Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Former Special U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker; Interview with Political Scientist "Bowling Alone" Author Robert Putnam; Interview with The New York Times National Politics Reporter and "The Run-Up" Host Astead Herndon. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 16, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: -- Menendez was accused of having his lawyers try to mislead the prosecutors in a pre-indictment meeting, found
guilty of that charge and then also count 18, the last one, obstruction of justice, the senator was found guilty. So, both Senator Bob Menendez and
his co-defendants were found guilty across the board in all of these charges.
Now, we'll be waiting for the senator to leave the courtroom. He usually walks out on his own, even without his attorneys and often speaks to the
cameras behind me. So, we'll be waiting for the senator to make his way out. There will be a few things left that the judge will do, including
sentencing -- set a sentencing date. But we'll be standing by to hear what the senator has to say after he's been found guilty on all these charges.
Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Kara, absolutely. Absolutely extraordinary that we have this United States senator, senior senator who has a lot -- has had a
lot of power now being found guilty, as you said, on 18 counts of corruption, using that position that he has elected by the people of New
Jersey, according to this jury, to sell his office to foreign powers and also to corrupt business people. Really remarkable. Brianna Keilar is going
to pick up our coverage now. Stay with us.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Trump riding high with J. D. Vance by his side. What this GOP ticket would mean for the world. Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, joins me.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT PUTNAM, POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND AUTHOR "BOWLING ALONE": Everything that reflects connections with other people are going down. How many times
last year did you go to church? Down. How many times did you go to a dinner party? Down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the United States of loneliness. I asked renowned political scientist Robert Putnam, author of "Bowling Alone," how that can lead to
violence in politics.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ASTEAD HERNDON, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND HOST, "THE RUN-UP": The traditional kind of policy writing process, the platform
process that we think about that happens at this type of conventions has been totally upended by Trump already.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- from Milwaukee, the New York Times Astead Herndon talks to Hari Sreenivasan about the RNC at this critical moment.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
It's day two of the Republican Convention in Wisconsin, and already, a sense of dread is descending here across the pond because Former President
Donald Trump has named as his running mate an ultra-isolationist Senator J. D. Vance. Trump, his ear bandage, was greeted like a hero at the Milwaukee
Convention Center in his first appearance since the assassination attempt this weekend. Fight, fight, fight, the crowds cheered and they chanted, we
love Trump.
In a moment, we'll dive into the global implications of this new GOP ticket. But first, let's go to Correspondent Jeff Zeleny at the convention
for the very latest. I guess I really want to ask you first, Jeff -- thanks for being with us -- what -- why do you think it was J. D. Vance? It
doesn't bring anything if Trump wanted to expand the base. He's a white man.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, it's such an interesting question. I think what it brings, though, is an
extension of Trumpism. What an extension of the Trump brand of politics from this populist strain that is coursing through domestic politics in the
United States and also an isolationist strain as well. He is a continuation of the Donald Trump era. So, I think that is what Former President Donald
Trump, talking to his advisers, was looking for.
Yes, their chemistry is good. And yes, it's someone who doesn't threaten him in the short-term. The longer-term question is a bigger one because
immediately, should they win election in November, J. D. Vance will be thinking immediately about 2028. So, that will be a complication. But in
the shorter-term, no, it doesn't necessarily bring him suburban voters like a Nikki Haley might have. That's what some Republicans here were hoping
for, really an expansion of the base.
We talked a lot about the unity message that Donald Trump claims to want to bring here. This did very little for that. But I think it's a sign that
Trump is doubling down on trying to focus on some of these Midwestern states, like Pennsylvania, like Michigan, like Wisconsin, turning out his
own voters rather than trying to expand to perhaps win over some of the ones who are still skeptical of Donald Trump.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and including -- I mean, there was, you know, Senator Tim Scott, the black senator from South Carolina. There was Marco Rubio, the
Hispanic senator from Florida. All of those groups didn't get picked, which is really, really interesting for people trying to read the tea leaves.
[13:05:00]
I talked about the isolationism of J. D. Vance, and people may remember how he did not meet with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, and
that's causing some worry that he just doesn't think there should be more aid to Ukraine. How's that going to go down in the GOP, which broadly
supports Ukraine aid?
ZELENY: Christiane, what we can really see, year by year, it's been becoming clear. Now, it is even more so. This is not Ronald Reagan's
Republican Party. This is Donald Trump's Republican Party. And the isolationist strain is a first and foremost among the foreign policy. So,
that is one of the biggest divides.
For all the talk of unity here, and there is unity around Donald Trump, but there are deep divisions inside this Republican Party about foreign aid,
first and foremost. Senator Mitch McConnell, who, of course, has been a big proponent of aid to Ukraine, he was booed on the floor of this convention
quite loudly yesterday. It wasn't a surprise that he didn't get a warm welcome. I was a little surprised at how loud and energetic the boos were.
But look, this is something that has been happening in the Trump era, and J. D. Vance signifies a lot of this isolationist strain in the party. So --
and he's a young senator. He's not even 40 years old. He will be by November. So, should they win, this is really taking that many, many years,
perhaps even a decade or more from this. But we will see how those differences resolve themselves in the campaign, if President Biden uses
that as a way in here. But it's unclear that foreign policy really is on top of mind of American voters.
