minister in seven weeks. Will he be the one to restore sanity in Britain? We explore as the main opposition parties
call for a brand-new general election.
Then, Paul Newman, a side of the Hollywood legend you never knew. I speak to his daughter, Clea Newman Soderlund about the extraordinary life of an
ordinary man. The actor’s posthumous memoir.
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REUBEN J. MILLER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND 2022 MACARTHUR “GENIUS” FELLOW: This is a group that our country, you know, has
learned to ignore, has learned to overlook, has learned to be afraid of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Sociologists and MacArthur “Genius Grant” winner, Reuben Miller, talks to Michel Martin about his research on mass incarceration, and the
issue of crime on the campaign trail.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
After tumultuous several weeks, Britain has a new prime minister, and possibly some stability. The former chancellor Rishi Sunak takes over after
the implosion of Liz Truss who took over after Boris Johnson had to resign for personal behavior and other scandals. Sunak will be the first person of
color in the post. And at 42, the youngest in the past two centuries.
He was chosen by Tory MPs, not the public, and he has a daunting to do list. Firstly, to meet the needs of a deeply traumatized British public
that has seen its personal financial security eroded in the past seven weeks. To govern, he’ll have to unite his divided party. Sunak told the
country, he is up to the task.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RISHI SUNAK, INCOMING BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The United Kingdom is a great country. But there is no doubt we face a profound economic challenge. We
now need stability, and unity, and I will make it my upmost priority to bring our party and our country together. Because that is the only way we
will overcome the challenges we face and build a better, more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, focusing on unity there, here to discuss is Fraser Nelson, editor of the “Spectator”, and with me here in the studio, Ayesha Hazarika,
journalist and former Labour Party adviser.
So, welcome to you both. I’m going to go to Fraser first as chronicler of conservative fortunes and woes. Fraser, do you think that there can be
unity? And if so, how and why is that so important now?
FRASER NELSON, EDITOR, THE SPECTATOR: Well, I don’t think any political party can claim complete unity. But can he, Rishi Sunak, perform, like, a
hearing (ph) government, absolutely. Every wording is pretty much getting in line behind him now. The people who supported Boris Johnson,
(INAUDIBLE), are queuing up to say how they’re getting their fuel backing as leader of the party.
I think the Tory’s collectively looked over the edge, and we didn’t like what they saw. They came back from the edge and they’ve decided to unite
around the man who members rejected only last month. So, it’s a very fast turnaround. But the peril of the Truss experiment, I think, focuses
conservative minds.
AMANPOUR: So, I’m just going to put to both of you, actually — you know, Rishi Sunak said in the previous contest against Liz Truss, he basically
said, you know, do we confront this moment with honesty, or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales? That is what he told the public during
his, you know, campaign for leadership.
Ayesha, I guess the Tory party chose comforting fairy tales from Liz Truss, on the economy.
AYESHA HAZARIKA, FORMER LABOUR ADVISER, COLUMNIST, LONDON EVENING STANDARD, AND TIMES RADIO PRESENTER: Yes, they did. And I think that one of the
things that, you know, is really interesting about this incredible turnaround of feat. It’s very rare that somebody’s proved right so very,
very quickly. Everything that Rishi Sunak predicted, there was one particular debate where he almost, sort of, predicted to the percentage
point of, you know, mortgages going up in terms of interest rates.
So, I think what he has proved is that his analysis of what was going wrong with the economy was correct. You cannot have unfounded tax cuts no matter
how tax cutting you want to be as a Conservative.
I do think he’s the most competent person out at the field that was put forward. But it doesn’t remove the realities, as he said, there’s the fairy
tale, there’s the reality. Britain is facing an incredibly tough time now. A very, very difficult economic time. We have had this period of huge
political instability, and the Labour Party is storming ahead in the polls. That’s going to be hard for anyone to turn around.
AMANPOUR: And we’ll talk about — more about that in a moment, because obviously the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, the two main
opposition parties want a general election. Fraser Nelson, that is probably pretty much not going to happen anytime soon, right?
NELSON: You bet. Because right now, a general election should — suggest that the Conservatives would lose about two thirds, perhaps even three
quarters of their MPs. The opinion poll gap of the Labour Party is absolutely massive.
So, one thing absolutely unites the Conservative Party right now is the need to avoid having a general election. And remember, it’s within their
power. They can keep going. Having an election in January 2025, they can stay on until then, if they want too. So, they do have quite a lot of time
to get themselves right.
AMANPOUR: Gosh, you’re absolutely right. That mean — that’s just over two years. Can I quickly also ask you, you know — I don’t know was it a false
flag? What was it that Boris Johnson, you know, rushed back, thinking he was going to be, you know, a call back by a claim to number 10. And then
pulling out, obviously, last night. You know everything the goes on behind the scenes with a Tory Party. Did he ever have the vote, Fraser?
NELSON: I’m not sure he had 100 votes that he needed to qualify. But even if he were to get to 100, it was pretty obvious that Rishi Sunak had far
more than him. And, now the MPs would have referred him, probably, by a ratio of three to one.
In those circumstances, he would have struggled even to win the members vote. So, I think Boris Johnson withdrew because it was obvious to him he
was going to lose. But simply he was not — the appetite that he thought that might have been when the Truss project imploded last week.
