Loading summary
Transcript103 lines
- [00:01]
Bianna Golodryga
Summer smells like citrus in the sun. Turn your home into a daily getaway with Pura's new summer collection. Find your flow and fragrance and explore the scents@pura.com. Hello everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:21]
Dominic Erdizane
It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to to
- [00:26]
Robert Kagan
vote for change in November, a crucial
- [00:29]
Bianna Golodryga
night of primary elections across six US States as the midterm race begins to take shape. POLITICO senior columnist Jonathan Martin joins us to break it all down.
- [00:40]
Jonathan Martin
Then this July 4th, we will mark two and a half centuries of liberty and triumph, progress and freedom in the most incredible and exceptional nation ever to exist on the face of the earth.
- [00:53]
Bianna Golodryga
But with national pride near record lows, are Americans up for celebrating? I speak to historian Dominic Erdizane, author of To Love a Country, about the complicated history of patriotism and its uncertain future.
- [01:08]
Robert Kagan
Also ahead, we have already lost this war. It's just a question of when do we acknowledge it.
- [01:15]
Bianna Golodryga
Stalled negotiations and new escalations between the US And Iran. Has trouble Trump run out of cards to play? Foreign policy expert Robert Kagan tells Walter Isaacson why he believes America is losing leverage and how it could change the world order. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Goldriga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. A mixed picture is emerging from primary elections across America with major implications for the political fight ahead. It's a cliffhanger in California and the closely watched race for the state's next governor. Republican Steve Hilton currently leads the count, followed by Democrat Javier Becerra and Tom Steyer, with the top two set to face off in November. In Iowa, Republican voters delivered a shock defeat to a Trump endorsed candidate for governor, Washington, while in a Senate race, the Democratic establishment prevailed over a progressive challenger. All of this comes at a crucial moment for Democrats. President Trump is facing record low approval ratings while claiming he doesn't care about the midterms. But are the Democrats doing all they can to bolster their chances of recapturing the House and possibly even the Senate? To dig into all of this, I'm joined by Jonathan Martin. He's a senior political columnist at Politico joining me from Minnesota. Jonathan, great to have you on the program. So let's start with California. We know votes are still being counted there. Deep blue state, deep blue city of Los Angeles. And yet Republicans ran strong on voter anger over the cost of living, homelessness, the wildfire response Trump backed Steve Hilton is the top, is in the top Two for governor. Reality TV Spencer star Spencer Pratt is fighting for number two for the LA mayors race. What does this, showing this strong say about the state of the Democratic Party in California, in particularly where Democrats run everything?
- [03:28]
Jonathan Martin
Well, there's a backlash to the party in power when voters are upset about the status quo. And I think we're seeing that in California. We're seeing that nationwide. Californians have been frustrated with the cost of living, with wildfires, obviously the price at the pump, which has gotten even higher and it was already high. And I think there's an element of the vote center, center right, even a little center left that's willing to take a chance on different candidates, candidates who are unconventional, like this fellow Pratt running for mayor in la and obviously Hilton, you can hear that accent, obviously grew up in, in the uk. I just think it's a different story when you get to the fall. You know, don't forget California has this top two system in which everybody runs on the same ballot in June. Then the fall, it's the top two vote getters. I think in the fall, the California's deep blue nature, especially at a moment where Trump is so unpopular, will revert to form and they'll allow Democrats as governor and mayor. But there's definitely a sense of frustration among voters everywhere, but certainly in California because of the sort of unique nature of some of the challenges in California these days.
- [04:38]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah, and Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 in California. But as you noted, Spencer Pratt, he's been getting a lot of praise for how he's campaigned thus far, not only on the issues, but his use of social media, AI some of his ads. I'm curious, given the low approval ratings we see nationwide for President Trump, these are candidates from Hilton to Pratt that he's endorsed. How are they embracing that, if at all?
- [05:08]
Jonathan Martin
Not too much. I mean, because you know, Brianna, they know that the Trump endorsement in a general election is the kiss of death and they're not gonna wanna embrace that. This is the challenge with Republic Republicans nationally though, is that, you know, as the old saying goes, you, you, you, you know, lose the general election to win the primary, they gotta have Trump on their side, or oftentimes they do to get through a primary. But once you're in the general election, certainly in blue America, but in purple America too, it's a huge liability. And so, you know, Spencer Pratt is not gonna wanna have Trump next to his name this fall. But certainly Karen Bass, the mayor of la, is gonna make that a central assuming that the deep blue nature of LA will revert to form in November. But I gotta say that clearly Californians, Angelenos, want some kind of change. There's deep frustration with establishment politicians. We're seeing that everywhere. And we saw it last night, by the way, in the middle of the country, too.
- [06:15]
Bianna Golodryga
Right. And Karen Bass was never really able to gain momentum or trust from so many of those residents in the city when she was out of the country at the height of those wildfires. You mentioned the jungle primary. That is, all of the candidates really sharing one ballot in California. Then the top two advance, even if they happen to be in the same party. Democrats briefly feared perhaps there would be a scenario where you have two Republicans in a lockout for the governor's race. Now there's an undo the top two repeal effort for 2028. Is the system genuinely broken or is this a sign of perhaps some weakness or concern among Democrats about their standing with these particular candidates in the upcoming election?