AMANPOUR: And actually, when you consider, no matter what your politics are, that an elder of the party like Mitch McConnell is booed, it certainly
puts paid to the notion of unity. If they're not unified within their own party, how can they be unified any other way, as Trump has said that he
wants to be, and I understood that was the directive to delegates and others speaking to just show a unity message.
But we have to ask you a different question, because there's been some news that has just come in, and let me just read a little bit of it. It regards
the conviction of Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey on -- a jury has found him guilty on all counts in his federal corruption trial. That's 16 counts.
Just what's the significance of that at this time?
ZELENY: Christiane, it's very significant. Found guilty on 16 counts. This is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the U.S. Senate. This
is someone who has had access and has continued to receive classified briefings. This is very extraordinary. But for the fact that a former
president was also convicted, you know, just a couple months ago, this would be incredibly unusual. Now, it seems I guess a bit of a sign of the
times. But it also pushes back certainly on the notion that the Justice Department was simply out to get Donald Trump. And this is a Democratic
senator charged and found guilty of 16 counts.
It also, I think, erodes some of the Democratic Party's attempt at moral high ground here in terms of corruption allegations and the like. I'm not
sure that voters will pay that much attention to it across the country, in New Jersey, obviously significant. Will he have to resign his seat? Will he
not? We will find that out in the coming days. Of course, this is the -- not the first time the senator has been charged, but the first time he's
been convicted of this.
So, it's an extraordinarily serious count, the bribery allegations, et cetera. But, again, it's hardly a one-off in this political season here in
the U.S.
AMANPOUR: I mean, just hearing you say that is already sort of mind- blowing. It's a sign of the times. And we'll dive a little bit more deeply into that later in the program. Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much for being
with us.
Now, as we said, Trump's choice of the 39-year-old J. D. Vance is being watched closely over here. Vance is seen as one of the most isolationist
and no friend of Kyiv. One senior E.U. official told Politico this is a disaster for Ukraine. He has argued against any further support and even
refused to meet the president, President Zelenskyy, that is, at this year's Munich Security Conference.
So, what to make of this ticket and the consequences for the alliance for that? Let us turn to Kurt Volker. Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO under
President Trump, and was special representative on Ukraine for President Trump. Welcome back to the program.
Can I just start by asking you, Kurt, I don't know whether you're going to be able to answer this, but the notion that it is a sign of the times that
all these consequential politicians, including the Republican nominee, are convicted of crimes and felonies, I mean, can you just relate to that?
[13:10:00]
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND FORMER SPECIAL U.S. ENVOY TO UKRAINE: Yes, I think each case is different. I think with Senator
Menendez, you know, what we heard about his situation, gold bars hidden and cash hidden in the coat pockets of clothing in his closet, I mean, that's
really extraordinary. What we've seen with Former President Trump, this is payoffs to Stormy Daniels, because he didn't want her talking about having
sex with him during the election campaign, something that everybody already knew, and everybody knew that he did pay that. He didn't even deny paying
that. So, very different circumstances there.
I don't think it's necessarily a sign of the times, meaning that we're going to see more and more and more of this, but you do see a tendency
towards using the justice system to talk, at least about political opponents. You know, you have the Democrats referring now to President
Trump as saying, oh, he's a convicted felon. And you have the Republicans going after President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, now also a convicted
felon.
So, it become part of the political dialogue in a way. I'm not sure it pretends much about the future, other than individual behavior.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, Trump has notably racked up a lot of legal victories by the more serious allegations, and indictments, and, you know,
charges having been delayed or dismissed altogether. But let's move on. From your perspective, former NATO ambassador, you believe very strongly in
ensuring that Putin doesn't win, ensuring that Ukraine does survive.
What do you think this ticket will do, and how do you react to at least one European saying that this is a disaster for Kyiv?
VOLKER: Yes. Well, the first advice I would have for all my European friends and our allies is don't react with emotion. And don't push back on
-- you know, don't be so negative toward Trump or, or J. D. Vance because that's only going to cause a counter reaction from them about not liking
Europe.
I would say, don't make any assumptions about what policy would be. Europe should do its own homework on what needs to be done in Europe and what
they're prepared to do, and then be proactive. Let's be problem solvers here about what needs to actually get done, propose things to the U.S. that
Europe would like to do. I think that's a much more pragmatic way to handle things.
As for what this election means, I have to say, I don't think it means very much. First off, Trump is going to be the president, and we already know
Trump. We've seen him in different lights, and he's very much his own person. I don't think choosing J. D. Vance is going to make a difference in
terms of what Trump decides to do.
I would even think that the selection of Vance is aimed really more at that Rust Belt area of voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, trying to
solidify that part of the voting base. I'm not sure that it's going to do a lot on foreign policy.
Second, the thing that Trump has emphasized, and we got this from J. D. Vance when he was at the Munich Security Conference in February of this
year, is about Europe doing more and the United States doing less, meaning that they feel that the U.S. has done more than its share. It's done too
much. And so, we need to push Europe to bear a bigger share of the burden.
That is actually not that objection -- not that objectionable. In fact, many Europeans say the same thing. And when it comes to Ukraine, it was
actually President Trump who gave political cover to Speaker Johnson when they pushed to get that supplemental aid package through the Congress. It
was delayed for six months over a series of other issues. And when they finally decided to put it through, President Trump supported it. So, I
think that's also an indicator that it is not necessarily as dire a situation as some of this European commentary would make it out to be.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just pick apart that for a little bit. I mean, listen, you're right. A lot of Europeans are saying, certainly since what
happened in Pennsylvania, and maybe even before, that they are essentially baking in the notion that Donald Trump will be president again. And they
have to learn to work with him, including Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he said the same thing, whoever is elected we're not afraid. We will work with them.