AMANPOUR: Ayesha, let’s just talk about the first that he is, you know, he is — I mean, he is the first person of color, the first — you know, the
youngest, et cetera. And the Labour mayor of London, who I had on the program last week when all this was imploding, and saying that — actually
he was talking from a mayor’s conference in Buenos Aires, that Britain was currently a global laughing stock.
He actually tweeted today saying, politics aside, I want to congratulate Rishi Sunak on making history today as Conservative leader, and soon to be
prime minister. OK. So, that’s Sadiq Khan. Ayesha, is there a honeymoon period? Does the Labour Party give Rishi Sunak a honeymoon period or not,
or do they sense the jugular?
HAZARIKA: Well, I think the first thing to say that this is an incredible moment in history. I’m from an Indian background — I’m from a Muslim,
Indian background. But my family WhatsApp group off Indian relatives is popping off right now. Today, we are celebrating Diwali, as well. So, that
is an incredible achievement.
And whether you like Rishi Sunak’s politics or not, whatever you think about his wealth and his background and his privilege, this is a milestone.
And if you believe in representation in politics, you have to see this is significant.
However, does that mean that Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party and Opposition Parties give him a pass because of that? Absolutely not. Because
the country is absolutely furious about the six weeks that’s rocked British politics, people’s mortgages going up, absolute turmoil. They’re very angry
at all the instability. They’re very angry at the Conservative Party. And they actually want a general election, as Fraser said. And I agree with
Fraser, there won’t be a general election for a long time.
But that doesn’t mean that the Labour Party can sit back and just coast it because they’re riding high in the polls. They have to absolutely get on to
Rishi Sunak’s case. Sooner, they’ll be saying to him, first of all, his non dom status. He had a scandal with — involving his wife very recently. I’m
sure there will be some attacks on the fact that he’s very rich and privileged, at a time when many Britons are facing poverty.
But the crucial thing that they will attack him on are his spending plans. If he heralds in a new era of austerity, when public services are already
cut to the bone, and people are having a very difficult time, there’s going to be very difficult pay disputes coming up in the ultima (ph), a lot of
industrial unrest, I think that is when they will really sharpen up their attacks.
AMANPOUR: And Fraser, how about because, you know, Rishi Sunak was the chancellor, the current chancellor, I guess he’s going to keep him, Jeremy
Hunt, has actually heralded. I can’t even remember how he said it but I, wateringly difficult decisions, which essentially meant cuts that are going
to have to be made. Plus, the prospect of raising taxes after the next election. What do you think this new prime minister will do in terms of the
spending priorities and trying to get this country back on a level footing in terms of the economic situation?
NELSON: Well, he will try to get the government spending back under control, and there is no doubt about that. Rishi Sunak stood on a fiscally
conservative manifesto. He doesn’t like big deficits as he was the one who wanted to raise corporation tax, and Liz Truss had to agree that he was
right. In the end — you know, my hunch is that he will raise taxes by less than Jeremy Hunt was intending to. Because Rishi Sunak had got simply a
better understanding of the market. So, I think the market will trust him more than they would have trusted Liz Truss and Jeremy Hunt, which isn’t
saying much.
So, I do think that the tax rises we’re going to see will be less than what they were originally going to be. And we’ve got — you know, there was
supposed to be this Halloween budget, on the 31st of October, it wouldn’t surprise me if Rishi Sunak cancels that and gives himself more time to work
out of something he can do, which is a little less austere and less likely to worsen the recession.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that is interesting. And Ayesha, brought up the idea of non dom. And we know that his wife had that non dom status. And then there
was a scandal about the fact that she didn’t —
NELSON: To both.
AMANPOUR: Yes, the taxes. And we heard that Jeremy Hunt was going to eliminate non dom, if I’m not mistaken. Do you think that Rishi Sunak will
do that? And then others of color have said, just because this is a unique and a first, it doesn’t alter the fact that actually Rishi Sunak also
supported a very draconian refugee, immigration asylum issued by shipping all — wanting to ship everybody off to Rwanda. Fraser, is that
sustainable?
NELSON: Well, it’s sustainable because the — and the tough border policy is supported in Britain by people of color and not of color. It doesn’t
break down, really, on racial lines. Rishi Sunak did support that. And I don’t really see that being an issue.
I mean, the funny thing about Britain is we don’t really talk about race that much. I mean, during the leadership campaign, hardly anybody mentioned
the fact that the color of his skin. There is a whole bunch of reasons to support or not to support Rishi Sunak. There is something, I think, his
elevation. And the fact that we now have a Hindu, who probably will be lighting candle outside Number 10 for Diwali as he did outside Number 11
when he was chancellor.
Now, that will be a critical moment to show the world that Britain has a reasonable claim in one of the most successful melting pots in Europe. It’s
one of the best things about our country and something which, you know, gives me a certain amount of pride. And a pride is not something many Brits
would have said when looking at the government over the last few weeks. But we can allow ourselves a brief moment of prize tonight.
AMANPOUR: Well, I’m sure that’s the case. And Ayesha, you are a woman of color. You just outlined that you come from an Indian British family,
Muslim, not Hindu. What do you make of that? I mean, this business of the asylum and that punitive, you know, shipping off policy, which actually
didn’t seem to work very well anyway. It was overly expensive. Not many people went under Boris Johnson. It violates international law,
international humanitarian law.
What does that say about this country? Particularly at a time when actually even Liz Truss said that we need more immigration to actually fund and
populate this growth agenda that she has.
