Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here is what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): What they want is a coup and there won’t be a coup because they have to learn
that democracy is the most complicated thing for us to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A warning from the Brazilian president to the insurgents, and what it says about the state of democracy. Former foreign minister and
Lula’s advisor, Celso Amorim, joins me. Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN MCCARTHY, U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: God bless everybody in this chamber and God bless America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: In the United States, Congress is finally in session, but dysfunction is still on the menu. Legendary historian Doris Kearns Goodwin
puts it all into context. Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN GLASSER, CO-AUTHOR, “THE DIVIDER: TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE” AND STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Lurching from one crisis to another is how I would
describe the House in modern times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Journalist Susan Glasser digs deeper into the GOP. And finally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUGH JACKMAN, ACTOR, “THE SON”: I tried to be there for you. I tried to give you strength. What is going on? Are you on drugs?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Actor Hugh Jackman joins me with “The Son”, his searing new film.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
The struggle to protect democracy is again in the spotlight. Amid the fallout from a violent insurrection against Brazil’s government
institutions on Sunday. President Lula da Silva has held emergency meetings, emerging arm in arm with the nations’ governors in a symbolic
show of unity. And tens of thousands of people have taken part in pro- democracy rallies after those supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro stormed Congress and other key buildings. Lula has now vowed to punish
those responsible, and he had this message for the insurrectionists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): They have to learn that democracy is the most complicated thing for us to do
because it requires putting up with others and living with people we don’t like. But it is the only regime that allows everyone to have a chance to
compete, and whoever wins the right to govern.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But with divisions running so deep in Brazil, a country where disinformation is rife, he really has his work cut out for him. Bolsonaro
is now in a Florida hospital, with reported abdominal pain. And while he has yet to admit defeat in the December election, he has tweeted that his
supporters crossed a line this weekend. Celso Amorim is an adviser to the president and a former foreign minister. And he’s joining me from the
presidential palace in Brasilia which was also ransacked.
Foreign Minister Amorim, welcome back to the program. You are, right now, in your office which was ransacked as well. Do you believe that you have
this now under control? Has this been stamped out?
CELSO AMORIM, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT AND FORMER BRAZILIAN DEFENSE AND FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, I think yes. I think — you
know, we don’t know if there will be new attempts in the future, certainly not of the kind and extent that this time which to some extent was a
surprise for us, at least, in government. And of course, there were some problems in the security apparatus, which have to be corrected.
But I think the reaction of the Brazilian society and the political system has been very strong. So, we are 00 I’m very confident that this was
probably the last sight, if you can say that way, of these extreme right people.
AMANPOUR: When you say, there have been problems in the security services, what do you mean exactly? Because, of course, we saw pictures of police,
you know, almost leading these insurrectionists to the presidential palace. We also saw that the armed services, I think, tried to stop them from
entering. What are the specific problems that you’ve identified in security?
AMORIM: Well, certainly there was a failure in the, you know, the responsibility for the security in the federal district, which is the
equivalent of your District of Columbia, is of the local police. Military police, which is run by the local government. And I think these were —
they were actually not acting and it’s very difficult to separate exactly what was just incompetence and what was connivance.
So, anyway — but this is already being dealt with because there is an intervention that President Lula immediately decreed in the security
apparatus of Brasilia. So, I don’t think this will repeat itself. Maybe there was also failures on intelligence. There was no time yet to change
the intelligence system that was created by Bolsonaro. It was manipulated, better said, by Bolsonaro. So, we are still working on that.
But I am confident, especially because of the reaction of the civil society and the political system, as you mentioned, all the governors. Brazil has
27 states. All the governors were here giving solidarity, not only to Lula, but to democracy. And the same is true of the chamber, of the lower
chamber, of the Senate, and also of the Supreme Court.
So, I think it’s really something that will be — it is a shame that it happened, but I don’t think it will have any consequences.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you talked about, you know, is it connivance or not, or incompetence. Lula did say on Monday, explicit connivance of police with
demonstrators. And today, your deputy justice minister has accused Brasilia’s security secretary, who used to be a minister in the Bolsonaro
government. He said that he accused him of sabotage. That this guy, Anderson Torres, changed the entire command of the intelligence
secretariate and then traveled abroad. You know, what can you tell us about that?
AMORIM: Well, I think even — sorry. Well, the security secretary, he even changed the plans for the police at the last moment. So, the people who are
part of a federal body, it’s difficult to explain all the structure. But anyway, it will somehow act as a complimentary force to the local police
were not able to act because they changed it at the last minute.
And if you look at the images, you will see that there were thousands of people coming and just a bunch of policemen, some of whom actually greeted
the terrorists who invaded the Congress, who invaded the presidential palace, and who invaded the Supreme Court.
But on the other hand, they were also thrown away — well, of course, they’re — with the use of force, but without much, there were no deaths,
for instance. So, I don’t think this will continue. We were concerned also with the demonstrations in front of the army barracks, or army departments.
But this again, today, has been dismantled because of an order of the — of one of the judges of the Supreme Court.