But when you say react emotionally, Europe is in the -- you know, in the vice grip of a potential Putin expansion. So, it's not emotional for them.
It's actually territorial and really important. And so, I just wonder whether you think that they need some assurance, for instance, that, Trump,
yes, will be the president and he will make the decisions if he wins, but even he was the one who said, look. we're not going to defend you if you
don't pay up. That's one thing.
[13:15:00]
And the other thing is that it was Trump who told the House to delay, delay, delay this aid. And then he came on board after he, as you know very
well, better than me, was persuaded by a lot of people. So, I guess, again, yes, Europe and everybody is tired of this war, but how do you think it's
going to end?
VOLKER: Right. Well, several things here. Again, let's take them in pieces. So, the war in Europe, Russia's war against Ukraine, which is the
largest war in Europe since World War II, that is indeed serious business. It is a real problem, and it runs a great risk of escalating into a wider
war if it's not stopped. So, a lot of what we hear from the Biden administration right now is on not doing things that would escalate because
we don't want a wider war. My own view is that we actually need to do more to defeat Russia in Ukraine in order to prevent that wider war.
Now, one of the things I think will be a point of reference for President Trump will be Afghanistan. If you remember, he wanted to get out of
Afghanistan, he started the negotiations with the Taliban, he kept urging the U. S. to get out. But he never actually pulled the trigger on getting
out because he was briefed that if you do, it's going to be a catastrophe. We then saw that actually play out in the Biden administration, where we
pulled out of Afghanistan and it was a catastrophe.
So, I think looking now at Ukraine, this is now a cautionary tale for President Trump. Don't create -- don't make Ukraine your Afghanistan. Don't
let this failure -- you know, don't let this become a failure on your watch. I think it's going to have to take a different approach than just
pulling out the support for Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Volker, as you know, President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. I mean, they excluded the actual U.S. and international
recognized elected leadership of Afghanistan. So, by your reckoning now, does that mean they could actually exclude Ukraine and just negotiate with
Russia over this?
VOLKER: Yes, I don't think so. Because I think the lesson from that experience was that it was a disaster. And so, I don't think that's where
this point.
AMANPOUR: OK.
VOLKER: Indeed, I think the emphasis that you get from Trump and Vance is it's got to be Europe doing more and the U.S. doing less. In order to end
the war.
AMANPOUR: So, Vance has said some really weird things. He called Britain an Islamist state. I mean, I don't know whether he has a deep knowledge of
history. So, I think people are very concerned that this is the first move internationally, kind of, that had international implications at the
convention. But the other question is, you know, he's very good friends with the Orban camp. But, you know, as you know, President -- Prime
Minister Orban, very right wing, very conservative, no friend of Ukraine, believes in Putin, doesn't give aid to Ukraine. And Orban's chief political
adviser tweeted a picture of him with Vance saying, Vance-Trump, that's just what we need.
So, how should Europe think about this? Yes, they have to pony up and pay more and do more. But how should they think about a potential alliance of a
conservative isolationist America and a more conservative Eastern European group?
VOLKER: Yes. So, I think what you're seeing with those Orban posturing is an alignment of political forces, the right in Europe trying to align
itself with the right in the United States. The difficulty with that is on some of the substantive issues where Orban has taken a stand, they're very
much at odds with what the right in the United States would be doing.
Most important there is China, where Orban has described Hungary as open for business, China's best friend in Europe, the U.S., under a Trump
administration, if he's re-elected, is going to take a very tough stance toward China and would expect Hungary to do the same. So, these are
political alignments because of left and right and domestic politics, but I don't think that the foreign policies are really going to align that much.
AMANPOUR: Ambassador, you bring up China, and of course, Trump as president and now as candidate has made all sorts of statements, including
heavily protectionist statements around the world. But especially to China, saying that -- whether it's China or others he's going to impose a 10
percent tariff on just about every imported good. What do you think that is going to do for the American people?
VOLKER: Well, in the short-term, I think it's going to raise the cost of goods coming from China, at least certain goods like electronic vehicles,
for example. He's going to be targeting things in order to prevent them from coming into the U.S. market. That will have a short-term impact of
preventing those goods and maybe raising prices.
[13:20:00]
In the long run, launching tariffs always results in retaliation, which then hurts the ability of the U.S. to export and for the American people to
benefit from that. So, if we start down a road of tariffs and escalation of a trade war that can get out of hand.
I hope that what Trump would have in mind would be a shot across the bow in order to try to get some balance in trade. But if it goes down the road of
many, many tariffs on many, many countries, I think it could actually end up damaging the economy.
AMANPOUR: I want to again talk about, you know, growing economies and defense spending, et cetera. I just want to play what J. D. Vance said
about this issue when he was at Munich.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. J. D. VANCE (R-OH), U.S. REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: It's very hard, the juxtaposition between the idea that Putin poses an
existential threat to Europe, compared, again, against the fact that we're trying to convince our allies to spend 2 percent of GDP. Those ideas are
very much in tension.