- [07:03]
Jonathan Martin
Oh, I think you had a year where the Democrats couldn't find a top tier nominee for governor of California. It wasn't for a lack of looking. Lord knows they went through Kamala Harris, Alex Padilla, Rob Bonta, who's the attorney general out there, and got to about their fifth option, which is Javier Becerra. So I think this is more reflective of the end of a period of really big figures. Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, who were the governor of the biggest state in the country. And the Democrats couldn't find somebody of that stature to run this time. And so they're left with somebody who's just not a top tier candidate, frankly. Interestingly enough, though, the top two system is something that Schwarzenegger was passionate about, because the whole point of the top two, the jungle primary, is you want to incentivize people in both parties to run toward the center and forge coalitions that aren't just at the flanks. Right. So the California model was seen as a reform model nationally. And I think you could see more of that going forward nationally, because obviously everywhere people are trying to figure out how do we incentivize the voters to reward people running toward the center? And that's really hard to do in a closed primary system. And maybe we can do that if you have this top two system where everybody's on the ballot the same day.
- [08:23]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah. Instead of gravitating, as we've seen in so many of these primaries, to the extremes, either the right or the left you mentioned Gavin Newsom is term limited out. Also, Nancy Pelosi is retiring. It really does seem like the fading of the old guard in California and even for San Francisco in particular. But we know that California Democrats Jonathan Reid drew the congressional map last year to add seats, flipping districts like San Diego's Area 48th, where Darrell Issa opted not to run based on Tuesday's results, on last night's results, was that a gamble that paid off?
- [09:03]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, they're going to add a couple of more seats. Democrats will, but it may not be the haul that they originally hoped for. I don't want to get too far in the weeds, but California famously takes a long time to count its ball and there's a lot of mail in ballots. So this is going to be days until we know the final results. But there are a couple of House seats in which Democrats were hoping to pick up. With the redraw there, you may actually get two Republicans make it through into the fall, which obviously would mean backfire. It's a complicated system and it's possible when the votes really fractured, that two people of one party can get through in the fall. And obviously that was the Democratic fear in Governor, that's not going to happen. But it could happen, as you allude to in some of these House races.
- [09:50]
Bianna Golodryga
We talked about the impact of the Trump factor in terms of who he's endorsed. And it's a mixed bag, I guess, depending on the race and obviously a primary in certain areas and parts of the country. Trump just this week was boasting of a 38, 0 endorsement record, having forced out two sitting senators. And then Thomas Massie, all of whom he said were not loyal enough. Then his his pick, however, Friday for governor of Iowa, Randy Feenstra had narrowly lost to a maha backed outsider. How much should we read into this?
- [10:26]
Jonathan Martin
Well, I think these results last night in Iowa and South Dakota are actually more revealing than anything else so far that we've seen from the Tuesday elections. For this reason, in both states, you had a sitting member of the House, Randy Feenstra in Iowa and Dusty Johnson in South Dakota, who lost their primaries for governor. Now, in the case of Feinter, as you allude to, Trump endorsed him. Now, Trump endorsed too late. It wasn't enough to get in the bloodstream. But still, Trump was for Randy Feenstra, a sitting member of the House. And Feenstra couldn't win the primary loss to an outsider who had never been elected to anything before. Similarly, across the Missouri river in South Dakota, you've got a situation where the sitting governor and the House member at large are both going to Be out polled by another outsider who's never been elected to anything before. That tells me that in the Republican Party, there's still a lot of energy for outsiders, folks who do not come from the elected class of politicians and certainly aren't part of the Congress today. Having a representative or senator in front of your name, if you're a Republican, clearly is now a liability in this primary season.
- [11:45]
Bianna Golodryga
Okay, speaking of the outsiders theme, I have to ask you about Bill Pulte. Donald Trump nominated him. He's a Federal Housing Finance Agency chief. For those who may say that that name sounds familiar, but they associated more with mortgage rates. Donald Trump appointed him as acting dni. Not any experience in the intellig world. Chuck Schumer called him a partisan thug. That may not be as surprising as some of the uncomfortable responses, I would say, from establishment Republicans who are now seeing sort of a theme of the president making choices that they don't agree with, that they don't think benefit the party or the country. First there was the endorsement of Ken Paxton for Senate in Texas. This is a different type of pick. But I'm just wondering how much pushback you think this is going to get from the Republican Party itself.
- [12:42]
Jonathan Martin
It's already getting some. You can see it in the body language from John Thune as he's addressing the cameras this week on Capitol Hill. And as you point out, it's one more brick in the load. Right? It's so humiliating for these senators, especially the kind of traditional pre Trump senators, whether it's, you know, targeting Ken Patsy, targeting John Cornyn or Bill Cassidy, whether or not it's the weaponization fund, now it's naming your housing guy who's really your political enforcer, who's trying to go after your enemies, real and perceived as the head of National Intelligence. These members know that this is not right. They're deeply uncomfortable with it. But look, a lot of their voters don't care or they like it. So it's awkward because they don't want to be openly critical of Trump, but at the same time, they're not comfortable with this. So there has been pushback. And by the way, the pushback on the weaponization fund, Bianna got through to Trump. He dropped the idea. So we'll see if Pulte survives. I'll say this, I don't think he can get confirmed as the permanent head of National Intelligence. He can be acting. He can be temporary. The votes I don't think are there in today's Senate. Given the frustration with Trump and his own party to confirm this man to be the full dni.
