>>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY".

HERE IS WHAT IS COMING UP.

>> I NOMINATED HIM FOR, I GUESS IF YOU LIKE HEALTH, AND YOU LIKE PEOPLE THAT LIVE A LONG TIME, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION.

RJK JR. -- >> DONALD TRUMP'S POLARIZING CABINET PICKS.

WHAT WILL THEY MEAN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE WORLD?

CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT DR. SANJAY GUPTA LOOKS AT WHAT THE APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT F KENNEDY JR. MEANS FOR HEALTHCARE.

>>> AND TALKING ON TRUMP AND AMERICAN POWER.

>>> ALSO AHEAD -- >> THE CHURCH HAS TO GET IT RIGHT, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR US TO GET IT WRONG.

>> ACCOUNTABILITY ATOP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY RESIGNS.

WE LOOK BACK AT THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HIM ABOUT SEXUAL ABUSE IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

>>> THEN -- >> THE DIVIDE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS HAS BEEN DEEPENING, POISONING OUR POLITICS AND SETTING US APART.

>> WALTER ISAACSON SPEAKS TO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR MICHAEL SANDEL ABOUT ANGER AND DIVISION IN AMERICA.

♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT, JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEIR, SIMON B PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI- SEMITISM, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LAYLA AND MICKEY STRAUSS, MARK J GLESSNER, SETON J MELVIN, THE PETER G PETERSON AND JOAN GOETZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM, PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JEFFREY KATZ, AND JEFF ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS, LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I AM IN NEW YORK IS SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

THE CHANGING DIRECTION IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS BECOMING ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, EVEN WITH DONALD TRUMP MONTHS AWAY FROM TAKING OFFICE.

FIRST WITH HIS CONTROVERSIAL ROUND OF EARLY APPOINTMENTS, CHARGING WITH EMPHASIZING WOKENESS FROM THE PENTAGON, PLACING TULSI GABBARD IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DESPITE HER WELL-KNOWN SUPPORT FOR RUSSIA, AND WHILE DELEGATING AMERICA'S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ON PUBLIC HEALTH TO VACCINE CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. ON UKRAINE, RUSSIAN OFFICIALS SAY THEY WOULD WELCOME TRUMP BROKERED NEGOTIATIONS, SAYING ANY TALKS NEED TO BE BASED ON THE REALITIES OF RUSSIAN ADVANCES.

AT PRESENT, RUSSIAN FORCES ARE ADVANCING AT THE FASTEST PACE THIS YEAR, AND AS FOR IRAN, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS THAT ELON MUSK MET WITH ITS U.N.

AMBASSADOR ON DE-ESCALATING TENSIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES, MARKING A RETURN OF THE FREELANCE DIPLOMACY THAT WAS A HALLMARK OF DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST TERM.

SO, LET'S DIG INTO ALL OF THIS WITH COREY SHOCKEY, WHO HAD SERVED AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE PENTAGON, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

COREY, WELCOME BACK TO THE PROGRAM.

A LOT TO TALK ABOUT, HERE.

BUT, FIRST, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE APPOINTMENTS WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT-ELECT ANNOUNCE THIS WEEK, SPECIFICALLY DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE PETE HEGSETH.

HE IS A FOX NEWS HOST, HE IS A DECORATED COMBAT VETERAN, IVY LEAGUE GRADUATE, BUT HE HAS NEVER RUN AN ORGANIZATION, MUCH LESS ONE THE SIZE OF THE PENTAGON, WILL THE LARGEST AND ARGUABLY MOST CONSISTENT IN BUREAUCRACY IN THE WORLD.

WHAT YOU MAKE OF THIS APPOINTMENT?

>> WELL, I THINK HE IS LIKELY TO HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY, BECAUSE HISTORICALLY WHAT HAS MADE SECRETARIES OF WAR OR DEFENSE SUCCESSFUL IN THE UNITED STATES IS EITHER LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE AS YOU SUGGESTED, HE IS COMING IN TO RUN A $780 BILLION A YEAR BUSINESS THAT HAS MORE THAN 2 MILLION EMPLOYEES, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INSTALLATIONS, AND A LARGE, DISPUTATIOUS, AND INTRUSIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

MOSTLY, IT IS CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT, WHO RUNS DEFENSE POLICY.

AND SO, HE WILL HAVE HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM, PERSUADING NOT JUST THE SENATE DURING CONFIRMATION, BUT ALSO GETTING THE BUDGET PULLED TOGETHER AND PASSED BY THE CONGRESS, WHICH IS THE SECRETARY'S MOST IMPORTANT JOB.

>> HE HAS ALSO MADE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT HE VIEWS AS "WOKENESS" IN THE MILITARY TOP BRASS, AND DONALD TRUMP HAS ALLUDED TO THIS, TOO, REPLACING SOME TOP U.S.

GENERALS.

BUT, HE HAS WEIGHED IN ON WOMEN IN COMBAT, AS WELL, SAYING THAT MEN ARE MORE CAPABLE.

HE WEIGHED IN ON THIS JUST DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION.

WE KNOW THAT WOMEN SERVE IN THE MILITARY HERE HONORABLY, AND MANY ARE FIGHTER PILOTS, AS WELL.

JUST RAISING THIS QUESTION NOW, IN 2024, TO PLAY DOWN EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHAT THIS SIGNALS ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE U.S. MILITARY IN 2024 AFTER WE HEAR FROM HIM, DIRECTLY.

>> I'M STRAIGHT UP SAYING WE SHOULD JUST NOT HAVE WOMEN IN COMBAT ROLES.

IT HASN'T MADE US MORE EFFECTIVE, HASN'T MADE US MORE LETHAL, HAS MADE FIGHTING MORE COMPLICATED, WE HAVE ALL SERVED WITH WOMEN AND THEY ARE GREAT, IT IS JUST OUR INSTITUTIONS DON'T HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE THAT IN PLACES WHERE, TRADITIONALLY -- NOT TRADITIONALLY -- OVER HUMAN HISTORY, MEN IN THOSE POSITIONS ARE MORE CAPABLE.

>> YOUR REACTION, AND HOW DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE VIEWED BY THOSE IN THE PENTAGON NOW?

>> SO, THE AMERICAN MILITARY IS DESPERATE TO STAY OUT OF THE CULTURE WARS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND I ACTUALLY AGREE, VERY STRONGLY, WITH THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD WHO WROTE YESTERDAY THAT DRAGGING THE PENTAGON INTO THESE KINDS OF POLICING WOKENESS AND CULTURE WARS IS NOT HELPING IN THE URGENT TASK OF STRENGTHENING OUR MILITARY THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, PRESIDENT-ELECT, IS COMMITTED TO.

SO, I ACTUALLY THINK IT WILL BE INCREDIBLY DIVISIVE, IF SECRETARY HEGSETH IS CONFIRMED IN PROCEEDS ALONG THOSE LINES.

THERE HAS BEEN THIS SUGGESTION THAT A BOARD OF VETERANS WOULD BE IMPANELED TO DETERMINE WHICH MILITARY OFFICER SHOULD REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY, AND THAT JUST CREATES AN ENORMOUS WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICAN ADVERSARIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHAOS IN OUR OWN ESTABLISHMENTS.

I AGREE WITH THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ED BOARD THAT WOKENESS IS NOT THE MAIN PROBLEM IN THE AMERICAN MILITARY, AND WE NEED TO REBUILD THE STRENGTH OF OUR FORCE WITH URGENCY.

THAT SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY.