HAZARIKA: So, the immigration policy about Rwanda is a completely absurd policy. It is not only cruel and arcane and vindictive. It’s not even
effective. And if Rishi Sunak does want to trim the public purse (ph), he will stop this ridiculous scheme because it is costing the British
taxpayers so much money. And it’s not even working.
What that has to be was a grown-up modern conversation about immigration and also looking at the skills shortages facing this country. We have had a
lot of chat about growth recently. Liz Truss framed this argument of people being against her as being part of the anti-growth, sort of, coalition.
But you speak to business leaders, you speak to lead businesses up and down the United Kingdom right now, one of the key things that would unlock
growth would be to liberalize our immigration policy. And I think the Conservative Party, out of desperation came up with this Rwanda scheme
magic top by Priti Patel.
What they really need to do is have an honest, serious look at the situation. There’s a — there is an issue with labor shortages in this
country. Now, there is an issue about people coming over illegally on those small boats. That is dangerous. It’s not the right way for people to come
to our country. But we have to have a better solution which I’m afraid involves having a better relationship with the French government as well.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh. And Europe, as a whole — I want to put it to you, Fraser, because a lot of people are saying now, including top Tory backers
as you probably heard, like I did on the radio this morning. I’m just going to find the gentleman’s name.
This was a long time Tory-backer, Guy Hands, who said, the British economy is doomed without a post-Brexit deal with Europe. This is what his — he
told Britain on the main radio program this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUY HANDS, FOUNDER AND CHARIMAN, TERRA FIRMA CAPITAL PARTNERS: I think if the Tory party can own up to the mistake that they made and how they
negotiated Brexit and have somebody leading it who actually has the intellectual capability and the authority to renegotiate Brexit, there is
possibility of turning around the economy, but without that, the economy is, frankly, doomed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What does that mean for households, for businesses in the U.K. if you say the economy is doomed?
HANDS: Steadily increasing taxes, steadily reducing benefits, and social services, higher interest rates, and eventually the need for a bailout from
the IMF like we were in the ’70s.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that is really dire. That is a very prominent Tory backer and funder. Fraser, you know, there is no deal with Europe yet. And the — we
can see there’s not been the economic growth post-Brexit that this country was promised during the referendum. Do you think, like Ayesha says about
the other issue of immigration, that there needs to be a grown-up discussion now under this new Tory leader about how it’s going to deal with
its biggest trading partner, Europe?
NELSON: Well, there was a grown-up discussion that was — given the referendum. And the majority, people voted to leave the European union. And
now, there isn’t really much — that much supporting this country to go back on that promise. I don’t think Rishi Sunak is going to be doing that
for a second.
And we have to remember, the Brexit was not intended as a great GDP maximizing project. It was intended to give people more of a sense that
globalization was working in the way which had work out better for them and their families. As a result, there is no populist party in British
parliament. The only country in Europe for which that is true.
And so, I’m afraid to say that you can’t just look at a GDP spreadsheet and work out has Brexit worked or not worked. So, I don’t see, really, that
going back. But there are lots of ways of making it. And Rishi Sunak, himself — Brexiteers.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
NELSON: There are lots of ways of growing an economy. And going back in the referendum, I don’t think it would be one of them.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I’m not sure that he meant going back on the referendum. But correct me if I’m wrong, I think he means just having a deal with Europe in
some say that’s beneficial to Britain.
HAZARIKA: Well — I mean, I have to say, I have — disagree with — a lot of what Fraser said. I mean, nobody is having a conversation about
reversing and — the result of the — we’re all quite scarred from that. But if you look at the polls consistently on public opinion, people are
saying that they do wish that they were back in the E.U. because it has cost this government very heavily.
Remember, we had Boris Johnson campaigning that we were going to have 350 million pounds of week for the NHS, that has absolutely not happened. We
got less money for the NHS now. And in fact, it caused so many NHS staff and its carers well — as well, have left because of Brexit. These huge
shortages and the NHS.
People who spoke about the consequences of Brexit, it was all labeled Project Fear. And here we are, any economists will tell you that there has
been a material detriment to this country because of Brexit. But I don’t think anybody wants to say that they’re going to, kind of, reopen the whole
thing now.
But there definitely has to be a moment now where I hope Rishi Sunak, particularly on things that the Northern Ireland Protocol, which is still
to be, you know, finished off in terms of people say we got Brexit done. There’s still a huge bit of administration that we have not gone done
around Northern Islands. So, I hope that they will take a very pragmatic, rather than an ideological stance on that.
AMANPOUR: Ayesha Hazarika, thank you so much. Fraser Nelson, thank you so much.
And we turn now to one of the biggest movie stars of the 20th century. And to many, the world’s most handsome man. The legendary Hollywood actor, Paul
Newman. We all know him from classic films, like “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”. Here’s a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL NEWMAN, ACTOR: I’ll jump first.
ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR: No.
NEWMAN: Then you jump first.
REDFORD: No, I said.
NEWMAN: What’s the matter with you?
REDFORD: I can’t swim.
NEWMAN: Why, you crazy? The fall will probably kill you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Paul Newman died in 2008. And there is another side of the actor you may not now. It’s a much darker one, and it comes from the man himself.
Newman, with a collaborator started working on a memoir, some 36 years ago, only for the interviews to be lost and the project abandoned. But then a
friend and film producer stumbled upon the transcripts. And now, they’ve been turned into a new book called, “The Extraordinary Life of An Ordinary
Man.”
