Amanpour and Company

[upbeat music] - Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour & Company.

Here's what's coming up.

A vote for women's rights in Iran and around the world as the Nobel Peace Prize goes to jailed Iranian activists, Narges Mohammadi.

Corresponded Jomana Karadsheh interviewed her via letter and audio recording before this announcement.

We have that exclusive report and we look back at some of Christian's reporting on the Iranian women fighting for their future.

Then the Supreme Court returns for a new term.

As controversies cast a shadow, we look at the cases coming up with constitutional law professor, Gloria Browne-Marshall.

And... - How do we look at people who came before us and see how they faced a similar moment and got out of it.

- How America got to this political moment and what we can learn from that story.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson speaks to Michel Martin about her new book, "Democracy Awakening".

Plus... [bright saxophone music] A record-breaking career showing no signs of slowing.

I'm joined by Grammy Award-winning trumpeter, Herb Alpert to discuss his new album "Wish Upon A Star".

[upbeat music] Amanpour & Company is made possible by Candace King Weir, the family foundation of Leila and Mickey Strauss, Jim Atwood and Leslie Williams, Mark J. Blechner, Seton J. Melvin, Charles Rosenblum, Koo and Patricia Yuen committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

Additional support provided by these funders and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Welcome to the program everyone.

I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

A woman, a human rights advocate, and a freedom fighter.

That's how the Nobel Committee Chair describes Narges Mohammadi, the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Mohammadi who is currently imprisoned in Iran's notorious Evin Prison, has spent her life campaigning for women's rights and the abolition of the death penalty in that country.

Work that has come with repeated prison sentences and a ban from seeing her husband and children.

But in a pre-prepared message shared with CNN by her family, Mohammadi said that quote, "I will never stop striving for the realization of democracy, freedom, and equality."

And our first report tonight is a testament to Mohammed's commitment to that cause.

Ahead of the Nobel announcement, and through the help of intermediaries, correspondent Jomana Karadsheh interviewed Mohammadi via letter and audio recording from inside Evin prison.

Take a listen.

[singing in Persian] - Not even the darkest cells of the notorious Evin Prison have silenced this fearless fighter for freedom, [singing in Persian] Narges Mohammadi a name that's become synonymous with the battle for human rights in Iran.

Her life has been a cycle of arrest and rearrest.

[Narges speaking in Persian] Now serving a 10 year prison term and sentenced to 154 lashes.

Not only has the regime taken away her freedom, the last time she held her twins, Ali and Kiana was eight years ago.

They were only eight.

"This sacrifice is so painful, but life without liberty and equality" she says "is not worth living".

For her activism Mohammadi has been accused of actions against national security and propaganda against the state, and she's now facing more charges as she continues to definely speak out from behind bars [Narges speaking in Persian] in an exclusive recording from inside Evin, Mohammadi reads excerpts of a letter she sent CNN.

[Narges speaking in Persian] "This letter is not written by a free feminist in a developed democratic society, benefiting from civil protest methods and human rights, but rather by an imprisoned woman who like millions of Iranian women, has been living under the authority and oppression of a military system with ideological, patriarchal, and tyrannical foundations.

Since the age of six, deprived of life, youth, femininity and motherhood."

In her lengthy letter, Mohammadi rails against the regime's compulsory hijab.

Mohammadi calls out what she says is the hypocrisy of the religious authorities.

[gunshot fires] [people screaming] Female protestors and prisoners sexually assaulted as Iranians rose up on the streets last year.

She lent her powerful voice to the uprising.

And for that she was recently sentenced to another year in prison.

But that hasn't deterred Mohammadi, who with the help of intermediaries, responded to CNN questions in writing, detailing incidents of sexual assault, dating back to 1999.

She also mentions her own experience, but since the protests, she says they have increased significantly.

Describing them now as systematic.

She writes In prison, "I have heard the narratives of three protesting women who were sexually assaulted.

One of them was a well-known activist of the student movement, who upon entering the prison, filed a complaint with the authorities and announced that after being arrested on the street, her one hand and one leg were cuffed and tied.

And in that position, she was sexually assaulted.

I went with one of my cellmates under the pretext of taking food for a prisoner.

We saw bruises on her stomach, thighs, arms, and legs."

The Iranian regime has denied allegations including a CNN investigation of using sexual violence and rape to suppress the protests, calling them baseless and false.

For years, Mohammadi has been the voice of the voiceless, fighting for political prisoners against the death penalty and solitary confinement.

[Narges speaking in Persian] - Something she and her husband Taghi Rahmani have both endured.

Rahmani, a former political prisoner who was jailed for 14 years now lives in exile with the children in Paris.

He's have to be both father and mother to Kiana and Ali.

[Taghi speaking in Persian] - Kiana used to always say, when mom is here, daddy isn't.

And when daddy is here, mom isn't.