I do not think that Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to Europe, and to the extent that he is, again, that suggests that Europe has to take a
more aggressive role in its own security. That's number one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK. So, as you've just said, as most people do think, he is an existential threat. But on the issue of defense spending, where do you
think this is going to go? Because Europeans, after the fall of the Soviet Union, you know, they did decrease their defense spending. And now, we can
see that, you know, unlike Russia, which has turned its whole economy into a defense economy, the Europeans have struggled to do that. How do you see
this actually ramping up, even with the best will in the world?
VOLKER: Right. So, we've seen progress already. When President Trump was elected in 2016 there were three countries in NATO spending 2 percent or
more of GDP on defense, despite having promised to do so multiple times, including at the Wales Summit in 2014. Today, we have 23 countries that are
spending 2 percent or more of GDP on defense, and we are seeing that that is not enough. Not enough in terms of the number of countries. There's
still, therefore, nine other countries in NATO that have to increase spending. And 2 percent may be too low a threshold. It may have to be two
and a quarter, 2.5 in order for Europe to have what is needed.
Now, the trend line there has been positive. I think you're going to see more and more emphasis from the United States, particularly if it's under
President Trump on European defense spending. And when we talk about Ukraine, they're going to want to see more balance in that as well. The
U.S. is providing over half the military aid there, they're going to want to see that Europe is doing more, spending more on the ammunition, the
equipment and so forth for Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Kurt Volker, Ambassador, thank you so much indeed for joining us. So, what about the post shooting calls for unity and cooling down
divisive rhetoric? America has never seemed more divided, with Republicans coalescing around Trump and Democrats fearing for the fate of democracy if
he wins a second term. So, how does a fractured nation attempt to reunite? Is it even possible?
If anyone has answers, it might be the renowned political scientist, Robert Putnam. His book, "Bowling Alone," exposed and examined the a collapse in
Americans participation in collective activities and warned of a similar collapse in our trust of civic institutions and of each other. A new
documentary, "Join or Die," takes us through Putnam's extraordinary career and his ideas. Here's a clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT PUTNAM, POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND AUTHOR "BOWLING ALONE": Everything that reflects connections with other people are going down. How many times
last year did you go to church? Down. How many times did you go to a dinner party? Down. How many times last year did you go to a club meeting? In
barely a couple of decades, half of all the civic infrastructure in America had simply vanished. It's equivalent to saying half of all the roads in
America just disappeared.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Robert Putnam joins the show from New Hampshire. Welcome to the program, Robert Putnam. It's really an incredibly timely discussion again
of your theories and to see this film. I just want to, you know, ask you since what happened over the weekend, since also the collapse, it seems, of
the whole sort of Biden situation, what -- how do you relate all of that to your work?
[13:25:00]
PUTNAM: Well, thanks, first of all, for having me on your show. Yes, the film, "Join or Die," and then a very large piece in "The New York Times"
over the weekend, well before the assassination attempt, I said, echoing a woman named Hannah Arendt, who was probably the most important theoretician
of the Holocaust and the Nazi takeover of power, I said, lonely young men are very likely to be -- find themselves unmoored from other social
connections and either attracted to anomic violence or to get drawn into some, you know, violent conspiracy.
Now, that was true in the case of the Nazis, as Hannah Arendt said. It was true that the earliest, most violent recruits to the Nazi party were
disconnected young Germans, men. And it's true -- I don't mean that I was predicting. I don't -- I want to be clear, I don't say that I was
predicting the assassination attempt over the weekend, but it wasn't before that that I had said, we're suffering as a country from this isolation and
loneliness of young people, of everybody, of course, but young people, especially and especially young men.
We actually -- go ahead.
AMANPOUR: Sorry. I just wanted to build on that because you talk about social capital, which means connection, I think is how you define it. And
you're talking about the relative, you know, decrease in connections and the shifting kinds of connections. You talk about bridging social capital
and bonding social capital. So, explain those and how they're manifested today.
PUTNAM: Sure. Bridging social capital simply means my ties to other people just like me. So, my ties to other white, elderly, it's my ties to other
people -- sorry, bonding social capital. My ties to other people just like me. So, my bonding social capital are my ties to other white, male, elderly
Jewish professors. And my ties to people of a different generation or a different race or a different religion or a different political party,
that's my bridging social capital.
I'm not saying bridging good bonding bad because if you get sick, the people who bring you this chicken soup are likely to reflect your bonding
social capital, but a modern diverse democracy needs lots of bridging social capital. That's just my jargon for saying, unless our social
connections make it easy for us to walk in the shoes of somebody else, it's going to be hard to pull this country together.
And this is the final empirical finding of my work and a lot of other people's work, there's been a catastrophic decline in those kinds of ties.
The ties that once upon a time would connect us to people of a different generation or a different class or a different, you know, whatever,
especially given a political party, those have tended to wane even more rapidly than our ties to people just like us.
And that has set us up for polarization. It has set us up for demonization, because too many of us now are living in an echo chamber. That's just the
language, some people use the language of echo chamber, and I use the language of our social ties. Are they just people like us or are they the
people other than us, other people unlike us?
AMANPOUR: So, Professor, walk us through a little bit of the history of these kinds of ties. I think you -- in "Bowling Alone," you talk about how
at a certain time in American history, people joined all sorts of clubs, or church groups, or library groups, or whatever it might be, sports, the
whole lot. And now, not so much. So, walk us through from the beginning of the 20th century, the sort of ebb and flow of this to now.