- [14:00]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah, we'll see how far President Trump is willing to go to fight to keep him in this position, at least an acting position for which could be for months to come. Overall, Jonathan, for the Democrats, you could say that two separate wings of the party, the progressive and the establishment, could claim victory last night from New Jersey to California. Where do you think the party is right now? And just walk us through some of the wins both for the progressive part of the party in New Jersey and for some of the establishment candidates as well as.
- [14:40]
Robert Kagan
Sure.
- [14:40]
Jonathan Martin
Well, the biggest win so far for the progressives came when Janet Mills, the governor of Maine, dropped out because she couldn't raise the money against Graham Platner. Now we'll see if Platter can get through in the fall, but that was obviously significant earlier this spring. Last night in New Jersey you saw some progressives win house primaries. But as you go further west on the map and you look at the Keenelets who were running for the Democratic nomination, obviously in Iowa. In the Senate, Josh Turek, much more of a Schumer approved establishment candidate winning the nomination in Iowa, Rob sand, unopposed for governor, a really promising candidate for the Democrats for Iowa governor, but somebody who clearly is okay with the establishment wing, is no progressive flamethrower. And then in California, if the most vivid example of this, the mayor of la, Karen Bass, who as you alluded to, has got a really flawed record as mayor and even hardcore Democrats aren't happy with her, she still easily out polled the far left candidate there in the mayor's race. And then lastly in the governor's race in California, Tom Steyer, a billionaire, reinvented himself as the sort of descendant of Karl Marx and sort of a traitor to his class, really ran far left and is not going to make it through to the fall, it doesn't appear. And Javier Becerra, who's a much more conventional Democratic pick, basically blessed by the kind of Sacramento Democratic establishment, is clearly going to be the Democratic candidate this fall in California. So more wins last night from the establishment than not.
- [16:21]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah, yeah. And that's notwithstanding the amount of money that went into this race. Tom Syer in particular, I think, what was it, a couple of hundred million dollars overall that was spent here and he still was not able.
- [16:35]
Jonathan Martin
The consultant class is doing pretty well, as are the TV stations in California, thanks to Tom Steyer.
- [16:40]
Bianna Golodryga
Right. You brought up Graham Platner. And I think for our international viewers it's important to remind just how scandal ridden he has been as of late throughout his campaign. He's ridden on the momentum there, definitely in the state of Maine. But whether it's past comments, tattoos, Nazi affiliated tattoos, and most recently reporting that he sent explicit messages to women. While he's just newly married, as has really rocked his campaign, he's now avoiding many interviews. I think today I saw something suggesting that despite all of these scandals, that Mainers still are supporting him. Could he be the noose around the Democratic Party, that perhaps Ken Paxton is for Republicans and what does that mean for Democrats chances in the Senate?
- [17:32]
Jonathan Martin
I think the question is there. We have to see. I think it's again, it's the accumulation, as you alluded to, of difficult stories and connections. The opposition file, as we say, is growing heavier by the day. What else is out there? Are there unexploded mines that are even more damaging for Platner? I think right now he could survive in a really anti Trump year in what's pretty traditionally a blue state in which Collins is facing profound structural challenges. Senator Collins, that is the Republican. But again, let's see what else is out there. But this is why the Senate map is so important. Because if Democrats can't count on Maine, what should be the easiest date? Looking at the numbers for them to pick up? Boy, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Texas and Alaska. You gotta find four from that list. If you can't count on Maine and Ohio and North Carolina, okay, Obama won each of those states at least once. But you're talking about Alaska and Texas and Iowa. You're talking about pretty darn red states in American politics. And it's possible this year because Trump is so unpopular. But that, that creates enormous challenges for Democrats on the map if they can't count on Maine to start.
- [18:51]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah, Jonathan, I'd like to finish by just pointing out a segment that you have been working on that I've just really enjoyed. It's gotten a lot of pickup online as well. And that is your series of conversations and meals with players from both parties. You sat down with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. You asked how he'd stack up against Wes Moore or Gavin Newsom. Hypothetically. Right. Because all of them are saying they're not even focused on 2028. No idea where that kind of question or idea could come from. But you talked to him about basketball. And I want to play this clip.
- [19:29]
Jonathan Martin
Do you think that you would be competitive? I'm not saying you could take them, but would you be competitive playing pickup basketball against Westmore or Gavin Newsom?
- [19:37]
Robert Kagan
I've never played do they even play hoops?
- [19:41]
Jonathan Martin
I don't know.
- [19:42]
Robert Kagan
Do they?
- [19:43]
Jonathan Martin
They played in high school. Yeah.
- [19:44]
Robert Kagan
Okay, Okay. I didn't know that. I mean, look.
- [19:46]
Jonathan Martin
Wow. You didn't even know.
- [19:47]
Robert Kagan
I didn't know. But here's what I would say. If I could keep Wes off the blocks and force him to shoot threes, then I think I'd have a shot.
- [19:59]
Bianna Golodryga
Basketball, of course, a fitting topic given the start of the NBA Finals tonight. So exactly what are you learning? Learning from these men, Their strengths, their blind spots, their food preferences.
- [20:14]
Jonathan Martin
Well, this series is called on the Road and you're nice to mention it. You can find it on YouTube or on Politico. And the idea is that I travel the country and I have meals with politicians in a pretty casual environment. We did pizza and cheesesteaks in Philly and with Westmore to crab cakes and with Gavin Newsom did seafood out in San Francisco. And the hope is that you get a more casual, revealing side of them, but still a competitive side as you just alluded to there with Governor Shapiro. Now, it does come with doctor's advice. Now, if you're watching this, you're going to get hungry and you're going to see folks eating on air, which you don't always see.