>> ONE OF OUR STRENGTHS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS SHARING INTELLIGENCE WITH TOP ALLIES, THE FIVE EYES, ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD, TOP-SECRET INTELLIGENCE, SPECIFICALLY ON ISSUES THAT AVERT TERROR ATTACKS, SHARING WITH ONE ANOTHER, STRATEGICALLY BEING ALIGNED ABOUT WARS IN UKRAINE, IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ET CETERA.

I AM WONDERING HOW THE APPOINTMENT OF SOMEONE LIKE TULSI GABBARD TO RUN DNI IMPACTS THAT, BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND HOW IT IS RECEIVED AMONG SOME OF OUR TOP ALLIES?

>> WELL, AMERICAN ALLIES, MANY AMERICAN ALLIES WERE GOING TO BE NERVOUS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE SHARING, WITH A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, NO MATTER WHO THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS GOING TO BE.

BUT, TULSI GABBARD WILL EXACERBATE THOSE CONCERNS.

NOT JUST QUESTIONS OF JUDGMENT, BUT ALSO QUESTIONS OF WITH WHOM THE UNITED STATES MIGHT SHARE ALLIED INTELLIGENCE, IN PARTICULAR TULSI GABBARD SYMPATHIES FOR RUSSIA AND FOR SYRIA'S ARE GOING TO MAKE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE SHARING, EVEN AMONG OUR CLOSEST ALLIES.

>> WE TURN NOW TO THE HOT WARS THAT DONALD TRUMP IS INHERITING.

IT IS ONE THING TO RUN A CAMPAIGN THAT SAYS "I DON'T START WARS, I AND THEM, I WILL END THEM ON DAY ONE," MUCH EASIER SAID THAN DONE.

LET'S BEGIN IN UKRAINE BECAUSE THE NEW YORK TIMES IS REPORTING, THE KREMLIN ALSO CONFIRMING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO YEARS, THE LEADER OF A LARGE WESTERN COUNTRY, IN THIS CASE, GERMANY, CHANCELLOR OLAF SCHOLZ, SPOKE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN TODAY FOR ABOUT AN HOUR.

IT IS REPORTED THAT HE CRITICIZED RUSSIA'S WAR, BUT THE CALL ITSELF DOES SEEM TO SUGGEST A CHANGE IN STRATEGY, AND PERHAPS IT IS COINCIDENTAL.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, GERMANY HAS ITS OWN DOMESTIC ISSUES, AS WELL.

HIS COALITION SORT OF FALLING APART, THERE WILL BE NEW ELECTIONS IN A COUPLE MONTHS, SO HE, HIMSELF, IS KIND OF A LAME DUCK AT THIS POINT.

BUT, THE IMAGE THAT SENDS, THE SYMBOLISM OF A WESTERN ALLY SPEAKING WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR THE FIRST TIME, SUGGESTS WHAT?

>> WELL, IT SUGGESTS ANXIETY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY.

AND WHAT I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO HIM GET WRONG ABOUT AMERICA'S ALLIES, IS THEY BELIEVE THAT WE CAN BE TRANSACTIONAL, THAT WE CAN THREATEN OUR ALLIES WITH ABANDONMENT, AND THAT WILL ONLY CAUSE THEM TO MAKE STRONG CHOICES THAT WE WOULD HAVE MADE WITH THEM.

AND I THINK ONE WORRYING POTENTIAL SIGNAL OF CHANCELLOR SHOALS CALLING VLADIMIR PUTIN IS EUROPEANS FEARING THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABANDONED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND THEREFORE MAKING COMPROMISES WITH RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE ADVERSARIES OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE THEY FEAR THEY CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES.

THAT IS A BAD OUTCOME, NOT JUST FOR EUROPE.

THAT IS A REALLY BAD OUTCOME FOR THE UNITED STATES, TOO.

>> AND EXPLAIN HOW SO?

BECAUSE I WANT TO GET INTO A PIECE YOU HAVE WRITTEN, FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE TITLE "THE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVE FOR A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: HOW HIS ADMINISTERS TO CONJURE UP THE AMERICAN POWER."

HERE IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU WROTE ABOUT WHAT YOU VIEW AS SOME WEAKNESSES IN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THAT YOU HOPE A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAN RECTIFY.

YOU SAY, WASHINGTON SHOULD SPEND LESS TIME WORRYING ABOUT WHAT RUSSIA MIGHT DO AND SPEND MORE TIME GETTING RUSSIA TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT THE U.S. MIGHT DO, INSTEAD OF LOUDLY AGONIZING ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF WORLD WAR III, THE U.S. PRESIDENT SHOULD FIRMLY AND STEADILY WON THE KREMLIN THAT UNLESS RUSSIAN FORCES WITHDRAW FROM UKRAINIAN TERRITORY, THE U.S. WILL PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH EVERYTHING IT NEEDS NOT JUST TO TAKE BACK ITS OCCUPIED LAND, BUT TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN'S RULE.

COREY, MANY WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK MANY IN THIS INCOMING ADMINISTRATION WOULD AGREE WITH THAT POLICY.

EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN OUTLINED THUS FAR AND SUGGESTED, PERHAPS GETTING TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, HAVING UKRAINE TO GIVE UP THE LAND THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN BY RUSSIA IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME SORT OF SECURITY DEAL.

OBVIOUSLY, NATO BEING OFF THE TABLE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

THAT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESCRIBING, HERE.

SO, WALK US THROUGH WHERE YOU THINK THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MIGHT BE GOING, WHY YOU THINK IT IS WRONG?

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY IS GOING TO BE, BUT I CERTAINLY SHARE THE CONCERN THAT YOU JUST VOICED, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FORCE UKRAINE INTO A BAD WAR ENDING FOR THE MOMENT NEGOTIATION.

BUT, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF HAS SAID IS THAT IF VLADIMIR PUTIN WON'T AGREE TO TERMS, THAT BRING THE WAR TO AN END, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE WOULD LIFT ALL RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEAPONS AND POLICY RESTRAINTS THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS IMPOSED ON UKRAINE.

THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SHIFT POLICY IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION, RATHER THAN A NEGATIVE DIRECTION.

BUT, YOU ARE, OF COURSE, RIGHT THAT VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT VANCE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NOMINEE PETE HEGSETH, DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE NOMINEE TOASTY GABBARD, AND OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION, ARE HOSTILE TOWARD UKRAINE CONTINUING TO FIGHT FOR ITS FREEDOM AND FOR ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TERRITORY.

SO, YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE IS CAUSE FOR CONCERN, BUT I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CERTAIN FIXED IDEAS ABOUT IMMIGRATION, ABOUT TRADE, ABOUT ALLIANCES.

BUT, ON MANY OTHER POLICIES, HE IS OPEN TO BEING PERSUADED WHEN HE THINKS IT WILL BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR HIS MAIN GOALS.

AND I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP AND THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM TO APPRECIATE THAT FORCING UKRAINE TO ACCEPT A DEAL THAT DOESN'T RESTORE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OR ITS TERRITORY IS UNLIKELY TO END THE WAR, WHICH IS PRESIDENT- ELECT TRUMP'S OBJECTIVES, AND THEY ALSO SHOULD BE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT ENCOURAGING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION TOWARDS OTHER COUNTRIES IN WHAT RUSSIA WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM AS ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND THE WAYS THAT COULD ENCOURAGE CHINA TO CONSIDER COUNTRIES ON ITS PERIPHERY FAIR GAME FOR INVASION OR SUBJUGATION, AS WELL.