PUTNAM: I'm very glad you asked it in that wider framework, because about 125 years ago right now, America was in the same pickle that we are now.
America was a very fragmented, socially disconnected state. We were very polarized politically. Our politics were tribal in that period. We were
very unequal, economically, just as we are now. That was the first Gilded Age. And now, many people say we're in the second Gilded Age.
And our culture was focused on -- in that -- at the beginning of the 20th century, around 1900, it was very much focused on me, I, I, I, and not
focused on what we have in common. And then, in about 10 years, roughly speaking, those -- we, that is a group of younger Americans, were able to
turn those trends around. I don't mean it happened overnight, it didn't, it took a decade or two.
[13:30:00]
But gradually, in the 1920s and '30s and '40s and '50s and new to the '60s every year, we got a little less socially isolated, a little less
polarized, a little less unequal, and a little more in the sense that we were all in this together. And then, there was a turn, and the last 50
years we've gone downhill. The last 50 years, it's not just in the last five years we've become more polarized. It's in the last 50 years, and more
unequal, and more socially disconnected, and more focused on I. That's relevant.
Interrupt me if you want, but I want to link this back to our earlier conversation. That was especially true of young men and young people in
general in that period, kids. At the time, it was called the boy (ph) problem, that's the language at the time. And young men disconnected as --
just as they are now and to some extent, young women, but it was mostly a boy problem.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
PUTNAM: They were causing havoc, just as they are now. And then, this is the really interesting point, in about five years, between 1905 and 1910,
almost all of the major kids' organizations in America were founded. The Scouts, both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, and the Campfire Girls,
and Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, and Big Brother Big Sister. I mean, all those things happened right in that period. Why? Because people at that
time, the reformers at that time, understood that kids need mentors. They need coaches.
AMANPOUR: OK.
PUTNAM: They need clergy people, they need teachers, they need -- and that's what's missing -- was missing then and eventually, they corrected
it. And that's exactly what's missing now. That's the core of what I want to say. We are just -- our kids, especially, don't have those eyes.
AMANPOUR: So, I'm going to play a little bit of the film, the documentary, which is called "Join or Die" on this issue and then I'm going to ask you
how, if possible, to try to find those mentors and ties again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PUTNAM: There's what's called specific reciprocity. That is, if you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you. But much more powerful is what evolves in
a context with large numbers of people connecting with one another, is a norm of generalized reciprocity. That is, I'm going to be nice to you just
because you're in this community and you're likely to be nice to me. Well, that's a huge deal.
If you can have generalized dress apostasy in a community, that community can be enormously more productive because they don't have to be constantly
checking up on one another.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it's so interesting this, and what you just said about the mentors and how people figured out the reformist that that's what's needed.
What is happening now, which is acting against reciprocity and much more in sort of moving people to isolation and individualism. Exactly, the me, me,
me. Where are these people going? Where are these young people going? Who are they following? Who are they seeking inspiration from, if anybody?
PUTNAM: Well, honestly, I don't mean to be a total voice of doom and doom regarding social media, but that's what a lot of them are doing. I mean --
and I'm -- I mean, I can cite your chapter and verse, but probably I don't need to. So, much of the time with young people now is focused entirely on
the screen in front of them.
And sometimes it's actually the television screen, but more often than not, it's the iPhone or the smartphone screen. And they're not actually --
sometimes they're using those to connect with other real people, but often they're living in some fantasy world. So, it isn't at all the equivalent
of, let me say, the Boy Scouts, or the Girl Scouts, it's just -- or the team on which there's a coach. It's a very self-isolating kind of
technology.
Now, there are -- I have to say, and reviewers can look at the movie on, you know, Netflix or someplace, and they can see the movie highlights a
number of really important new initiatives being pursued across the country. A religious group is reaching out to young kids who are interested
in the environment, interested in -- you know, in gardening and so on, but are also wanting to connect with other people. Or a biking group in
Atlanta, basically, a black biking group. So, there are things (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, let me ask you then, because we're obviously clearly talking to you in the context of what's happening in this incredibly
polarized and violent political era that we live. So, the RNC is going on now. The DNC will happen at the end of August. How do you fit this into
politics right now?
[13:35:00]
PUTNAM: Oh, it's directly related to politics. Indeed, my earliest work in this field showed that there's a (INAUDIBLE) connection between whether
people are connected with one another, in all the ways we've talked about, in bowling leagues and in civic groups and so on, and how well the
government works. That's been shown around the world, really, that it's not so much what the constitution says on paper, it's whether people actually
connect with one another and therefore, can give life to the constitution.
And we have had periods in our country, most of the time in our country, we've been a nation of joiners. And that's why our constitution, it's not
just that the words on the paper are good, they are, but it's that they've been sustained by this living constitution among us. And that's what, you
know, 125 years ago, because of the Industrial Revolution, basically, had begun to collapse. We restored that. And now, we've got to restore it again
in the very short run.
I mean, you know, I'm an historian. I'm not going to tell you what's going to happen next November. I kind of fear that we're not going to move in the
right direction, but I'm talking about the next decade or two. Can we -- I'm suggesting ways in which we can begin to reconnect across lines of
politics and religion and race and so on. We've done it in the past.
