Loading summary
Transcript106 lines
- [00:01]
A
Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix Online Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started today@stitchfix.com Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify.
- [00:33]
B
Hello everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:38]
C
A lot of good can come down.
- [00:40]
B
From shutdowns, Trump spin, or a veiled threat of more executive power. I asked Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire then Iran has never sought and will never seek to build a nuclear power as Tehran faces the full force of Western sanctions. I speak to Iran expert and author Vali Nasser about whether diplomacy is still on the table.
- [01:04]
D
Also ahead, the dominance that Donald Trump has over the party and over the caucus is nothing like that's ever been known or seen before.
- [01:12]
B
In an increasingly polarized Washington, former Senator Joe Manchin reflects on a lifetime of bucking partisan lines in his new memoir, Dead Center. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiana Manpour in London. For the first time in almost seven years, the American government has officially ground to a halt. A deadlock. Congress failed to find a compromise. At the heart of it, health care. The Democrats want to reverse Trump's planned Medicaid cuts and his rollbacks of Obamacare. At stake, almost 14 million Americans could lose their health insurance over the next decade. It's a line in the sand for Democrats ahead of midterm elections next year. But it is risky. President Trump has said shutdowns can bring good does that mean more mass firings of federal workers, or does it mean consolidating more executive power? Our first guest has long been known for tending towards bipartisanship. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a former New Hampshire governor, is now ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And should she join me from Washington? Senator Jeanne Shaheen, welcome to the program.
- [02:45]
E
Thank you.
- [02:47]
B
So I know there are lots of meetings I suppose they're attending by all sides to reverse this shutdown, but you voted for it. Why? Why? To shut the government down.
- [02:59]
E
I'm very concerned about making sure that people in America can continue to get access to health care at a cost they can afford. I've been working hard to try and ensure that the tax credits, the subsidies that help people afford their health insurance do not end in December and that people are not facing a doubling of their insurance rates, which is what is being anticipated. So I think this is something that we ought to be able to reach agreement around. I'm continuing to talk to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about how we continue to move this discussion forward, keep. We should be able to keep the government open and ensure that people have access to health care at the same time.
- [03:40]
B
So let me ask you this. Do you think, though, it's a bit risky on a number of issues. One, it appears that you, as a Democrat, are, you know, making this line in the sand on a policy issue, and that is healthcare. But the other party can blame you. And then the other party can also do, as Trump said himself, the president, sometimes shutdowns are good. I wonder whether you understand what he meant by that.
- [04:07]
E
Well, my understanding is that the White House has been back and forth and the president has been back and forth on wanting a shutdown or not wanting a shutdown. But the reality is the Republicans control all three branches of government. They control the White House, they control both houses of Congress, and many would say they control the Supreme Court. So I think ultimately, people will question why, given that they have not been able to avoid a shutdown. And I think the reason is because there was an unwillingness to talk to Democrats about where we could come together to keep the government open and address the issues around health insurance, which are very real for Republicans as well. We've had President Trump's own pollsters, two of them, come out and say, if the GOP doesn't address the cost, the rising costs for insurance rates that are going to happen if we don't extend these tax credits that they will pay at the polling booth next year. So I think it's in everybody's interest to get a resolution. We need to talk to each other. Cause unless we're talking to each other, we're not gonna get this resolved.
- [05:15]
B
Now, the White House still welcomes it. Basically, President Trump says he'll use the shutdown to, quote, fire federal workers, specifically targeting Democrats and to cut programs Democrats like. So, again, you worry about that and about playing into their game, which is to, quote, unquote, dismantle the administrative state that comes from Project 2025.
- [05:41]
E
Well, of course I worry about it. I worry about the fact that President Trump has been doing this from the day that he took office and started eliminating the U.S. agency for International Development and cutting off foreign assistance and riffing all the workers, riffing workers at the Department of Agriculture, at the Department of Veterans affairs at virtually every department within the federal government in a way that really affects the my constituents and their ability to access services. So of course I'm worried about this. I think it's an issue that is going to come home to roost for the president because ultimately he's in charge, his party is in charge of Congress and the White House. And he ultimately is responsible if people aren't talking to each other, if we're not working this out. And it's unfortunate that he refused to meet with Democratic leadership earlier and Republican leadership, for that matter, that he listened to partisan concerns and said, we're not going to talk. Don't talk. You Republicans in Congress don't talk to Democrats. That's not how we get a resolution. The way you get a resolution is to figure out ways in which we can come to agreement on the concerns on both sides of the aisle. I think there are a lot of us in the Senate and in the House who think that that's what we should be doing now and we need to get an agreement.
- [07:05]
B
Senator, you know, there also been things happening, you know, on the edges of this shutdown, for instance. I wouldn't it's not an exaggeration to say a lot of the world, especially allies, were looking at this cryptic email that Hegseth, the defense secretary, sent out to all your military commanders from all over the world to come to Washington. Nobody quite knew all what it was going to be then President turns out President Trump. And I just wonder, what was that about? It was a highly political speech. The generals and commanders seemed not to be, you know, cheering and clapping. There was a lot of silence there. What was that all about? And by the way, who's paying that bill for flying them all over the world?