It's not good but when someone chooses a path, they must endure all the hardships.

- [Reporter] Last time they were allowed to call her was 18 months ago.

Ali still vividly remembers the day his mother was taken away from them.

[Ali speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] It was around 6:00 or 7:00 AM my mom made me eggs.

She said, take care of yourself and study hard.

We said goodbye.

I got into the car and went to school.

When I got back, my mom wasn't there anymore.

- [Reporter] Ali says he's proud of his mom and has accepted this life.

He says it's for freedom for Iran.

Rahmani shows off all the awards his wife has won while in prison.

She's an endless energy for freedom.

He tells us an unstoppable force.

Her fight extending deep inside Evin where she leads women who continue to protest [women chanting in Persian] their chants of Woman, Life, Freedom captured in this recording shared with CNN.

[women singing in Persian] They sing the Farsi rendition of Bella Ciao, the Italian anti-fascist resistance song, now an anthem for Iran's freedom movement.

[women singing in Persian] - What incredible bravery.

And Mohammadi's son telling CNN today that when he found out the news, his heart exploded with joy?

Well, this Nobel Prize is providing recognition for all the women in Iran who have been fighting long and hard for a better future.

It's a struggle that Christiane has been following throughout her career.

In this 1998 report for 60 minutes, she spoke with a lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, who will become the Iran's first Nobel Peace prize laureate.

A meeting made in tragic circumstances.

It was around the case of a child called Arian who was murdered while in custody of her father and Arian's mother and Ebadi fought for justice and a system stacked against them.

- [Reporter] Shirin Ebadi represents Arian's mother.

She is an outspoken crusader for women's rights, but Ebadi knows she can't make Arian's father pay for his crime because by law here, a father can't be convicted of killing his own child.

[Shirin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] If Arian's father had strangled her to death in front of everybody, he would not have been punished.

- It's incredible.

And the clerics, the courts didn't understand that?

Here was a completely unsuitable situation, but yet the child had to stay with the father until she was killed.

[Shirin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] The court is responsible for the matter of Arian.

The law is responsible for the matter of Arian.

It wasn't just her father who killed her.

[Shirin speaking in Persian] [audience applauding] - But by turning this trial into a fight for women's rights, Shirin Ebadi treads on sensitive ground and the cleric presiding over this court rebukes her.

[cleric speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] These rules are in the Quran and are set by God who is almighty.

The learning of all people is not equal to one drop of God's wisdom.

So we cannot question the knowledge of God.

- When he told you that you knew nothing about Islam, when the court told you that, and therefore stop interfering, what did you make of that?

[Shirin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] I said, I don't object to Islam.

[Shirin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] But the study of the Quran, our holy book, is not reserved to clerics or men.

Women have only recently had access to higher education.

Before men could interpret religion and philosophy to serve their own interests.

- Arian's father was acquitted of the murder and released.

But her step-brother was found guilty.

Arian's mother did not feel like she got justice for her daughter, but the case did lead to a change in Iran's custody laws.

When Shirin Ebadi spoke to Christiane last year, in the midst of these new protests, there was more hope.

And she told her that some men are finally coming on board.

- [Interpreter] The Iranian men have come to understand that they have to support women.

They have understood that democracy will only come to Iran if we women succeed.

In fact, it's the women who will open the gate to democracy in Iran.

- But despite those hopes, many do fear backlash.

That was certainly the concern when Christiane spoke to human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh in February.

In an exclusive interview, Sotoudeh spoke to Christiane from inside Iran and without wearing a headscarf.

Here's what she said when Christiane asked if the situation was improving after the demonstrations?

[Nasrin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] If you're talking about officially, that the situation has changed officially?

No.

I can even tell you it's exacerbated.

[Nasrin speaking in Persian] In fact, official authorities are trying to flex their muscles more.

They're trying to show their strengths a lot more than before.

But civil disobedience continues and many women courageously take to the streets without wearing a headscarf or any form of the hijab.

- And finally, Nasrin, are you scared for your safety now after speaking out publicly and after all that you do and say on behalf of Iranian women?

[Nasrin speaking in Persian] - [Interpreter] Yes.

If my knowing that my family, my children are being threatened as a mother because I know it can curb their education, it can curb the progress of my children.

Yes, I am fearful because of that.

And I am, but on the other hand, I'm also frightened that if I don't do anything, if I stay passive, that would lead to worsening of the situation, that kind of slavery of our young women and men.

So despite my fear, I try and do what is going to be more helpful for freeing the country and freeing our people.

- One thing is clear, this movement is not over.

That was Iranian human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh speaking to Christiane in February.

Well, turning now to the US where the Supreme Court returned to the bench this week, diving back into the consequential and controversial issues of the moment, all amid scandals of its own.

Here to walk us through what's on the docket is Gloria Browne-Marshall, professor of Constitutional Law and African Studies at John Jay College.