AMANPOUR: I'm just going to play you a little soundbite of an interview I did with Vivek Murphy, who of course was the surgeon general about
loneliness and he's really on a campaign about it. And I'm just going to play you this snippet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIVEK MURPHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: When I was in university, the loudest place on campus was actually the dining hall. We would all finish our
classes, come there and everyone wanted to talk, talk, talk and catch up. But not only is it quieter there, because people aren't talking, they're on
their devices.
AMANPOUR: They ask you, how are we supposed to even meet people and have conversation?
MURPHY: That's right, because it feels intrusive, they would say, to approach somebody when they've got their earbuds in, when they're looking
at their phone. And the harder -- the less you do it, the harder it gets, because our social muscle has to be built over time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, again, you know, just quickly, finally, how does one build that social muscle?
PUTNAM: Practice. That's the way you always build muscle. And practice means we adults have to get more involved in mentoring our kids and other
people's kids. And we need to get them to realize that there's a wider world out there that's fun. I mean, the Scouts -- the Boy Scouts was not
just eat your spinach, it was having fun and at the same time learning a kind of character formation.
I was in Scouts and I can still pledge now, 70 years later, a Scout is trustworthy, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful,
thrifty, brave, clean, and loyal, and reverent. OK. How did I do that? It's because I had lots of hikes in which we taught each other that. And that's
what we could do now. It doesn't have to be spinach, it just has to be rediscovering the joys of being together.
AMANPOUR: Robert Putnam, thank you so much. Really fascinating.
So, the RNC is being closely watched for answers about how the GOP will fine tune its strategy for the Oval Office. How will Trump further shift
the ideological foundations of the party? How seriously should Project 2025 be taken? And what can the Democratic Party do differently? To answer these
questions and more, Hari Sreenivasan asks Astead Herndon, the New York Times national politics reporter and the host of the "Run-Up" podcast.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Astead Herndon, welcome to the program again.
Here you are in Milwaukee. I think the big story for most people is how does Donald Trump, how does the Republican Party react to the assassination
attempt on the former president?
ASTEAD HERNDON, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND HOST, "THE RUN-UP": Yes, I think that certainly looms over this convention. You
know, we have seen Republicans and Trump try to say that they will seek to strike a unifying tone. They're going to use this moment to try to pivot
their message to one that can bring in more people. I think that also reflects the Republican Party that feels fairly confident in their
electoral position, even before the events on Saturday.
They were reading the polling. They were reading a kind of the angst in the Democratic Party and feeling like this is their election to lose. And so, I
would say that's on one side. But I think we should also acknowledge that Donald Trump and Republicans have been part of raising the political
temperature of -- and division and rhetoric throughout the last several years. And that is what -- who Trump is.
I mean, even when we think about J. D. Vance using the moment on Saturday to frankly target Democrats and place blame at Joe Biden for the events,
when we know that that's not really a causal relationship. And so, you know, I think that we can say that their kind of political ambition will be
to pivot a message, try to strike a chord of unity. That's clearly the intention, but I think we have enough evidence over the last seven, eight
years to know Donald Trump has not made his political kind of calling card one of bringing people in together.
[13:40:00]
And so, this will be asking a leopard to change its spots here. And I think we should be pretty skeptical of that.
SREENIVASAN: Are there concerns about security? There was conversations as soon as the shooting happened, you know, was the Secret Service prepared?
The Secret Service came out and said in their own press conference, the steps they took, and President Biden had said that he had had a
conversation with President Trump and made a national statement about political violence. Is there any increased anxiety about not just the
safety of the president, but anybody who's there?
HERNDON: Well, I can say that, you know, even being here for the first couple of days, the downtown of Milwaukee is locked down. There are so many
security checkpoints. There's such a perimeter around Fiserv Forum. I think I went through about five or six checks even to get there when I was going
there earlier today.
So, I am pretty sure the security has already -- was already beefed up, and he was probably even more so since the events on Saturday. But I would also
say that we shouldn't see political violence and the incident on Saturday as an isolated one. When we look back over the last six-ish years, violence
has been a pretty core to a lot of what's happened in our country.
We think about the Tree of Life shooting, Paul shooting, El Paso shooting, the attack on Paul Pelosi, the attack on Steve Scalise, I mean, these have
been consistent incidents over the last several years and it reflects a growing tenor of division and discord that is in our politics. And so, I
think Saturday was certainly a bracing moment for a lot of people who watched.
But unfortunately, I think it's an American public that has come to expect a political system where violence seems at its core. I left out January
6th, but that obviously was a big one as well. It's been a steady drumbeat of increased -- of political rhetoric and that has people scared not only
at this convention, but I think we'll see that at the DNC. And I think that we'll see that going forward for both candidates.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I want to pick up on something that you said, which is really how politicians are framing the events that happened. It was
representative Mike Collins of Georgia. He said specifically, I want to quote, "Joe Biden sent the orders." Then you have Matt Gaetz of Florida,
"They tried to impeach him. They're trying to imprison him. Now, they have tried to assassinate him."
What is -- how do you square that rhetoric where there's clearly some political opportunism going on with the campaign saying, we want to try a
unifying message?
HERNDON: Particularly when we think about the attack dogs of the Republican Party, the Matt Gaetz, the Freedom Caucus wing, even J. D.
