hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & co." here's what's coming up. time is running out as a stark new report urges governments and all of us to act now to stop catastrophic climate change. what you can do to fight back. the architect of the paris agreement joins the show. also ahead, what happened to journalist and saudi critic jamal khashoggi? journalists claim he was killed after entering the consulate in istanbul. plus, brett kavanaugh and the politicalization of the supreme court. my conversation with the leading conservative thinker robert george. and then a much-needed antidote for our times.

comedian aasif mandvi talks about his play on indian immigrants who come to new york to pursue their american dream. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water, a river specifically. multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein family.

and by contributions to your pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you. welcome to the program, everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in london. we are living through extreme heat, floods, inundated coast lines right now. but u.n. experts paint a dire picture of those catastrophes on steroids. their most extensive warning yet is a call to arms saying individuals and, of course, governments have just over a decade to take urgent and unprecedented action to prevent the earth's temperature exceeding 1.5 degrees celsius that would be beyond preindustrial levels. they now say the u.s. cannot afford to cross that threshold, which is different from the 2 degree target. and the u.n. report also calls for an annual invest of $2 trillion in clean energy. president trump, as we know, is pulling the united states out of the 2015 paris climate agreement which more than 180 countries have ratified.

and in brazil now, a far-right candidate on track to be the next president, says he also plans to withdraw from the accord. my guest was the lead u.n. negotiator for the landmark paris climate deal and joins me now. welcome to the program. >> thank you very much, christiane. >> so i found it really quite catastrophic to hear this report. are you depressed or energized by this dire warning we've just heard? >> well, as you might expect characteristically for me i'm actually quite energized because it really for the first time paints a very, very stark contrast between two worlds we're about to create. one goes above the two degrees, and the other is the world that stays around 1.5. that is a world that actually has more jobs, it has more economic benefit, it has 65 million more jobs. in a world in which young people

are really concerned about jobs, 65 million new jobs is very interesting. >> so that's an interesting economic -- >> opportunity. >> this many of the climate deniers say it's too expensive in terms of economics. >> it's the absolute opposite. the discussion now is whether that 1.5 degree world is going to bring us 60 our $65 trillion in economic benefit. that is the discussion. >> when they say we have until 2030 to fix this and not let it get above that threshold of 1.5, that's quite a short period of time. >> 12 years is a short period of time, but we have to see where were we 12 years ago. 12 years ago it was a pipe dream. now we have already 12% of all of the energy in the world is already renewable, and we're on track not only to double that every four years but to get to

50% of all energy by 2030 will be renewable at least maybe even more. >> so this is the good news. >> that's the good news. >> the spin on what we can do. so actually what must we do, first and foremost, as individuals? they're talking about trying to wean us off eating meat and the other obvious things. and then what must governments do? >> well, there's a combination. first we have to ensure the pattern set by energy with renewable energy is followed by every sector. we're not on track with restoration of degraded lands. we're not on track with protecting our standing forests. we're not on track with smart agriculture. that whole sector needs to catch up quite quickly. the same thing with heavy industry. so how do we get those on track? we need a radical collaboration that would be, a, governments need to set an even bolder signal than they set in paris. infrastructure needs to be invested in so everyone in the investment community needs to

shift their capital very quickly into clean infrastructure, clean resilient, low-carbon infrastructure. we need to have behavioral changes because we cannot continue to eat meat that is animal based. we have to change to plant-based food. and, of course, we need the corporate world to also shift itself over from where we are to where many of the corporates already are which is low-carbon services and products. >> for instance, electric cars will be the norm rather than the exception as they are now? >> absolutely. >> just to be clear for people who don't understand, don't eat meat because is it the methane released into the atmosphere, the water intensity? >> it's both, the methane but also typically where you have animal production it has actually been possible because you have deforested land and is emitting but also is actually

degrading the land from the capability of absorbing car buttons. >> what we need to absorb the carbon. >> electric victims is also the story, honestly, the story of the year because just three years ago when we thought about electric vehicles, we thought that's a complete science fiction, right? science fiction has turned into reality. you have every single major car company has now already announced that they are going electric, that their models are going electric. some of them have actually said we will turn all our models electric. and you have eight countries that have said we're banning the internal combustion engine, setting a date, including india. india has said as of 2030 no more vehicles that have internal combustion engines will be sold in india. so you do see a huge shift. >> you mentioned india and china. every time we have this discussion, everybody says, the experts say, well, india and china and those countries feel it's their turn now. we in the west had the industrial revolution, the

