Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
Deep in Republican country, home to President Trump’s favorite golf course, this New Jersey district sends a Democrat to Washington for the first time
in almost 40 years. And I’ll speak with the Congressman-Elect, Tom Malinowski.
Then, Wall Street helped create the global financial meltdown. Ten years later, trying to be participate of the solution. My exclusive conversation
with JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon.
And another exclusive with Canada’s Justin Trudeau. American women won big on Tuesday. But up north in Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau blazed that
trail with a 50/50 cabinet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It’s totally fake news, just fake. It’s fake. It’s —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Finally, there is nothing new about fake news. Author and cultural critic, Kurt Anderson, on America as fantasy land.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in New York.
Now Tuesday’s midterm election apparently isn’t quite over yet. Arizona, Georgia and Florida are all still counting as candidates and their lawyers
are engaged in hand-to-hand combat over every untallied vote.
But one thing is clear, that blue wave did wash over the House. Democrats won more seats than at any time since 1974 just after Watergate. So. how
did they flip the House?
Let’s look at one district, New Jersey’s 7th, where Democrat, Tom Malinowski. won after almost 40 years of Republican control. Malinowski is
a veteran human rights activist and a former state department official. But rather than run against President Trump on immigration or his Russia
ties, Malinowski focused on health care and on Republican scorched earth campaign against the Affordable Care Act.
The strategy worked for Malinowski in New Jersey and for candidates in Republican districts all around the country, helping Democrats pick up at
least 30 seats and counting. As leader, Nancy Pelosi, so often says, “Democrats don’t agonize, we organize.”
Now, Tom Malinowski was born in communist Poland during the height of the cold war. He worked for presidents Clinton and Obama. And now, he is
headed back to Washington as congressman-elect.
Tom Malinowski, welcome to the program.
TOM MALINOWSKI, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT-ELECT: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Quite a story.
MALINOWSKI: Well, it’s been quite a year.
AMANPOUR: It’s been quite a year. You’ve been campaigning for a year. And I guess let’s just go right to the heart of it. You can’t really move
around this country without hearing people on both sides of the aisle, wherever they are, talking about President Trump. And yet, Leader Pelosi
hoped — instructed, hoped, that candidates would not focus on the daily Trump, would not get personal, would not get out of the box and sort of,
you know, defuse the message there.
MALINOWSKI: That’s right. And that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a factor. Everybody in my district knew what was happening in Washington and the
craziness and the crackpot conspiracy theories, but I didn’t need to remind them of that, I think until the very end.
This campaign was mostly run on health care, it was run on protecting kids from gun violence, building infrastructure in my state in New Jersey. I
think the last couple of weeks I think Trump inserted himself into the campaign in ways that were terrible for the country but bad for his party.
AMANPOUR: Were you all surprised about that? I mean, some have said, you know, with all the postgame analysis that the Republicans in a way handed
you all this fantastic issue, health care, on a plate, or the economy, for instance. They didn’t even focus on the flourishing economy. It was
immigration, immigration, immigration and demonization.
MALINOWSKI: Right. It was fear. It was fear, demonization and conspiracy theories. And in a district like mine, that did not play well, especially
after the shootings in the Pittsburgh synagogue because we could link very clearly the president’s words to one of the worst acts of violence in
religious violence, hateful violence in American history. And our positive message on practical issues like health care, infrastructure, gun violence,
the economy, contrasted with fear, was very advantageous for us.
AMANPOUR: I want to play something that maybe speaker, certainly Leader Pelosi, said to me in September, because a lot of people said, “Well, you
know what, the Democrats don’t really have a message to compete with make America great again. There’s no slogan, there’s no clear strategy.” But
this is what she laid out in September.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI, U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER: What we’re about in our campaign is that we are for the people, for lower health care costs,
lowering prescription drug prices, we’re for raising paychecks, increasing — lowering health care costs, increasing paychecks by building the
infrastructure of America and for cleaning up government to make sure people understand that the people’s interests not the special interests are
served here in the United States capitol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there she was laying out a strategy and one that clearly is a winning strategy. Explain to me, to our viewers, how it worked for you
in a Republican-controlled district. As we said, for 37 years your Republican opponents held on to that district.
MALINOWSKI: Yes. A Republican-controlled district full of reasonable, sensible, pragmatic people who, for example, could not understand why the
one thing the Republican Congress actually did last year was to pass a massive corporate tax cut that is bankrupting our country, adding $2
trillion to the national debt while refusing to fund bridges and tunnels and roads in the State of New Jersey, while doing nothing about rising
health care costs, while doing nothing about the massacre after massacre after massacre we have seen in our country’s schools.
Those are partisan issues when you get right down to it with voters in a district like mine. They want government to work for them.
AMANPOUR: So, I’m curious because, you know, the figures show the economy is growing, the economy is doing well, unemployment is at historic lows.
It’s not just the stock market that’s rallying, it’s main street as well, I think. Why then didn’t the tax cuts trickle down to people in your
Republican district?
MALINOWSKI: Well, trickle down doesn’t work so well. Had it been trickle up, had it been a middle-class tax cut rather than a tax cut in which most
of the money went to people in the top income bracket and to lower the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, I think more people would have liked it.
And for states like New Jersey, there was a very particular issue. They took away the deductibility of our very high state and local taxes, our
property taxes. So, middle income homeowners in my district got screwed by that bill.
AMANPOUR: So, look, I describe you as what you are, you are a veteran of human rights campaigns, you are a veteran of the national security picture,
you worked for two Democratic presidents, you’ve been in Washington but not as an elected official. I mean, now you go in there as congressman-elect.