>> QUICKLY, WE HAD ANOTHER SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT THE LAST FEW WEEKS IN THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND THAT WAS THE ADDITION OF SOME 40,000 TO 50,000 NORTH KOREAN TROOPS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE RUSSIANS, AFTER THEIR MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY WAS SIGNED AND UKRAINE HAD CONFIRMED THAT NORTH KOREAN TROOPS WERE THERE FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE RUSSIANS.

HOW WOULD A PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP, IN YOUR VIEW, HOW SHOULD HE NOT ON THE HANDLE, OBVIOUSLY, ENDING THIS WAR IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE JUST FOR UKRAINE, BUT THEN ALSO ADDRESS ANOTHER POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS YET TO BE RESOLVED?

AND THAT IS THE THREAT OF NORTH KOREA.

>> IT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, AND THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE WESTERN COALITION SUPPORTING UKRAINE HAVE DONE NOTHING IN RESPONSE TO THIS MAJOR ESCALATION OF NORTH KOREAN TROOPS JOINING THE RUSSIAN WAR EFFORT, WHICH LIFTS THE MAIN RESTRAINT ON RUSSIA'S CONTINUED SUCCESS, WHICH IS AN INCREASING MANPOWER SHORTAGE.

WILL MAKE AMERICAN THREATS AND PROMISES LESS CREDIBLE.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS INTEMPERATE AND IRREGULAR AS HIS FOREIGN POLICY COULD BE, HE COULD ALSO REINFORCE THE CREDIBILITY OR RESTORE THE CREDIBILITY OF DETERRENCE BY THE UNITED STATES, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE THREATS, FOLLOWING THROUGH ON THOSE THREATS, AND PENALIZING RUSSIA AND NORTH KOREA FOR THE ESCALATION OF EXPANDING THE WAR.

>> COREY SHOCKEY, ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> MORE NOW ON THE CONTROVERSIAL SELECTION OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. TOO, AS DONALD TRUMP SAYS, "GO WILD" ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA JOINED ME NOT TO BREAK DOWN WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR AMERICANS AND HEALTHCARE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.

SANS JAY, GREAT TO SEE YOU.

THIS CAN'T COME AS A SHOCK IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGNED ON, BUT NONETHELESS I DON'T THINK MANY AMERICANS ACTUALLY CAME TO TERMS FOR WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR THEIR DAY TO DAY MEDICAL NEEDS AND THEIR LIVES IN GENERAL.

SO, WALK US THROUGH YOUR REACTION TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, AND WHAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY?

>> YEAH, I THINK THE REACTIONS HAVE BEEN PRETTY STRONG, YOU KNOW, FROM ALL CORNERS, REALLY.

AND PERHAPS NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO DISENTANGLE ANYTHING FROM POLITICS NOWADAYS, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEALTH, IT SORT OF HAS BROKEN MOSTLY ALONG PARTISAN LINES.

SO, SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICANS, NOT SO MUCH SUPPORT AMONGST DEMOCRATS, SOME REPUBLICANS SAYING THIS IS A BOLD, DANGEROUS MOVE, SOME DEMOCRATS SAYING THERE IS DANGEROUS AND DISTURBING.

THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF COLORADO HAS SUPPORTED THIS NOMINATION FOR TRENT EIGHT OF THIS POST.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE HAS SAID HE'S GOT SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, PRIMARILY OVER RJK JR.'S POSITION ON ABORTION.

YOU KNOW, RJK JR. WAS A DEMOCRAT UP UNTIL RECENTLY.

HE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS HE WAS MOST KNOWN FOR, IN ADDITION TO HIS STANCE ON VACCINES.

AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING A LOT OF THIS.

I THINK WHAT IT IS FOR THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, IT IS NOT A MONOLITHIC COMMUNITY.

YOU WILL HAVE DISPARATE POINTS OF VIEW, HOWEVER THEY HAVE BEEN PRETTY LOCKSTEP IN TERMS OF THEIR OVERALL CONCERNS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO VACCINES.

THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK THEY ARE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF, THE CONCERNS ABOUT FOOD SUPPLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONCERNS ABOUT TOXINS IN THE FOOD SUPPLY, THE FACT THAT WE SPEND 4 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HAVE SOME OF THE WORST OUTCOMES IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD.

SO, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE RECOGNIZED FOR A LONG TIME ARE A REAL CONCERN, AND THE IDEA THAT MAYBE THINGS CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT HAS MUCH MORE SUPPORT.

BUT, THE VACCINE ISSUE IS A FLASHPOINT AND FOR MANY PEOPLE, IT IS ALSO A METAPHOR FOR HOW RFK APPROACHES SCIENCE IN GENERAL.

HE HAS THESE BELIEFS THAT DON'T SEEM TO BE ROOTED IN SCIENCE AND HE HAS A DISDAIN, AT TIMES, FOR THE SCIENTISTS THAT TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND I THINK THAT IS THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN.

>> YES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE HE, HIMSELF, IS NOT A SCIENTIST.

SO, HE DOESN'T COME WITH THE YEARS OF EDUCATION, AND THE FIELDWORK, AND EXPERTISE THAT THEY DO.

HE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN ANTI-VACCINE, BUT HE SPREAD FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT VACCINES FOR YEARS OVER SOCIAL MEDIA, AS YOU KNOW, HE SAID VACCINES HAD CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST, HE HAS MADE THE COMPARISONS AND THE LINKS BETWEEN AUTISM -- AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD JUST SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR US, FOR AMERICANS THAT ARE WORRIED, WILL I BE ABLE TO TAKE MY KIDS IN FOR THEIR ANNUAL VACCINE SHOTS?

WILL MY NEWBORN BE RECEIVING THE VACCINES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO FOR SO MANY DECADES NOW?

WHAT IF ANYTHING CHANGES WITH SOMEONE LIKE HIM AT THE HELM OF SUCH A LARGE AND INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION, LIKE HHS?

>> WELL, I THINK THE MOST HONEST ANSWER IS, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS, BECAUSE HIS STANCE, SEEMINGLY, HIS LANGUAGE CHANGES SOMETIMES DAY TO DAY BUT SOMETIMES EVEN WITHIN THE OWN INTERVIEW.

AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT, HE SAYS HE IS NOT ANTITAX BUT SAYS THE VACCINES HAVE CAUSED A SORT OF HOLOCAUST.

HE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S VACCINES, BUT ALSO TELLS A STORY OF WALKING UP TO A MOTHER WITH A YOUNG CHILD WHILE HE IS OUT ON A HIKE AND MAKING SURE TO CONVEY TO THAT MOM THAT THEIR CHILD SHOULD NOT BE VACCINATED.

SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT TRANSLATES TO COME ULTIMATELY.

AND LOOK, I THINK JUST TO BE A LITTLE BIT OPTIMISTIC, IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO TAKE AWAY VACCINES OR MAKE THEM UNAVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE, AND PRETTY CLEARLY, THEY HAVE HAD A SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL IMPACT.

SOME OF THESE STUDIES, AGAIN, ARE STUDIES THAT HE WILL SEE, BUT FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU LOOK AT CHILDREN WHO ARE VACCINATED OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, FROM 1994 TO 2023, YOU HAVE THESE PROJECTIONS IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT, 500 MILLION ILLNESSES PREVENTED, 32 MILLION HOSPITALIZATIONS PREVENTED, 1 MILLION DEATHS PREVENTED.