economic progress, we've done so much and now it's their turn, these emerging, massive, behemoth economies. what do you say to india and china when they say, oh, but it's not fair? >> the more important thing is what are they saying? and they're saying we actually want this transformation because it's better for the health of our people. indian and chinese citizens want to breathe clean air. they don't want to breathe the polluted air they have right now so they understand that it's better for the health of their people. they understand that it's better for their economy because we're moving definitely into decarbonized global economy, where competitiveness is going to depend on the carbon content of your exports. so they want to be one step ahead. china is definitely leading in both renewables, both in solar and in wind. >> let's say china is the second biggest economy, some say it's giving the u.s. a run for its money right now. the u.s. is still the biggest economy in the world, and president trump is pulling the u.s. out of this deal.

now, up until now governs and mayors and others have said, you know what, we and the american people on a local level are committed to paris numbers. but i spoke to governor jerry brown not so long ago in new york and he said, look, and so did the u.s. secretary-general, we're close to the point of no return and that without our governments, said governor brown, the u.s. government, we're not able to get to those targets we want ourselves to get to. this is what he told me about the state of affairs in the united states right now. >> donald trump has his head in the sand. he wants to destroy the vehicle emission standards that california and many other states are trying to implement. he's trying to bring back coal, a dying resource, and he's not making the investments in electric batteries and zero emission automobiles and trucks that china is doing. and all of this rhetoric about china, i'm afraid america, if we keep following trump, will wake

up to find out that most cars in the world are made by china because america went down a rat hole of oil and coal dependency that is no longer consistent with the way the world is now going. >> and he also says that california, the world's fifth biggest economy, will be carbon neutral by 2050. which is what the u.n. is calling for. >> exactly. >> so that's what he says. what countries do you look at and say, wow, they are doing a great job? others are not doing such a good job. brazil maybe wants to pull out. what countries would you say the world needs -- could look at as an example? >> first, i don't think anyone is perfect because this is all a transition everybody is learning. i don't think that anyone can be set up there as the perfect example. but i do think the efforts being made in china on investing in renewables, on electric vehicles, on charging stations, all of that china is actually

doing quite well. india is doing similar efforts. in latin america, because you mentioned brazil, i think mexico and chile and my own tiny costa rica stand out as interesting examples of what smaller or even tiny economies can do because this is not a question of size. this is a question of we are here not playing house anymore. we are here defining the history of humankind, and everyone needs to participate. this is not about one electoral cycle. this is about how are we going to co-create the future of this world for future generations? so you cannot leave it, that responsibility, to a few individuals who have been elected to positions of power for a short political cycle because from the perspective of the history of mankind, four years is a very short period. >> unfortunately, as you say, you can't but you are. >> no, no. >> but it is because governments are being told they have to make

these investments like $2 trillion plus every year in renewables and the president of the united states, for instance, is pulling out of various already agreed things -- >> yes, but that doesn't stop the economy of the united states as we saw in california and jerry brown was the host of this fantastic global climate action summit. the fact is just because the president says that this is his ideological stand, which has no backing in economics whatsoever -- >> but they're rolling back carbon emissions -- >> they are rolling back but -- but the states continue to move on. it is not just california. it's actually a whole host of states that are supporting california to continue to move forward. it is a growing number of cities, it's a growing number of corporations who truly understand, yes, maybe this contributes to global climate change but, more importantly, it's about their own competitiveness. it's because as a corporation you want to ensure that the day after tomorrow you're going to have investors who trust you,

that you haven't lost the value of your assets, you want to have products that you'll be able to sell and certainly you want to have young people who work for you. >> you said haven't lost the value of their assets. if low-lying areas get inundated, that's a huge loss of value of assets -- >> including lives. >> exactly, lives being the most clear assets. i talked to jacinda ardern who said perhaps new zealand will have to take in a whole load of climate refugees. this is what she told me in new york about this. >> pacific island nations identified climate change as the biggest threat we face, the biggest threat that we face. but the message that came through strongly for me as well was that we cannot give up, it cannot be the sentiment it's solely about now adaptation, that we still have a responsibility to try and ensure that wherever in the world an individual is living that they