And here with me to discuss is Paul Newman’s daughter, Clea Newman Soderlund. Welcome to the program from Stanford, Connecticut. And look, I
think everybody was so surprised to know that, of this incredibly public man, there was still a lot that had never been told and from his own voice.
What was your intention by publishing this memoir that he didn’t want, clearly didn’t want, to be published?
CLEA NEWMAN SODERLUND, CHILD OF PAUL NEWMAN AND JOANNE WOODWARD: Well, it actually — I’m not so sure about that because it was specifically in the
transcripts that were used for this book that he wanted us to do something with it and it was also in his will. So —
AMANPOUR: Well, that’s good. That’s a bit of news.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: It was definitely —
AMANPOUR: Interesting.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: — difficult decision though. It was a difficult one.
AMANPOUR: And what made you come out to the — what was difficult for you then to publish?
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Well, it’s a very — I mean, he’s hard on himself.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: And it’s — it was hard to read the transcripts. I certainly didn’t see him that way, and I’m not sure too many other people
did either. But I think I give him work extraordinary credit for continuing to grow and work so hard on everything that he gave him such — it gave
himself such a hard time with, you know.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us a little? Walk us through what surprised you the most because, you know, reading a lot of the reviews, it is hard to see
this man, who was so lionized, who was so professionally successful, and personally successful in his marriage to your mother, as a father to you —
to you girls, to be so dogged by self-doubt. At one point I think he said, I know so appallingly little. And it is strange to see that kind of
honesty.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: It is. And I think — I mean it’s just — it’s such an interesting perspective from him because it — I don’t know. I mean, I
found it very difficult to read how hard he was on himself. But on the other hand, I was so enamored by the fact that he — he’s had all these
inner struggles, and he continued to just push himself harder and harder to be successful, not just in his work, but in all the things that he cared
about.
And, you know, this book was done in such a pivotal time for him. I think that it was almost like self-therapy. And then he kind of got past it and
then continue to grow and become this almost superman version of himself. I don’t — it’s hard to describe.
AMANPOUR: No, no. I understand you. But just for the viewers who might not have yet read it, what was the pivotal time that you mention? What was so
important about the time in which he was giving all these interviews and accumulated all these transcripts?
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Well, it was from 1986 to 1991. And he was in his early to mid-60s. His father had passed away in his mid-50s. And honestly, I
don’t — you know, I don’t think dad really thought he was going to live for a really long time. So, I think this was a pivotal time for him.
I think he was struggling with a lot of regret in things that he felt that he hadn’t done well. And he wanted to, you know, really kind of, buckle
down and pursue those things with a vengeance. And he did. I mean, it kind of gives me great hope for myself in my mid to late 50s that I can continue
to grow and do some really important things in my life. He always — dad always used to say, us Newman’s were late bloomers. So, I’m hoping for the
best.
AMANPOUR: Well, you do a huge amount, certainly, for the family philanthropy and for many of the issues that have been so close to your
family. But let’s just set the stage, you know, and play a clip from one of the films that just launched him. You know, his breakout role in “Hud”.
We’re just going to play a clip now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICIA NEAL, ACTRESS: Would you ever ask?
NEWMAN: The only question I ever ask any woman is “What time is your husband coming home?”
NEAL: I’ve been asked with more finesse in my time.
NEWMAN: Stop bringing that two-pound box of candy and maybe a bottle of perfume from the drugstore.
NEAL: No, thanks. I’ve done my time with one cold blooded bastard. I’m not looking for another.
NEWMAN: That’s too late, honey. You already found him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there he is. You know, this, sort of, iconic anti-American hero. He’s playing with a great actress, Patricia Neal, there. You know, he
was also very conscious of his looks. And I just found this absolutely incredible, this soundbite. He said, where the hell would I have been if I
look like Golda Meir, probably no place. So, of course, Golda Meir was the great Israeli prime minister who was known for her skills, but not maybe
her looks. That — I mean, it’s pretty funny what he said.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: I know. Well, he — I think that’s why, in some ways, it was so much easier for him as he got older. Not that he wasn’t a very
handsome older man, but I think that it was a little bit easier for him. He could continue to play a little bit more interesting roles. I mean, I — in
his heart of hearts, I think he wanted to be a character actor.
I remember mom and I walking through a supermarket and I think dad was in his mid-70s. And we got to the checkout and she looked at a magazine on the
shelf and my father was on the cover, and it said, you know, sexiest man alive. And she looked at me and said, oh, for Christ’s sake, really? Still?
But in his heart of hearts, I think he — it gave him kind of the freedom to do other things and other roles. So, I think getting older was good for
him.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and just to be clear on the Gold Meir thing, he felt — I think that he had the street cred to be able to say that, given the fact
that he, himself, that was part Jewish. So, I — but on what you are just saying now —
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Of course.
AMANPOUR: — the sexiest man alive, one of the — I guess the themes of the film series that Ethan Hawke did also based around some of these
transcripts and some of what you allowed him to use. I thought it was phenomenal because it explored the relationship of your mother and father.
Your mother, Joanne Woodward, who was a massive star and perhaps even bigger than him and who got her Oscars first, and was — I mean, absolutely
phenomenal.