AND THIS IS DATA THAT I AM SURE HE HAS SEEN AND CERTAINLY WILL BE PRESENTED AGAIN IF HE IS IN A POSITION OF POWER AT HHS.

SO, I THINK SOME OF THAT DATA IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH.

THE VACCINES AND AUTISM ISSUE, BEYOND, I THINK, IS THE REAL FLASHPOINT.

AND AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THIS STARTED IN THE LATE '90s WITH A PAPER THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED, BUT IT WAS A PAPER OF 12 CHILDREN WHO DEVELOPED AUTISM WHO HAD ALSO HAD THE MMR VACCINE.

THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, THE AUTHOR, ANDREW WAKEFIELD, MADE THIS CAUSE AND EFFECT SORT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VACCINES AND AUTISM.

AGAIN, THE PAPER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED, IT WAS FOUND THE CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT FOUND TO HOLD UP, AND INSPIRED LOTS OF STUDIES AFTER THAT, AND BIG STUDIES, FOLLOWING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SOME OF WHOM HAD BEEN VACCINATED, SOME OF WHOM HAD NOT BEEN VACCINATED AND BASICALLY SAYING, LET'S FOLLOW THESE CHILDREN FOR 15 YEARS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

WHAT THEY FOUND WAS THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VACCINES AND AUTISM.

THOSE STUDIES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REPLICATED AND THAT IS WHY, YOU KNOW, WE ARRIVE AT THIS POSITION IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE STILL NOT SURE WHAT CAUSES AUTISM, BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT VACCINES DO NOT.

I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT BECAUSE I AM A NEUROSCIENTIST THAT NEUROIMAGING HAS IMPROVED OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS, SO WE NOW SEE CHANGES IN THE BRAINS OF THE VERY YOUNG CHILDREN, EVEN WITHIN THE WOMB, CERTAINLY BEFORE THEY HAVE BEEN VACCINATED.

WE SEE AUTISM RELATED CHANGES IN THE BRAIN.

SO, WE KNOW SOMETHING IS HAPPENING MUCH EARLIER THAN VACCINES WOULD EVEN BE GIVEN.

AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE, COULD BE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE, BUT THESE ARE IMPORTANT DATA POINTS.

AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, STUDIES THAT HE HAS SEEN, AND STILL DESPITE THAT, JUST AS RECENTLY AS A FEW MONTHS AGO, HE SAYS, "I BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM."

HE SAID THAT, SPECIFICALLY.

THAT IS A DISDAIN NOT ONLY FOR THE SCIENCE, BUT I THINK FOR THE MESSENGERS WHO CREATED THAT SCIENCE, AND HE MIGHT BE IN CHARGE OF MANY OF THEM, IF HE IS IN THIS POSITION.

>> WHAT YOU JUST WALKED US THROUGH IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRED A BIT MORE TIME, IT IS A BIT MORE NUANCED, IT REQUIRES ACTUALLY READING THE INFORMATION, AND THE DATA, AND THE RESEARCH, AND SADLY, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT FITS INTO 52 CHARACTERS, 152 CHARACTERS, WHATEVER PEOPLE TURN NOW TO IN SOCIAL MEDIA WHERE PEOPLE GET THEIR NEWS INFORMATION.

SHOULD WE BE REASSURED, ASSUMING HE GOES THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS IN THE SENATE -- ALWAYS VIEWED AS A SORT OF THE ADULTS IN THE ROOM, THE MORE SOPHISTICATED AND MATURE CHAMBER OF THE TWO -- THAT FOUR OF THESE SENATORS, THEY ARE ALL REPUBLICANS, WE SHOULD NOTE, ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS, THEY ARE TRAINED AS MEDICAL DOCTORS.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU WOULD HOPE THEY ASK HIM DURING THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS?

>> I THINK WHAT HAS BEEN LACKING IS SORT OF THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE MIGHT DO WITH ALL OF THESE BELIEFS THAT HE HAS, AND HOW MUCH CREDENCE HE WOULD GIVE TO THE SCIENCE.

HE ALWAYS SAYS HE IS OPEN TO LOOKING AT THE DATA.

"I JUST WANT TO LOOK AT THE DATA," HE SAYS.

AS I JUST POINTED OUT, A LOT OF THAT DATA ALREADY EXISTS.

SO, I THINK AS PART OF THESE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, HERE IS THE DATA.

MAYBE SOME OF THE DATA I JUST TALK YOU THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT VACCINES AND AUTISM, AND BASICALLY SEE HOW HE RESPONDS.

LIKE, WHAT DOES HE DO WITH THAT?

I THINK THE CONCERN IS -- AND BIANNA, IN MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH, THERE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE LIVE IN A PROBLEM MYSTIC WORLD.

THERE ARE NOT CERTAINTIES.

2+2 DOESN'T ALWAYS EQUAL FOUR.

IT IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE IN THAT REGARD.

SO, HOW DOES HE DEAL WITH UNCERTAINTY IN THIS REGARD?

THE PREVAILING EVIDENCE IS THAT VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM.

HAVE THERE BEEN CHILDREN THAT RECEIVED VACCINE CENTRALLY AFTER RECEIVED A AUTISM DIAGNOSIS?

ABSOLUTELY, AND IT IS VERY EMOTIONAL.

HOW DOES HE SORT OF PUT THAT ALL TOGETHER?

AND AT THE SAME TIME, THIS OTHER ISSUE -- WHICH I THINK HAS MORE SUPPORT, ABOUT REFORMING OUR FOOD INDUSTRY, ABOUT RECOGNIZING THAT PROBABLY 70% OF CHRONIC DISEASE IN THIS COUNTRY IS PREVENTABLE, AND A LOT OF THAT IS DUE TO HOW WE NOURISH OURSELVES.

HOW IS HE GOING TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THAT?

I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

BUT, I KEEP COMING BACK TO THE VACCINE THING IN PART BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT, BUT ALSO I THINK IT GIVES PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF AN INSIGHT INTO HOW HE MIGHT APPROACH THINGS.

"I BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, BUT ALL I WANT IS MORE DATA."

TRYING TO RECONCILE THESE TWO PARALLEL TRAINS OF THOUGHT, I THINK, ARE PROBABLY WHAT A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS WILL REVOLVE AROUND.

>> IT IS DANGEROUS.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS HISTORICALLY PAVED THE WAY FOR MUCH OF THE WORLDS RESEARCH AND MEDICAL ADVANCEMENTS IN SCIENCE.

YOU JUST LOOK INTO THE COOPERATION IN DEVELOPING THE COVID VACCINE.

CASE AND POINT.

I AM WONDERING HOW CONCERNED, HOW CLOSELY OUR ALLIES -- INTERNATIONALLY AND IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, AND SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD, ACTUALLY -- ARE WATCHING THIS, AND CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IMPACT IT COULD HAVE ON THEIR WORK?

>> YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING, I HAVE TALKED TO SOME COLLEAGUES AROUND THE WORLD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, WHEN THIS ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST HAPPENED, THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE NOMINATED FOR THIS POSITION.

AND, YOU KNOW, -- WELL, IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE WAS THIS REAL DISBELIEF, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW IT WAS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, THERE WAS STILL THIS DISBELIEF THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND THE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

I THINK IN OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD, I THINK THERE IS THIS SORT OF SUSPENDED ANIMATION.

WHAT IS GOING ON OVER THERE?

AS YOU CORRECTLY POINT OUT, THAT SOME OF OUR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS, WE CERTAINLY SAW WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC, BUT THEY ARE SORT OF HELD UP, THE NIH IS HELD UP AS A WORLDWIDE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS.