- [20:49]
Bianna Golodryga
People should know there's an art to it.
- [20:51]
Jonathan Martin
The food isn't just a prop. We're actually eating on camera. Bianna so does come with a PG13 warning that we're going to be eating on the air. But look, I think we're learning that these guys are competitive. A lot of them want to run for president. They don't want to say it out loud just now, but they do want to show a side of them that's more accessible. And I think they understand the world is changing and you got to do shows like this that are a little bit different and that, yes, do show grown adults eating on camera.
- [21:22]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah. There's an art to eating a slice of pepperoni pizza while you're talking about health care and foreign policy. Jonathan Marshall, great to have you on. Please come back. Really appreciate it.
- [21:32]
Jonathan Martin
Thank you.
- [21:33]
Bianna Golodryga
And do say we'll see.
- [21:34]
Jonathan Martin
Enjoy. Thanks so much for having me. Take care.
- [21:35]
Bianna Golodryga
Thanks. We'll be right back after break.
- [21:44]
Anderson Cooper
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [22:02]
Bianna Golodryga
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com Craig Ferguson is going
- [22:16]
Anderson Cooper
coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today.
- [22:19]
Jonathan Martin
What could possibly go wrong?
- [22:20]
Anderson Cooper
CRAIG ferguson, American on purpose. New episodes now streaming on the CNN app. Go to CNN.com watch to subscribe or log in with your TV provider.
- [22:34]
Jonathan Martin
Now.
- [22:34]
Bianna Golodryga
In a month's time, America will celebrate its 250th birthday. But for many Americans, it's a difficult time to celebrate. The country is divided, strained by conflict abroad, political polarization at home, and economic hardship for millions of on top of that, President Trump has put a partisan stamp on the planned commemorations, from a coin featuring his face to a giant MAGA rally. So what exactly does it mean to be a patriot in today's America? To explore that question, our next guest looks back to the nation's founding, tracing the evolution and contradictions of its ideals. It's all in his new book, To Love a the Problems of Patriotism in America. Author and historian Dominic Erdizane joins me now from Atlanta. Dominic, it's good to have you on the program. Congratulations on the book. I think it does seem quite fitting to have a Brit write a book about America celebrating its 250th anniversary, especially with this president in office. I have to say he really has inserted himself just about in every facet of this celebration. He has floated the idea that he'd host a giant MAGA rally now after some artists dropped out of what they believed was going to be a nonpartisan celebration. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries wrote this on X. He said, get over yourself. The upcoming July 4th anniversary is not about a wannabe king. It is about celebrating the American journey. The Trump administration considers any sort of criticism like that unpatriotic. So what kind of American patriotism are we seeing in Trump and his supporters, in your view?
- [24:14]
Dominic Erdizane
Well, thank you very much for having me. I take your previous guest's point about the perils of a British accent, so I should tread carefully here. But I think what you just described there of patriotism being kind of compressed into an individual is kind of what I mean by the problem of patriotism and the problem of a certain kind of exceptionalism leading to a kind of merging of egoism with, with the greatness of the nation. And it's something that some of the early founders warned very explicitly about.
- [24:45]
Bianna Golodryga
When does the health of loving a country? Because you'll have so many people say there's nothing wrong with that, you're unpatriotic. If you don't love your country, where does that veer? Into dangerous territory, if at all? And what does that say about the current society, if that's in fact where parts of it are veering?
- [25:04]
Dominic Erdizane
Yeah, I think two people that spring to mind here. There's a famous essay by George Orwell where he talks. It's called Notes on Nationalism. He talks about nationalism as kind of the disease of the modern age, this kind of worship of this magnified version of ourselves in the state. And he sees patriotism as a kind of a potential inoculation against that, that if you can love your country without worshipping it. But the problem is, if your version of patriotism is a form of exceptionalism that says we're preeminent, then you're going to tend into that direction of uncritical affiliation. I mean, another person who springs to mind is the historian Richard Hofstadter, who says, really, as an aside, in one of his reviews, he says, it's been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one. And when you are that ideology, it can make you a blind follower, you know, a kind of, in a sense, a subject rather than a citizen.
- [26:01]
Bianna Golodryga
One criticism we hear a lot directed at the president or at Republicans from Democrats, is that their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to one party or not to one person. How do you think that resonates to most Americans? And I'm just curious to get your perspective. How does that resonate to those around the world who are watching the United States celebrate 250 years?
- [26:27]
Dominic Erdizane
Yeah, I think that it's important. You know, I find myself defending America a lot to my kind of British friends and family, and to emphasize that the current kind of MAGA phenomenon is not synonymous with the nation, but this idea. One of my go to people is John Adams. In the book, he talks about an empire of laws rather than an empire of men, and the importance of following the ideals and the ideas rather than our appointed spokesman of the time, our team and, you know, they talk a lot about factionalism. And I think, you know, it's again, back to Orwell. Orwell has this great idea of transferred nationalism. When a party or an ideology becomes the avatar or the synonym for your nationalism, and therefore supporting the party becomes your way of supporting the nation. And the effect is that you end up undermining many of the values and commitments of that nation and norms of
- [27:21]
Bianna Golodryga
that nation, as well as we see in real time. The title of your book, To Love a the Problem of Patriotism in America. You separate patriotism from freedom. I think a lot of Americans would assume they're quite similar. Why doesn't that persuade you?