have the option of being able to preserve their culture, their language, their place, their land, and simply conceding that sea levels are rising and they will be inundated is not the position that they want us to fight for. they want us to fight to try and reverse what we're seeing. >> so, very sensible. somebody who is saying what you often say, but all the way on the other side of the world and she's talking about the small, not rich, not very developed nations. what about, again, our powerful, rich governments -- and i'm talking a lot about the united states -- who maybe scientists are still debating whether climate change is a hoax or not -- not scientists but people in government, et cetera, and say, hang on. we can afford to wait a bit. maybe these predictions won't be as bad as they're telling us now. >> the fact is every time we have a scientific report, it only gets worse and worse. it never contradicts itself. it only goes into more detail and more scientific certainty so the trend on science is very, very clear, and this report that

has come out actually says the new scientific compass. there's no doubt about that. no doubt about that. i think it's very important for people to understand that, yes, we may have for a certain period of time certain leadership, but that cannot establish how we are responding to this as a human society. we all have the responsibility to share in this, and we all have the responsibility to make our voices heard, to see where our capital is, to see how we transport ourselves, to see what we're eating and accept individual and collective responsibility. >> well, the good news it has been top news today, this new report. >> indeed, it has. >> people are getting the word out. christiana figueres, thank you. >> thank you very much. relinquishing its leadership on climate is one of the ways the trump administration is pulling the u.s. out of its traditional global leadership role. that, in any event, is the view of a group of republican and democratic foreign policy analysts.

we've heard recently from bob kagan and now president obama's former u.s. ambassador to nato ivo daalder has published the "empty throne." america's abdication of global leadership. we'll delve into that with him as we start, though, with a potential consequence of the stance, the international mystery into the whereabouts of the saudi journalist jamal khashoggi from the consulate in istanbul. he went from adviser to the royal family to a critic of what he considered saudi arabia's heavy handed crackdowns at home and wars abroad. he sought residence in the united states when he continued to speak out. and he's a columnist for "the washington post." america's usual support of saudi arabia has been amped up under president trump. they say they're looking into the disappearance along with

turkish authorities. turkey has also requested a search of its istanbul consulate after unnamed turkish officials say the outspoken critic was killed inside. let's unpack all of this with ivo daalder and see how it plays into the theme of his book "the empty throne." i've got it right here. welcome to the program. >> nice to be here. >> look, let me ask you, in a normal world what would the united states public reaction be to the disappearance of a prominent journalist and somebody who at least for the moment is living, working, and residing in the united states? >> well, you would hope that the united states would at least start asking very serious questions about what was going on and press the saudis for answers. normally we would have an ambassador in saudi arabia. we don't. who could be part of making this request. but clearly when journalists

where killed or disappeared as happened also in bulgaria, you would hope the united states, the leader of the free world, someone -- a country that upholds democracy, freedom and human rights would make this point number one if not number one, number two on the list of issues. raise it in riyadh, raise with the saudi ambassador in washington, and so far silence. >> they tell cnn they're doing it but it's so far not public. again, how important is it to be public? you're a diplomat, a former ambassador. what is the right way to get answers to these kinds of sensitive issues from your strong ally? >> clearly getting on the phone and having quiet conversations in order to see whether you can get an answer is one way to get it. but we're not getting any answers. having a more public face, making sure people understand this is very, very serious. the french government has made statements and why not the united states? why aren't we out there and

saying we need answers to the real questions. what happened to a man who walked into a consulate and was never seen again? this is the kind of thing that you would hope the united states would take a leadership role on. >> again, the saudi government, saudi official said we are very concerned. we have no knowledge. and we also are trying to help. but there's a huge amount of suspicion because we're told plane loads of saudis arrived in istanbul at the same time that jamal khashoggi was in the consulate. according to surveillance footage, he did not come out. from what you know having been a nato ambassador, and turkey is a member of nato, what is the geopolitical fallout if the worst has happened, if he has been killed, if the worst -- what the turkish government officials are briefing on background turns out to be true? >> well, one is, of course, the relationship between turkey and

saudi arabia, already tense in many ways in part because turkey is much more closely aligned with qatar and there is a major difference between the saudis and the uae on one hand and qatar on the other. if the turks now start to take this incident as yet another reason to oppose the saudis that will be a major problem. but it's also a problem for us. we can't live in a world and accept that major partners of ours will going to go around and arrest and execute without trial or anything else dissidents they don't like. this is what the saudis are now accused of doing. we can't go back to having a normal kind of relationship with a country like saudi arabia. by the way, this isn't the first time, of course, the saudis are saying things and doing things that the united states is not reacted to. just a few months ago a major reaction in response from