- [07:48]
E
Well, that's a real concern. You know, the United States has the strongest, the most lethal, the best military in the world. And one of the things that has made it so great has been that it's outside of politics that we look for professionalism in our military. It's one of the arguments I make as I'm talking to new democracies in developing countries around the world, that the important thing is to separate your politics from your military. And all this president has done and Pete Hegseth has done since they took office is to try and politicize the military. That is not in America's interest. That does not make a better, more lethal fighting force. And it needs to end.
- [08:35]
B
And again, it's going to cost potentially millions and millions of dollars. The president said even More than or a billion. He threw that number out. But how does that square lesson lost? Yeah.
- [08:48]
E
I think that's a problem. I think we need to demand in Congress to know where that money's coming from and what they are not doing to ensure that our military is ready because they spent the money to have this foolish meeting that was nothing but a political pep rally for Donald Trump.
- [09:09]
B
And I have to say, the optics, the pictures were very frankly, disturbing. When I first saw the picture, I actually didn't know what country I was looking at because it just looked like a gathering of, of, of, of the military in some of the worst nations. I'm not casting aspersions. I've spent my whole life with the American military, but I'm just saying looked like they were forced into an uncomfortable situation and they, they didn't cheer and whoop. So my question is, do you feel that they have, by their silence, recommitted to being apolitical?
- [09:43]
E
Absolutely. They behaved completely professionally, as we would expect our military to do. You know, it's an. That meeting was an embarrassment to the United States and to the professionalism of the men and women who were serving in our military.
- [10:02]
B
And can I say, can I ask you also what you made of President Trump saying to that group? Because this is also very, you know, relevant to what's going on in, in your country right now. He basically said, you know, it's the enemy within that we have to be on the watch for. He claims America is, quote, under invasion from within and that the Pentagon should use American cities as training grounds for the military. Do you understand what he means?
- [10:31]
E
Well, I think the President's delusional when he talks like that. The fact is there are differences of opinion in this country. Country. That's what our democracy is all about. And what the President should be about is trying to bridge those differences, trying to get people to talk to each other, not trying to whip up differences and to use the military to go into our cities. You know, I remember the 60s when there were riots in our cities across this country. I remember the National Guard being called in to try and put down those disturbances. That is not happening now. It is not happening in Portland, Oregon. It's not happening in Chicago, Illinois. It's not happening in Washington, D.C. and for the President to suggest that he is going to violate the law and use cities as a training ground for our military is just beyond the pale.
- [11:26]
B
And also, it comes obviously, after this very fragile moment in the wake now, a couple of weeks since Charlie Kirk's assassination. And the specter of political violence. I want to ask you also about international affairs. You are the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There seems to be a discussion within the US Administration on what to do about Venezuela. So far there have been what has been described as extrajudicial killings and bombings of small boats for reasons that we don't fully understand, apart from the fact that it's got something to do with drugs, says the administration. But, but also, are you aware of a conversation about whether the United States should engage in regime change in Venezuela with some hardliners in the government talking about getting rid of Maduro?
- [12:18]
E
Well, I would certainly like to see Maduro gone. And I think everything we can do to stop drug traffickers is important. My home state of New Hampshire was hit very hard by the opioid epidemic. We, we are still experiencing the remnants of that in ways that are devastating for families. But if we're going to engage against the cartels, it needs to be done legally according to international law. And I think that's the question that hasn't been answered. And Congress, the Senate Armed Services Committee got a briefing this morning. It was classified. So I'm not going to speak to that except to say that we didn't get a lot of answers. And there were concerns raised on both sides of the aisle. So I hope that the administration is going to listen to those concerns and is going to provide the documentation that we request.
- [13:07]
B
Do you think the Democrats are doing everything they can to push back on policies that you disagree with? In other words, are you being a strong enough opposition as is traditional in the United States? Because, you know, the way we see it abroad is that there's very little constitutional authority that's given to the Congress actually being exercised.
- [13:34]
E
Well, I think Democrats are raising concerns every day. I think the challenge is that the Republicans are in charge in both the House, the Senate and the White House. And so when you don't have the votes, it's very difficult to move policy. That's why trying to get like minded people to come together to address Democratic concerns is really important. And I hope the leadership on both sides of the aisle in both the House and the Senate will do that.
- [14:00]
B
And can I ask you about the latest, which is President Trump's Gaza proposal. Everybody in the world wants to see the end of this war. There's no doubt about that. Are you convinced that this is the best path forward? Because there's an out which basically said unless Hamas accepts within 72 hours, President Trump turned to Netanyahu and said, you can do. I'm paraphrasing, whatever it takes to finish off the war. And Netanyahu himself has said that he never said he agreed with the formation of a Palestinian state.