She joins me now from New York.

It is great to see you, Gloria.

So let's get right to some some of the most consequential cases on the docket.

Let's start with the Second Amendment Gun Rights.

We will determine basically whether people under domestic violence restraining orders can own guns.

Now this law was invalidated by the Fifth Circuit.

We'll talk about the Fifth Circuit in a little bit, but talk about the significance of this case because it did spark a quick backlash from the Biden administration asking the justices to grant review and reverse the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

And here's what the Solicitor General said, "That it would threaten grave harms for victims of domestic violence."

Give us some more context here.

- Well, we have a relationship in which there were threats made to the girlfriend of Rahimi.

And during that time period, she sought a restraining order and received it.

So he used to stay away, but under federal law and a restraining order state law.

But under federal law, he as someone under restraining order, is not allowed to have a weapon.

It is a federal offense.

When police officers searched his home on another cause, they found the weapon.

He said it was his weapon.

Rahimi was charged and he was found guilty of violating that federal law that prohibits someone who's under restraining order from having possession of a weapon.

He appeals.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upon appeal decided that they were going to strike down application of the federal law in their state of Texas.

What really bothers me, I think, in this case, that's before the court and the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to think about what they're saying with mass murders, with this nation being known as a place where murders take place on a very high level all of the time, this one federal act was a way in which they could undermine the types of mass murders and domestic violence that involved gun violence.

And instead of upholding such an act, the Fifth Circuit decided it would rather prevail and support the possession of guns under the Second Amendment.

- Yeah.

- And because of the New York case prior to that, they feel they have precedent to do so.

- Yeah, and the New York case was really a precedent, as you noted to where we are right now.

The Fifth Circuit ruling that the law is a quote "Outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

Obviously you don't know what the ultimate ruling will be from the Supreme Court, but given its makeup, how do you think they will respond to some of that justification from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

- Well, I actually write books on legal history that would take into account that conservatives weren't the only people in America 100 years ago, 200 years ago in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

So conservatives aren't the only voice that we should be interpreting our laws to and have applied to our laws.

What my concern is, Clarence Thomas and the New York State Rifles Association case versus Bruen said, we have to look at what history was like back in 1791 up until 1865.

This is very arbitrary because it takes into account that for some reason only those conservative voices during that time period are the ones that the court is going to listen to.

And so when we're looking at this case and they're saying, we're going to apply the historical context, it's already skewed because there are, it's a skewed look of history.

It's an arbitrary look at history.

If it was only a conservative voice that ruled this country, we would not have had a civil war.

We would not have had cases and people who were abolitionists against slavery, who were fighting for women's rights to vote.

We had so many ways in which this country is represented by more than just conservative originalism.

And that's what the court's conservatives are relying on, especially Clarence Thomas, who is by far the most conservative justice on the court right now.

- Another case the court will be facing involves First Amendment issues, specifically as they relate to social media.

Walk us through the significance here and the impact that some decisions made by elected officials, whether or not as some are accusing or have been accused of violating the First Amendment for taking down or blocking what people have posted on social media sites.

- Well, I remember being in the US Supreme Court in the court hearing of the first case involving a cell phone.

And the cases have changed over time, but basically the court has had a discomfort with social media, with technology, with trying to figure out where individual rights end and tech rights or the rights of the world of social media or the Metaverse begins.

And in one case we have in California, we have a school board there.

And during the time period of the school board's members actually trying to of course have their administration of rules, regulations, et cetera, you would have people in the community and in this case Garnier.

And that the Garnier family, the husband and wife, were sending very deep criticism and stark remarks on the social media page that's been created by school board members.

And so the school board members decided first to delete some of the harsh criticism and then to block the criticism from coming through at all.

So they were blocked from being able to put their comments on that webpage.

The Garniers sued and said that they have a First Amendment Right Freedom of Speech to say what they wanna say to the school board members.

We have the Texas case involving Texas and Florida, where Texas and Florida, then on the other side, their legislative bodies had laws saying that the social media platforms could not block conservatives and therefore all people from saying whatever they wanted to say on a social media platform.

So you have these cases, three cases, the Texas and Florida case, as well as the California case going before the court.

And the court has to decide, and remember they have this discomfort with it in the first place because many of them are much older and they're not really looking at social media as something that is primary to First Amendment, but they're going to have to face the fact that this jungle of First Amendment law has to in some way reconcile with the future, with our times today, and also with the ability to control hate speech on social media as well as as racist speech and other types of provocation by hate groups and ways in which people are being made to be politically disenfranchised.

- Yeah, technology regulation overall is one of the most challenging issues facing not only the court, but but congress as well.

Another issue that will go up before the court is gerrymandering or redistricting.

Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina's Republican controlled legislature.