But he says that, you know, she and their relationship, basically — you know, that a sexual being was born. That she made him or allowed him to
become this thing that we all know. This kind of sex symbol. But it was happening in their lives. I’m going to play a little bit about what you and
your sisters talked about in this regard for the HBO documentary series. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELISSA NEWMAN, CHILD OF PAUL NEWMAN AND JOANNE WOODWARD: First of all, I always wondered why they had two doors closing their bedroom. So, there was
an inner door and then a big outdoor. And I used to think, what? Why would anyone need two doors on their bedroom? And there was, like, a bolt on one
of them.
STEPHANIE NEWMAN, CHILD OF PAUL NEWMAN AND JACKIE WITTE: They were so hot for each other. And I was little, and I would, like, come to a room and
they’d be making out behind the door.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I saw you laughing, Clea when your sisters were talking. What was it like to be the kid of two people who were clearly and love and in lust?
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Not so bad. I mean, it gave — I — you know, it gives you hope for having a long-lasting, kind of, sexy relationship, you know.
Go mom. That’s my feeling, you know. And she definitely — I think she gave dad the confidence to be that person that he, kind of, strived to be but
maybe he wasn’t confident enough to be.
AMANPOUR: And what about the very fact that, as I said, she was such a brilliant professional. And what was their professional relationship like?
I mean, often men don’t really like to be in the shadow of a hugely successful woman or alongside, even, a hugely successful. How did that
work?
NEWMAN SODERLUND: You know, I — he revered her so much. She really had all the freedom to be who she wanted to be.
She was really comfortable in her skin. She wasn’t fearful of anything. And I think my father wanted some of that. He — you know, he just loved being
around her. And I think they helped each other. They supported each other really well in their work. And I think that’s what made them strong to get
there as a team. I was actually — it was great to watch and be a part of as their child.
AMANPOUR: It must have been. I just want to read how he described the marriage. Joanne and I still drive each other crazy in different ways.
There is a wonderful kind of balance. Asymmetrical, but equal. I think that’s a really great way to put it.
But look, he also was struggling with incredible demons. He drank too much. His father was an alcoholic. And his son from his first marriage, Scott,
died of an accidental drug and alcohol overdose. And that seems to be, from what we’re reading from the transcripts and the book and seeing in the
series, something that really plagued him for so much of his life. That he felt he had failed his — the children of his first marriage.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: I don’t think any parent ever gets over the loss of a child. I think he had a lot of regrets. And I think he struggled with that
until the day he died. I think he did the best he could. And I think in those days, and certainly now, too, that what does one do? You can give
somebody all the help in the world and, you know, sometimes you can have everything at your disposal and you still feel helpless.
And I — you know, my heart would break when he would talk about Scott, which wasn’t that often, because he was so private about it. But when I
read it in the transcripts, it was very difficult for me. I had to put it down a lot.
AMANPOUR: I can imagine. There’s so much heartbreak there. And your father admits to having been a heavy drinker. Your mother says, I used to think
the only piece Paul ever found was that piece he used to find in being dead drunk.
I mean in the end he got over that. And he did put his heart and soul into a lot of philanthropy. I mean, you know, The Hole in the Wall Gang. You
know, he raised money for charity through Newman’s own, you know, products and things. Tell me about that filled, or did it fill a hole in his life —
later on in life?
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Well, regarding his drinking, I think he really — I mean, first and foremost, he was such a private person. I think it was very
difficult for him to be, you know, out in the public. He didn’t have a real comfort level with himself. And I don’t — I think, in some ways, he
thought he was an impostor. And so, I — sadly, I think that’s why he drank so much.
When he got older and he, kind of, went through this period of time in his early 60s where he kind of did all this self-examination, he kind of
emerged on the other side. And he did. He focused almost nonstop on the things that he really cared about, and a lot of that was philanthropy. And,
as you mentioned, The Hole in the Wall Gang camp which is one of our camps and now we have an organization, a whole network of camps which dad
founded.
We have 30 camps and programs globally all over the world, serving seriously ill children, called Serious Fund Children’s Network. And to be
frank, at some of the greatest moments and the most fun that I remember my father having was when he was with the kids or with the families at camp,
or frankly with his grandchildren.
AMANPOUR: That is really a beautiful place to end this conversation. It’s a really amazing book. I think it’s wonderful that you put it out. And it
gives us such a look into somebody who is so much part of everyone’s lives, and yet, you know, nobody really knew the struggles that he was going
through. Clea Newman Soderlund, thank you so much for being with us.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Doesn’t everybody, right?
AMANPOUR: Yes, exactly. Exactly.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you so much. You take care.
NEWMAN SODERLUND: Thank you, Christiane. It’s been a pleasure.
AMANPOUR: You, too. Take care.
And our next guest is one of this year’s winners of the MacArthur Fellowships, which is also known as the “Genius Grant”. Sociologist and
criminologists Reuben J. Miller received the prestigious prize for his work, examining the consequences of incarceration on individuals and their
families. It’s all the more timely, as crime is a major issue for Republicans in the upcoming U.S. midterms. He speaks to Michel Martin about
his work, and the status of criminal justice reform in the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Professor Miller, thank you so much for joining us.
REUBEN J. MILLER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND 2022 MACARTHUR “GENIUS” FELLOW: I’m really glad to be here. Thanks for having
me.
MARTIN: Well, you know, we know we have to ask you the story of how you found out that you had been named one of this year’s MacArthur fellows, so-
called “Genius”, it’s one of the most prestigious, you know, awards in the western world for, sort of, intellectual endeavors. And so, as you know I
have to ask, but how did you find out?