- [14:34]
E
Well, I think there were a number of provisions in that proposal that were positive. And I think it's positive that a number of the Arab leaders in the region weighed in and talked about the importance of that. We need to see Hamas defeated in Gaza. I hope that they will look at that proposal and agree to return the hostages, agree to stop the conflict so that Israel will stop bombing, that they will recognize that what's in the best interest of the Palestinians is to ensure that they have a future that is without conflict. I think it's positive that President Trump said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, we are not going to accept you're going into the West Bank. We need to ensure that the Palestinians can still look to a future. Now, whether that proposal ultimately is what's going to do that, I think remains to be seen. But what we need to do is to ensure that people come together and say there needs to be a future for Palestinians. I think that's a separate Palestinian state, that there needs to be an end to the bombing in Gaza, that we need to see humanitarian aid to help the people in Gaza who are suffering so much. And we all need to come together around that. And I'm disappointed that Prime Minister Netanyahu is still refusing to embrace a future for the Palestinians.
- [16:09]
B
And finally, Senator, you've had a long political career. You've been governor, you've been Senator, you plan to retire from the Senate in 2026 with the tightness of, you know, of your political position in terms of a party. Why have you decided that this is the right time? And I know you talk about a new generation and you know how long you've been at it. But in terms of the moment.
- [16:39]
E
It'S more about my personal situation and wanting to be able to have some time to do some other things for the rest of my life. I'm hoping to have some more good years with my husband, who is retired, with my family. And so this was the right time for me. I will have served in elective office for 30 years. At the end of my term, I will have been involved in my in politics over 50 years. And so it's time to think about other ways that I can contribute.
- [17:11]
B
All right.
- [17:12]
E
We have to continue to be involved.
- [17:14]
B
One last question, and that's perfectly understandable. You have been known for trying to forge and often forging a path towards bipartisan consensus. This is really difficult. I understand right now. What do you think by the time you retire, you might be able to the sands might shift a little bit. What do you think about the prospect of bipartisanship?
- [17:39]
E
Well, I think we have to keep at it and we can't throw up our hands and say we aren't going to talk to each other. That's why we're in a government shutdown, is because we've refused to talk to each other. And I think in order to make that happen, each of us has to say we're going to try and figure out how we can move a bipartisan agenda along. That's why I've worked so closely with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jim Risch. He and I don't agree on a lot of things, but one of the things we do agree on is that it's important to have bipartisan foreign policy and to try and work together in ways to move that agenda forward. So I think it may take some time before we see the end of the partisan cycle that we're in. But one of the things we know about our democracy is what goes around comes around. And there is going to be another election and I believe another election after that because I think that's what the American people want and that we need to be thoughtful about how we address our colleagues because. And they should be thoughtful about how they address us because in the next term the Democrats may be in charge.
- [18:57]
B
Interesting. And I know I'm going to let you go now, but how long do you think this shutdown is going to last? I know you're running back and forth with votes and trying to deal with this.
- [19:08]
E
Well, I think we should try and do everything possible to get the government open as soon as possible. We never should have been in this position. As I've said, there's no reason why we can't keep the government open and address the healthcare needs of the American people. That's what we all should be supporting. And we can have our disagreements, but we need to be acting in the best interest of the American people.
- [19:30]
B
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, thank you so much for joining us today.
- [19:33]
E
Thank you.
- [19:35]
B
Later in the program, after Western countries accused Iran of nuclear escalation, the UN Imposed decades old sanctions, sanctions. Fali Nasser, former State Department official, joins me live to discuss.
- [19:53]
F
I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.
- [19:57]
E
I'm worried about this generation in Face to Face communication because it's not an easy thing to do.
- [20:02]
F
Susan Greenfield is The author behind How Digital Technologies are leaving their mark on on our Brains we discuss outsourcing our lives to digital devices and how that impacts our human connections. Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [20:28]
B
Next to the Middle east and time is ticking for Hamas to accept President Trump's peace proposal or face an escalation of war. This week the president suggested, quote, unquote, even Iran could then join the Abraham Accords. That's a normalization agreement that was signed in its first term between Israel and four Arab states. But Iran is again subject to harsh Western sanctions for the first time in 10 years after those Western countries accused the nation of nuclear escalation, a move the Iranian president Prezesh Kyan has called unfair, unjust and illegal. Let's bring in Vali Nasser, former State Department official and author of Iran's Grand Strategy. Welcome back to the program.
- [21:11]
F
Thank you.
- [21:11]
B
So let me first ask you, because this was all over the place earlier this week with the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister and President Trump and then the joint press conference and the 20 point plan. What do you make of it? And although it's, you know, very long and detailed, they have both said that Hamas only has, you know, 72 hours to respond or else. And the or else seem to be Trump saying to Netanyahu, you could go in and, quote, finish the job. So while we wait for Hamas, I'm not sure that we have a formal Israeli acceptance of the peace proposal. But how do you read it?