I'm wondering how you think they will rule here, given their recent decision rejecting Alabama's bid to use a congressional map that just had one majority black district.

Do you think they'll follow along with the logic behind that ruling In this one?

- People were very surprised by the Alabama outcome because of what had taken place in the Dobbs ruling, undermining a woman's right to choose as well as other conservative rulings from this court.

Chief Justice Roberts made his bones in voting rights.

He was the one who wrote the opinion that gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

My concern here is these cases are so blatant that we're giving the Supreme Court probably the conservatives much more credit because the three judge courts that actually ruled on the South Carolina case finding that there were stark racial gerrymandering tactics being used by the conservative South Carolina legislature to take 30,000 people who are of African descent primarily and move them to another district.

And gerrymandering is basically to have an entanglement of districting in a way that is going to undermine the voting capacity of a particular group in this case is African Americans in Charleston and in North Charleston.

And the black vote has been a powerful vote since 1870 when black men gained the right to vote.

And then when black women gained the right to vote with other women in 1920.

The undermining of the black vote shows its power, but it also shows how black vote dilution is working.

So to break apart, to crack these districts and then make them minorities within another district, whether than to have the power, the full power of the other, of the district that they're in, which is the city.

Now, I'll say this one last thing with regentrification and more white people moving from the suburbs and from rural places into the cities, the cities that were abandoned before and became majority people of color.

Now other people are moving into these cities and they want control whether or not it's local state or in this case, federal control.

And that's gonna be an ongoing issue as people come into the cities and want to rest away the political power that's been gained by African Americans, in this case Charleston.

I do believe that the Supreme Court should follow its precedent, but in so many cases we never know with this Supreme Court and the conservatives on it.

- Well, well, what do you make about the Supreme Court following precedent with the ruling that the FDA should not be challenged in terms of their decisions and approval process?

You mentioned the Dobbs case and the overturning Roe v. Wade, the Mifepristone, the abortion pill that is the most commonly used way that women terminate pregnancies.

Today, over 5 million women in the US have used it for decades.

That is coming up before the court as well.

How do you expect them to incorporate the past rulings and precedent on this specific issue?

- Well, my concern is this is when the shadow docket of the Supreme Court is going to play a major role.

The court has been making rulings without any names, without any decisions.

And when the court decided to hold off on the Mifepristone, and decide not to have it, you know, the ruling of the lower court, so not to allow it to be taken off the market.

The idea was that the Republicans and other conservatives are challenging the ability of the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration to make independent judgements.

That is something that's unprecedented because that means the political judgment is going to take the place of people who are scientists, who are doctors, who are deciding whether or not a drug is safe.

Their argument is that the FDA was wrong when it decided that this drug was safe and it should be taken off the market and therefore not made available.

And there are other administrative type US Supreme Court cases also where there are challenges to the ability of agencies to be the smartest, most informed about the content or the issues before that agency.

And that the political process, people in political offices should be deciding in the place of the members of a particular agency who are in that agency and working those issues day in and day out.

- Yeah.

- Because certain people don't like the decisions of the agency.

- Gloria Browne-Marshall, thank you so much.

A lot to really talk about.

Well, the Supreme Court is just one example of the eroding trust in America's institutions.

For decades, an elite majority has weaponized language and promoted false history.

According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, she explores how this has led some Americans into authoritarianism in her new book.

And she joins Michel Martin to discuss.

- Thanks Bianna.

Heather Cox Richardson, thank you so much for speaking with us.

- Oh, it's such a pleasure.

- As you and I are speaking now, we're in this really strange kind of moment where, you know, the Speaker of the house, Kevin McCarthy is losing his job because he compromised with the Democrats to keep the government open and, you know, all these other things, looking at all the things that are going on in our politics at the moment is there a way you could put this in the context for us?

- Yes, but let's start with what you just said.

The idea that for the Speaker of the House who is a Republican, to work with Democrats who of course represent their constituents to keep the government open is somehow something that makes him in his own conference be unpopular.

That is completely antithetical to the way this government was always supposed to work.

So from the beginning, we're in a really unusual moment.

One of the things that I study, of course, is what's happened to the Republican party.

And one of the things I like to emphasize is this is not your mother's Republican party.

It has become an extremist of faction that has within its goals to get rid of the kind of government under which we've lived since 1933.

So you have to start from the premise that you can't both sides this issue.

We have a national problem that is embodied by one hard right extremist party.

That's not to say the Democrats are right about everything, but that's to say that this is a moment in which we have to take a step back and recognize a larger challenge to our democracy that happens to be embodied right now by a certain partisan division, but one that echoes other moments in our history that we got through by working together to isolate the extremists.

- And I'm gonna ask you to kind of walk us through your argument that is the subject of your book, "Democracy Awakening".

But I kind of wanna skip ahead to the point that you make several times in the book you make the point very persuasively and chillingly, I have to say that sometimes people get to a point where they're so invested in their belief system, they don't care what's true.