THE CDC, THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT HAVE THERE DOES INFECTIOUS DISEASE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE CDC IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO, THERE IS A HUGE IMPACT.

HE HAS A, BASICALLY -- I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT QUOTE -- BUT HE GOES, FOR THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS, WE ARE NOT REALLY GOING TO THINK ABOUT INFECTIOUS DISEASES, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT IS A REALLY FRIGHTENING PROSPECT, YOU KNOW?

WE JUST CAME OUT OF A PANDEMIC, WE HAVE VIRUSES LIKE H5.N1 THAT ARE CIRCLING, WHO KNOWS IF ANOTHER VIRUS MIGHT START TO BECOME PROBLEMATIC, SO, THE UNITED STATES HAS LONG LED LED THE WAY WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

SO, I THINK MAYBE DISBELIEF IS STILL THE ADDITIVE I AM HEARING FROM PEOPLE, REALLY, ALL OVER THE WORLD.

>> YEAH, INCLUDING HERE, AS WELL.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY, FOR YOUR EXPERTISE, AND FOR BRINGING US THE FACTS.

>> THANKS.

THANK YOU.

>>> UP NEXT, A DRAMATIC RESIGNATION IN A RARE MOMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND ARCHBISHOP DUSTIN WILL BE STEPPING DOWN IN THE REPORT BY JOHN SMYTH, A LAWYER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH WHO ABUSED DOZENS OF BOYS AND YOUNG MEN FOR DECADES.

IN 2013, WELBY WAS ALERTED TO SMYTH'S ACTIONS.

NOW, A NEW REPORT CRITICIZES HIS FAILURE TO ALERT AUTHORITIES.

SMYTH DIED A FEW YEARS LATER HAVING NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.

IN 2014, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, CHRISTIANE SPOKE WITH WELBY AT A MODERN EVENT ABOUT SLAVERY AND SEX TRAFFICKING.

HERE'S NOTING THAT WHILE THEY HAVE BEEN DEFROCKED, NO POPE HAS EVER RESIGNED AFTER ADMITTING A FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SUCH ABUSES.

IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT EVENTS, WE WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK BACK ON WELBY'S ANSWERS THEN AND HOW THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND MIGHT MOVE FORWARD.

HERE IS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

>> WE ALSO HAVE EMERGED AND ARE EMERGING FROM A WORLD IN WHICH MANY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS HAS BEEN CONDEMNED AND ARE BUSY APOLOGIZING FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE, WHETHER IT IS HERE IN THE VATICAN, WHETHER IT IS TELEVISION, WHETHER IT IS PARLIAMENT, WHEREVER IT IS, IT SEEMS EVERY TIME WE TURN AROUND, THERE IS ANOTHER AVERAGE BEING COMMITTED AGAINST CHILDREN.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO ADDRESS THIS SCOURGE IN YOUR OWN CHURCH?

>> WE HAVE, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, 10, 15, EVEN 20 YEARS NOW, BEEN STEADILY TIGHTENING UP THE CURRENT PRACTICE.

AND IT IS VERY, VERY TOUGH, NOW.

WHERE SOMEONE SEEKS TO ABUSE CHILDREN TODAY, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DONE RIGHT.

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE STOPPED AND THEY ARE INSTANTLY REPORTED TO POLICE, AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AND THE ISSUE IS TACKLED.

THE BIGGEST ISSUE FOR US IS THE LEGACY OF PAST ABUSE.

IN THE DAYS WHEN, IF I MAY SAY SO, ALSO, TELEVISION, AND ALL KINDS OF AREAS, IT WAS CONSIDERED RELATIVELY ACCEPTABLE, SO AND SO WAS KNOWN TO BE A BIT DODGY, BUT MAYBE -- THAT DREADFUL NIGHTMARE ERA, WE ARE GOING THROUGH ALL OUR FILES.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EVERY FILE, BACK FILE OF EVERY LIVING CLERGY PERSON IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AND LOOKED FOR ANY SIGNS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND FOLLOWING THEM UP RIGHT AWAY.

DIOCESE BY DIOCESE, WHEN THEY ARE GETTING THE HUGE TASK OF GOING THROUGH ALL FILES, IN MANY CASES, BACK TO 1950, INCLUDING DECEASED CLERGY.

AND AGAIN, LOOKING FOR ANY EVIDENCE.

WHERE WE SEE ANY EVIDENCE, FOLLOWING AD HOC TO SEE IF THE SURVIVORS ARE STILL ALIVE, SAY THAT IF THEY WANT TO ENGAGE, IF THEY WANT US TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DREADFUL EVIL THAT WAS DONE TO THEM, WE WILL DO IT, BUT THEY ARE TREATED AS THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE.

THEIR INTEREST COMES FIRST, WHETHER THE PERPETRATORS ARE ALIVE OR DEAD, SURVIVORS MUST COME FIRST.

IT IS A HUGE CULTURE CHANGE IN OUR WHOLE SOCIETY.

THE CHURCH HAS TO GET IT RIGHT.

THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR US, FOR GETTING IT WRONG.

>> HOW DID YOU, YOURSELF, FEEL AND REACT WHEN YOU CAME OUT AGAINST YOUR FIRST EVIDENCE CASE OF THIS?

>> WELL, THE FIRST ONE WAS SOME YEARS AGO, WE REPORTED IT, WE DEALT WITH IT.

I WAS ASTONISHED, AND THEN, WHEN I BEGAN TO REALIZE, PARTICULARLY IN THIS ROLE, SINCE IT TOOK OFFICE AS ARCHBISHOP, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THINGS ARE BEING COVERED UP, IT IS THE MOST DREADFUL PART OF THE MINISTRY I HAVE.

IT IS A BIT.

YOU LISTEN TO PEOPLE, AND YOU ARE FILLED WITH SHAME, AND HORROR, AND DISCUSSED WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM.

AND ANGER AT HOW THE CHURCH COULD HAVE BEHAVED IN THAT WAY.

>> WHEN DO WE THINK WE MIGHT SEE THE FIRST WOMAN BISHOP IN ENGLAND, IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

>> WHENEVER THEY ARE CHOSEN.

IT HAS TO GO THROUGH FOR THE QUEEN TO APPROVE IT, BEFORE THEY ARE ANNOUNCED.

AND WE WON'T HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE 2015, BUT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE WOMEN BISHOP ANNOUNCED IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR.

>> AND DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE -- I THINK I READ THAT YOU SAID EVENTUALLY, IN THE NOT-TOO- DISTANT FUTURE, HALF THE BISHOPS MIGHT BE WOMEN?

>> WHY NOT?

WHY NOT?

MORE THAN HALF THE CONGREGATIONS ARE.

>> MIGHT YOU SAY SOMETHING TO THE POPE ABOUT THAT?

>> [ LAUGHTER ] I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHAT I SAY TO THE POPE.

THAT WAS A LATE QUESTION.

[ LAUGHTER ] >> WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR OWN ANGLICAN CHURCH, WHICH IS SPLIT ON THIS ISSUE, AND OTHER ISSUES OF SEXUALITY?

DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS A CRISIS IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH?

>> THE SPLIT WITHIN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OVER WOMEN BISHOPS HAS BECOMING FAR LESS SUPPORTED.

WE MOVE MUCH CLOSER TO A POINT WHERE PEOPLE ACCEPT DIFFERENT VIEWS AS LEGITIMATE, CERTAINLY WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THERE IS A FORMAL DECLARATION THAT ACCEPTS BOTH VIEWS AS LEGITIMATE VIEWS, AND WE REMAIN PART OF THE FAMILY.