But it must have been sort of a disconnect for you to go from those, you know, 30,000-foot-high, big, big all-encompassing international issues to
focusing on health care at home. And there were veterans who ran and won, there were CIA analysts who ran and run, there were women who ran and won
all in these purplely swingy kind of states.
Give us the big picture of how everybody was so disciplined to focus on the real sharp pointy edge of that health care debate.
MALINOWSKI: Well, that’s a big issue. It’s about the future of this country, it’s about an individual person in my congressional district who
has a pre-existing condition and is worried about whether they’re going to be covered in the future. It is also about whether we’re going to bankrupt
America with high health care costs.
And as somebody who has spent a career fighting for my country, for what it stands for and what truly makes it great, that’s an important issue to me.
AMANPOUR: And what do you make of the Republicans, including President Trump, who has been saying it just about every minute since the elections,
you know, pre-existing condition, pre-existing condition, pre-existing — we’re going to keep the pre-existing condition even as we want to repeal
the rest of the Affordable Care Act?
MALINOWSKI: Well, it was one of the most blatant lies told in the campaign, if not, the most blatant lie and the voters didn’t buy it. They
knew that the Republicans had spent years trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions. Words were not going to erase that record.
AMANPOUR: There are obviously a lot of issues that matter very much to people, you know, living ordinary daily lives. You mentioned the massacres
that we’ve seen and just a couple days ago, in a nightclub in California after it happened in a synagogue in Pittsburgh and on and on and on and on
that it’s become just a horrible aspect of daily life here in the United States.
But, what can you do about it when you get to Congress? Because we see that some two dozen candidates who ran with strong support from the NRA, in
fact, lost., However, 88 candidates who had strong, you know, support from the NRA won. So this is — yes.
MALINOWSKI: Yes. So, Christiane, even today in a Republican House of Representatives, we have the votes to pass universal background checks for
gun purchases. Why doesn’t it happen? Because the leadership, the speaker and others leaders on the Republican side have been too cowardly or
complicit to even allow a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. That’s going to change in a couple of months. We’re
going to pass that.
We’re going to pass legislation on health care costs, we’re going to pass legislation on infrastructure, we’re going to pass legislation to fight
corruption and foreign influence in our politics.
The real question is, what will the president and the Republican Senate do? If they’re willing to work with us on those issues, which have huge
bipartisan support in — among the American people, we’re going to be very busy working together. And if they don’t, well, we’re going to have a lot
of time on our hands to do things that they might not like us to do.
AMANPOUR: Well, they might not like us to do. Could they be an investigatory process that the House is going to launch? I mean, you know
that many have asked what would happen if the House flipped and all the investigative committees and all the rest of it would start pulling threads
out of the Trump family, the Trump administration, tax returns, all the other such things. Is that what the House plans to do? Are you going to
go on the offensive?
MALINOWSKI: The House has all kinds of powers. The charge we have from the voters is to legislate before we investigate. Legislation not
investigation because they want us to get things done for the American people.
But, again, that requires the Senate and the president to work with us. They don’t agree with us on everything, they have to compromise, they have
to allow legislation to go forward. If they don’t do that, then there’s probably nothing left for us to do but subpoenas and investigation and all
the things they don’t like.
So, I think we have a lot of leverage to demand the kind of action Americans want and we’ll see how the president responds.
AMANPOUR: And I mentioned, of course, your long experience in the human rights field. I mean, one of the most appalling issues is the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, it’s long history of human rights violations but, of course, you know, come to a head with the despicable murder of our colleague, Jamal
Khashoggi.
Where do you stand and how do you think American policy may or may not change towards Saudi Arabia in a new Congress?
MALINOWSKI: Well, I think we’ll have hearings on Saudi Arabia, there’s going to be a lot more oversight, Congress has powers it has not used on
arms sales, using the Magnitsky Act, which I helped to get pass in my past life.
AMANPOUR: There’s sanctioning.
MALINOWSKI: The sanctions. Congress also has a voice that it hasn’t used on American foreign policy and I think we need to use that voice not just
on Saudi Arabia but globally to remind the world, to show the world that the heart and soul of America has not changed.
AMANPOUR: Do you — are you worried about the firing of Jeff Sessions, the appointing as acting AG, Matthew Whitaker, who today, the president says he
doesn’t know, and Mueller investigation, the integrity of the ongoing Mueller investigation?
MALINOWSKI: There is — there are few things more important to a democracy than maintaining the independence of our highest law enforcement
institutions. I am absolutely militant about the Congress protecting the independence and integrity of the Justice Department, of the FBI, of the
Mueller investigation.
I’m not — I don’t think Democrats should be screaming about impeachment. I think we should allow the institutions to function but we have to protect
those institutions from political interference.
AMANPOUR: And the president is going abroad this weekend. It’s the 100th anniversary of armistice, et cetera. Putin will be there, also other
leaders will be there. Is this a chance to reset — do you think the White House they’re thinking that this is a chance to reset or not or do you
think the same — do you expect to see the same kind of direction in leadership from the administration? How do you anticipate it?
MALINOWSKI: I don’t think the president is going to change one bit. Two years into this administration, I think it’s a fantasy to think that we can
plead with President Trump to be a different kind of leader. But what we can do is use the voice of the United States Congress to show the world
that the United States is not that, that we have not gone completely mad.
Congress has a voice. It has powers that it needs to exercise. And I hope very much to be part of that in the House of Representatives.
AMANPOUR: It’s certainly interesting. Tom Malinowski, Congressman-Elect, thanks very much.