So, I think things are getting quickly to normal as we speak. As we speak, President Lula is meeting the senators. And yesterday it was governors. So,
I think we are firmly on the road for the consolidation of democracy.
AMANPOUR: Well, that’s good because president Lula said they tried to create a coup and they didn’t manage it. And of course, there has been a
lot of conversation about the parallels between what happened on, you know, January 8th in Brasilia and what happened a few years ago on January 6th in
the United States.
A major, you know, security expert, the Soufan Center says, many terrorism analysts abroad consider the U.S. has become a net exporter of anti-
government and anti-authority extremism, inspiring and motivating sympathizers in many countries around the world. We know that Bolsonaro had
the support of Trump, was an admirer of Trump. Do you think there was — that the U.S. kind of, you know, showed the example to the Bolsonaro
insurrectionists?
AMORIM: Well, I would not say the U.S. as a country. I mean, Lula had a very good conversation with Biden yesterday — President Biden yesterday.
And he had a very good conversation even with the former presidents, like President Clinton, yesterday.
But I think, yes. There is a movement of the extreme right, and certainly, the extreme right in the United States has a great influence on the things
that are happening. This is not something to be — that’s nothing firm from what happens. It is explicitly said by people like Steve Bannon, and even
by Trump when he was still in power. And the clear support that they give to Bolsonaro’s family, to Bolsonaro himself, and to all the extreme right
movement in Brazil.
AMANPOUR: You have probably heard several American Congress people calling for Bolsonaro to be extradited from the United States where he is right now
in a hospital in Florida. He, himself, has said publicly that he wants to go back as soon as possible to Brazil.
What do you think should happen to him? Should he be extradited? Should he come back? Will he face any prosecution? And I ask you because your justice
minister said that while he bears political responsibility, there is currently no legal reason to investigate or charge Bolsonaro.
AMORIM: Well, there are reasons to investigate Bolsonaro. And of course, we are not absolutely sure, but the — one of the reasons for him leaving,
you know that his — there was this absurd fact that he was not here at the time of the inauguration of President Lula. Actually, again, imitating
Trump.
But I mean, there’s not yet a formal accusation that allows for — allows us to ask for extradition. So, of course, the presence of Bolsonaro
anywhere is maybe a factor of disruption. But I don’t believe, you know, after what happened, after — I don’t know what these people who invaded
these nerves of the government wanted. But if they were waiting for some support of the military it didn’t come. So, I really don’t believe a coup
will happen. But what will happen specifically to Bolsonaro we have still to wait for the justice to unfold.
AMANPOUR: It’s obviously very — a major, sort of, act support. President Biden announced yesterday that he’s inviting President Lula to the White
House for unofficial visit. And I assume that, for you, very, very welcome.
But I want to ask you how you go forward in your own country. Because look, the election was pretty much a squeaker. Lula won by a much smaller margin
than everybody anticipated, and there’s a lot of division, and there’s a lot of people who don’t want him to be president. How does the president
reconcile the nation and bring them towards democracy?
AMORIM: Well, I could put the question to you as well. I mean, because — actually, the victory by President Biden was also not by a tremendous
amount of difference. I think the extreme right is very, very — it is a phenomenon to be studied.
Of course, there are reactions, as we have already mentioned, international actions. But there is also some sort of malaise (ph) that leaves people in
society to make absurd options, and believe in absurd things. I mean, there is even people who are studying what they call a collective cognitive
problem. Because the, you know, people that believe in absurd things, people that believe that the day of inauguration of Lula is some national
phenomenon would happen and that the inauguration will not take place. This is a real thing.
Of course, there are people manipulating this, and there are interests behind this. I don’t want to go exactly in the analysis of which are the
forces that are behind this, but it’s — you know, you have the — it’s very similar to the United States. You know, Brazil is a country, in a way,
very similar to the United States although in a different level of development of course, much lower.
But the things that — these questions that you are posing about Brazil and the division, are questions that can be posed about the United States. So,
we have to go on. We have to strengthen democracy. This is the — this actually was one of the themes in the conversation that took place
yesterday, I was present, and I was able to listen to it. And I think there is a great meeting of minds, especially in relation to the support of
democracy between President Biden and President Lula, and the exchange of experiences is also very important.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting. Thank you so much for your perspective former foreign minister, adviser to President Lula, Celso Amorim. Thank you
very much indeed for joining us.
Now, as we said, the parallels with the United States are glaring and obvious. Two years since its own pro-Trump insurrection that shook American
democracy to its core, Congress is now finally getting down to business after a chaotic scramble to elect a speaker. Susan Glasser, co-author of
“The Divider, Trump in the White House”, discusses the abiding political discord with Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Christiane. Susan Glasser, thank you so much for joining us once again.
SUSAN GLASSER, CO-AUTHOR, “THE DIVIDER: TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE” AND STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: It’s great to be with you.
MARTIN: As I think most people would know, Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who has wanted to be speaker for years, finally secured the
gavel on the 15th attempt in the early hours of Saturday morning. It was the longest series of inconclusive ballots since the civil war era.