- [27:38]
Dominic Erdizane
I think the right kind of patriotism could. I mean, one of the motives for writing this was the response to Trump's presidency among liberal intellectuals who talk about reclaiming patriotism rather than, say, rethinking it or re examining it in a more fundamental way. And I think that for the people, you know, it's a historical book rather than a philosophical treatise. And one of the processes you see is that the more patriotic people are, the more they're inclined to sacrifice their liberties, their freedom of speech, their freedom not to be drafted into an illegal war, for example. And this is something that Thoreau talks a lot about in Civil Disobedience, is that patriotism makes us proud, but oddly lacking in self respect at times, that we sort of sign away our liberties without thinking about it. And that kind of ability to think on your feet, I mean, another one, if you forgive one more quotation, is Dwight Eisenhower. In his famous farewell speech, he warns about the military industrial complex. He says we need a knowledgeable and alert citizenry to protect our democratic processes and to prevent the encroachment of these. The military industrial complex, which is absolutely right. But the kind of patriotism he promoted as president is the kind that puts us back to sleep.
- [28:55]
Bianna Golodryga
Well, I want to ask about one of the more provocative and I think really important. Of course, it's one of the dark chapters of US History, and that is on race. And you highlight the exceptionalism in patriotism has worked against race equality. And you quote Abraham Lincoln. You say, much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil to avoid a greater one. So what does that line reveal about how patriotism could in fact enable harm?
- [29:30]
Dominic Erdizane
Yeah, well, that's. I'm glad you quoted that because that's the clearest summary of the argument in a way that you could be concerned about something, but if you make it secondary, you've perhaps forgotten about it or neglected it. And that was the argument of people like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, the abolitionists, who felt that you've got this glorious thing called the Declaration of Independence, this assertion of human dignity and equality and the right to life and Liberty. And then you have a constitution that allows people to be classified as property. Then you have patriotism that protects the Constitution that prevents structural analysis, structural radical change. So for people like Garrison to be a patriot was to rivet the chains of so many million enslaved people. So you know that the clearest rhetorical version of this would be someone like Douglas himself sort of mocking the patriots by saying, who were your daddies, referring to the founding fathers as your daddies, to say that just because they made this covenant with death, it doesn't mean we can't change it now. So for them it was a kind of counter revolutionary force that sort of denied the core ideas.
- [30:40]
Bianna Golodryga
And what you do in this book is you hold up people like Jane Addams, Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi as models. All three loved their countries while being able to indict them as well. What is the practical difference between their model as opposed to blind loyalty through and through?
- [31:02]
Dominic Erdizane
Yeah, well, I think that the key thing for me with each of those thinkers is that they were dynamic. Their view of patriotism was that it was a moving thing. It's got to change. Adams is. So you have all these anti imperialists, including people like Mark Twain at the turn of the century, the turn of the 20th century, who are critics of imperialism and their approach is very much, what would Jefferson do here? He wouldn't be invading these other countries. Whereas Adams says that maybe we need a bit more than that. Maybe we need a more forward looking patriotism that isn't linked to militarism in any way. He says she's kind of breezy in her disdain for the great generals of the Civil War and say we need a different kind of man and you know, a cosmic patriotism which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. But she sort of draws her patriotism from the diversity and the plurality of Chicago, where she founds Hull House and makes it central to her peace activism. And the same with King. You know, he's always invoking the promise, but he doesn't think the car is going to drive itself. You know, he finds traditional patriotism too static and too kind of invocatory. You know, we are great. Whereas he's saying we've got to breathe life into this experiment and it's going to happen now.
- [32:11]
Bianna Golodryga
Yeah, it's that form of encouragement, but the encouragement that takes work and really galvanizing a movement. Christian spoke with former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes, who's also written a book about American history. He traces the division, some of which you talk about, back to the Constitutional, The Constitutional Convention. And he cited a speech by Benjamin Franklin in particular, rallying support for the Constitution's passage. Let's play that clip.
- [32:39]
Ben Rhodes
Yeah. So I wanted to understand what's happening now by understanding the history of the debate we've had in this country. And I start with Benjamin Franklin, because the speech that he authored, that was a closing argument at the Constitutional Convention, did not defend the Constitution. It defended compromise. It said, if a bunch of people are going to come together in a room with different interests, different views, different prejudices, then we are not going to have a union without compromise. That made the country possible, but it was a starting point for this competition and this conflict we've had ever since.
- [33:12]
Bianna Golodryga
That sort of speaks, I think, to some of the language from Abraham Lincoln as well. Rhodes argued that there'd be no United States without those compromises. Do you agree with him?
- [33:22]
Dominic Erdizane
Yes, but I think that if you go back to the Constitutional debate, you have these thinkers, these skeptics who are known as the anti Federalists, who said, you've got to be careful how firmly you force these things together. It's one thing to say we have differences. It's another thing to say that Georgia, where I am and Massachusetts, can be bound into the same unitary republic. You have people in New York, like the federal farmers, who's one of the, you know, they all have these kind of flamboyant pseudonyms saying that this is like a forced marriage and it's going to result in divorce, if not civil war, that it's one thing to compromise, but it's another thing to put polar opposites. You have people in Georgia, sorry to beat up on the state, but you have one of the representatives at the second Continental Congress who's saying, you know, the principles of republicanism are the principle of devils. You know, they have no interest in the democratic experiment, and a few years later they find themselves in a state and they have in a federal state, and they have the power to veto many of the things that people in New England and Pennsylvania, for example, wanted to implement. So it's more than a failure to compromise. We're talking about ideological polarities of some extreme which we're living with still today.