MILLER: I was — so, I was — OK. We had some bad work done by contractors and I have to fix a drain. So, I’m on YouTube figuring out how to fix a
drain downstairs in my basement. And I get this phone call in the middle of fixing this drain. And then I’m told, oh, you know, you’ve been awarded a
MacArthur Fellowship. And I just screamed. I just — you know, 60 straight seconds of, just like, oh, you know. Just like — laughing and just — yes,
it was an incredible — incredible.
MARTIN: Your work in criminal justice has gotten a lot more visibility in recent years, the whole field has. But for a lot of years, you know, it’s
almost like, people doing work in this area were, in some ways, a marginalized group themselves, you know. Spending a lot of time with
marginalized people and just — let’s just be clear, it just hasn’t been one of those fields that’s gotten a lot of attention and respect from the
outside world. I think that’s fair to say. So, what do you — what went through your mind?
MILLER: All those things — I mean, the fact that this is something I’ve been working on for, you know, close to 20 years. And you feel sometimes
like you’re working relative obscurity. I mean, it helps that we have conferences and, of course, activists on the ground doing very important
work, and they have long before I got in the game. And there are scholars who’ve been working on these kinds of questions.
But largely, as you’ve mentioned — I mean, we this is a group that our country, you know, has learned to ignore. Has learned to overlook. Has
learned to be afraid of. And so, to work — to do work, especially if you have something like a vision of justice, you know, on behalf of a group
trying to understand their lives. I have spent, probably, close to a decade trying to convince people that these are questions worth answering, you
know. It’s just wonderful for the folks who I think have been overlooked, feared, and disdained forever in our country.
MARTIN: So, Professor Miller, one of the things that is powerful about your receiving this award in this year is that this is considered to be the 50th
anniversary of the beginning of the era of mass incarceration. And we traced to 1972 for a number of, sort of, a policy reasons.
Your work focuses, not just on the effect of incarceration but the long tale of incarceration and the effect that this has both on them and their
families and their communities. So, can you just talk a little, you know, about what questions you are interested in in the current moment.
MILLER: Oh, I very much appreciate this question. And that timing is incredible, phenomenal, and very important. I think we’ve recognized as a
society that our experiment in human caging, as this move to arrest and incarcerate more people each year, we did this for 27 straight years
beginning in 1972. And even with modest declines, we are still looking at somewhere around two million people sitting in a cage on any given day. 19
million people with a felony record. This is incredible.
And their life chances are constrained in ways that I’ve tried to document in my work. And it affects their families, and their friends, the society
as a whole. So, what does it mean for us to have engaged in these practices? What does it say about us? How do — how did the institutions
that we have built? How are they shaped by our fear of violence, and crime, and criminals in this kind of thing? How does it show up in schools and the
workplace? So, that’s work that I try to take on.
MARTIN: I do want to talk about the current moment. Because as you and I are speaking now, it’s a couple of weeks before midterm elections in the
United States. Very consequential in this country. These elections could determine the composition of the congress, which could — which will have
very significant impacts on, sort of, the policy directions that are taken in a number of areas.
So, I wanted to ask, you know, what you see in the current trends in how are we talking about these issues right now. I want to point out thought
that, you know, our data gathering is very flawed. We depend on, you know, local police departments of which there are thousands to send this
information into, be accurate about it, and how they categorize things.
But I don’t think you can dispute the fact that murderers, homicides, have increased in recent — in the recent era. If the FBI’s estimate is
accurate, it seemed that there are more murders in the U.S. in 2021 than any years since 1994. With the highest murders rate since 1996, if those
estimates are accurate. And I think you can, sort of, feel it in the air. What level of gun violence is certainly very noteworthy. Why — do you have
a theory about why that is? Like, why is that?
MILLER: I think there are a lot of factors that lead to things, like, additional homicides in a given year. I mean, certainly we’re in the middle
of a pandemic. I think that doesn’t help with the kinds of social tensions that erupt, that produce things like killings. I mean, so the literature
tells us that most murders that happen happened within networks.
People tend to know each other. It’s — they’re not — like, random acts of violence. They tend to be tensions that erupt within networks of people.
And so, during something like a pandemic, in moments of real economic strain, even if there’s help from the federal government, not being able to
work, not being able to leave at home. Like, these things lead to tensions that erupt in things like community violence.
I’d like to say something about this report though, and I’m glad the way you framed it. So, there was a 30 percent rise in homicides between 2019
and 2020. The next year the report says that crime stayed roughly the same. This represents the absent flows of crime that happens cynically (ph) in
our country. We know that every decade or so, that there is something like a crime spike.
But what I’d like to say is that, when you look at these numbers, in relation to the longer trends, not just in the last 20 years, if you look
at it over the last hundred years, we’ll see that even at that rate, that the spike that we read in 2021 looks like about half of what the right was
in the 1990s. You know, close to half what the rate was in the 90s.
So, we’re actually in a period of relative crime decline. But what we’re looking at is a spike from one year to another in the middle of a global
pandemic.
MARTIN: It’s interesting to hear you say that because, as you know, this is an election year, and crime is always a political issue in one way or
another. You know, we have waves of discussion about these issues. In some eras, people are very keen to take what is perceived as a tough on crime
posture and had some penalties and things on that. Sort of, in other eras people are very interested in rethinking certain practices. It seems that,
you know, in the era of social justice protests, there was a lot of discussion about rethinking some practices. It seems very different now.