ON THE ISSUE OF SEXUALITY PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS GOING ON, STRUCTURED CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND I AM NOT GOING TO PREEMPT THOSE BY COMMENTING ON THEM.

>> AND I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY, QUOTED AS SAYING, THE CHURCH COULD FACE A VERY SERIOUS SCHISM OVER THESE ISSUES.

>> INDEED, IT COULD.

AND PART OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS IF WE DISAGREE, TO DISAGREE WELL.

I MEAN, THE KIND OF THING WE WERE HEARING ABOUT TODAY, THE FAITH LEADERS TOGETHER, WE HEARD REFERENCES WEEKLY TO THE FACT THAT AROUND THE WORLD, A LOT OF OUR DISAGREEMENTS, PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, HAS BECOME EXTREMELY VIOLENT, DESTRUCTIVE DISAGREEMENTS.

THE PART OF THE ROAD THAT THE CHURCH IS TO DEMONSTRATE IS THAT EVEN ON THINGS PEOPLE THINK IS FUNDAMENTAL, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT THEY CAN DISAGREE WHILE IN LOVE.

THAT IS PART OF OUR EXAMPLE.

>> THERE ARE POLITICIANS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, IN ENGLAND, HERE IN ITALY, IN FRANCE, ELSEWHERE, WHO ARE MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT THE OTHER, THE FOREIGNER, THE IMMIGRANT.

>> YES.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS, AS THE CHURCH LEADER, AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

>> TWO THINGS.

FIRST, THE UNITED KINGDOM, ENGLAND, IS A VERY, VERY CRADDICK COUNTRY.

SINCE 2010, THE FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTED WE HAVE HAD NET IMMIGRATION OF OVER 600,000 PEOPLE.

AND IMMIGRATION IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE HANDLED CAREFULLY, BECAUSE IT IS A CAUSE OF STRAIN IN COMMUNITIES WHERE VERY LARGE NUMBERS ARRIVE.

IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

THERE IS AN AMAZING CHAPEL IN CATHERINE CATHEDRAL IN WHICH THE DEAN OF THE CATHEDRAL GAVE A SPACE FOR WORSHIP TO HUGO NO REFUGEES FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN THE 16th CENTURY.

HE GAVE IT TO THEM TEMPORARILY, IT IS STILL THERE.

THEY STILL HAVE A SUNDAY SERVICE EVERY WEEK.

IT IS THE GREAT TRADITION, SECONDLY, OF THIS COUNTRY, TO BE IN A PLACE OF SILO, AND OF SAFETY, AND OF RESCUE, AND OF HOPE, FOR PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

IT IS DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN OUR TRADITION OF HOSPITALITY.

>> DO YOU FEEL SOME OF THAT IS BEING LOST ON CERTAIN, MORE POPULOUS POLITICIANS ON ENGLAND RIGHT NOW, GREAT BRITAIN?

>> THE ISSUE HAS BECOME A VERY, VERY LIVE ISSUE IN RECENT MONTHS AND YEARS.

THERE IS A GRAVE DANGER OF USING LANGUAGE THAT IS SIMPLY APPEALING TO EMOTION.

WE HAVE TO HOLD TOGETHER OUR PRIDE IN THE COUNTRY I LOVE FOR ITS GENEROSITY, WITH A RECOGNITION THAT COMMUNITIES MUST BE SUPPORTED AND STRENGTHENED WHEN THERE ARE RAPID CHANGES IN THE MAKEUP OF THAT COMMUNITY.

HUMAN NATURE IS WHAT IT IS.

IT STAYS PRETENDING IT IS OTHERWISE.

BUT, OUR TRADITION IS SO GREAT IN BRITAIN, OF WELCOME AND RECEPTION, IT IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF.

AND TO GO ON LIVING AT.

>> ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, INDEED, FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> AND THAT WAS CHRISTIANE 'S 2014 INTERVIEW WITH JUSTIN WELBY, WHO, AS A REMINDER, RESIGNED THIS WEEK.

>>> NOW, TO MAKE SENSE OF DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY, WE MERGED -- MUST UNDERSTAND THE DISCONTENT THAT PUT HIM IN OFFICE.

THAT IS THE THEORY OF OUR NEXT GUEST, HARVARD PROFESSOR AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, HE JOINS TO DISCUSS HOW POLARIZATION FIELD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA, AND MICHAEL SANDEL, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, WALTER.

>> YOU KNOW, WHEN THE ELECTION RESULTS CAME IN, I WAS REREADING YOUR BOOK, "DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENT", THE NEW VERSION OF IT.

NOW, THIS IS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF WHAT JUST HAPPENED.

EXPLAIN TO ME HOW DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENTS THAT YOU WRITE ABOUT, WILL MANIFEST IN THE ELECTION?

>> IN TWO WAYS, WALTER.

FIRST, PEOPLE FEEL THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A MEANINGFUL SAY IN HOW THEY ARE GOVERNED, TRULY, IT IS A CRISIS OF SELF- GOVERNMENT.

PEOPLE FEEL OVERWHELMINGLY THAT THEIR VOICE DOESN'T MATTER, THAT IS ONE.

AND SECONDLY, PEOPLE HAVE FELT FOR SOME TIME, THAT THE MORAL FABRIC OF COMMUNITY HAS BEEN UNRAVELING, FROM FAMILY, TOOK COMMUNITY, TO THE NATION.

PEOPLE HUNGER FOR A SENSE OF BELONGING, A SENSE OF PRIDE, A SENSE OF SOLIDARITY, AND PEOPLE FEEL ONBOARD.

SO, I THINK THESE ARE TWO DEEP SOURCES OF THE DISCONTENT THAT THIS ELECTION WAS ABOUT, THAT DONALD TRUMP MANAGED TO TAP INTO, CONNECTED ALSO WITH THE GRIEVANCES OF WORKING PEOPLE, THOSE WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DEGREES, WHO FELT THAT UBER EATS LOOKED DOWN ON THEM.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE GRIEVANCES, AND YOU ACTUALLY CALL THEM LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES.

EXPLAIN THEM WHY?

>> YES, FOR DECADES, THE DIVIDE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS HAS BEEN DEEPENING, POISONING OUR POLITICS AND SETTING US APART.

IT CAME TO A HEAD IN 2016 WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS FIRST ELECTED, BY SPEAKING TO THOSE GRIEVANCES.

AND I THINK THE WAY THEY ROSE, WALTER, IS FOR DECADES, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE HAD CARRIED OUT A KIND OF NEOLIBERAL, MARKET FRIENDLY GLOBALIZATION CONTRACTS THAT DELIVERED ENORMOUS REWARDS TO THOSE AT THE TOP, BUT LEFT THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE COUNTRY, BASICALLY, WITH STAGNANT WAGES AND OUTSOURCED JOBS.

SO, THERE WAS WIDENING INEQUALITY OF INCOME AND WEALTH, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, THE GOVERNING ELITES, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, HAD TOLD WORKING PEOPLE, IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE AND WIN IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY, GO TO COLLEGE.

WHAT YOU EARN WILL DEPEND ON WHAT YOU LEARN.

YOU CAN MAKE IT IF YOU TRY.

WHAT THEY MISSED, WAS THE INSULT IMPLICIT IN THAT BRACING ADVICE.

IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING IN THE NEW ECONOMY, AND YOU DIDN'T GET A DEGREE, YOUR FAILURE IS YOUR FAULT.

THAT IS THE IMPLICATION.

SO, IT IS NO WONDER THAT MANY WORKING PEOPLE FELT NOT ONLY DISPOSSESSED AND ECONOMICALLY SQUEEZED BY THE NEW ECONOMY, BUT ALSO INSULTED, LOOKED DOWN UPON BY GOVERNING ELITES.

>> HEY, BUT, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY USED TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE AVERAGE WORKING PERSON.

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY GOT TAGGED AS THE PARTY OF WHAT YOU CALL THE MERITOCRATIC ELITES THAT LOOK DOWN ON OTHERS?

>> IT IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, WALTER, BECAUSE YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE HAS BEEN A REVERSAL.

TRADITIONALLY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GOING BACK TO THE NEW DEAL, WAS THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE POWERFUL.

THE PARTY OF WORKING PEOPLE.

WORKING FOLKS TENDED TO VOTE REPUBLICAN, THOSE WHO HAD COLLEGE DEGREES TENDED TO VOTE REPUBLICAN, THOSE WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES AND WORKING PEOPLE TENDED TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

BY 2016, THIS HAD FLIPPED.

DONALD TRUMP DID VERY WELL AMONG THOSE VOTERS WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES, AND THOSE BUSTS, WHO SPEND OUR TIME IN THE COMPANY OF CREDENTIALS, CAN EASILY FORGET THE FACT THAT MOST OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS DON'T HAVE FOUR YEAR DEGREES.

NEARLY TWO THIRDS DO NOT.

BUT, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE WAY IT EVOLVED DURING THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION, THERE WAS A KIND OF MARKET TRIUMPHALISM BUT ALSO A KIND OF MERITOCRATIC TRIUMPHALISM.

THERE WAS SUCH EMPHASIS ON GETTING A COLLEGE DEGREE, AS THE AVENUE TO SUCCESS, AND ALSO TO RESPECT, THAT BY 2016, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD BECOME A MORE IN TUNE TO THE VALUES, AND THE INTERESTS, AND THE OUTLOOK OF CREDENTIALED ELITES AND PROFESSIONAL CLASSES, THEN TO THE BLUE-COLLAR VOTERS WHO ONCE CONSTITUTED THEIR PRIMARY BASE OF SUPPORT.

>> WHY HAS SOCIAL MOBILITY STALLED?

AND HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THIS?

>> WE HAVE LONG CONSOLED OURSELVES IN AMERICA, THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT INEQUALITY, AS THOSE OLD EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, BECAUSE IN AMERICA, IT IS POSSIBLE TO RISE.

NO ONE IS CONSIGNED TO THE FATE OF HIS OR HER BIRTH.

BUT, WHAT IS STRIKING, IS THAT THE RATES OF INTERGENERATIONAL UPWARD MOBILITY ARE HIGHER IN THE MORE EGALITARIAN, EUROPEAN COUNTRIES THAN THEY ARE IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE HAVING A STRONG WELFARE STATE, STRONG PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND HOUSING, AND HEALTHCARE, PROVIDES A KIND OF STABILITY AND STRENGTH THAT ACTUALLY ENABLES PEOPLE TO RISE.

AND SO, WHAT WE FOUND IS, WE HAVE WIDENING INEQUALITY, BUT ALSO STALLED MOBILITY.

AND YET, THE STORY WE TELL ABOUT OURSELVES, THAT IN AMERICA, YOU CAN MAKE IT IF YOU TRY, IS DEMORALIZING UNDER CONDITIONS WHERE MANY PEOPLE FOUND, OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES, THAT NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORKED, THEY COULDN'T GET AHEAD.

SO, NOT ONLY WAS THERE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND JOB LOSS, AND WAGE STAGNATION, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A DEMORALIZING MESSAGE, PRONOUNCED ESPECIALLY BY CREDENTIALED ELITES WHO SAID, IF ONLY YOU WORK HARD, YOU CAN MAKE IT.

IF ONLY YOU GET A DEGREE, BUT IT IS ON YOU.

YOU CAN MAKE IT.

AND THAT, IN A WAY, PREVENTED, I THINK, PROGRESSIVES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN PARTICULAR FROM STEPPING BACK AND ASKING A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

IF DONALD TRUMP IS AS UNFIT AND AS SERIOUS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AS WE SAY HE IS, WHY IS IT THAT HALF THE COUNTRY, NOW MORE THAN HALF THE COUNTRY, PREFERS HIM TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN OFFERING.

AND THAT IS A SOBERING QUESTION THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES.

LOOKING IN THE MIRROR AND ASKING, HOW DO WE NEEDED TO REJUVENATE THE MISSION AND PURPOSE OF PROGRESSIVE POLITICS, OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IF WE ARE TO ADDRESS THESE SOURCES OF GRIEVANCE AND DISCONTENT, WALTER?

>> YOU TALK ABOUT TRUMP AND WHY HE APPEALED TO THINGS, BREAKDOWN THE REASONS FOR ME.

TO WHAT EXTENT WAS IT ECONOMIC?

TO WHAT EXTENT WAS A CULTURAL, SOCIAL ISSUES?

TO WHAT EXTENT WAS IT A CONDESCENSION AMONGST THE ELITES?

>> I THINK IT WAS ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

THE ELECTIONS, THEMSELVES, BOILED DOWN TO ONE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

WHICH CANDIDATES WOULD BE ABLE TO.

PRESENT THEMSELVES AS THE CANDIDATES OF CHANGE?

BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT CHANGE, THEY WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THAT THINGS WERE GOING.

DONALD TRUMP WON THAT ARGUMENT.

KAMALA HARRIS WAS NOT ABLE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, TO SUCCESSFULLY PRESENT HERSELF AS THE AGENT OF CHANGE.

BUT, BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE DEBATES IN THE POSTMORTEMS.

WAS IT ECONOMIC GRIEVANCE?

OR, WAS IT CULTURAL ANXIETY, AND ANGER, AND GRIEVANCE?

OR, WAS IT ELITES LOOKING DOWN?

IT WAS ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK WE MAKE A MISTAKE, BOTH AS ANALYSTS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND COMMENT ON THE ELECTION, BUT ALSO I THINK THE POLITICAL PARTIES MAKE A MISTAKE BY DISTINGUISHING TOO SHARPLY BETWEEN ECONOMIC ISSUES, THINGS LIKE INFLATION, JOBS, ECONOMIC GROWTH, DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME, ON THE ONE HAND.

AND CULTURAL GRIEVANCES.

THEY ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED BECAUSE THE ECONOMY, OF COURSE, IT MATTERS HOW WELL THE ECONOMY DOES IN PRODUCING JOBS AND KEEPING PRICES DOWN, AND SO ON.

BUT, IT MATTERS ABOVE ALL, IS THE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING, SOCIAL RECOGNITION IN A SCHEMA.

THIS CONNECTS TO THE CULTURAL QUESTION.

PART OF WHAT IS TURNING WORKING PEOPLE AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IN RECENT YEARS, IS THE SENSE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND NOT ONLY ECONOMICALLY AND THE DEMOCRATS PARTICIPATED IN DEREGULATING THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY, AND PROMOTING MARKET- DRIVEN GLOBALIZATION, THAT ALL MATTERED.

BUT, DEMOCRATS DIDN'T FOCUS ON THE DIGNITY OF WORK, DIDN'T FOCUS ON HONOR, RESPECT, SOCIAL ESTEEM, AND RECOGNITION.