- [34:36]
Bianna Golodryga
I find your background so fascinating, and I think given your background and all of the experiences that you've had being raised in Britain, now living in Georgia, as you've noted as a professor there, and writing about this country, your previous book, One Nation Under Guns, now about patriotism, your background, I think, really bears the significance of the points you're making here from the experience that you've had. You said you find yourself defending this country abroad. What did you learn in writing this book that you perhaps had yet to know about this country when you wrote your previous book about guns?
- [35:20]
Dominic Erdizane
Yes, I think that I was very conscious in so many arguments and I have a lot about whether it be about militarism or race or economic policy or whatever it may be. I came back again and again to Martin Luther King Jr. He was sort of my go to person in a way. He became the exception that proved the rule. And I felt the weakness of that. And then writing this book, I found this cast of characters that I didn't know existed. And I always had this problem with Lincoln and the Civil War and the violence of resolving that conflict through war. And I felt a bit of a loner. I was even afraid to discuss that. And then studying it, going back to the primary sources just filled me with some confidence that there are other people who think differently. I feel more at home here in the US Having written the book and felt that there is this kind of company of witnesses that I can bring to play. And I think as a scholar, I've always been on that side of some historians are purists. They don't believe in applying their research to the present. But I've always been with E.P. thompson. He's a great social historian who says the past is alive. It's teeming with energies that we can bring to our side. And that's how I felt when I wrote this book.
- [36:24]
Bianna Golodryga
You end the book on hope rather than despair. That's quite American of you, I have to say. You end it with the commencement address by John F. Kennedy Jr. At the American University. So it does seem and want to make sure our audience knows that you are optimistic. There is room for optimism here. And a lot of what we know now about the country stems from a lot of the research that you've been able to put together for this book. So well done. Dominique Erdizan, thank you so much for the time. Great to have you on. Congratulations on the book. Incredible timing, we should note. Thanks very much. Full disclosure, Dominic is married to a CNN executive who we just adore. So there's something in the water there in Georgia that just makes the Airdes ends a wonderful family. Really appreciate it. Thank you for the time.
- [37:16]
Dominic Erdizane
Thank you very much.
- [37:18]
Bianna Golodryga
We'll be right back after the short break. Now hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the war in Iran have stalled after tensions in the Gulf flared again early Wednesday morning. Iranian strikes on Kuwait have caused widespread damage. One person was killed and more than 60 wounded in the attack that hit hit Kuwait's airport. Meanwhile, the US Military carried out its own strikes near the Strait of Hormuz. In a new piece for the Atlantic, foreign policy scholar Robert Kagan argues that Iran's leverage in the strait leaves the US with few options. He explains why to Walter Isaacson.
- [38:03]
Jonathan Martin
Thank you. Bianna and Robert Kagan, welcome to the show.
- [38:07]
Robert Kagan
Thank you.
- [38:08]
Jonathan Martin
This war in Iran has gone on for four months now. Does it surprise you it's gone on that long?
- [38:13]
Robert Kagan
Well, in some ways it hasn't gone on that long. I mean, in some respects, the war ended in March after the Israelis hit the Iranian Pars oil field and the Iranians retaliated by hitting the Guttery Gas industrial complex. Trump ordered an end to attacks on Iranian energy facilities and then went into a ceasefire. And really nothing has changed since then. Trump says a million things one way or another. He's going to attack, he's not going to attack. But if you look at what's actually happened, it's clear that Trump is unwilling to escalate. And so we've been in this kind of sort of Cold War situation with nothing really happening for four months. Other than the fact that the strait has been closed.
- [38:56]
Jonathan Martin
Well, other than the fact that the strait has been closed, it's a pretty big other thing. What happens there?
- [39:03]
Robert Kagan
Well, we can clearly see now what the future looks like. Iran is in control of the strait. There seems to be no prospect the United States is going to be be able to open the strait by military force. Trump clearly doesn't want to do that, which means the strait will be open, but under new management. It'll be under Iranian management, which means they will control who gets in and who gets out, how quickly and at what price, because they're certainly going to charge for it eventually. And this gives Iran enormous leverage in the region and in the world. And we're already seeing that leverage playing out today with the crisis in Lebanon and how Trump is handling that.
- [39:47]
Jonathan Martin
So what should the administration do? Or what can it do? Because this seemed like a pretty bad stalemate of an outcome.
- [39:55]
Robert Kagan
I don't see any particular options. I think we have already lost this war. It's just a question of when do we acknowledge it? Trump, of course, doesn't want to acknowledge it at all, which is why we're sort of in this stasis, that of paralysis right now. But I don't see any options for the United States. This mistake, unfortunately, is going to Be a lasting mistake with lasting strategic consequences.
- [40:21]
Jonathan Martin
If the Strait of Hormuz is open sort of under new management, I think you put it, with Iran sort of controlling it. What does that mean?