Vance, they've been the ones who've been most explicitly trying to link this to Democrats, and frankly, creating an argument that says that
Democrats have been violently targeting Trump for years.
This plays within a Republican narrative that they've been creating for a long time, one that started with him as president being obstructed by
Democrats. They point to the impeachments as things like trying to invalidate his presidency, certainly the legal proceedings that have taken
place since he's left office. And now, this recent kind of assassination attempts plays within a script that the right-wing is trying to say, which
is that the left and Joe Biden are trying to do whatever they can to stop Donald Trump from coming back into office.
I think it's important to not conflate those things. The things we know about the shooter on Saturday do not link him directly to Democrats, do not
-- there's no evidence to saying that there's any kind of connection with the parties here. And frankly, if it's a profile of kind of a mixed
ideology school shooter type that we've seen often in this type of incidents.
And so, Republicans are doing a slight of hand here to play their political purposes, but I do think that the seriousness of what happened does cause a
kind of question mark for Democrats about what the message is going forward. The clear message from Democrats, up until this point, was that
Donald Trump was a threat to democracy, and that created an emergency that forced people to act.
And you even hear some Democrats now saying, is that tenor a little too -- is little too intense for this moment? Are we contributing to the kind of
polarization of this moment with that argument? That's going to be interesting. Do Democrats back off from what has been their most potent
message to rally their base?
SREENIVASAN: You know, we just had Judge Aileen Cannon outright dismiss the documents case. It will be appealed, but I wonder if that impacts the
overall standing and strategy when it comes to how the RNC frames the former president going forward.
[13:45:00]
HERNDON: I think it will partially because they've already tried to frame these cases as an effort of weaponization of the government against Donald
Trump. So, the actions from Judge Cannon today, even the events over the weekend, will play into that sense of persecution and kind of Republican
victimhood that's already been core to that message.
I don't want to conflate those two things because I do think the shooting in this are a little different, but they get to the same type of message
that Republicans are going to pitch. They are going to say, this is a candidate that has been under attack. And I walked past the big billboard
today in the Fiserv Forum where they're going to hold this that said, you know, one of Trump's quotes from his speeches, which is that, you know,
they're not coming after me, they're coming after you. I'm just in the way. That's going to be their message.
SREENIVASAN: What about the very location? You're in Milwaukee, that has been, in some ways, a Democratic stronghold, but we know Wisconsin's been a
battleground state that's slung in different directions before. What's the GOP trying to accomplish by holding the convention and starting the
national conversation about this campaign there?
HERNDON: I think it's a really critical point. You're mentioning of why is this convention here? Democrats, remember, tried to have their 2020
convention there before it was upended by COVID, partially because Milwaukee and Wisconsin remains a bellwether for the rest of the Electoral
College.
Many of the last presidential elections here have been decided by less than a percentage point. Wisconsin is a clearly purple state, but that has not
been reflected in their state politics. They had a huge gerrymander that allowed Republicans to really control power on a state legislature front
for years here. Think the Scott Walker era and that time. But what Democrats have been able to do is slowly claw back to the point, I think,
the onus is now on Republicans to do a little better here.
Here's something I would say, Wisconsin's not necessarily a really Trumpy Republican state, has a lot of those Milwaukee suburbs that have drifted
away from him. You saw Nikki Haley put up pretty good numbers in Wisconsin, even though she dropped out, and they've kind of been pulled between the
Trump base and a more, I would say, a traditional conservative type in this state. And it's actually hurt him. It's actually hurt Republicans here.
Where Democrats have struggled is a motivating in places like Milwaukee and Madison. They've had a full drop off in terms of people of color in this
type of places, which has allowed Republicans to seize on some of that. So, I think it's important of why the Republicans are coming here because
they're trying to do two things, they're trying to limit their losses in the suburbs in places like Waukesha and Oshkosh, outside of Milwaukee, and
they're trying to claw back some of the black and Latino voters in Milwaukee, because they think that is a recipe that allows them to make up
what is sure to be a razor thin margin.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder a little bit about the sort of the stuff that's off camera that happens in these conventions. It's usually the party hashing
out the planks of what they stand for, their values. They put it literally in writing, right? And I wonder what is this party been able to do? Have
you noticed shifts in one direction or another? Is there more of an emphasis on executive power, et cetera?
HERNDON: Yes, I think this is an important point because one of the subtle things Trump has done is really take over the levers of the Republican
Party. And so, the traditional kind of policy writing process, the platform process that we think about that happens at this type of conventions has
been totally upended by Trump already.
Last week, there was a lot of reporting about how the Trump campaign, frankly, steamrolled a lot of the traditional conservatives who are a part
of that process to make sure things like abortion were not mentioned in the party platform, because he wants to have a really mushy position on that.
Instead, you had kind of a series of Trump pronouncements that were largely pretty vague that now make up this party platform. Things like saying,
we'll make America safe. We'll bring back energy independence. Just kind of the things you hear Donald Trump say on the campaign trail.
And I think this is partially why things like Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation's attempts to make up a policy platform have really exploded
because Donald Trump and Republicans have been fairly vague on what they're going to do on that front. And they have -- and they intentionally have
done that because they don't want to be kind of pushed into unpopular positions. I think this is going to be a big thing to watch going forward.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder, is there a specific reason that you've got Project 2025 with 900 pages of policy prescriptions that any administration, a
Trump administration in the future, could take and run with? And then you've got the official position of the Republican Party, which, as you
point out, is very vague.