This has been described as, you know, chaos, shambolic, embarrassing, you know, all of this. But a couple of days later, and Republicans passed a
series of rules changes, only one dissenting Republican, and only one person not voting. So, when you put all that together, what does it tell
you?
GLASSER: Well, first of all it tells you that, you know, we are about to see what was the real price that Kevin McCarthy had to pay in order to win
the speakership and shut down 20 dissidents over the course of a week. What is remarkable, right, is that this is a Republican Party divided. This is
the story about a Republican Party that did not win the victory it thought it was going to win in November. It ended up with this very narrow
majority. And even in the weeks and weeks since then, McCarthy was not able to pin down the victory.
But, you know, you see situation here, and house rules allow it, where you have 10 percent of the Republican conference that basically was able to
bring the body to a halt. As you put it, a shambolic, embarrassing, exhausting halt for days and days and days.
MARTIN: From what we actually know, what do you think are some of the most significant concessions that were made to secure the speakership for Mr.
McCarthy? And the rules changes that were adopted by the full body by — well, the Republicans, anyway, the majority — the overwhelming majority of
Republicans in the wake of that?
GLASSER: Yes, I think one of the concerns in the aftermath of this fight is that the likelihood, the possibility of government shutdown, of refusal
by Republicans on the hill to extend the debt ceiling. That the possibility of both of those things went way up.
Now, there is a big debate again about what exactly McCarthy agreed to, but he did appear to agree to hold spending at previous 2022 levels. That has
caused defense stocks to plunge in the last few days. There is a concern that even in the middle of the U.S. funding of Ukraine’s resistance to the
Russian invasion, a moment of, you know, great geopolitical peril, and broadly speaking, that has been supported by bipartisan majorities. But
there is this loud and growing faction of the House Republicans, the sort of very pro-Trump Republicans, who don’t support continued aid to Ukraine
at those levels.
And so, there is a big question about whether defense spending is going to take a hit. Whether the support for Ukraine is going to take a hit. Whether
the ongoing build-up in U.S. efforts to support Taiwan at a moment when China appears to be threatening the status of Taiwan, far more so than it
has in the past. So, there are some potential geopolitical consequences to this as well as, I think, the big short-term fear, which is what happens
the next time the U.S. hits its debt ceiling and Congress needs to raise it.
And I would point out that, you know, regular order, the appropriations process that you noted, as being like job number one for Congress, right?
That is what the constitution spells out. That has broken down over the last couple of decades already in ways that are just astonishing. When I
was a young reporter on Capitol Hill, those Appropriations Bills, that was the meat and potatoes work of Congress.
Here’s a mind-blowing statistic for you. This is in “The New York Times”, Carl Hulse of the — the other day. There are 12 annual Appropriations
Bills. Six of them went through the house last year. Do you know how many actually made it to the Senate floor and were passed into law? Zero. Zero.
The senate considered zero Appropriations Bills.
And so, in this gridlock they are already ramming them altogether into these gigantic omnibus spending bills. That already signified a Congress
that is basically unable to function on some of its core responsibilities.
MARTIN: Is there any way that the demands that they made could improve the functioning of the institution? I mean, obviously, a lot of attention has
been focused on one member can call to vacate the chair, in essence, to call for there to be the — call for the speaker to have to step down. So,
is there any way in which you think that the things that demand, and even if in the way they demanded it seems kind of crazy and out the box could
actually improve the function within the institution?
GLASSER: Yes, I think that’s a good question. I’m glad you brought up that motion to vacate the chair though. That is – you know, in many respects,
the most self-crippling of the concessions that Kevin McCarthy made because it what — what it means is that just one individual, a very small group,
could bring down his speakership and wield that threat over him at any time. And I think that that’s an example of why this has developed in the
way that it has.
The same thing would apply in some respects to the amendment process. Actually, House Democrats, when they took back control of Congress way back
in 2007, and Nancy Pelosi first became speaker, they had a similar house rules package actually, in terms of amendments and decided that they were
going to allow more amendments on the floor. What happened is that Republicans tied up the floor with a series of showy amendments and made it
impossible to actually proceed and get the basic work of the House done. So, they changed that rule back. And that, I think, is a good example.
Right now, the basic issue is that Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans don’t have a functional governing majority in the House. They have two narrow of
a majority and two divided of a Republican conference. And so, any — very, very small rump group of individuals who are determined, you know, to bring
it to a halt can do so.
And I — you know, this is the balance that they’re seeking to strike between actually getting their work done and being able to govern the House
to reflect the majority — well, at least the majority party, versus some of the more transparency, the arguments. It’s hard to argue on its phase
that they shouldn’t have time to read the bill, right? Obviously, that is a pretty basic appealing thing but, you know, it’s basically lurching from
one crisis to another, is how I would describe the house in modern times.
MARTIN: What do the various groups that actually make up the Republican majority want right now? People have used various names to describe them
like bomb throwers, fringe, ultra MAGA, et cetera. But at their core, who are the — what are the different groups? And what does each of them want?