- [40:30]
Robert Kagan
Well, it means that the power relationship in the region will shift dramatically. I mean, before the war began, Israel was by far the strongest power in the region. Iran was decimated, weak, isolated. After the war, with Iran in control of the Strait, Iran is going to be calling the shots. You'll see the Gulf states cutting deals with Iran, They've already begun to do so. And you'll see Iran exercising influence over Israel's behavior as it is doing right now in Lebanon. Iran wanted an end to Israel's bombing of Beirut. They demanded it. And Trump called up Bibi Netanyahu and told him to cut it out. That's the future. Israel's gonna find itself tremendously isolated. Iran is gonna be in a position to have leverage over countries as far away as Japan and Korea, who are of course utterly dependent on access to the energy supplies of the Gulf, which Iran will be able to control that access.
- [41:29]
Jonathan Martin
Well, let me summarize. What I think you just said about where we stand now is that Iran will effectively control the Strait. The enriched uranium I assume will not be taken out. They will help control of what Israel can do in southern Lebanon. And there's not been a regime change except for to a younger, more radical regime. That seems absolutely unacceptable. Is there any alternative? Is there anything that can be done?
- [41:57]
Robert Kagan
Unfortunately, just because something is unacceptable doesn't mean that we're not going to have to accept it. And again, look, I suppose there is some kind of war that the United States could fight, which would be a multi month war. At the very least it would require risking losing ships in the Strait. When you convoy in a contested area, you lose ships. In addition to which, I don't think that the Strait will be safe again as long as this regime is in power. And so if you really wanted to, I suppose solve the problem, although I'm not sure what kind of solution it is, you'd have to invade and occupy, occupy Iran and stay there for a long time so that you had a new regime. And I just think there's no way the American people are interested in doing that and I'm not even sure I would recommend doing that at this point because the costs are going to be enormous. So we have to accept the fact that this is a loss. I mean, we have lost in the past, we've lost previous wars in Vietnam, obviously. Unfortunately, this one has much as we've been discussing much greater strategic ramifications than the loss in Vietnam did, actually.
- [43:04]
Jonathan Martin
Well, if you're Trump and you hear what you just said, I think his instincts, very hard for me to know would be, okay, let's bomb, let's hit more targets, let's destroy even some infrastructure until they were lent. Is that a possible approach?
- [43:19]
Robert Kagan
It really isn't. And I don't think he has. That's not what I'm guessing he's gonna do. What he would like to do is hope that the American people somehow can forget about all this. He's telling, you know, his latest statements are relaxed. It's gonna take time. It always works, works out, he says. And I think he would like to change the subject and move on. But even an increased bombing campaign is not gonna solve the problem. I mean, we bombed Iran very effectively, it seemed, for 37 days without changing their course. I don't know what the occasional tit for tat bombing is going to accomplish. In addition to which, we cannot solve the problem which is at the heart of this, that we cannot prevent Iran from wreaking un untold destruction on its neighbors in the Gulf. And also, and perhaps from the world's point of view, just as importantly, the energy infrastructure. Iran is capable of destroying energy infrastructure in such a way that it could take years, if not longer, maybe even a decade to repair, which would have implications for the global economy that are disastrous.
- [44:25]
Jonathan Martin
How come nobody could foresee or they did not foresee that this could be a total fiasco, the way you've just described it?
- [44:34]
Robert Kagan
Well, I think that it should have been foreseen. After all, Trump is not the first president to face the Iran problem, and he's certainly not the first, you know, sort of hawkish American president to face the Iran problem. But if you look at what the decisions made by the two Bush administrations and all the other Democratic administrations, they all decided that this was a threat. I'm sure that Trump's military advisers, and maybe the CIA, warned him that this could happen. They would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't. But he didn't listen, because he's Donald Trump. He saw a glittering object. Bibi Netanyahu presented with this possibility for a big win. And he will go down in history and have his head on Mount Rushmore for getting rid of the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime. And he didn't think too much about day two, obviously.
- [45:25]
Jonathan Martin
Well, you said it was an opportunity that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented to Him. To what extent do you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu pushed him into this?
- [45:35]
Robert Kagan
Well, I don't know how hard he had to push, but he certainly enticed him into this. I mean, it's clear that he came to the White House and recommended this plan. I mean, reports are that people like Rubio and the CIA director said that they didn't think this was going to work and Trump did it anyway. But it's clear that this was an Israeli idea, which I gotta say, the tragic irony from Israel's point of view is that I think this is gonna turn out to be the biggest setback in Israeli, you know, biggest strategic setback in Israeli history. And it was definitely an Israeli decision to go ahead and do it.
- [46:11]
Jonathan Martin
Yeah, you talk about in your piece that this will be the biggest strategic setback in Israel's entire history. Explain why.
- [46:20]
Robert Kagan
Well, just because Israel's arch enemy, I mean, what Israel considers an existential threat is now in a stronger position than it's ever been before because as we've been discussing, because of its control of the strait, which means it's going to be able to manipulate other powers around the world in ways that it wants. So if Israel does anything that Iran doesn't like, Iran can force the rest of the world to put pressure on Israel, as again is happening right now, right before our eyes. This is the future. So Israel is going to be highly constrained on what it can do against Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza because Iran will be able to pull the string on oil and gas supplies. If Israel does something that it doesn't like, that's a very weak position. Plus, Israel is now going to be more isolated than it's ever been before because in addition to the fact that the whole world is now, you look at the UN Security Council resolution yesterday, it was unanimous except for the United States. And support in the United States for Israel is at the lowest point I think, probably in its history. Neither party is very pro Israel and Trump and I think this is important. Trump is now turning against Israel. He may turn his MAGA followers against Israel too. And anyone who assumes that MAGA is die hard supporters of Israel and can't be shifted if Trump gets annoyed with Netanyahu are mistaken. So Israel, I just think Israel is going to find itself in a very isolated. Israel's used to being somewhat isolated. This is more isolated because I don't think they have the United States behind their back anymore.