HERNDON: Yes.
SREENIVASAN: So, how do you kind of reconcile those? Is it -- you know, is that part of the strategy? Because the president has tried repeatedly to
distance himself from Project 2025.
HERNDON: Yes, they have. And I think the truth that we know is somewhere in the middle here, but I think Democrats have an important point. Donald
Trump cannot fully distance himself from Project 2025 because the writers and the policies come from a lot of people who worked in the Trump
administration, are close to Donald Trump, and are very likely to be involved in the Trump administration if he was to come back.
[13:50:00]
I think it's pretty obvious why Trump wants to remain vague on these policy platforms. It's because a lot of the things proposed in Project 2025 are
massively unpopular. Think about eliminating the Department of Education, a refusal to mention gender in any policy regulation or law. Some of the
goals they have specific to abortion, some of the goals they have specific to LGBTQ rights are unpopular.
The other thing I would say is Project 2025 is very explicit about kind of the unitary executive theory that's at the heart of a lot of this kind of
Trump policy rhetoric. And what that is is a belief that the chief executive, the president has kind of ultimate power over a lot of the
legislative branch and that that -- and more importantly, over the regulatory and kind of civil service ecosystem.
And so, when Republicans talk about draining the swamp, this time around in '24, they have a plan to do so. They have a plan to upend kind of the
normal kind of druthers of federal government and to install loyalists in those positions. And so, I think the reality of those plans is why we see
Donald Trump distancing himself from something like 2025.
And I think you also have the Biden campaign focusing on it because it adds a little meat to the bones of the regular old lesser of two evils argument
where we used to hearing Democrats make.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about the Democrats. Right now, in the past couple of weeks, ever since the debate, the narrative that the
Democrats have struggled to overcome is Joe Biden's age. So, in your conversations with Democratic strategists and leadership, where is that
process at on the possibility of him not being the top of the ticket? Because day in and day out, Joe Biden says it would take the Lord almighty
to stop him.
HERNDON: For the last year and a half-ish, we've been hearing from voters consistently concerns about Joe Biden's age. It was the biggest thing that
will come up if we talk to anyone -- if we talk -- when we talk to most people about how they feel about the president, it wasn't really a feeling
about him as a leader right now, but the sense that the idea of four more years, it frankly founds kind of ridiculous. And the caricature of him, a
kind of doddering old man, had really set in with the electorate long before the debate.
And so, when we took these questions to Democratic strategists, folks close to the Biden campaign, even some leaders in the Biden campaign. For the
last year, I was frankly, shocked at how much they were dismissing the idea that Joe Biden's age was a big political liability when we looked ahead
toward November. What the debate did was nullify their ability to stick their head in the sand, because frankly, that's what they were doing. And
it was such a, frankly, disaster for Biden that it swung from one end to the other, where they went from, I can't acknowledge this, to what do we do
about it?
But the year of time between those two things gave them very few options about what to do about it. And so, if they wanted to have a more robust
conversation about this, that time was last year in the early stages of that primary. At this point, they've become kind of hamstrung. And I think
you see that realization here.
And so, what we -- and so, to actually answer your question about what is the current state of the kind of movement to maybe replace Joe Biden, is
that that is much more acceptable among the broader Democratic electorate than it is among the inner rungs of the Democratic Party. But when I talk
to Democrats, kind of professional Democrats, the idea of replacing him at this stage is such that it would take kind of another moment, like the
debate to make that kind of come even semi close to fruition. That decision is going to Biden and the people around him. And that's going to be a hard
hill to climb.
And so, you still see some evidence, you still see some reporting, people like Nancy Pelosi calling around, seeing if that temperature is still
there. But I really don't know what happens, to be honest with you. Because at this point, we're going to be in a situation where 70, 75 percent of the
public might think he's unfit to serve a second term, even if he's close in the polling.
And so, if you're a vulnerable Democrat, if you're someone running for Senate in a close race, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, if you're a House member
who's trying to hold on to your seat, how do you not say -- how do you align yourself with the president that most Americans would think is not
fit for next four years? That's going to become the real tension here is how do they have a singular message of unity behind Biden if that message
is completely out of step where most people are?
And so, I think that's going to be the real tell for me. Does some of this --does some of the polling and incentives start to favor Biden? And then
maybe those frontline Democrats walk back what they say and say, you know, actually, I'm fine with him. We're rocking with him. I'm riding with Biden,
or do things move in the opposite direction and it frankly becomes a party, an open revolt against the top of the ticket? And I think both those
possibilities remain on the table.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: New York Times political reporter and host of the podcast the "Run-Up," Astead Herndon, thanks so much for joining us.
HERNDON: Thank you so much for having me. I always appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, in an increasingly divided world, there is one thing that has the power to bring us together. Fans are uniting across
the globe to celebrate a summer of sport. In Madrid's main square, a sea of red and yellow shirts, as fans welcome home the Spanish soccer team after
their triumph in the European Championships.
And thousands of miles away, another hero's welcome along the streets of Argentina, the Crowds cheered the return of their victorious football team
who brought home the Copa America trophy for the second time in a row.
Meanwhile, in Paris, thousands of people flocked to the capital's iconic landmarks to watch the Olympic torch tour of the city for two days of
festivities before the summer games kick off in just 10 days' time.
And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