GLASSER: Well, first of all, I do think that primarily it’s not an ideological rift so much as a political and stylistic and tactical one. I
do think that that’s an important observation. The House Republican Conference has transformed in recent years. Kevin McCarthy has transformed.
So, people could come away, I think, with a mistaken impression that it’s sort of, you know, Republican establishments and moderates versus, you
know, a kind of hard-core, far-right, conservative extreme. And I think that that overemphasizes the role of ideology considering that the vast
majority of the House Republican Conference, even two years ago, supported Donald Trump’s tax and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, right. So,
think of it that way.
You know, it’s not — it’s really a split between two groups that all have supported Trump in his presidency and in his election denial and post
presidency. So, that’s one thing. There are also all extremely conservative by modern standards. Again, it’s not your grandfather’s Republican Party.
So, that’s one important observation.
You know, I do think that it’s also reflecting of an interesting split in the House Freedom Caucus, which has become, you know, in many ways kind of
the leading edge of far-right agitation. And that the confrontational style of performative, you know, budget cutting politics since the Tea Party
Movement really in 2010. Then the creation of the Freedom Caucus in 2015. Then, as you know, they became sort of the hard-core cheering squad for
Donald Trump throughout his presidency. Well, they ended up on both sides of this speaker fight.
So, you had Matt Gaetz who came to fame as a, you know, kind of public defender of Donald Trump as a young Florida congressman. You had him and
Lauren Boebert, and some of the other Freedom Caucus members as the dissenters. But you also had some of the founders like Jim Jordan
supporting Kevin McCarthy. Even someone who as once dismissed as way out there on the Republican fringe, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former QAnon
adherent. She was by McCarthy side on the floor through much of this. As now been promised a seat on committees that Democrats through her off of
because of extreme statements.
And so, it’s really a feud between two very extreme Republican groups, I would say, at least by historical standards and what the Republican Party
was.
MARTIN: At the core of it though, what do they want?
The overwhelming majority of the Republicans Caucus, the Republicans voted for this rules package that people consider sort of extreme and — that
people have complained about in the proceeding days, but they almost entirely voted for it. So, what’s the conclusion we can draw from it that
they are comfortable with the government doing very little, I guess?
GLASSER: The point is that — basically, that is a philosophy ascribed to across the board by these Republicans. There are some disagreements about
how far to go. And you could make the argument that the dissenters to McCarthy want even more drastic cuts.
But I would say that that basically is the point of view of the majority of the House Republican Conference at this point, and therefore the majority
of the majority that subscribes to these views. That it’s not an ideological or philosophical argument. They have become the
institutionalized party of anti-government in the government.
The difference is largely about taxes. You say, what do they want? You know what they want? They want to be on TV. They want to talk. They want us to
talk about them. They want, you know, to exist in this world of weaponizing, almost any issue that’s in the news. We haven’t talked about
it, but of course they want to use the powers of Congress, the subpoena power and the committee power to have investigations.
There was this really telling moment, I thought, in the middle of the speaker fight when one of the Republican members, Congress was on
television talking about it, and he said, you know, I’m so angry about this, you know, delay in getting organized in the new Congress. You know,
the anchor said, well, why? You know, what do you want to do? And he said, well, it’s time for us to get to work. Holding Hunter Biden accountable.
And, you know, I think that’s just a revealing moment. That is what they hope to do with this House platform. Because as you pointed out, there is a
Democratic Senate, there is a Democratic President. It’s not really going to be a period of great legislative accomplishments for the Republicans.
It’s going to be a period to use the House, first of all to obstruct, you know, part of the Democratic agenda. And also, to serve as a showcase for
attacking the White House, for attacking the Democrats, and for getting on TV.
MARTIN: So, what do the Democrats do through all of this? I mean, the Democrats have demonstrated, at least over the last couple of days,
tremendous unity. They continued to, you know, vote consistently for their candidate for speaker, who’s now the Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries of
New York.
Just a couple of years ago, the story was, you know, whether the so-called progressive versus the moderates within the Democratic Party were at odds.
And that doesn’t seem to be the story anymore. But what is the story with the Democrats? How do you see it?
GLASSER: Well, look, in the House, I think, they were clearly enjoying this moment of disarray and dysfunction among their rivals. I mean, you
know, the word schadenfreude made a big appearance throughout the week. And if you have to go into the minority, I suppose, Democrats found this to be
a relatively enjoyable spectacle. A reminder of the divisions of their opponents.
In some ways, it’s easier to be in the opposition right? You know, the — being opposed to Donald Trump, being opposed to, “Extremists” is kind of an
easier political play in many respects. And so, for Democrats, I think they expect to use the excesses that they will identify among Republicans in the
next two years as a foil and as a political opportunity to showcase their political argument headed into 2024 about why Republicans are not and
should not be trusted as a governing majority in the country.
MARTIN: And there’s another, sort of, element to this story. Just recently, it has been discovered that there were — it’s been described as
a small number of classified documents that were found in Mr. Biden’s office when he was vice president, he’s the — the office of the former
vice president. We are told that these were immediately turned over to the national archives after their presence was discovered.