Okay?

So I'm just interested in if you believe that that's where we are.

How do you address that?

- Well, yes, and that's not original to me.

That's something that scholars of authoritarianism and totalitarianism have identified at least since World War II.

And their question was this, why do we need to worry about the rise of dictators when the real problem is the people who follow the dictators, because every generation has authoritarians and dictators, but only in some generations do they actually get enough traction to take over a government.

And what they argued, and I think what we see nowadays really clearly is the rise of a politics that erases reality in favor of a really attractive image or an attractive image for some people.

And what that image says is that we can take you people who feel disaffected, either economically or religiously or culturally, socially, and we can make you feel as important as you used to.

And the way that we're gonna do that is by going back to a series of laws that are either divine or set down by the universe that our enemies, and who those enemies are doesn't really matter, are ignoring.

And on that beautiful story, a number of people begin to rest their identities and they don't necessarily expect their lives are gonna get better.

They expect they're defending this traditional vision of a country.

And this is not, by the way, unique to the United States.

The trick to this though is I think that people begin to be attracted by that false reality.

And some people really do give it their identities, but most people are more than willing to embrace a different identity, an identity that actually solves problems and an identity that actually moves this country forward to expand our democracy as they have in the past.

And those are the people that we wanna be talking to and emphasizing right now, not that 20 or so percent of Americans who are simply lost.

And you will see that in any kind of rise of a totalitarian movement.

And then later on it's fall.

Some people simply cannot let go of that identity.

But most people can recognize either that they've been duped and they become apathetic again, or that they've been duped and they need to fight back to take back a real country.

- So who's your book for?

Who are you writing for?

- So this book is for the people who want to understand our country, want to feel a part of it, but feel like there's too much coming at them to understand all the different pieces.

When did the parties switch sides?

What is the electoral college, what does the Constitution say in the 14th Amendment?

All those different things that seem to be in the news but aren't there in such an orderly way that you can understand them.

So this is really a series of short essays that take you through how we got here from 1937 to 2015, what the rise of an authoritarian meant in the United States from 2015 until the present.

And crucially, that final section, how do we look at the people who came before us and see how they faced a similar moment and got out of it.

- Let's just start at wit New Deal.

That's the first section of the book.

You said that FDR created what you call a liberal consensus in government that kind of defined the years after World War II and when authoritarianism in the US and elsewhere around the world was defeated.

How did that liberal consensus come about?

Was it that people actually saw material improvement in their lives, or was it the external threat of the war?

- That's a really important piece of what's going on, and I'm glad you called that out because the liberal consensus comes not only from FDR who does in fact help people's material lives during the depression by inventing a government that, or picking up a government that regulates business, provides a basic social safety net promotes infrastructure, things like the TV, Tennessee Valley Authority, and begins to flirt with the idea of the government protecting civil rights in the States.

But crucially, it's not really the Democrats who push that part of a liberal consensus in this period, although Truman does quite a lot.

It's really under Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, that the government begins to protect civil rights in the States.

And those four pieces together make a liberal consensus, which does in fact dramatically help people's economic lives.

That matters because when people's economic lives are better historically in the United States, they are also much more willing to accord rights to people of color and women minorities when they're not, when they're not so much, when they're not able to put food on the table.

So those things do go hand in hand, and they are, at first, I think, a reaction to the fact that somebody's gotta do something about the depression.

But crucially, what FDR begins to do is to articulate the principles of democracy that minority populations had been holding high all along.

So he begins very articulately to defend democracy and defend the principles of democracy against fascism, for example, in a way that really inspires people to carry that torch forward.

And you can see it really dramatically in the moment that Rome falls, for example.

And he gives a very powerful speech about how even though the fascists promise everything, look who's feeding the starving people in Rome, it's us, the democratic governments.

So that idea of helping people at a very basic economic level and also at the soon to be at the level of civil rights in the States, then becomes a profound defense of the concept of human self-determination as it's embodied in democracy.

- You draw a through line from FDR to Joe Biden, I mean the Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and so forth.

You also draw a through line between those countervailing forces who you say, you know, continually try to marshal racial grievance in the service of authoritarianism and in the service of basically, you know, an unbalanced economy that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

And I'm just so curious of like, when you sort of say, gosh, we've seen this movie over and over again, why does it still work?

- I'm making the point that that idea that some people are better than others, certainly runs all the way through the United States, you know, through the 1890s and the rise of the robber barons and the elite enslavers in the 1850s all the way back to the founding fathers.

And at the end of the day, I think what I'm really articulating is the ongoing struggle, at least in the United States, between the concepts that everybody is created equal and has an equal right to be treated equally before the laws and devastate in their government on the one hand.

And on the other hand, the idea that some people really are better than others and have a duty and a right to rule over the rest of us.