- [21:51]
F
Well, I think you're correct. There's no formal acceptance of the proposal. And actually the proposal, if it was to be implemented, disrupts Prime Minister Netanyahu's plans for Gaza. He's mobilized the Israeli military for a grand operation in Gaza City and for control of Gaza. And all of a sudden the president is saying that here's a scenario in which you would have to stop. I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is counting on Hamas saying no, which then means that he can proceed with the campaign that is already there. And Hamas could actually put the ball back in Prime Minister Netanyahu's court by saying, yes, we accept, and then we'll see how the prime minister would react. But I think everybody's not expecting that this will really go forward.
- [22:41]
B
Now, how do you think that Iran reacts to this proposal given that Iran has been severely weakened on every front over the last year?
- [22:53]
F
I think since the war between Israel and Iran and since the collapse of Hezbollah, Iran is not directly involved in the Gaza situation. I think what it sees is that Israel's drive for total control of Gaza, for razing Gaza City is making the Arab world increasingly uncomfortable. And even Israel's attack on Qatar, which was directed at Hamas, also made the Arab world uncomfortable. It's actually laying the ground for much greater cooperation between Iran and the Arab world. So Iran in many ways is the beneficiary of the fact that this war in Gaza is not ending and that the Arab world is getting increasingly nervous about what Israel's endgame is over there.
- [23:38]
B
So on Iran, because this unga, the summit that we were all reporting on and you know, world leaders were at last week, they, you know, Israel and the formalization of a Palestinian state was center and there was also a huge amount of talk about Iran. So Iran has been hit with so called snapback states sanctions. This happened on Sunday. Those are the reimposing of UN sanctions that have been removed as part of the JCPOA a decade ago. And the E3, France, Germany and UK said they had no choice but that they still want diplomacy. Do you think that's realistic?
- [24:21]
F
Well, they had a choice. They didn't need to actually invoke this because they did arrive at an agreement in New York with Iran. It's the United States that basically vetoed this, the European Iranian agreement. And then the Europeans basically proceeded with snapback, which was directed perhaps from Washington. And in a way the invocation of snapback in effect is the end of jcpoa. Because one reason that Iran had stayed in JCPOA was in the hope that these snapback sanctions would not be reimposed. Now that they have, I think there is no incentive to even stay in jcpoa. I think the only path forward is diplomatic short of war, because the United States and Europeans still want the iaea, that's the watchdog nuclear watchdog group, to have access to Iran, to be able to verify what's happening there, where Iran's highly enriched uranium right now is. And also that the United States and Europeans want that Iran does not continue enrichment, that its program remains above ground and is subject to inspection. All of those require an agreement. And therefore the United States and Europeans would have to go back to the table if they didn't do it in New York. I think short of another round of war and a continuation of conflict, that's the only path forward.
- [25:51]
B
So I just want to go back to something you just said. You said that there had been at least the outlines of an agreement or a full agreement between the E3 and Iran, the so called European nations which have put this snapback, but the US Vetoed it. Can you explain more? I don't know what the deal would have looked like or when the why the US Vetoed it.
- [26:15]
F
Well, first of all, there was an agreement between Iran and the watchdog agency, the IAEA in Cairo before even the United nations meetings, which would have given access to the IAEA to go inspect Iranian sites, even sites that perhaps had been bombed, and continue its work in Iran to monitor Iran's program. Then in New York, Iran's foreign minister met with European foreign ministers and apparently there was an expectation that either the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, or Secretary Rubio, would have joined that meeting, which would have meant a direct Iranian American meeting with the Europeans present to arrive at an agreement that would have perhaps pushed the snapback back maybe for a year or so in exchange for the IEA resuming its work in Iran. And first of all, the American envoy did not appear at the meeting. And then the Iranians said that they had agreements with the US that would allow the snapback not to be invoked on Sunday, to be pushed back to a later date in exchange for agreements that would allow the IAEA to go back to Iran and then lay out a framework for resumption of negotiations between US and Iran that were disrupted by the 12 day war between Iran and Israel. And the United States basically did not accept the solutions that the Europeans and the Iranians had arrived at. And that put the Europeans in a situation of saying we have no choice but to proceed with the snapback sanctions.
- [27:53]
B
So in their statement, the Europeans say they want to continue to pursue diplomacy and the reimposition is not the end of diplomacy. So, I mean, the big picture is, do you think, and what is the word in the, you know, in the diplomatic and analyst sort of street, do you think that the Trump administration wants negotiations to end this peacefully with Iran, or are we looking at more rounds of bombings, what they call mowing the lawn, what Israel calls mowing the lawn, and what America may join?