MALINOWSKI: Thanks so much.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
So, with Congress in Democratic hands and the Senate still in Republican hands, GLP insiders, at least some, are wondering whether in fact they
might have staved off divided government with a more winning message as we’ve been talking about. For instance, if President Trump had chosen to
focus on the flourishing economy instead of running so hard on immigration.
As chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon is a leading player on the American economic scene. And in an exclusive interview, he tells me that
as he looks ahead into the future, he sees no imminent threat of recession around the corner.
When I spoke with Dimon, he was in the Parisian suburb of Seine-Saint- Denis, one of the poorest in the French capital, where the bank is injecting $30 million to help spark economic growth. It’s modeled on
similar programs in American cities. Ten years after the global economic meltdown, we talked about the corporate world’s responsibility to literally
share the wealth.
Jamie Dimon, welcome to the program.
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: Christiane, I’m thrilled to be here.
AMANPOUR: So, I was really struck by the way you’re framing your initiative there in Seine-Saint-Denis. You wrote an op-ed for “The FT”
talking about business and responsibility, you know, after World War I. And now, you are trying to do your bit for certain underprivileged
communities. So, what exactly do you intend to change in Seine-Saint- Denis, one of the most underprivileged parts of Paris?
DIMON: Yes. So, we’ve been in France for 150 years. We’ve always helped develop the French economy but it’s completely obvious to most people that
parts of society are being left behind. And there are a lot of ways to fix and a lot of things that needs to be done. But one of the things that
needs to be done and a great lesson we learned at Detroit is to work at a local level, work with the group here called Le Companion (ph) to train
kids to get jobs.
But at the end of the day, you got to work with civic community, business and government working together can actually solve some of society’s
problems.
AMANPOUR: Tell me, though, specifically what and how specifically can your $30 million, I think, help.
DIMON: Right. So, this group here, Le Companion (ph), basically does 10,000 kids a year, 95 percent get jobs. Our money is meant to accelerate.
We find great partners and then we figure out what to do. What they acceleration is, they think with a little bit of money to automate some of
the training to put them online that they can do 20,000 kids a year. And all these kids are local, they’re making furniture, other kind of
manufacturing, working with their hands.
But the other thing is a local business, they offer jobs. And a bunch of the kids, I just met five of them, there are two or three have started
their own companies making furniture. So, this lift up society. This neighborhood, like a lot of neighborhoods and big cities around the world
have a common problem, which is neighborhoods left behind. The unemployment rate is twice here, the poverty levels are 40 percent here.
So, to me, go right to the belly of the beast, figure out what you could do, help lift up society. A lot of companies do it. But I think we — I
think companies could do more now.
AMANPOUR: How do you feel your project has shown results in places like Detroit and other ones — other towns you’ve targeted in the United States?
DIMON: Yes. So, Detroit is a perfect example. You know, usually, with JPMorgan, we go I, a little philanthropy, a little affordable housing and
stuff like that. But we saw a wonderful mayor, Mike Duggan, I don’t know if you met him, a great governor, talking about the problems of Detroit,
the problems are sanitation, getting ambulances out there quick, turning the lights on, needing more jobs, getting better education, things like
apprenticeship type education there.
A team of people led by Peter Shur, who runs our corporate responsibility, holistically, we sent 50 people up to talk to civic society, folks like Le
Companion (ph), the mayor, the governor, what do you need, we could accelerate. And so, we made — we decided to make a sustained effort, $150
million over five years and they needed help for affordable housing. Well, that’s right up our alley. And we put in kind of the riskiest layer and
hoped to get more money on top of that.
They had a bunch of places like this that both needed money and then we sent in our own people, we call the service corps, who goes in and helps
train them how to run it better, how to make it more efficient.
We started the thing called entrepreneur of color fund. So, you know, here is not entrepreneurs of color but it’s the same concept, that, you know,
entrepreneurs of color weren’t getting the same access to capital that they’re getting. We did it, it worked. We’re now doing it in four or five
cities in America and may very well do it around the world. So, this is bringing opportunity and jobs to neighborhoods that aren’t doing well.
AMANPOUR: So, obviously, Detroit was one of the famous American cities that seemed to have fallen off the map in this sort of post manufacturing
age and the city. And Seine-Saint-Denis also is a very underprivileged part and we can’t escape the fact that in Paris there are had been over the
2015, 2016 period, a spate of terrorism, people trying to figure out what was going on, were people alienated, did people, you know, not have the
wherewithal in society.
I guess if you’re trying to help these cities, what do you get out of it? Why is it important for JPMorgan to do this?
DIMON: So, you know, so JPMorgan — and we’ve been here 150 years, we operate in 100 countries around the world and 2,000 large and small cities
and stuff like that. And we have to be strong enough to be there in good times and bad times, which we have been for everybody.
So, particularly in bad times, you can continue to finance the economy even when a lot of people are not financing the economy. So, that’s always been
like a main mission.
And so, this is kind of like if you said what can you do in addition to that and to get much more focused to help grow these economies, and I think
there are serious issues. And if you go around the world, it doesn’t — society is not going to work and you see it with populism, et cetera, if we
don’t get attacking these issues. And again, government can’t do it itself. 85 percent of the jobs generally in the private sector, the
companies know what kind of training they need, they have to go in and train the trainers sometimes.
And honestly, if we do a good job of that or we all do a good job, society will be better off. There will be more families, less drugs, you get more
— more felons can get jobs, more kids could get to school, there’s real opportunity.
So, when you see this populism, you have to ask yourself the question, there are legitimate complaints. There were swaths of society left behind,
they’re angry about it and I think all of us have a vested interest in making communities better.
AMANPOUR: I want to get to that in a little bit. But first, I want to ask you this. Clearly, over the last couple of years the economy has been
doing well. The U.S. economy is surging. But now, we’re hearing all sorts of warning signs from various quarters that potentially a recession is
around the corner.