And now, the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has appointed a U.S. attorney, who was previously appointed by President Trump, to kind of look
into the whole matter. I don’t know what is in these documents. I don’t know if you do. But, of course, this is now has become a story. Tell us a
little bit more about that. I mean, how significant do you think that is?
GLASSER: Well, look, we are just learning, obviously, about these new reports of Biden classified documents being turned over to the government.
The Justice Department looking into them. But certainly, as a political matter, you instantly saw the new Republican majority in the House —
— seizing upon this to discredit the ongoing criminal investigation involving a large number, something like 300 classified documents that have
been found at Mar-a-Lago. Trump was reluctant to turn those over, a month’s long standoff is what ultimately led to that investigation.
So, a very different fact set as far as what we know right now. But politically speaking, it seems like it was just handed to Trump and his
allies on Capitol Hill as an opportunity to discredit any charges that might come out of the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
MARTIN: I keep going back to my original question here, which is, what’s the end goal here? Is there sort of any overarching philosophy here of what
the goal is?
GLASSER: The goal is politics, politics, politics. The goal is winning. The goal is winning.
MARTIN: Susan Glasser, thank you so much for joining us and sharing these insights with us today.
GLASSER: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, let’s dig in deeper now on this congressional chaos. You would have to go back to the civil war era to see the same kind of
government paralysis. And as you just heard from Susan Glasser, the fight within the GOP over electing their own speaker foreshadows dysfunction
ahead.
So, how can the past help here? How does it inform the future, even the present? No one knows better than presidential historian Doris Kearns
Goodwin. And she’s joining me now from Boston, Massachusetts. Doris, welcome back to the program. Great to see you.
And my goodness, you know, put it into context then for us. It’s, you know, the first time in 100 years that we haven’t had a smooth election for
speaker.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR, “LEADERSHIP IN TURBULENT TIMES”: Yes, it’s incredible when you think about it. And 100 years ago,
in 1923, it took only nine ballots to get the speaker as opposed to 15 this year, which means you have to go back, way back, to 1856, and it took 133
ballots. Can you imagine? It took two months for the Congress to even organize itself.
They were trying to get everything they could done. So, they took food, they took a drink away, they didn’t put the fireplaces on, but it still
kept going on. And I think the reason why is you had factions then, the party system was unstable. Each one of the parties were rent with factions.
And so, they had to get a coalition to finally get that speaker, and I think that is what we are seeing now, a faction within a faction of a party
that doesn’t want compromise, that wanted concessions. And so, it took forever to get Mr. McCarthy as the speaker. But history tells us that it’s
happened before.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but a long, long time ago. And perhaps, we might have though there was some — I don’t know, some political lessons have been
learned since 18 — whatever it was, ’56. Oh, my gosh. That is so long ago.
GOODWIN: 1856.
AMANPOUR: Yes. But here’s the thing, you heard Susan Glasser answer what do they want and she said, to win, to win, to win. But it doesn’t look like
this is a winning strategy, to have this constant dysfunction, even within your own party, when you are finally in the majority and you are able to
maybe do some things that might help you win.
GOODWIN: Yes, it’s interesting. You look back at 1994 when Gingrich took over with the revolution and Clinton had such a terrible midterm. And
Clinton, with bruising, decided, I’m going to turn to the middle and I’m going to get something done. And on the other side, the Republicans were
willing to do that and you’ve got welfare reform. You got a budget amendment. They had a balance budget amendment they had been trying to get
forever.
And Clinton was then able to go to his election as a bipartisan leader that’s seemingly less likely, I think, for President Biden right now
because it doesn’t seem to be, just as you say, any kind of hunger for that kind of bipartisan accomplishment. But then the problem, I think, for the
Republicans is the other side of the Gingrich Revolution was that they went too far. There were two government shutdowns. The country got upset with
what was happening. And again, Clinton won that election the next time around.
So, I think there’s a warning sign for them in going too extreme and not governing. And then, what Biden can do, is he can go out on a train, maybe
go around with all his infrastructure projects and say, look what we got accomplished bipartisan when I was there, and maybe become a little bit of
Harry Truman from 1946 and 1948, the Do-Nothing House.
And when people want certain things passed and they are not getting passed, you can blame the other side. So, it’s an interesting dynamic that we’ve
got presidents from history on all sides.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And, you know, what I think was interesting, you’re talking about, you know, show some accomplishments. Well, just a week or so ago,
when all of this was going down in Congress, and the House — well, the GOP in the House was looking dysfunctional, President Biden and the senate
minority leader, Mitch McConnell, went together to endorse one of these bipartisan infrastructure projects.
And I guess, you know, you mentioned the Gingrich-Clinton era. Didn’t that show that actually the public, the people who put these people in Congress,
really value bipartisanship?
GOODWIN: Absolutely. And the people have things they want to have done. And I think that’s really, in a certain sense, the challenge for President
Biden. If he can get out on a train, just like Truman did, and go around the country, and every bridge and every public works project that’s being
put into place, it’s going to show finally some effects on the people, their daily lives are going to be helped by these things. And he can say,
this is what happens when government works. Let’s get back to that kind of bipartisanship.