What are you seeing?
MILLER: I see a return to the narrative of the 1990s, to the super predatorial narratives. To the narratives of the tough on crime movement. I
see in some places where there’s a discussion about, you know, what to do about violent offenders. I mean, we saw this in the beginning of the Trump
administration who ran as the so-called law and order president, this is what he said.
And so, you know, the Biden ministration has moved away from that. But the ideas around criminal justice that emerged in the racial justice era have
really been contorted — I’m thinking specifically about the defund movement. And defund is being this albatross that’s put around the neck of
candidates who are not say, so-called tough on crime.
And so, the defund movement is really about redirecting resources. The defund movement has really been about making sure that communities have the
things that they need, at least, this is my reading of it. The defund movement, in some ways, reflects the positions of people across the
political spectrum.
So — and if you ask a police officer if they should do social work, they’ll tell you, no, in a heartbeat. They’ll say, no. This isn’t in my job
description. This is too much for me to do. I’m overworked as it is. If you ask someone who’s involved in a portion of the, kind of, racial justice
movement that we see today, from a police and social workers, they’ll tell you, absolutely not. They’re not equipped for it. You can’t respond to a
mental health crisis or you can’t respond to any kind of domestic unrest. Every move can’t be with a gun. The first response can’t be with a gun. The
first response can’t be arrest and incarceration.
MARTIN: Given though that this is an election year, it is a fact that there is a lot of political energy in the electoral space directed to crime as a
political issue. I mean, according to “The Washington Post’s” reporting, Republicans have spent some $203 million for 600 unique ads focusing on
crime. Republicans have spent about $76 million on ads slamming comments by Democrat, real or imagined, as the reporting says about defunding the
police.
And frankly, you know, according to another poll, the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, you know, 94 percent of voters say that crime is an important issue.
And so, given that, are you concerned about, sort of, policy initiatives arising from that, or do you just see it as this more, sort of, an
atmospheric response to boast an election, and a sense of unease that people feel?
MILLER: I’m concerned about the policy response that might follow because, you know, policy makers tend to follow the political winds of it — of the
moment. For sure, I’m concerned about that. But I also see this as a response to a global feeling of unease, some of which is produced by folks
taking advantage of this moment that we’ve come out of. And I’m not pretending as if, you know, crime doesn’t harm people, or that communities
aren’t harmed. That this isn’t real. That people don’t have these sorts of experiences.
What I’m suggesting is that we are not in a historic rise in crime. We’re hovering around where we have been for some time. And as far as the
politics of it are concerned, I see — I’m both concerned but also hopeful about it some steps that we’ve seen in the political space.
MARTIN: Like, what steps are you hopeful about?
MILLER: There have been a lot of serious initiatives that are starting to think carefully about what it means to have engaged in a mass
incarceration. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development sent out a memo just trying to understand what fair housing looks like in
the era of mass incarceration.
That’s not exact language. The exact language has to do with fair housing for people with, you know, and thinking about people criminal records. How
might the Department of Housing and Urban Development respond to the needs of so many housing unstable people who were, at one point, completely
excluded from access to public housing.
And in some areas, they’re allowing people to be — to have housing stability, to access public housing. The literature tells us that if
someone with a criminal record is able to live somewhere, is able to find work, is able to feed their families, that they don’t engage in crime
again. So, this is one of the best crime fighting tool is to stabilize groups that are coming out of jails and prisons. And policy makers across
the country are taking this on.
MARTIN: The Biden administration announced in early October that he would seek pardons for all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession.
He called and governors to do the same. And that he initiate — he would initiate an administrative review of federal marijuana scheduling.
Now, you know, people have pointed out that, I think, about — what, 6,500 people were convicted of simple possession between 1992 in 2021. But are
there really that many people who would be affected by this? It doesn’t seem that there are really any people actually serving time in federal
prisons right now, solely for marijuana possession. Doesn’t affect people who have been convicted of selling or distribution. So, is this really a
significant step?
MILLER: I think so, in part, because I’m an optimist, but I think so for this reason. You know, the tough on crime era was largely initiated by
federal law but also by federal pronouncements, one example of this. So, when President Clinton, in 1996, in the state of union address and
announced to the world that we will take crime fighting to housing. You know, within six months, the number of evictions increased based on people
with criminal records. And the number of applications that were denied to people based on and having a criminal record almost doubled.
So, on the one hand, the federal government has no control over what, for example, private landlord do. And the federal government only sets
guidelines for even what local housing authority agency do. But this symbolic move, this announcement of this terrible thing had awful ripples
across the country and created a wave of housing instability that we’re now still recovering from. And that Hud (ph) is taking up now in this new
moment.
Well, that was a symbolic move largely because the federal government was responding to things that it didn’t have full control and capacity over it.
And it was only directing public housing agencies. And in the same way, this move for this very low hanging fruit, people who are accused of
marijuana possession, I think could send a similar signal.
Most of the action happens at the state level, not the federal level. And there are already something, like, 19 States that have gone further than
the federal government and there are attempts to either decriminalize or legalized marijuana, including my home state of Illinois which takes this
next step, which I think is very important. They retroactively expunged the records of people who are convicted of marijuana possession and — which
even leads into some ways into distribution.
And the reason why that this makes me hopeful is because it opens a door for us to think more carefully and critically about more effective reforms.