Let me read you a couple of things, manufacturing activity has stalled for the first time in two years, business investment is laggardly, worker
productivity a bit sluggish, you know, all these things that were declared at a recent conference on all of this. So, I guess my question to you,
what is your analysis? Do you believe that a recession is around the corner?
DIMON: So, these are the important things. So, you know, sentiment changes by the day. But if you look at the big picture, you know, the U.S.
economy grew 20 percent over 10 years, it actually should have been 40 percent.
And I think it’s very important we try to figure out why was so little and so less, and lot of it is because skills, infrastructure, things like that.
So, the American economy is still doing quite well and it may very well be accelerating. Unemployment is going to hit probably a post-world low some
time the next 12 months or something like that. Companies are spending more cap expenditures, sentiment, consumer and business confidence is at
all-time records.
And like you mentioned, manufacturing, it’s down off the top but it’s still growing and it’s still expanding. So, you actually have a very strong
economy that’s going into 2019. But, of course, there are always these other issues out there that are causing concern, sometimes legitimately
Brexit, Italy, the global reverse of QE, potential trade skirmishes and wars that, you know, effect confidence and stuff like that.
So, you know, there will be another recession. It doesn’t mean it has to be early in 2019, it may very well be 2020 or 2021. And obviously, you got
to be prepared for that, you know, obviously, hopefully, the policymakers will — when that happens, will manage it in a way so it’s least damaging
to the economy.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you again because, you know, you acknowledge that a lot of people were angry about the financial crash, a people pointed
fingers at Wall Street and a lot of people felt that there was not accountability and that they still have not fully recovered from the great
recession. So, I just want to play a little bit of soundbite from an interview I did with Paul Krugman on this issue last month and then I want
to get your view of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL KRUGMAN, ECONOMIST: It was necessary to rescue the financial system. It’s not clear that it was necessary to rescue the bankers. And the way it
was structured was one that did not — you know, we didn’t — certainly, we didn’t prosecute any and there were certainly people who could have been
prosecuted. But we also didn’t make sure that the upside of the rescue was going to go to taxpayers.
This was an argument — you couldn’t worry too much about finesse because things were really on the edge but more could have been done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Jamie Dimon, I’m curious as to your reaction to that. But particularly, I want to just ask you because you have been quoted as saying
that you recognize that people were hurt by the recession and angry with banks for engaging in the risky mortgage lending practices that triggered
that recession.
I mean, what do you feel about it now and do you still understand people’s feelings and I guess, what can you do about it?
DIMON: Yes. So, we had a great recession. And I think it’s fair that people look at it and say who caused it? It wasn’t my fault. And in
general, they look at Wall Street, government and maybe some big companies. I think that’s generally accurate. I think have the right to be angry
because it was terrible.
You know, having said that, you know look at, what do you want to do to fix the problems and you need a healthy — you know, JPMorgan did not need
government help, by the way, but you need a healthy banking system to finance the economy.
And so, you know, I listen to Paul Krugman, it’s possible that — I think if people broke the law they should go to jail, honestly. So, I would just
take that one off the table. But you need a healthy banking system.
You know, I like to be looking forward. What is it we need to do to have things get better? I understand the anger from the past, I understand what
people (INAUDIBLE), that isn’t a solution, the solution is jobs, skill, affordable housing, giving phones (ph) a path to work, you know, reduce the
opioid crisis, education, you know, the very young to, you know, apprenticeships, those are the things would actually will fix the problem.
And so, you now, we tried in the great recession to support everybody. You know, we bought (INAUDIBLE), we help unwind and a great risk to ourselves,
part of Lehman Brothers after their failure. We bought WAMU like literally 10 days after Lehman.
And so, we try to always lend. We forgave. If I remember correctly, you know, close to — all and close to $100 billion of interest in payments and
mortgages. We — you can talk to companies, they’ll tell, “Had it not been for JPMorgan, we wouldn’t have survived.”
So, we’re going to be there through thick or thin all the time and try to do our part. And this is a huge effort. So, this type of thing, it is
important for companies to participate because the biggest legitimate complaint is all these folks left behind, it is part of what causes
populism, it’s somewhat legitimate populism, legitimate anger.
If you grow up and you don’t have $400 for a rainy-day fund, I mean, you’re working and you don’t have $40 or $400 a rainy-day fund or you’re — the
bridges are terrible, you could have anger. And so, to me, I wish to do what American used to do, roll up your sleeves, look at the problems,
analyze them, come to solutions as opposed to just continue to point fingers at various segments like they cause — solely caused all these
issues.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, you talk about the populism and the anger that’s erupted from this past 10 years. So, what do you make, then, of President
Trump? This was considered a populist way of — he calls himself a nationalist, certainly an economic nationalist.
You believe that he should get credit for the surging economy, I think. Are you surprised that he did not use that economy and the results as his
closing arguments during this campaign stretch?
DIMON: Yes. So, first about populism. Again, you know, if you mean — when people say populism, like one word has a lot of connotations. If you
mean demagoguery, no, I don’t like it. If you mean that people are upset because they’ve been left behind, that’s legitimate. I think the
legitimate issues around immigration, around culture, around opportunity.
Half the kids in the United States and inner-city schools don’t graduate. That is like a disgrace. You know, we should all be ringing the alarm gong
or something like that. So, I give the president credit because we were growing at 2 percent and now, we’re at 3 percent. I do think some of that
was around, you know, tax reform, pro-business sentiment, reasonable reductions in bureaucratic regulations, I’m not talking about regulations
we all need, and that helped the economy.