It’s an instinct of desire when there’s problems that need to be solved to have the government solve them. What are they there for otherwise?
AMANPOUR: Yes. And, you know, I don’t know whether I was looking through rose-tinted glasses or what, but going back to 1856, even in 1923, those
big sort of moments of dysfunction, I mean, the issues that were being discussed were of mega importance. I mean, they seemed to be so much more
important than what these insurgents and insurrectionists within the GOP are concerned about today. Is that real or am I just, you know, fantasizing
about the past?
GOODWIN: Oh, no, you’re absolutely right. I mean, what really broke the party structure apart in the 1850s was slavery. And the anti-slavery
movement had gotten strong enough that one of the parties, the weak party, totally collapsed because it was too involved with proslavery. The
Democratic Party was split into because of slavery. And the Republican Party was formed.
So, you know, I kept thinking after January 6th when the peaceful transition of power had not happened, and when the attack took place, that
maybe that would be another time of a shakeup of the Republican Party. It hasn’t yet happened, but I think part of the turmoil we are seeing now is
still that is part of that. There is a real issue out there about the peaceful transition of power, but that’s not what this is being thought
about right now.
I think it’s what’s said in the previous segment, it’s more about power, it’s more about being on television, it’s more about having your face there
rather than governing for the country.
AMANPOUR: Doris Kearns Goodwin, we must wish you a belated happy 80th birthday. And you don’t look it, but of course, you know, age is great,
let’s face it. And you have been really through the gamut of history. You know, the turmoil of the ’60s, political assassinations, racism, but also,
the great march on Washington. Talk us through what you’ve witnessed and how it informs what you see now.
GOODWIN: Yes. You know, when I think about the ’60s, when we look back on it, we sometimes think about the sad things that happened, which were truly
said. Three assassinations, riots in the cities, antiwar violence. And yet, the parts that I experienced were part of the extraordinary part of the
’60s.
I went to college just as JFK was announced as president. I was at the march on Washington, as you say, in 1963. It was really the first time I
ever felt that sense of being part of something bigger than myself. We were singing, we all shall overcome. I was carrying a sign, protestants, Jews
and Catholics for civil rights.
And then, came Selma. And I remember being in graduate school listening to Lyndon Johnson’s We Shall Overcome speech. And all of us were crying. It
was so incredible to find the president of the United States and the civil rights movement partnering for voting rights. And never could I have
imagined, when I was listening to that speech, that three years later, I would be working for the man who delivered it, Lyndon Johnson, or more
importantly, 10 years later, I would marry Richard Goodwin, the man who crafted those words.
And then, comes the summer of 1965 when everything happens and I’m in the Congress. I’m just an intern there, but Medicare, Medicaid, aid to
education, voting rights, immigration reform, NPR, PBS, Head Start, it was an extraordinary time. So, it’s important to remember that even in those
decades when a lot of sad things happened, great things happened that have had a permanent impact. And I was lucky enough to be part of those great
moments.
AMANPOUR: Really amazing, because it gives you a sense of optimism, of can do, you know what is possible. And to have lived through that is just
really a gift. It really is. But I want to pick up on a couple of things you just said. You talked about the great work you did and the love of your
life. And I want to ask you this because you talked about a very important lesson that you learned early in your college years with, I think, a very
renowned psychiatrist or psychologist who talked about the importance of work, love and play in equal amounts. Tell me how that shape you, how you
put that into practice.
GOODWIN: Yes. What Erik Erikson tried to teach us when we were young graduate students was that, if you want to have a life that is full, and at
the end of your life, you can feel a sense of balance, you have to try and balance work, finding some meaning in work, purpose and work, hopefully,
love, meaning family and friends, and play something that allows you to just think other things and replenish your energies and relax.
And I think we were also ambitious at that time, that work was the center of our lives and we couldn’t really imagine balancing it with something
else. And then, all of a sudden, I fall in love with Richard Goodwin. We have three kids within the first couple of years, and it took me 10 years
to write the book I was writing.
And I remember I was walking through Harvard Square at one point and I heard somebody say, whatever happened to Doris Kearns anyway? Did she die?
We haven’t heard from her. And I wanted to say, I have three boys, that is what happened. So, it wasn’t that balanced at that time. But then what
happens, the kids get older, I could work some more, and always, always on the side was this crazy love of baseball that my father gave to me when I
was only six years old. So, that I could always put myself into the hands of the Red Sox and root for them year after year.
And now, being 80 years old, work still matters to me. Luckily, I’ve got meaningful work. I’m working on a book. I’m working on a series of
television series with the History Channel on presidents from Lincoln to Teddy to FDR. It’s coming this Memorial Day. And I still have the Red Socks
to love. So, I feel that great sense of the gift, which you said before, of optimism. I think I was born with it as a child and I’ve carried it with me
through all these years.
So, I still feel — I’m 80 years old, but hopefully, there’s a lot more years left to enjoy that balance that Erikson tried to make us understand
when we were young, of work, love and play.