- [28:33]
F
Well, I think Israel definitely wants a mowing the lawn strategy rather than any agreement between Iran and the United States. I think President Trump may be under the impression that because Iran is weak and was weakened by the war that he doesn't need to negotiate. He's only willing to accept Iranian surrender. And Iranians are clearly not willing to surrender. So he may think that Iran will soften under these sanctions. So we have to see at least two, three months down the road whether he would have to rethink the issue. The Europeans, in a way, perhaps will not have a role in negotiations going forward. They had one card to play, which was this snapback sanctions. They played it and it was very clear that they were not independent agents here negotiating with Iran, that they were negotiating with Iran on behalf of the United States and are going to only do what the US Position is. And so there is no incentive for Iranians to actually talk to the Europeans or include them in negotiations unless the Europeans are actually going to be influential in the direction of diplomacy. If they're only representing the US Position, then essentially this is a de facto negotiation between Iran and the United States, and the Europeans would be sidelined.
- [29:48]
B
Now, we've talked a little bit about what Iran wants, But people, the U.S. europeans, others, want guarantees and assurances from Iran. So speaking myself to a former official involved in the JCPOA negotiations, basically said that Iran would have to commit to unprecedented verification and inspections of its, you know, of its program. And that would be a precondition, a necessary precondition. Iran would need to commit to disposing all of its 60% uranium. And the IAEA would need to monitor the excavations because at Fordo and Isfahan, which were bombed, because Iran apparently has told the EU and others that it's apparently 400 kilos of 60% highly enriched uranium is buried under the rubble. So all of that needs to be verified. Do you think Iran is ready for those kinds of preconditions?
- [30:50]
F
Well, I think last week in New York would have been an opportunity to start the process by saying that we're going to push the snap back for about six months, a year, in exchange for the very first steps, which would have been to give the IAEA access to go to Iran and even inspect sites in Iran that have been bombed and then begin its job of monitoring Iran's nuclear program. And then in this time period that the snapback has been pushed back, that U.S. and Europeans would restart negotiations that were disrupted by the war, and then they could arrive at some or all of the points that you raised. But the US Decided that it doesn't want to negotiate. It wants to actually accept Iran's surrender, which means all the points you mentioned without anything in exchange. And if Iran is not willing to do that, let's impose sanctions and maybe Iran would be ready to do that in three months time or in six months time. So that's a risk the United States has taken. And we'll see whether in the interim period we'll end up in another round of war. And then that war would write its own rules about where we go, or that the United States finds that Iran has not softened in six months time or three months time, and then it needs to change its position. But Iran also may decide that it's going to play this game differently. Maybe it will resume nuclear enrichment, maybe it will actually come out of npt, maybe it will try to escalate pressure on the US in a different way in order to change the balance. So we're now entering a period of unknown. This is very similar to when the United States left the JCPOA altogether and put maximum pressure on the expectation that Iran would come back to the table on its knees. And that didn't happen that time.
- [32:46]
B
Well, let's talk about maximum pressure, because there's a new research which concludes that all these decades and years of sanctions, this massive regime, all it's done is nothing but cripple the Iranian middle class. Of course, this was the driving force amongst the resistance movements, whether it's women, right, life, freedom, whether it was the so called Green Movement. And its authors have said the ultimate irony of maximum pressure is that it created the perfect conditions for the regime's most extreme elements to thrive. When people's primary concern is putting food on the table, it's far harder to organize for democratic reform. Desperation does not breed democracy, it breeds instability, which empowers authoritarians. And of course, Iran already right now suffering from 40% inflation, critical shortages of power and water. And we saw that the bombing, which I think both Israel and the United States hoped at least, would cause regime change. The people didn't do that. So do you agree that these sanctions have.
- [33:48]
F
Yes.
- [33:49]
B
Have sort of crippled the middle class?
- [33:52]
F
No. Actually I worked with a group of my colleagues who wrote a book on impact of sanctions on Iran. What is very clear, that every pro democracy movement, every democratic transition around the world has been supported and pushed forward by prosperous middle classes. It's not the poor that revolt and change regimes, it's the prosperous middle classes that do and sanctions everywhere in the world. And in the case of Iran, since maximum pressure has decimated Iran's middle class, and in fact it is a good question that why didn't the protest two years ago around the death of the young Iranian woman Mahsa Amini translate into a much larger movement for regime change in Iran. And the reason is because a poor society cannot do so, people did not have the wherewithals to actually rise up, organize, not because of just political pressure by the regime, but because they have to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. And then the Iranian middle class has shrunk. It doesn't have the same kind of of power to do so. I mean, the lie about sanctions is that it actually changes regime behavior anywhere in the world. The truth is that it hurts people and it actually makes regime change much worse. And it's easy to impose sanctions, but it's both morally and politically a mistake to do so.
- [35:20]
B
And very briefly, I realize it's a big question, but we heard reports of people who were meeting exiles and others meeting with President Pezeshkian on the sidelines, Iranians and others essentially telling him, hey, go for the bomb. Look what's going on. You're not doing. You keep saying you don't want the bomb. And he said it again on the podium. Do you think they might, that might be a bad consequence of the bombings?
- [35:46]
F
Yes, it could. First of all, right after the bombing, even within Iran, based on my knowledge and talking to people, even secular Iranians started saying that we should have had and we need the bomb because we cannot be subject to bombardment in the way that it happened.