President Obama could do those things too, and he didn’t. So, I look at that and say, no. But that does not mean, by the way, I agree with
everything the president says or does. I strongly don’t and we’ve been quite public about that. But, again, if we don’t get to the good policies
this will continue to get worse.
And I’ve mentioned — you know, we mentioned inner-city schools, but infrastructure. We put a man on the moon in eight years and in America
today, it takes 12 years to get the permits to build a bridge. If I remember correctly, it’s something like 30 percent or 40 percent of our
bridges are “D.” People are going to die because these infrastructures are not right and it’s hurting the economy. So, (INAUDIBLE) solutions to all
these problems if you figure it out, work together, analyze it and have the can do American attitude of build, build, build, fix your problems, attack
them head on.
AMANPOUR: Well, I guess I’d ask you then, what would you urge the president to do in post midterm to work together? Because there seems to
be very little working together, even on these no-brainer issues of infrastructure, as you point out.
But I guess I need to also ask you, you clearly have issues with the president, you oppose some things, you approve of other things. But you
did say awhile back that you could take him on, that you’re smarter than him and launched, you know, a furious fuselage from him on Twitter and you
sort of retreated. What’s going on?
DIMON: Yes. I — what I said, I wish I hadn’t said it. I don’t want to be involved in the macho tit for tat with anybody. I want to be serious
about policy. So, I regretted having said it because that was just me acting like a child. And, you know, so, I — that’s what I regret.
But to me, it’s the — so, take infrastructure. Why don’t you all pass along — and I guess, partisan politics is stopping some of the solution,
but infrastructure, we all agree with. We need roads, bridges, tunnel, we need the airports to be upgraded, we need all that stuff. Congress should
pass a law that city, state, federal, bureaucrats have two years to approve something, in which it gathers what the amount of time in Canada and a
place like Germany. So, they — that oneis a common one. It may cost a little bit more money. But right now, they’re a lot of reports — it
actually cost more money not to improve infrastructure than it would to improve infrastructure.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s talk about small business people, let’s talk about farmers, let’s talk about all the people that President Trump says that he
wants to help. And now, let’s put it in the context of tariffs and trade wars.
So, I guess, I want to ask you what you make of this and how you think that will or could either benefit America or hurt voters and workers. But I
want to put it in the context of Canada, our Poppy Harlow interviewed Prime Minister Trudeau and she asked him about the — you know, Trump’s tariffs
on steel and the rest and how they might have brought him to the table on renegotiating NAFTA. This is the exchange and then we’ll talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: These tariffs are actually hurting American businesses. American workers are losing their jobs
because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. And we’re going to continue to make arguments based on facts not based on emotions or insults.
[13:30:00]
POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: OK, so to the point about tariffs, the president said in the Rose Garden when he announced this deal, quote,
“Without tariffs we would not be talking about a deal.” Is he right? Did tariffs force Canada’s hand?
TRUDEAU: On the contrary. We have been open from the very beginning to negotiate a new and modernized NAFTA. I mean it’s one of those things that
we recognize that a 25-year-old trade deal always has ways to update it for a digital economy, for modern expectations and we were able to do an awful
lot about that.
HARLOW: So that’s not the case? It’s not the case if there were no tariffs you would not have come to the table.
TRADEAU: We were always willing to sit down and negotiate and we have.
(END VIDEO)
AMANPOUR: I wonder what you make of that. Do you believe the president was effective in using tariffs to force a renegotiation? Who do you think
won and lost? But, most importantly, are tariffs, whether against Canada or China the smart way to encourage economic change?
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: The business community in general, and I’m the chairman of the Business Roundtable but I think it’s true for the
Chamber of Commerce and a lot of groups doesn’t think tariffs are the right way to go about it. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t serious issues.
There were. I’m grateful that they did, I mean I was greatly in favor of Canada and Mexico. We think we’re lucky to have neighbors like that. We
have not had a war since 1848. Mexico is a new democracy. We should be applauding and helping them a little but but we didn’t think tariffs were
the way to go about it.
Put put Mexico, NAFTA, Canada behind us, it’s not the critical issue. And I’m also gratified that the president’s administration is now did a Korean
deal and now they say they’re talking to Japan and Europe but there are serious, serious issues in China. Those issues need to be faced. We’re
happy the president is doing it. You know you could do it at a backroom. If the president’s folks say tariffs are bringing people to the table,
maybe that’s true. I don’t know. I would prefer not to have done that because I think it always creates the risk of nationalism, populism, anger,
bad responses and it hurts sentiment.
I completely understand that those who have been hurt by tariffs are not going to be happy but there are a lot of other people who are making them
change their supply lines, et cetera. So serious issues – I would prefer private negotiations but I hope the president’s message worked particularly
with China.
AMANPOUR: Well I mean everybody is looking at the China trade war because it’s not just going to affect America and China but the rest of the world.
So are you concerned? I mean do you think it’s going to accelerate this trade war?
DIMON: I really don’t know. The president is going to meet President Xi November 20th. I think that might be important. I think if they don’t make
any progress that I would expect the American government will raise tariffs and all $500 billion of Chinese imports to some number, 20 percent or 25
percent. I think that will hurt global growth not just to the direct effect of tariffs but there’s kind of this very large indirect affects around
foreign direct investment, supply lines, people holding back and making investments, slightly higher inflation which will be in the headlines all
the time. That’s not the way I would go about negotiating it but I hope the methods work. If it doesn’t I do think this will offset some of the
growth you see in the United States.