- [47:54]
Jonathan Martin
You paint a pretty dire, a very dire picture of what it means for the United States strategic interest And Israel's. It also seems like it's pretty devastating to the strategic interests of the Gulf states, the Saudis, the UAE and others. Are they going to just sit back and watch this happen?
- [48:11]
Robert Kagan
Well, they. What their response is going to be, they're going to have to cut deals with Iran. And they are. Of course, some of them are already doing that. Oman is clearly working with Iran. I saw that the guttery foreign minister talked about making at least a temporary deal with Iran. They're going to have to come around. I don't know. The ua, the United Arab Emirates seems to be still sort of in the Israeli camp. I don't know how long that'll last. But the others are not. And it was pretty clear, at least from what we picked up, that the Saudis in particular were not in favor of this war. They could see very clearly over the course of the war that the United States prioritized Israel defense over the Gulf states defense. I mean, look, if you're the Gulf state now, you put all your money on the United States. The United States then initiated this war at Israel's behest. And the war has been disastrous for the Gulf states, disastrous for their economies. So I don't see why they don't react to that by turning both to Iran, but also to China, which is an important player, an increasingly important player in the region partly because of its alliance with Iran. And so you're going to see an overall shift in the balance of power away from the United States and Israel and toward other powers in the region.
- [49:31]
Jonathan Martin
The main reason we got into this situation at first, or so they said, was to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power and maybe even get the enriched uranium out. Now we're just talking about can we try to get the strait open? Is that totally. Is Iran going to become a nuclear power now?
- [49:52]
Robert Kagan
Well, first of all, it's less important now whether they do or they don't because their nuclear program is of less utility to them as a lever in the international system than control of the strait. The control of strait is like a. Is greater than a nuclear weapon weapon. But on the other hand, they also have no incentive to make any concessions on the nuclear issue. Now, you know, they have been saying for decades that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon. So I'm wondering whether Donald Trump could have them say that yet again and then declare victory and go home. He's gotta find some way to declare victory, so it's possible they'll give him that. But the reality is Iran is not Gonna make any fundamental concessions on the uranium or on anything else?
- [50:38]
Jonathan Martin
Well, let me ask you the big strategic question, which is, what does this do to America's alliances around the world? And to what extent does that affect our competition? I'll call it with China
- [50:56]
Robert Kagan
and with Russia, I would say. I mean, you know, the war itself takes place already in a context of the United States destroying our alliance relationships. I mean, we're pulling our troops out of Europe. We've made it clear that we are not going to be responsible for providing security to our allies, which has been our main mission for 80 years. And so those alliances are falling down. And in Asia, too, where we haven't pulled out, we have, over the course of this war, drawn down huge amounts of military capability which are intended to deal with a China, Taiwan scenario or another kind of aid scenario. So everybody can see how weakened we are, which means that countries like Japan are going to have to go their own way. So that was sort of all that was sort of in place. The Iran war has exacerbated all of that, because in addition to us making it clear that we're not going to defend our allies, we also are not capable of playing the role that We've played for 80 years in keeping international waterways open. That was a major American task. It's one reason why nations in the world depended on us and therefore listen to us. I mean, you know, we always are unhappy about the degree to which nations depend on us, but it also gives us enormous influence. That influence is going to be gone as nations go their own way, as we prove that we are incapable of finishing a war we started, as we prove that we are incapable of dealing with, by the way, a pretty lesser power that was already very weak. I mean, again, a lot of sort of war boosters on their Republican side, we're bragging about how much damage we've done and how China and Russia are going to be scared of us. I'm sorry, that's not the lesson of this war. The lesson of this war is that we took on a very weak and damaged power and have not been able to complete the job. I think the world is going to see what that means.
- [52:51]
Jonathan Martin
Robert Kagan, thank you so much for joining us.
- [52:54]
Robert Kagan
Thank you.
- [52:56]
Bianna Golodryga
And finally, hockey has enjoyed a surge in popularity this year thanks to, in part, to hit shows like heated rivalry. While ice hockey continues to grab headlines, some players are taking the game to new depths. Out of the rink and into the pool, as you see here. Invented in England in the 1950s, underwater hockey has developed into an international sport with a dedicated following across the globe. Now these enthusiasts who play for teams in the United Arab Emirates, hope to take it even further as they head to the Asian Championships in Indonesia this August. Good luck to all players. All right, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. Goodbye from New York. From the descendants of history makers involved in the Louisiana Purchase to the Lewis and Clark expedition, discover the untold stories of American expansion in the CNN original series, this Land, premiering June 7th on CNN.
- [53:59]
Anderson Cooper
Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. As Ken Burns said on an earlier podcast, the half life of grief is endless. Mariska Hargitay knows that very well. Jane Mansfield was killed in a car crash in 1967. Mariska was in the car with her. After decades spent coming to terms with her past and wanting to learn more about the mother she doesn't remember, Mariska has made a remarkable documentary called My Mom Jane.
- [54:28]
Bianna Golodryga
Our vulnerability is our greatest strength and our greatest connector. And so in telling the story, I don't feel vulnerable. I feel free. We all have a story, and you never know what somebody else carries.
- [54:45]
Anderson Cooper
Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.