- [36:03]
B
All right.
- [36:04]
F
And there is also a faction of Iranian hardliners who are arguing Iran should come out of npt, change its nuclear doctrine and go for the bomb. That's yet not a decision that has been made. But if this continues, it could probably gain momentum.
- [36:19]
B
Golly. All right, Vali Nasser, thank you very much indeed. And we'll be right back after this short break. Senator Jeanne Shaheen told us earlier why she's not seeking re election next year. Well, Joe Manchin is already on the other side, having retired from the senate after about 14 years. He long walked down the center of the aisle, so to speak, as a Democrat from the red state of West Virginia, even becoming an independent at the tail end of his Senate career. Now he's flirting with a White House run. His new book is called Dead center. And he joins Walter Isaacson to talk about polarization and the government shutdown.
- [37:06]
C
Thank you, Chris. John and Joe Manchin, welcome to the show.
- [37:10]
D
Oh, Walter, thanks for having me. I appreciate being with you.
- [37:13]
C
We're in the midst of yet again another big government shutdown struggle going on over the past few days. Tell me, what would you do if you were still in the Senate right now?
- [37:24]
D
You know, it's funny, I've been thinking about that. Just today I was thinking about what could have been done. I can tell you this. I would have been gathering up whatever Republicans I could and whatever Democrats I could and start meeting like we always did when we knew that the leadership got to an impasse. When we knew that they were playing politics or they were being pushed, pressure from the White House or from their base, we got together. Always. We could always get about eight of us, four Ds and four Rs. I don't know if they're still there. I hope. I would like to think there's a mindset still there, but get together and then come up with what we thought was reasonable, that we could agree on and we could sell it to our. To our bases of basically our caucuses, and then go into the leadership with both John Thune, who's a good person, a good friend of mine, and Chuck Schumer, who I can talk to and always have and have been a friend. So we have our differences. We all do. But this is not a time to shut government down. There's never a time to admit you couldn't do your job, and that's what you're doing when you shut down.
- [38:21]
C
Father yeah, you talk about these gangs of eight or gangs of ten or so where you have four or five from each side and do it in the middle. Used to do that a whole lot. How come that's not possible now? Why is it that the Senate, which is supposed to do such things, you can't even find 10, 12 people to say, we will be the center and we will hold it together?
- [38:43]
D
I like to think they're still there. They're still my friends, and I know them very well, and I talk to as many as I can. But the push from the White House and the dominance that Donald Trump has over the party and over the caucus is nothing like that's ever been known or seen before. He makes no. He doesn't camouflage anything that when he's upset, when he's against you, he wants you out, he'll be fighting against you this and that. And I've just said, whoever the president, never forget Robert C. Byrd, the former senator from West Virginia who passed away and I replaced. He always told me, joe, he says, make it very clear to you, I have never worked for a president, nor will I ever work for a president. I work to uphold my oath of the Constitution and to the people from our great state of West Virginia, and that's it. But do it with a tear in your eye and do it respectfully. And I always adhere to that. So I'm saying that our Republican friends and leadership have to say, Mr. President, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Do you remember when he and Mitch McConnell fell out pretty bad in his first term? It was over. Trying to, hey, I got 50, you got 54 Republicans, give me what I need. And they said, Mr. President, doesn't work that way. Tried to explain it. He got very upset about that. But I think hopefully he understands now. The filibuster protects both sides when they're in the minority. And what goes around comes around. Walter, this will happen again. It'll change.
- [40:04]
C
Explain to me then, why the Republicans, all your colleagues and friends from back in the days when you're in the Senate, you know them all, what is Trump doing to them? I mean, why has Trump turned it into a pure authority of the president? And these people, you can't even find five or six of them to stand up.
- [40:23]
D
Well, you remember how we used to say it's guilt by association? They see you talking to someone, say, oh, you're colluding with Walter now. You must be on Walter's side, okay? And I said, now it's guilt by conversation. We can't even have a conversation, let alone get together and have a meal or talk over.
- [40:40]
C
Wait, is that because of Trump?
- [40:42]
D
I think that it's put it much more on the front burner because he makes no bones. He's going after retribution to anybody who's opposed him in the past. He's using the judicial system, which I would say, Mr. President, trust me, this will bite you. Whatever you think you're doing today to satisfy your own desires, it'll come back and bite you worse than what you ever can anticipate. Please don't do it. And I'm asking, my Republican friends, you have a constitutional right. Do not abdicate your responsibilities as you take the separation of the three equal powers, executive, legislative, and judicial. Work autonomously, but work under the respect saying, donald Trump is our president. He's my president. He's your president. We want him to succeed. To succeed, you have to be able to speak truth to power respectfully. If you can't do that, then you're not helping your president.
- [41:36]
C
You just used the word retribution, which really does seem to sum up what's happening now with Donald Trump using the judiciary, as you said, Congress and everything, to have retribution against anybody who opposes him. Why is that? I mean, how is that being allowed to happen? And what could that do to our system if it becomes a system of retribution?