Those are two really fundamental ideas about the way that human societies should be organized.

Now, why we keep embracing the one, the expansion of liberal democracy and then abandoning it, I actually think comes from the fact that because it works, people tend to think we're always gonna have it, and they stop paying attention and they stopped defending it.

So in 1960, there was actually a political scientist who said, listen, we all agree on a liberal consensus, so let's stop talking about it and instead build political coalitions by hammering together different groups who want specific things from that liberal government.

And when that happened, that left the room for a new narrative to come up from this small faction of people who wanted to overturn the liberal consensus.

And they gave us that idea of the cowboys standing alone against the big government, the socialist government.

And that I think is the problem that when things are, when things look like they're stable, we back off and say, okay, we're all set now.

And that opens the way for people who are standing against that consensus to get a real foothold.

- You know, on the one hand, many people consider our democratic institutions to be at a time of kind of great peril.

But then other people would look at this and say that they've survived before.

They've survived sort of, you know, grievous threats.

I mean, the Civil War, for example.

Is there something fundamentally self-protective about the American experience that acts as a, I don't know, bulwark against this?

- What you've identified to me is the exciting part of this book, and that is a central question.

Why when all sorts of other countries fell to fascism, why didn't America?

And what I came to believe is that when I was writing this book and through my years as a historian, is that the United States has in a funny way had an inoculation against fascism for the simple reason that it has always had such a complicated history with race and immigration.

That is, that marginalized Americans from the very beginning centered the Declaration of Independence and the idea that they must be treated equally before the laws and they must have a right to a say in their government.

So while other countries could take that for granted or could say that this is has already been established, we don't have to think about it, Americans were out there every minute saying, hey, wait a minute, what about us?

And because of that, that constant struggle to make that liberal democracy actually become real, Americans had it in front of them and still have it in front of us in a way that we might not, where we not such a dramatically multicultural society.

- Give us an example of how you say a group of people who represent historically marginalized people are really the ones who hold America to its ideals.

- Well, so one of the things that really jumped out in that final section is in fact the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which is formed in 1909, sort of technically around-ish Abraham Lincoln's birthday quite deliberately because it is a multiracial, multi-religious multicultural group that says we simply must make the principles of the Declaration of Independence applied to everybody in this country.

So one of the things that really jumps out when you look at the NAACP is one of the founders of it of course, is Ida B.

Wells, who's a phenomenal journalist who is known for bringing light to lynchings, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

But one of the other people is W. E. B.

Du Bois, who's just an absolutely brilliant sociologist.

He could do anything he wanted.

And what does he do?

He decides that he wants to edit the crisis, which is the NAACP's Magazine.

Now this is, he takes all his extraordinary talents to that magazine and constantly hammers on this is what it means in this country to have some people treated differently before the law than others.

And if you go forward from that moment of 1909, the NAACP is constantly pulling together statistics, hanging out flags every time somebody is lynched, making sure that popular figures in American culture are out there talking about what it means when in fact, you know, a young woman walking home from church is gang raped.

What it means when somebody comes home from fighting in World War II and has his eyes put out, and even though the perpetrator confesses to the crime ends up being acquitted of it.

They keep that in front of people constantly.

So one of the things when I think about the expansion of liberal democracy in my era is that we tend to focus on heroes.

We tend to focus on, for example, Rosa Parks and say, oh, she didn't, you know, her feet were tired.

Rosa Parks worked for the NAACP.

She had been out there in the field collecting these statistics, working with people, making sure people knew what was going on.

And at the end of the day, the NAACP becomes this extraordinarily powerful way to shine light on this fundamental contradiction in the United States, that some people were not treated equally before the law and had no right to have a say in their government.

And they're a great example, I think, of people saying, hey, wait a minute, this is not about an individual, it's not about a certain group, it's about the country and what this country is supposed to stand for.

- How though do you address, based on sort of your historical knowledge and your deep reporting, the ongoing power of white grievance?

And for whatever reason, as you've pointed out in your book, this kind of, we're not getting our fair share argument, or that these people, these other people, these minority people, these brown people are getting more than their fair share at the expense of us, is a very powerful argument.

How do, well-meaning people who do believe in a government and in a country that includes all the people who live here and contribute to it, should benefit from it.

How does that, how does one address that?

- Well, historically, that has worked by making the economic pie fairer.

That is, people are very susceptible to that language.

White people are very susceptible to that language when their own tables are bearer than they used to be.

That is, it's always important to remember that the rise of white grievance tracks very, very closely to the concentration of wealth at the top of the scale.

You can see it in the 1890s, you can see it in the 1920s.

You can certainly see it in the present.

You can see it in the 1850s and at the 1850s and the early 1860s in the American South, where in fact wealth was dramatically concentrating in about 1% of the white population leaving the rest of the white population much but homeless.