AMANPOUR: I wanted to ask you about Saudi Arabia because of the murder of our colleague Jamal Khashoggi and because of the business community’s
investment in Saudi Arabia, you were one of the major businesses, banks, who pulled out of Davos in the Desert. On the other hand, you did say later
you had accomplished nothing by dropping out of the prince’s investment conference and that your bank expects to continue pursuing business in the
kingdom. So I’m really curious as to what you mean by that.
DIMON: I think it was a bad choice of words. So I think it was important not to stand on stage at this investment conference in any way looking like
you’re condoning what may have happened there. I don’t know all the facts and you probably know more than I do. And eventually I assume the American
government will take action and of course, we think they should. I think it was a serious — if this happens it’s a serious thing that should be taken
seriously. We’re there for the people of the country. We’d like to see Saudi Arabia modernized and to do well. We’d like to help in that process.
We’ll obviously – whatever the government decides, the American government will decide but you can’t as a company go in and out.
AMANPOUR: And I guess finally because you are in Paris what do you make of President Macron’s efforts at reform of the economy, of the labor market,
and to sort of jump-start Paris or France, rather, a way that it’s been sort of lagging behind over the last several years? Do you think they’ll
work and do you sympathize with the pressure that he’s under from his government, from the opposition and from people?
DIMON: You’ve seen around the world bad governments and the outcome. You saw it in Argentina; you saw it in Venezuela. You know after Brexit, we’re
all afraid of what’s going to happen in Europe, is it going to pull apart or pull together? And then you have a man like President Macron elected. He
tells the truth. He says the same thing to everybody and is focusing on reform that will help the citizens of France and he’s dead right about it.
He’s strong, he’s smart and if you want to develop a country you could do a lot of things that simply don’t work but labor reform, having
entrepreneurs, having a healthy financial system, creating jobs, so when President Macron goes around and speaks to business leaders, he wants us to
come here but he says help me lift up my society.
He wants to do this to help all of his society. And in fact his minister of the interior was just at the thing, at this place we did about the
10,000 jobs to 20,000 jobs so I completely applaud what he’s doing. Politics is tough and people want to see immediate results and sometimes
you’re not going to get immediate results but he is a shining star out there.
AMANPOUR: and I guess finally, finally since you mentioned Brexit, you had said that potentially 4 to 16,000 jobs could move and now there seems to be
a 95 percent completion of this Brexit deal. What do you plan in terms of your employees and your operation in the UK?
DIMON: Yes, We said 0 to 4,000. We’re ready for hard Brexit. We have to be. It would be irresponsible of me that I can’t finance my European
customers the day after a hard Brexit. We’re prepared for that. That only entails moving 300 people or something like that. But that’s not the
issue. That is not the issue and I think it is a huge mistake. The issue is whatever gets negotiated, that can change that dramatically and we just
don’t know. We’re a cork in the ocean. We simply have to abide by the new rules and new customs and stuff like that. There’s a lot of detail that
will affect companies. And my guess is you’ll see people making public disclosures about what that effect will be.
AMANPOUR: Well I hope we can check in with you again at that time. Jamie Dimon, thank you so much for joining us.
DIMON: Thank you very much. I enjoyed it very much. Hopefully I will talk to you soon.
AMANPOUR: So, Jamie Dimon talking to me just a little earlier this week.
And you also heard the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, talk to Poppy Harlow in that interview. You heard his take on tariffs and how they
impact American workers. That issue is at the crux of U.S.-Canada relations, an historically close alliance that has become markedly more
tense since Donald Trump moved into the White House. Our Poppy Harlow spoke, as I said, with Trudeau more about his relationship with President
Trump and his standout commitment to gender equality in Canada’s government. Here we go with the rest of her conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
HARLOW: Mr. Prime Minister, I appreciate you joining me today.
TRUDEAU: It’s a pleasure to be here Poppy.
HARLOW: So two years ago, I was at a dinner and heard you speaking about diversity and heard you speaking about a cabinet that was equal men and
women. Today it is gender balanced, 17 women, 17 men. It was clearly intentional, why did you do it?
TRUDEAU: Well first of all, before you can get to a cabinet that is gender balanced, it took a number of years of work recruiting great women and
convincing them to run for politics which isn’t easy as it is so when you think about getting to better gender diversity, you realize you have to do
a lot of work building the pipeline towards that. Why do it was fundamental to governing well. When you have a broader group of people with different
perspectives, with different backgrounds, with different stories, with different life experiences, you’re actually much better able to solve
different problems and solve them in a way that is going to respond to the needs people have.
HARLOW: I mean when you look Prime Minister at the under representation of women in the U.S. Congress, what do you think?
TRUDEAU: We have a similar under representation in Canada’s parliament. We are nowhere near 50 percent. We’re nowhere near 40 percent.
HARLOW: Right.
TRUDEAU: We have to do a lot better but I can’t control the numbers in parliament. I can control the numbers in my cabinet.
HARLOW: So the “Harvard Political Review,” just last month reported on some polling data – internally in Canada that showed that you have lost a
bit of male support since your election and the pollster inferred from that was that quote, “a tacit assumption that they, meaning men, are not a
priority. That thinking some have that as women rise up it is man down.” What do you make of that?
TRUDEAU: I can understand worries that people have any time there’s a status quo that is challenged. What we’ve seen time and time again is when
you have more fairness, more equality, you actually create better prosperity, more opportunity for everyone.
HARLOW: President Trump has at times spoken more critically of you, Mr. Prime Minister, than he has of President Putin of Russia, Rodrigo Duterte
of the Phillippines, Kim Jong-Un of North Korea whom he recently called terrific, a talented negotiator and said we fell in love. What do you think
of that?
TRUDEAU: My job as a politician is to focus on what matters to Canadians.