AMANPOUR: It’s really such an important balance. And I’m going to leave it there because it’s great to have you back. Thank you so much and we will
have you back to check in with you, how is it going.
GOODWIN: Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Work, love and play. So finally, tonight, the Golden Globes are back on Tuesday. And Actor Hugh Jackman is nominated for his role in “The Son.” He
plays a father attempting to help his teenaged son through a deep depression. Here is a clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nicholas hasn’t been to school in almost a month.
HUGH JACKMAN, ACTOR, “THE SON”: I want to ask how are you? Has something happened? You realize the school is talking about expelling you?
ZEN MCGRATH, ACTOR, “THE SON”: Can I live with you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you don’t feel very close to people your age.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your other son, he needs you as well.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you are at work all of the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it is a powerful, painful gut punch about often unrecognized mental health issues within family relationships. And Hugh Jackman is
joining me now. Welcome to the program, Hugh Jackman. It’s great to have you.
It is a really affecting film and you are unbelievable in it. But what made you want to take on this role? I know you are an actor, but it’s quite
different from some of the other roles you’ve taken on.
JACKMAN: Yes. Thanks. Thanks for having me on. And I think it was something urgent within me, more of a gut feeling, more — before it became
something in my head. The story felt urgent. It felt like something that was common to almost everybody I know. Almost everybody watching the show
either is dealing with in their immediate family or knows someone who has a mental health crisis going on.
And I loved the director and writer, Florian Zeller. His movie, “The Father,” I thought was so beautiful. And I just felt an urgency to play the
part. And I actually chased him down, which is something I haven’t done very often. But I chased him down and luckily, he said yes.
AMANPOUR: Again, it was very, very hard to watch, frankly, and it was massively important. And you gave a very — no — I don’t know whether
restraint is the right word, but it was very somber. And there you were trying to struggle with what was unfolding in the story. Tell us, from your
perspective, what was the main story? Is it the fact that the father didn’t quite get the son? Is it the fact that mental health is everywhere and we
need to pay attention to it all the time? Is it about the divorce? Is it about parenting?
JACKMAN: Yes, pretty much all of those things. What is so beautiful about this story is it’s — the story centers around a young man, a 17-year-old,
going through severe mental health crisis. But actually, what we are doing is watching it and feeling this through the people around him. His parents,
the teachers, the people who are in contact with him and how they deal with it and try to help.
Because I think we are living in a time where there’s so much ignorance and, frankly, shame and embarrassment about the issue. We don’t know a lot.
We feel unsure to talk about it. Somehow, there’s a feeling of shame and that it’s something as a parent, I should be able to fix it, I should be
able to do, I should be able to solve this for my son. And there’s a wonderful line in the movie where the doctor says love isn’t always enough.
I mean, obviously, it’s the most important thing, but it’s not always enough in some situations. And so, really, for me, from my point of view,
the film is opening up not answers to how to solve this or how to deal with it, but actually opening up questions and opening up conversations, and
that this is an area which is an epidemic in our society. I would even say pre-pandemic, that even now, it’s even greater.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, before I get to the parenting part of it then, I want to ask you about that because it said, one of the charities, the mental health
charities that your — that the film company worked with, said something which I found extraordinary, but maybe I shouldn’t. Nine out of 10 people
working in the sector, i.e., the entertainment and film sector, experience mental health problems.
Is that something you were aware of? Were there therapists on this set to help the cast and crew go through this ringer, this emotional ringer?
JACKMAN: Yes. I’ve never seen the statistic, nine out of 10. I’m not shocked by it. I think it’s — there’s a lot of pressure. I think there’s
the reasons people get drawn to it. It can be certain things going on from childhood, or whatever — for whatever reason. Anecdotally, I can just tell
you, I’m around it all the time.
I don’t just think it is our industry. I don’t know. I could ask you of yours.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
JACKMAN: But I feel it is everywhere and not just in the West. I feel it is absolutely everywhere. And what we had on the set — and I’ve never
experienced this before, was professional help for every single person on the crew. And people used it. They really did. And it wasn’t uncommon in
some of those scenes where people were just need a two- or three-hour break, where they just needed to collect their thoughts and go and talk to
somebody.
AMANPOUR: And people including you?
JACKMAN: I’m lucky and I had someone that I was working with. Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
JACKMAN: And I was also lucky to have my family. We were shooting in London when my family came over, because I found it very disturbing. I
found I was not sleeping very well. I was — I wouldn’t say I’m normally a hot mess, but I was more of a hot mess on this one than any other film. So,
I, luckily, had support.
AMANPOUR: Well, let’s play a clip that speaks to the hot mess that you probably — you know, say you found yourself in. This is obviously about a
moment of parenting. You confront Nicholas because even though he has come to live with you and your new wife and his baby brother, having been very
upset about you having divorced his mother, et cetera. He promises you that he will go to school and he doesn’t go to school. Here’s the clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKMAN: I’m going to explain to you how it’s going to be. Starting tomorrow, whether you like it or not, you are going back to school. Is that
clear?
MCGRATH: No.
JACKMAN: Sorry?