So it's always important to remember that those things track economically as well.

- So before we let you go, if, let's say, I know you identify yourself as a conservative, you say in the same way that Lincoln did, which is that you adhere to first principles.

These were the principles articulating in the Declaration of the Independents founding document.

What about people who don't see it that way?

Who say, well, you know, what, no, I'm a conservative because I believe in small government.

I believe that, you know, that traditional family structures are the best.

I believe in a minimal federal footprint.

That's what makes me a conservative.

Do you have an argument for them?

- Yes.

And the answer is of course, by reaching back to Lincoln and trying to reclaim the mantle of conservatism for, if you will, progressivism, I'm trying to make the point that today's Republicans who talk about, for example, small government, are simply not trying to do that at all.

They're in fact talking about a large government that's going to impose Christian nationalism on the rest of us.

You know, we need to have working political parties that are functioning in the real world in this moment.

And it's the give and take between those things that will get us to a reasonable government that operates in the real world.

But that's not where we are right now.

And where we are right now is that those people who believe those things need to work with people like me who have a different perspective on it, to get rid of those who disagree with those principles altogether.

Wanna get rid of the American government that does things like protects civil rights, that does things like regulate business or has a basic social safety net or promotes infrastructure.

Because those are the things that the vast majority of Americans agree on.

Those are the things that are traditional in this country.

They're the things under which we tend to have the most just society both economically, culturally, and religiously.

And those are the true values of Americans.

And those are the things on which we need to stand right now.

Once we've done that, sure, let's go fight tooth and nail about mortgage rates or let's go fight tooth and nail about what we should do in our public schools.

But until we have the restoration of our democracy, the rest of it needs to be moved off the table.

- Heather Cox Richardson, thank you so much for talking with us.

- Thank you for having me.

- And finally, a real treat with a musical legend.

Herb Alpert made his name as a trumpeter and songwriter penning classics like "Spanish Flea" with his band Tijuana Brass.

[bright trumpet music] Working with artists like Burt Bacharach and Sam Cooke, Alpert wrote some of the all time great songs, all the while his record label A & M signed budding megastar like the Carpenters, Carole King and Janet Jackson.

Now at the 80s, he is releasing a brand new album of his own music called "Wish Upon a Star".

While our wish has certainly been granted today because Herb Alpert joins us now.

Herb, I do believe that you are the first trumpeter to make an appearance on Amanpour.

So don't quote me on it, but I believe this is the first.

- I like that.

- It is so great to see you.

We, I can't begin to tell you how excited we've been for this segment to be able to talk to you and congratulations on the new album.

So let's just start there.

It's debuted already on number one in the charts for current contemporary jazz albums.

It's a collection of takes on classical songs like From The Beatles and from Elvis and the Namesake, obviously the Disney song "When You Wish Upon a Star".

I wanna play a track from the new album.

It is the lead single, a rendition of Jerry Reed's "Eastbound and Down".

- Oh boy.

[upbeat trumpet music] [upbeat trumpet music continues] [upbeat trumpet music continues] - Oh, that takes me back.

- Oh, sorry.

- Talk to us about this new album and why you chose to make it.

- Well, it's just a series of songs that haunt me that, you know, that song that you just played.

I saw that "Smokey and the Bandit" movie about, I don't know, a hundred years ago, and I couldn't get this song outta my mind.

It was written by Jerry Reed.

Jerry Reid was in the movie, he was driving a 18 wheeler and the song was playing.

And ever since then, I just felt, is there a way I can do this song that maybe hasn't been done that way before?

And just did it.

And lo and behold, I got invited to play with the Grand Ole Opry.

And I did that about a month ago.

And it was a fabulous night.

One of the best nights of my life as a musician.

- Well, as you know, you have a legion of fans from amateurs and those who are professionals alike.

Miles Davis actually said that you hear three notes and you know, it's Herb Alpert.

Tell us more about your unique style.

I mean, in fact, you should tell viewers your song "Rise" has been sampled by several artists, including Notorious B.I.G and Nas.

- Well, I just choose songs that touch me.

You know, I try to be honest the way I play, I'm a jazz musician at heart.

You know, that's what, I like improvisational type music, and I just go for the songs that make me feel good when I hear it, you know?

And oddly enough, I don't know if I've told this to too many people, is anybody listening?

I make songs for myself.

You know, I record songs that make me feel good, and then if I have a collection of songs, I'll put 'em in an album.

And that's about it.

There's no, like, I don't have like a major plan, actually.

I get lucky a lot of the times.

And I'll tell you, I got lucky with somebody picked up one of my songs that I recorded 60 years ago on TikTok.

And so far I've had 200 million streams on that one song called "Ladyfingers".

So, I mean, this is totally out of the blue.

- I think it takes a little more than luck, but luck goes a long way too.

We'll all take luck.