- [42:01]
D
Well, again, my friends, in the Republican majority in the Senate right now and also in the House, silence is deafening. Silence is truly deafening, Walter. And they're not saying a word and speaking up. Let me give you a little bit what goes around comes around 2013. Harry Reid was being pressured by the Obama administration. We've got to get our people confirmed. So you're going to have to do the nuclear option. That means bypass the filibuster. They should have been able to sit down and work through the differences this way. Will and pleasure. When a president is elected, that president ought to have the ability to put his staff together as quickly as possible, that he can do the job that people elect him to do. Now, with that being said, that should only be a 51 vote threshold. No cloture vote, no 60 vote threshold, just 51 and say, listen, that's because their will and pleasure the president wants him in their, his administration. And when he leaves, they leave. They're not held over for someone other administration that might have a complete different philosophy or ideology. That's what they should have worked out, but they didn't. So Harry pulls the trigger on the nuclear option and also on the circuit and district judges. Guess what happened within a couple years? Mitch McConnell, Republicans are in the majority. They pull the plug. Nuclear option on Supreme Court justice.
- [43:19]
C
And you're talking about getting rid of filibusters.
- [43:21]
D
Getting rid of the filibuster. So what goes around comes around. If the president thinks retribution is a way you can basically hold your staff and show how tough you are and go after the people that you think went after you unfairly without setting an example of justice and the rule of law that goes around. It's going to come around and I'll guarantee you the Democrats will be justified in using it. This is what's wrong. There's not enough character there to stand up and say, just because you did it to me, I'm not doing it to you. I'm going to show you how we lead. I'm going to show you how you have empathy and sympathy. But those people will pay the price in the public polling.
- [43:57]
C
You've mentioned twice in this conversation. You mention it right a whole lot in your book Dead Center, a very strong narrative book about the filibuster and why it must be protected. Something many of your Democratic colleagues don't believe in as well. Explain why you would protect the filibuster, and you did so during the Biden years.
- [44:17]
D
The filibuster is the only tool in politics, not just in America, but any place in the world that I've ever known. The filibuster is the only thing that gives, that gives input to the minority. Most governments, most, most legislators, whoever's in the majority has total, absolute power. That's the way it works in Congress, you get 218. You don't have to even consider the minority side. But in the Senate, you always have to consider the minority to have input. That's why we've had the stability that we've had in our laws, in our financial system, everything that we put in. It's hard when they call it the most deliberate body in the world. Walter, you know better than anybody, it is hard to pass legislation. It's even harder to repeal it or get rid of it.
- [45:07]
C
Well, okay, wait, wait. Hard to pass legislation? Let me take an example from your career, which is after Sandy Hook, he called it one of the darkest days in American history. And you and a Republican senator, Pat Toomey, had a bill that would have addressed gun violence in sort of a balanced way, and yet because of the filibuster, even it couldn't get through. Isn't that a problem? I mean, aren't we having more dark days because of the filibuster?
- [45:34]
D
Here's what we should have done. We should have brought that bill up two or three times, working, and let the public do its work. It was simply a. A registration. Basically, you had to have a background check in order to get a gun. Anybody that grew up in a gun culture, like me and you and everyone else that had people had guns around us, you learn. You don't. You know how to carry a gun, when to have it loaded. You never loan a gun to an irresponsible member of your family, and you never sell a gun to someone you don't know. That's just the gun etiquette that we talk. We call it gun sense. And that's all we try to do. I didn't know anybody didn't have a background check when they bought a gun or if their dad bought a gun for him. That's just the way it was done. That's all we asked for. Let's least know that what people that are going to gun shows and buying two sacks of guns, what's the purpose? And do we do a background check to see if this was a credible person or a responsible person? None of that. That's all we asked and couldn't even get that done because of the toxic political atmosphere, but also because of the filibuster. 80% of the people believed it. And here's the thing. That's why it's deliberate. We could have run it the first time and gone back and said, listen, please contact those. We lost three or four Democrats who didn't vote for because they thought it would hurt them in her reelection. They lost anyway. These were dear friends of mine and I told them it's not going to make a difference. The problem is, Walter, when I did what I did with the mansion Tooney bill with the background check, my entire state thought, oh, Joe turned against us. He don't want us to have our Second Amendment rights. I took time to go back home and go to every gun store in West Virginia and explain, this is a fairness. This is what we learn. We're young. This is what you all teach. All we're asking for is that when you go to a gun show, there shouldn't be someone that has a table next to you that paid $250 to sell whatever they want to and not require the background check. But you as a licensed dealer had to have it. If you're at that gun show, that's unfair competition. But you have to go out and explain what you've done. Nobody, I guess, didn't want to work that hard, but it, you know, it didn't tank me. I was able to get reelected in 2018 after doing it. And you just got to work. Can't give up.