HARLOW: You don’t take it personally?
TRUDEAU: In politics you get called a lot of things by a lot of different people and most of the time you’re just able to shrug it off. I’ve gotten
pretty good at that. My focus is on how to build a constructive relationship that’s going to work for Canadians and that’s what I’ll always
do.
HARLOW: As you know, President Trump has repeatedly referred to the free press as the enemy of the American people. This happened even after a bomb
was sent to my office at CNN. Is that dangerous?
TRUDEAU: I have been unequivocal, repeatedly, that a free press is fundamental to any democracy around the world, to any free society. You
have to have an informed populace and politicians are being held to account from media. That’s why whether it’s the killing of a journalist in the case
of Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate or just standing up for the important work journalists do, I will always be unequivocal about defending
journalism, investing in a free and independent journalism as a country, and that’s something I make no secret of and no bones about.
HARLOW: So on that issue on the killing of the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, many people want to know what the United States will do and
since I’m sitting with you what Canada will do. Canada has a $15 billion deal to sell light armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia. You said last month
Canadians expect there could be consequences for Jamal Khashoggi’s premeditated murder. Will Canada cancel its arms sales?
TRUDEAU: This is something that the entire world is outraged about, and we are demanding answers on it. I will point out that Canada has been in
conflict with Saudi Arabia at a diplomatic level for a few months now.
HARLOW: Sure.
TRUDEAU: . because we put out a statement condemning the arrest of a number of pro democracy, pro-women activists in Saudi Arabia. We will
continue to stand up firmly for human rights while at the same time looking for ways to be more transparent and more accountable in the economic
choices we make.
HARLOW: But is there a line, Mr. Prime Minister? What would it take for you to say, that’s it, I know it will cost Canada $1 billion, because
that’s the penalty for you to cancel this arms agreement, but is there a line you get information and you just say, no, we are not doing this deal
anymore with Saudi Arabia?
TRUDEAU: We are continuing to look at how to move forward responsibly but the first thing is to get a level of accountability and responsibility for
the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and then we make determinations about the next steps.
HARLOW: So it may be on the table? It’s an option?
TRUDEAU: You look forward to making the right decision based on the information you have at the time. We still expect more information.
HARLOW: What keeps you up at night?
TRUDEAU: The polarization we see in Canada and around the world, people who don’t listen to each other anymore, people who are so sure they are
right that they won’t listen to anyone who disagrees and won’t — will even dehumanize people who disagree with them. The demonization of political
opponents is something that is fundamentally counter to the idea diversity of opinions, of perspectives, of backgrounds should be a source of strength
and resilience.
HARLOW: I very much appreciate your time on all of these topics.
TRUDEAU: Thank you, poppy.
(END VIDEO)
AMANPOUR: So the prime minister talking to our Poppy Harlow earlier this week in Montreal. Demonization, he says, that keeps him awake, and,
frankly, keeps a lot of people awake at night. And as America’s divide grows, one of the biggest drivers is, of course, fake news. But our next
guest says that did not start with Trump. Kurt Anderson is the Peabody Award winning host of the radio show “Studio 360.” He’s also a best-
selling novelist. His book “Fantasy Land: How America Went Haywire,” explores reality to illusion from the Salem witch trials in the late 1600’s
to Donald Trump in 2016 and he spoke with our Walter Isaacson about finding truth amid the blurry lines.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
WALTER ISAACSON: Kurt, thank you for joining us.
KURT ANDERSEN, AUTHOR: My pleasure.
ISAACSON: So the elections, did that show us, a divided nation getting even more divided?
ANDERSEN: I think that’s fair to say. I mean I get deeper in the weeds to find more interesting canter examples of we’re not bifurcating into an even
more sort of separate reality country and there are examples of that. But yes, I think the urban and suburban versus rural split is pretty much
clearer than ever. And, again, the fact that we are versus rural split is clearer than ever. And, again, the fact that we are more dysfunctionally
split even though I think the democrats winning the House is good for the democrats but it’s also good for democracy not to have a single party in
control especially under this president. But I think the idea of there being any kind of bipartisan new era of governance starting. That’s a myth
– an impossibility for at least a couple more years.
ISAACSON: You know your book, “Fantasy Land” talks about this from the Salem witch trials to the present and it seems to go in flows sometimes,
this paranoia, resentment, and then the fever breaks.
ANDERSEN: Yes.
ISAACSON: What would cause a fever to break this time?
ANDERSEN: That’s – well that’s what worries me most as I’d spent years researching and writing “Fantasy Land” and even though I had been a kind of
optimistic believer in this cycle of American history; we go right, we go left, we go more status, we go more free market. Looking at the history of
the last 40 or 50 years, I see it – I see the pendulum just going and continuing to go in one direction. And so that’s what I worry. I worry
that the new conditions of the internet, of cable news and partisan news media more generally are new conditions that – that I’m not sure we go back
to normal anymore.
ISAACSON: One of the things that made it so that we didn’t have these totally separate realities, we often had a common pool of information. We
grew up with a Walter Cronkite saying, “That’s the way it is.” Structurally with the internet and with cable news now, is that something
that we’ll never return to?
ANDERSEN: Well that’s my worry – that’s exactly my worry. And – and, you know, it’s the chicken and the egg problem. As we had more sources of
news, and that wasn’t all together a bad thing. There was lots of complacency and elitism and sexism and all kinds of things that were a
problem when two news magazines and three networks and a newspaper or two ran the show of information. But no, I think – I think that pendulum
swung too far the other way where now people are able to have their own fully apparently true reality on the internet, on talk radio, on television
news that really reinforces whatever they wish to believe.