You've had luck for 80 years now.

You were eight years old when you first picked up a trumpet, and I guess it was love at first sound ever since.

Speaking of timeless music, can we just play Sam Cooke's Wonderful World?

Don't know much about history Don't know much biology Don't know much about a science book Don't know much about the French I took But I do know that I love you And I know that if you love me too What a wonderful world this would be - I mean, talk about timeless music.

That it is just a song that you can hear time and time again, no matter how old you are, no matter who you are with.

When you hear that song now, does it resonate with you differently than it did the first, I don't know, a thousand times you did?

- Well, it does, because I learned a lot from Sam.

Sam was a fantastic artist, a wonderful gentleman, and he used to come up to me with a notebook, filled with lyrics, and he showed me this lyric and he said, Herbie, what do you think of this lyric?

And I looked at it and I think, and now this is the corniest lyric I've ever seen.

I didn't say that to him, but I said, what does the song sound like?

So he picked up his guitar and started singing this song, and I was saying, holy man, this is, it ain't what you do, it's the way how you do it.

And the way he phrased the song, the melody he put to the song, the, you know, the passion he put into it.

I said, that's music, that's baking music.

And so I learned a lot from him.

And so when I hear that song, I think about Sam.

He was a lovely person.

- It's a phenomenal song.

We should note that you and your partner at A&M, Jerry Moss, you started this record label your roster.

I mean, come on, Cat Stevens, Carole King, the police, Janet Jackson, just to name some, well, Jerry recently passed away, and I'm sorry for the loss of your colleague and your dear friend, and a huge loss to the music world.

I wanna read for you something that Sting said about you both in the New York Times.

And he said, "They were gentlemen.

I think their extraordinary success was really predicated on those very human qualities, not being ruthless business or kill to be killed people.

They were artist friendly."

You know, this comes at a time when there's this debate about whether genius, no matter what industry you're in, has to come with somebody being ruthless or cruel.

You sort of disprove that, wouldn't you say?

- Well, you know, I think you have to be at the right place at the right time.

Timing plays such an important part of it all.

And we were at the right place and, you know, prior to A&M I recorded for a major company and I wasn't crazy about the way they were treating me.

They, you know, at one point I wanted to overdub my trumpet and do some things that I thought were appropriate.

They wouldn't let me because of the union problems, et cetera.

And I said, well, if I had my own record company, I'd do it a much different way.

The record company should revolve, a music company should revolve around the artist.

And that's the way we made it.

- I have to mention that behind you, I spy a trumpet and I'd be- - Oh yeah, always.

- Kicking myself if I didn't ask you, if you don't mind, you would feel if it would be the right time to play something for us.

- What you'd like to hear?

- You know what?

I'll let you pick - Any particular key.

I'll let you pick.

I'm not gonna be greedy here.

- So it started out with, [Herb playing trumpet] so that's "The Lonely Bone".

[Herb playing trumpet] That was what you already played before "Spanish Flee", and then [Herb playing trumpet] that's "Rise".

That was the number one record.

So I have this record of being the only artist that has a number one record as a vocalist disguised in love with you.

And that song I just played, "Rise".

[Herb playing trumpet] I love that song, "Smile."

It's a song we play in concert.

Every time I do it, it gets a great reaction.

Something about that melody.

That melody, and it's all about melody.

I think it's all about melody.

You certainly have to have a good lyric if you're writing a, you know, vocal.

But the melody is supreme.

A great lyric without a good melody isn't gonna go as far as a great melody without a great lyric.

And that's what Burt Bacharach and my dear friend Burt had with Hal David.

- That is just lovely.

I mean, I didn't even wanna speak because I didn't wanna interrupt that beautiful music with the sound of my voice.

in the final seconds we have left, what is next for you?

You've got a new album, you're clearly still passionate about what you're doing.

What do you enjoy doing now?

- Well, I wanna give back as much as I can to artists.

I think artists are the heartbeat of our world.

I'm talking about not only musicians, but painters, sculptors, actors, poets, you know, we're the ones that that kind of identify and make you feel good.

And everybody for the most part is creative.

I think we kind of beat creativity out of kids at an early age.

I think we should get more credit to the arts.

And I hope that our politicians can sometime- - Yeah.

- Recognize that because the artists are crucially important to the survival of our world.

- You have been a gift to this world, and I do wanna correct myself.

You're not the first trumpeter on with Christiane.

Of course not.

But in 2016, you're in good company.

She interviewed Wynton Marsalis.

I'm sure you would approve that.

- Oh yeah.

I Love Wynton, he's a wonderful, not only a wonderful artist is a great human being.

- Well, Herb Alpert, thank you so much for joining us.

It has been a real special treat and congratulations on the album.

Keep playing.

- My pleasure.

Thank you so much.

- Well, that is it for now.

Thank you so much for watching and goodbye From New York,