- [47:48]
C
You became an Independent in 2024, having been a Democratic governor, Democratic senator from your state, and you became an independent. You explain in the book Dead center because you felt that neither party represented the common sense center. I'm going to read you a quote from that book which is, I am thoroughly convinced that the majority of people in our country share my common sense politics, which is not the least bit hard to sum up. Put people first, country before party, be fiscally responsible and socially compassionate. That's it. Why have there not been more people in public office, citizens who say, okay, I'm going to go this independent route. Why have we become more polarized instead of more independent?
- [48:41]
D
Walter, the majority of people participating in the political process today are registered, no party affiliation like me, independent.
- [48:48]
C
Well, then why are all, all the government officials, congressmen, senators, polarizing rather than playing to that large group of Americans who are independent?
- [48:56]
D
Because the duopoly, duopoly of the business acumen of the Democrat and Republican corporations have shut this thing down to where no one else can participate. They make it almost impossible to get through a primary. They can target primaries. They're not opening up primaries. They're not embracing ranked choice voting or an open primary or a 51% majority before you can take office. They're not. There's very few states, only two that I know of, that do all of that. They don't want that to happen because they can control the flow. If you can control, and I'll use a perfect example, the 2024 election. Think about that, Waller. Just not that long ago, 2024 election, there was about $11 billion spent. But with that being said, seven. Only thing we heard about was seven battleground, battleground states. 43 states were predetermined. Only seven. That's where the middle. They were looking for that middle. But you know what? You elect someone from the middle, they go to Washington. Pick a side, left or right, there's no center. Maybe center, left, center, right. There's no moderate middle. There's no structure for that because the system doesn't allow. That's what has to be broken down.
- [50:08]
C
You've said the reason that we can't come together in the center is money in politics and social media, what else do you think is divided?
- [50:18]
D
I can tell you this. If we'd have been on, if I could have put a team together and worked in this 2024 election and got on 50 ballots, we could have contended. We could have basically made a position where the middle and the people could have voted for the middle and not thought about that.
- [50:34]
C
Why did you do it?
- [50:35]
D
They couldn't get on 60, 50 ballots the way that it's almost impossible. They had to. I think no labels, friends of ours, and tried everything humanly possible, got on 16 ballots and that took them over a year. And I think 30 or 40 million dollars. It's almost impossible to do, but it can be done and should be done.
- [50:54]
C
Are you going to run for president in 2028 with a ticket?
- [50:59]
D
Walter? I'm going to do whatever I can to help my country. I truly am. And there's a lot of good people I'm trying to recruit. I'm having a harder time recruiting people to just participate than ever before. Now with all this violence, people are more scared of that as they are basically saying nasty things about them and putting things about your past and your family and on and on. I can live with all that. But people now are truly concerned about their life, and that's wrong. We should not accept violence anyway. And it has to be put out. It has to stop.
- [51:32]
C
Joe Manchin, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
- [51:35]
D
Well, it's always great being with you. Thank you.
- [51:39]
B
And surely everyone can agree with that point. And finally, happy birthday to a true legend of screen and stage, Julie Andrews. She's 90 today, and for almost all that time she's been singing, dancing, acting and generally brightening up each day for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Andrews is the star of beloved and enduring classics like Mary Poppins and the Sound of Music, My Fair lady, and many more. And as she enters her 10th decade, she continues to prove there is no limit to her success, winning an Emmy earlier this year for her role in the Netflix series Bridgerton. I got to meet Julie Andrews, a hero of mine, in 2019, to discuss her memoir, Homework, and I asked her about the love that drives her professional life.
- [52:29]
G
I think this does sound Pollyanna ish, but the doing is the best, and the rest is just icing on the cake. And how lucky can one get if you're lucky enough to be in that position? But truly, everything's collaborative. Everything's. You learn so much doing it, and it's such a wonderfully interesting life. At least I thought so.
- [52:56]
B
Well, I mean, it is. And to have given back so much must be incredibly satisfying.
- [53:01]
G
That's the joy, really.
- [53:02]
B
But the doing, of course, for you was also your voice.
- [53:05]
G
Yes.
- [53:06]
B
And you write very poignantly. It's like opening your chest and baring your soul. My singing teacher used to say to me, singing with a great orchestra is like being carried along in the most comfortable armchair. It can engulf you when you feel that incredible, intense joy coming over you.
- [53:21]
G
Yes, it can. It can make you almost want to weep. And I think I further write that that's the moment to give it to the audience because that joy is so intense.
- [53:35]
B
And that's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
- [53:46]
E
I'm criminal psychologist Dr. Michelle Ward, and on season seven of Mind of a Monster, we're bringing you the story of Kristen Gilbert.
- [53:54]
C
We think that Kristen Gilbert is the most prolific mass murderer on the east.
- [53:59]
E
Coast, the very person responsible for keeping you alive. Your nurse is secretly killing you. She said to the nurse manager, if this guy dies, can I go home? Listen to Mind of a Monster, the killer nurse. Wherever you get your podcasts.