So it’s not even confirmation bias as the psychologists talk about. You look for things to reinforce what you already believe and, therefore, you
keep believing them. That always has existed. This is a new situation where people are more able than ever to not just believe — have their
opinion but to believe their opinions are facts and to fail to see the difference between fact and opinion.
ISAACSON: Do you think some people have just given up on believing that the truth is the truth?
ANDERSEN: I do think that that is the big problem, that is the big problem that I examine – that I discovered really in writing “Fantasy Land” and it
hasn’t happened overnight. It’s been a – it was always part of the American character and habits of mind that we’re pretty procurely(ph) American for a
long time, but it did slide back and forth and the grown-ups were pretty much in control for a few centuries until for the last 50 years they got
out of control and thanks to new technologies and all that happened in the 1960s and everything, the idea of empirical reality and belief in science
and reason came under challenge.
And Donald Trump, as nobody before him had done in that position of authority and power exploited it and is exacerbating it. To me it’s the
biggest problem. It’s the extensional as you suggested earlier, once we no longer share a set of facts about, is the climate of the earth warming or
not, for instance, or is there a dangerous caravan of MS-13 people heading our way? Once we really don’t have the same set of facts, how do you run a
democracy? How do you run a society?
ISAACSON: How of does this stem from reality TV which Trump comes out of that world in which the distinction between reality and fantasy is so
blurred.
ANDERSEN: Reality TV and its emergence around the turn of the century, around 2000 is a big part of this. It’s both symptom and cause, a symptom
of this ongoing blurring of fiction reality which had been going on for decades if not centuries in this country and in this country especially.
But then, it encourages in the case of Donald Trump who played a successful businessman on television for 15 years, initially with very, very high
ratings, it encourages people to believe that and nominate him for president and elect him president.
ISAACSON: And do you feel democrats will now become part of the show, too now that they have the committed gavels and say let’s join this reality TV
show?
ANDERSEN: Well of course. I mean we all – all Washington politicians have become part of the show over the last few decades and with cable news, with
partisan cable news and so forth. So sure they’re going to be part of the show, but if politics has become a show and you’re the out of power party,
you have no choice but to become part of the show. Now you want to maintain your tether to reality as much as possible, which I hope the democrats will
do.
ISAACSON: When you see TV news anchors like Sean Hannity or Judge Pirro, I think her name is, go on stage and be part of a political rally, is that
fitting into your concept of how we’re losing the distinction of what the press should do?
ANDERSEN: Well it is certainly a new condition or, in that case — I mean, I think it’s awful and I think the fact we’ve lost those — another set of
norms about what journalists should and shouldn’t do is — is bad news, but we’re also reverting to the way the U.S. press used to be. In the 19th
Century and the 18th Century, almost all newspapers and publications were partisan rags. The Wigs had this paper and the Federalists had this paper
and that’s the way it was. And the late 19th century and through the 20th Century though there was still partisan news and Henry Lewis at times still
had his political opinions, this set of norms about what the news media should be, which is to say fair-minded in their search for the truth,
obtained and the idea of, yes, Walter Cronkite, you know, campaigning for or against Richard Nixon is an insane idea but here we are.
ISAACSON: You know, the notion of fake news existed when people were totally making up articles or Russia was making up articles and planting
them and Trump appropriated that to make the mainstream media fake news. Then you had Sean Hannity even going on stage and pointing at reporters and
saying fake news. Does that help undermine the concept of truth?
ANDERSEN: Absolutely. That is the problem. That is the totalitarian playbook. It’s what Hannah Arendt talked about in the “Origins of
Totalitarism” back in the early `50s, talking in that case about Stalin and Hitler. It’s what Putin does. Oh, who knows what’s true? They say this is
true. They say that’s true. You can never know what’s true.
ISAACSON: Based on Hannah Aaron’s book, Michiko Kakutani wrote “The Death of Truth.” It echoed your book, “Fantasy Land,” and that seems to be the
underlying issue here in this election which is people having no concrete notion that the truth is the truth.
ANDERSEN: If republicans were winning on the basis of arguments or even emotional appeals that were not based on falsehood, then, you know, the
democrats could say, well, they won, they made a better case, whatever, or they appealed to bigotry. But when it’s really based on untruths about
either, you know, election tampering or untruths about democrats of various kinds or this caravan, then I think — I don’t think that’s been the case
as much as it is today, at least in my lifetime.
ISAACSON: In “Fantasy Land” and even in your discussions recently, you also point out that the left has wandered into “Fantasy Land” quite often.
Do you fear that happening, too?
ANDERSEN: I think we – we — the bullet America missed, whether you’re democrat or republican, is undermining the sense of legitimacy of our
democracy, that that didn’t happen. So I think the fact that they now have this big lever of power running the House in Washington, will serve to keep
democrats and democratic voters ensconced in reality and the reality based community where they have been much more than republicans the last 20 years
as republicans have gone off the rails.
ISAACSON: But do you think the country is hungering for a message of people who want to unify us, or are they looking for resistance?
ANDERSEN: It would be nice to say unity. So I do think if you asked people, is there too little unity and too much divisiveness, 83 percent would say,
would answer yes. But our people in the short and medium term willing to do what’s necessary to make that happen? I don’t think so and to me the
message of this election is that people are hunkering down in their bunkers.
ISAACSON: Thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.
ANDERSEN: My pleasure.
(END VIDEO)
AMANPOUR: Or not as card carrying members of the reality based community, we defend the facts at every turn.
Next week, join me for my conversation with Paul Simon, still crazy talented after all these years. But until then, that is it for our program tonight.
Thanks for watching ‘Amanpour and Company’ on PBS.
And join us again next week.
END