AND THE EMPHASIS ON TELLING PEOPLE THAT THE SOLUTION TO THEIR TROUBLES WAS TO GET A COLLEGE DEGREE, CONTRIBUTED TO THAT.

TO A KIND OF CREDENTIALED LIST CONDESCENSION.

SO, PEOPLE NOT ONLY FELT LEFT BEHIND ECONOMICALLY, BUT THEY ALSO FELT THAT THEY WERE BEING LOOKED DOWN UPON.

AND THIS IS A VOLATILE BREW OF ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL GRIEVANCE THAT I THINK DONALD TRUMP VERY SUCCESSFULLY TAPPED INTO, AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T QUITE COME TO TERMS WITH IT.

>> ONE OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT THAT GOES THROUGH ALL OF YOUR BOOKS, AND THE COURSE ON JUSTICE YOU TEACH AT HARVARD IS THE NOTION OF THE COMMONS, AND AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS RISING INEQUALITY, AS WE SAID, AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT LESS SOCIAL MOBILITY, AT LEAST THERE IS THIS CONCEPT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE IN COMMON.

WE ALL FORM A LINE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, WE ALL GET TO USE THE SAME PARKS, WE ALL GO TO THE STADIUM TOGETHER.

AND YET, I HAVE SEEN YOU WRITE ABOUT THIS SORTING, SORT OF A SKYBOX PHENOMENON, WHERE NO LONGER ARE WE ALL SITTING TOGETHER IN THE SAME COMMON SPACES.

>> YES.

AND I THINK THIS IS AT THE HEART OF WHAT PEOPLE LONG FOR, WHEN THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE UNMARRIED.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER.

MY NAME FOR IT IS THE SKY BOX VACATION OF AMERICAN LIFE BECAUSE IN THE '90s AND EARLY 2000'S, SPORTS STADIUM, WHICH SERVED AS CLASS MIXING OCCASIONS AND PLACES, INCREASINGLY, EVEN SPARK STADIUM, WERE SEPARATED.

THOSE WHO COULD OCCUPY THE LUXURY CARPET BOXES, AND THOSE FANS, COMMON FOLK IN THE STANDS BELOW.

WHAT REALLY HAS UNFOLDED DURING THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES, IS THAT THE MOST CORROSIVE EFFECT OF THE WIDENING INEQUALITIES HAS BEEN ON THE EROSION OF THOSE PUBLIC PLACES AND COMMON SPACES THAT GATHER US TOGETHER AS CITIZENS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF OUR LIVES, INCREASINGLY THOSE WHO ARE AFFLUENT AND THOSE OF MODEST MEANS LIVE SEPARATE LIVES.

WE SEND OUR KIDS TO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS.

WE LIVE, AND WORK, AND SHOP, AND PLAY IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY, BECAUSE DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST VOTING ON ELECTION DAY.

IT IS ABOUT SHARING A COMMON LIFE THAT REMINDS US THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

AND INCREASINGLY, THE WAY THAT OUR CIVIL SOCIETY HAS UNRAVELED, THE WAY THERE IS LESS AND LESS ENCOUNTER AMONG PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF OUR LIVES, THAT YOU ROADS THIS SENSE OF COMMONALITY THAT DEMOCRACY REQUIRES.

AND HERE IS ANOTHER THING THAT DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES HAVE MISSED.

EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLEVIATING THE INEQUALITY, AND EVEN THOSE WHO HAVE CALLED FOR SOME POPULIST ECONOMIC PROGRAMS TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE DIGNITY OF WORK, NEED TO CONNECT THOSE, THAT ECONOMIC REJUVENATION WITH A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, AND THAT INCLUDES PATRIOTISM.

DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES HAVE ALLOWED THE RIGHTS AND THE MAGA MOVEMENT TO CLAIM A KIND OF MONOPOLY ON NATIONAL PRIDE.

"MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN," WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

BUT, IT SUGGESTS IT SPEAKS TO THE ASPIRATION FOR NATIONAL PRIDE.

THERE IS A TENDENCY, UNDERSTANDABLY, TO SAY, WELL, THAT IS THE MAGA PROJECT, A KIND OF HYPER- NATIONALISM THAT IS NOT GENEROUS TO IMMIGRANTS, AND TO OUTSIDERS, AND TO INCLUSIVENESS.

BUT, THE ANSWER TO THAT, IS NOT TO CAST A KIND OF SUSPICION ON ALL THINGS PATRIOTIC, BUT TO ARTICULATE A PROGRESSIVE VISION OF WHAT PATRIOTISM AND NATIONAL PRIDE, AND A SENSE OF COMMUNITY CAN MEAN.

>> WELL, TELL ME WHAT THAT VISION IS?

>> WELL, PART OF IT IS TO LAUNCH A SERIOUS PROJECT TO RENEW CIVIL SOCIETY, TO STRENGTHEN PUBLIC PLACES AND COMMON SPACES OF SHARED DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP.

AND THAT MEANS INVESTING OFTEN AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, IN EVERYTHING FROM MUNICIPAL PARKS, AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, AND HEALTH CLINICS, AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES, AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS, THAT BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, AND ESPECIALLY, AND ABOVE ALL, I SHOULD SAY, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

TO BRING PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT CLASSES INTO A SHARED DEMOCRATIC ENCOUNTER.

SO, THAT IS ONE.

BUT, IN SPEAKING ABOUT THE ECONOMY, I THINK WE CAN BRING PATRIOTIC THINGS TO BEAR THERE, TOO.

PART OF WHAT THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION DID, WAS TO SAY, TO IMPLY, AND TO TEACH, NATIONAL BORDERS AND NATIONAL IDENTITY, THEY DON'T MATTER SO MUCH.

WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO DEPEND ON THOSE FOLKS WHO LIVE NEARBY.

OR, FOR THAT MATTER, IN OUR COUNTRY.

EITHER FOR PRODUCTION OR FOR CONSUMPTION.

WE CAN COLLABORATE AND PRODUCE WITH PEOPLE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND THIS UNDERLAY TO THE OUTSOURCING.

BUT, IT ALSO CONVEYED A CERTAIN ATTITUDE OF LESS AND LESS DEPENDENCE ON THOSE WITH WHOM WE SHARE A COUNTRY.

AND SO, I THINK THIS, TOO, IS PART OF THE UNRAVELING OF A SENSE OF NATIONAL COMMUNITY.

I THINK IT HAS FUELED THE ANGER, OF THOSE WHO HAVE BROKEN AWAY WITH ENORMOUS WEALTH, SEEM TO FEEL LESS NEED TO RELY ON FELLOW CITIZENS CLOSER TO HOME.

SO, AN ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM, WE HAVE SEEN THE BEGINNING OF IT, WITH PRINT SHORTENING, OR BRINGING SUPPLY CHAINS CLOSER TO HOME, WITH MAKING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS TO MANUFACTURE KEY GOODS, TO SUPPORT KEY INDUSTRIES, DOMESTICALLY.

THAT CAN ALL BE ARTICULATED IN TERMS OF A REJUVENATED PATRIOTISM.

THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE DIGNITY OF WORK, AND OUR MUTUAL DEPENDENCE, AND OUR MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF ONE ANOTHER, FOR ONE ANOTHER, AS FELLOW CITIZENS.

>> MICHAEL SANDEL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER.

>> THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT IS COMING UP ON THE SHOW EACH NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" ON PBS, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING, UNTIL NEXT TIME.