For example, I think we have to rethink that this dichotomy between drug use and drug distribution, between drug users and drug dealers. Most people
sell drugs to use drugs. Most people sell drugs because they’re broke, because they’re in poverty. Drug dealing is a crime of poverty in the same
way, in my opinion, that drug users. And I think that we have to push, in every moment, our politicians to think more carefully and critically but
the whole of society in more robust.
MARTIN: You’re not in the business of, sort of, advising — you know, politicians on how to talk about things —
— except to the degree that you would want your work and your, you know, research-base, database, reality-based work to inform the decisions that
they make. But this has been a very difficult period. I mean, living through COVID, coming out of COVID, it’s been a very unsettled time in this
country and people are understandably afraid.
Even if some of these events have not happened to them, there have been some just eye-popping incidences of violence that have just really disturb
people. How do you want us to talk about these issues and think about these issues? You know, recognizing that — you talk about, you know, violence
often being within networks, you know, and also being somebody that primarily affects people of color. Well, those are primarily the victims,
too.
MILLER: That’s absolutely right. That’s absolutely right.
MARTIN: So how do you want us to think about this, and talk about this, as we go forward?
MILLER: I have a — this is a fairly big ask. But I think that we — what’s very important for us to do in this moment is to take — is to expand our
imaginations about the kind of probe (ph) that we want. You know, what do people need to thrive? Not just me as an individual, but us as a group. Us
as a society.
So, when someone breaks a law, what we tend to do is say, what do we need to — in what ways might I be able to make myself safe? And to do that, I
have excluded this person from all manner of things. OK. So, the person who commits a crime, gets released into a world where there’s nothing for them.
There are no jobs, there’s no housing, there’s no access that — the access to their family is limited and this is because of the thousands of laws and
policy that we have written that make this so.
And so, what the literature tells us is that when people are housing unstable, when they’re unemployed, when they’re down and out, that crime
rises. That we create the conditions for more crime, not less. And what I’m suggesting that we do is we create the conditions for less crime. That we
think about thriving in these communities that are often under invested.
It is not surprising that we see more, for example, crimes of this sort in some communities than others. It is unsurprising, because the people are
unstable. They live precarious lives. And we have addressed their precarity if we want to see a world with this less violence. In other words, if we
think about thriving, we’ll get safe, you know. But what we’ve done is we’ve thought about safety. And we’ve not only not gotten safety, but no
one, at least, in these areas are thriving in the ways that I think we’d like to see.
MARTIN: Professor Miller, thank you so much for talking with us. And I do hope you’ll keep us posted on the work that you continue to do going
forward.
MILLER: Thank you. This has been wonderful. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Important work. And, obviously, congrats on MacArthur “Genius Grant”.
And finally tonight, some breaking news from the world of fashion. We’ve been reporting this evening on the brutal British revolving door of chaos,
from Boris Johnson to Liz Truss and now Rushi — Rishi Sunak in just seven weeks. But there seems to be no such leadership contest at Vogue.
Edward Enninful, the editor of British Vogue came to this country after fleeing Ghana with his family in the 1980s. His remarkable rise to the top
is all in his new memoir, “A Visible Man”. And I began our interview with the leadership question on the mind of everyone in the fashion biz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Everybody wants to know, are you going to be the next editor of American Vogue when and if Anna Wintour ever steps down?
EDWARD ENNINFUL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, BRITISH VOGUE AND AUTHOR, “A VISIBLE MAN”: Christiane, everybody focuses on American vogue. Everybody wants to
know what I am doing. But I would like to tell you that I don’t want Anna’s job. I’ve spoken to her about it a few weeks ago. Having been on my book
tour and met so many people in the world. You know, I’ve met so many women, so many incredible minorities, essentially, I just realized that I can
really do better in the world, than maybe I can on one magazine.
AMANPOUR: Could I just pause? That’s a bit of breaking news in the fashion and culture world.
ENNINFUL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Are you telling me that if it was offered to you today, now, what would you say?
ENNINFUL: I would say, not right now. Not today.
AMANPOUR: So, you’re leaving a little bit of wiggle room for the future?
ENNINFUL: What I would like to do in a future, really, is create. I’ve realized that my strength is in creativity. You know, creating images. Just
contributing to the world that way. So, that’s what really I want to focus on ahead.
AMANPOUR: Let me just be clear, Anna Wintour is not stepping down.
ENNINFUL: No.
AMANPOUR: As far as we know. So, let’s say it’s in — six months or a year, would you still feel the same way, or in two years? I don’t know how long
she’s going to be there.
ENNINFUL: I will feel exactly the same way. Exactly the same.
AMANPOUR: So, tell —
ENNINFUL: And I’ve spoken to her about it.
AMANPOUR: What did she say?
ENNINFUL: I mean, I think she was fine. She was really fine about it. We spoke about it in Paris, so.
AMANPOUR: The latest fashion shows?
ENNINFUL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ENNINFUL: So, let’s just quell that rumor right there.
AMANPOUR: So, what does that mean then for Edward Enninful? You continue being the European editor, the editor of British Vogue?
ENNINFUL: Well, we’re working out — on that right now. We’re working it all out right now. But I know whatever I do will be very creative because
that is my strength.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that was an unexpected reveal, a scoop. And there are many more which you can watch in our full conversation this coming Thursday.
That’s it for now. Thanks for watching. And goodbye from London.