MCGRATH: I’m saying no, I will not go back to school.
JACKMAN: What are you doing, Nicholas? What do you want? When I was your age, my mother was sick. I wasn’t seeing my father anymore. I had money
problems but I fought on. I fought on. And believe me, most days it was no joke. And what has happened to you? What is there in your life that is so
dramatic you’re not able to go to school like everybody else? Answer me. Answer me.
MCGRATH: I can’t deal with it.
JACKMAN: I don’t understand what that means. You can’t deal with what?
MCGRATH: Living. I can’t deal with living, and it’s your fault.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, that whole — shows that you are both, father and son, on a completely different plane. You are trying to do the right thing to
protect him, to educate him, et cetera. He’s trying to show you vulnerability that you are just not getting. How did it affect you as a
real parent?
JACKMAN: Oh, great question. It did change me as a parent. I’ve learned to be more vulnerable, to say things like, yes, I don’t know. Give me a
second. I’m not sure. Or say things like, I’m worried. I’m worried about things, and I would love to talk to you about them — tell them things that
are going on in my life, concerns that I have, that have nothing to do with it, that I used to think, well, this is just going to burden them. They
don’t want to hear their father’s problems. And yet, of course, they are picking up on it all.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
JACKMAN: So, then, it just becomes this wall of silence they don’t understand or maybe it’s their fault or not. And so, I think, I’ve been way
more open now. I have a 17 and a 22-year-old. So, they are adults effectively. And so, it’s maybe different than for other people. But I —
what I’ve noticed is their capacity to hold that and to hear it and to understand it is probably way more than I had anticipated. And in fact, I
think they like it.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about your own father while we are sticking with your family? Your father, I understand, raised you. Your mother left the
house when you were a little boy. And went back to England and you were raised in Australia.
And your father was very central to your life and he actually passed away during the filming, but you kept on filming. Tell me what informed that
decision. What it meant to you to keep working at that moment.
JACKMAN: It was difficult. But I certainly know that my father, if he was able to, would have said, keep working, you know. I was unable to go to the
funeral. He was in Australia, and because of COVID, I could not travel to be there anyways. So, I just — we did it virtually.
But there were so many raw emotions in the film and the filming itself that I thought, well, as an artist, my job is to store it in my heart. And
whatever I’m going through is going to inform my work. And I trusted my director to rein me in or to tell me if I was going way off base, but I
just — I think I just sort of thought I can work — I didn’t want to deny what was happening. I relied on my crew and on my director and my other
actors enormously. But I thought, let’s try and work with this rather than deny it.
AMANPOUR: And in the film, you work with Anthony Hopkins, who is your father in this film, and obviously, he played the father in Florian
Zeller’s previous film, “The Father.” And I mean, you know, it could have frozen you like a block of ice. I mean, that performance by your father to
you in this scene is just a calamity. I mean, it really is just so awful.
I wonder what it was like just witnessing that and understanding that this is the whole reason why — or potentially, why your own son is having
trouble in the film.
JACKMAN: It’s that point in the movie, about halfway through, where all of a sudden it dawns on you that perhaps my character is the son. You’ve gone
into a movie, it’s called “The Son.” You see a 17 and everyone is talking about this 17-year-old boy and he struggles, but at that point, you realize
we are all still children, no matter how old we are.
And it is sort of our responsibility, I guess, to recognize the pains, everything that we carry from our childhood. And in that scene, he’s
incredibly cruel. Of course, Anthony couldn’t be more opposite in life. And as an actor to work was an absolute joy and it was — literally, I pinched
myself that day that I was going through it.
And he is so good. I think he’d finished — he got there at 5:00 in the morning. He was not due there until 7:30 or something, but he was so
excited that he got there at 5:00. And were done. The scene was done by about 11:00 in the morning. And then, he said, can — he said to the
director, can I do it again? He was an amazing man to work with, but his power —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
JACKMAN: — his stillness, and the way he connects, it’s somehow — my experience — and I’ve been lucky enough on several occasions to work with
the greats —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
JACKMAN: — it makes it so easy. It makes it so easy because they demand a view to be present and right there with them.
AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, look, this performance by you has rightly been praised by many in the industry and many critics. And you’ve worked with
some very, you know, excellent people. You mentioned Anthony Hopkins, but also, obviously Laura Dern, an amazing actress. She plays Nicholas —
you’re son’s mother, you’re divorced wife. And then, there’s Vanessa Kirby, who is your current wife.
And I just want to ask you without a spoiler alert, because I think for people this will be important. You said that love isn’t enough and that
because you both, you and the Laura Dern character, the mother, tried to love your son, tried to do what you thought was the best for him, and it
didn’t work out. What message does this — do you want to leave people with, with this film and the way it ended?
JACKMAN: It really takes a village to raise a kid. And just because you are the parent, of course you love that child more than anybody, and you
know that child more than anybody, but we also bring in our own upbringing. We bring in our own, in my character’s case, guilt over — his job to
(INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: Hugh Jackman, thank you so much indeed despite those audio problems. That was an amazing conversation and it’s an incredible film.
That’s it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.