criticism from canada about the human rights record in saudi arabia that led to the recalling of the ambassador. led to the recalling of students, the end of trading relationships. the only thing the leader of the free world, the u.s., could say about its northern neighbor in major conflict with saudi arabia was this is a diplomatic issue that the two countries need to resolve themselves. we need a united states and we've had a united states for a very long time that tries to set an example how one behaves in the world and that the united states, unfortunately, is missing. >> i'm going to get deeper into that, the united states and its global leadership. first, i wanted to play you a bit of an interview i did with the saudi arabia foreign minister. i asked him about saudi arresting and cracking down on political activists including women activists. this is what he told me about it. >> the notion these were activists and were arrested because they're activists is not

correct. the public prosecutor says they are related to national security, are related to working with foreign governments, are related to working with people who seek to undermine the kingdom of saudi arabia, were related to trying to recruit people in sensitive positions to extract information that are then passed on to hostile powers and are being investigated. some have been released. others will face trial. this is not about human rights or seeking rights. these arrests were about national security. >> so portraying any kind of activism as a national security threat, what do you think is going on in saudi arabia right now? the criticism by jamal khashoggi was about the emboldened stance by crown prince bin salman. >> clearly he's trying to consolidate power and that's the nature of the system in which he's living. he was the crown prince and since then we've seen a whole

elevator variety of activities of mbs to try to consolidate power. that's what we're seeing. every criticism, so it appears, of those actions are being met with very swift and very strong measures including if what happened to mr. khashoggi turn out to be true that a critic was taken into a consulate and killed as a result, without due process, without the kind of normal way in which one would deal with political dissent. >> mbs as we call him, prince mohammad bin salman did say to bloomberg at the beginning of this cries, we hear the rumors about what's happened. he's a saudi citizen. we're keen to know what happened to him and we will continue our dialogue to see what happened to jamal there. let's get back to the heart of the issue here. the heart is who will hold him accountable, what is the united states rerole in furthering its

leadership and moral role, economic role, role of alliances and security around the world. and you have conclude that had it's an empty throne right now. america's abdication of global leadership. as i said, you're not the only one. former conservatives are writing these books as well. so what is your big totem around which you build this theory, the empty throne? >> there's a concern and, as you say, it's bipartisan and has been around for a long time. the united states has occupied a unique leadership role for the past seven years and decide it had needed to remain engaged in the world after world war ii, to build nato, to our security relationship with asia, to open up the international economic system, to open trade and foster as much free trade as possible, and to be a promoter if not a granter of democracy and freedom across the globe. democrats and republicans have agreed on that strategy for 70 years.

they've had different emphasis at times and some have been willing to use more force to enforce that kind of leadership. others have been more willing to stress the importance of human rights. there have been differences among them, but the fundamentals were the united states leads in the world. it looks at who can be followers. we are no longer interested in leading. we're interested in winning. winning is completely different. that is about beating the other side and this president in particular has been focused on winning against our allies whether they are canada as a northern neighbor, our allies in nato or in east asia, and we're forgetting the role the u.s. has played. >> to play devil's advocate, his people, his base, the people who voted for him, might think it's a great thing, for instance, to be the first president to really hold china's feet to the fire on what he calls -- they might see that as winning, as leading. >> and if the issue is china, then the question is who is with

us? why aren't we spending more time to get the european union which is trading quite a bit with china, the japanese, the australians, the canadians, the mexicans in a coalition to work together in order to put pressure on china and to deal with what the president rightly has said are predatory trading practices. why don't we build that coalition which is what we used to do and what the president has done is put steel and aluminum tariffs on the canadians, the europeans, the japanese even if there is an agreement which there was with these countries on certain trade aspects. we still maintain tariffs. we're not putting them together in the way we used to. >> so there are critics of the president you served, barack obama, who said that he started this withdrawal, whether it was failing to cross his own red line in syria, whether it was pulling out troops unilaterally and too quickly from iraq which led to the rise of isis. whatever it was, he began this disengagement.

be that as it may, i'm interested in hearing your comment. you have also written that, you know, president trump has this kind of strange view of the united states as a pitiful, wounded giant. it's odd for people like myself who look at the united states as this superpower and many people around the world could never see the u.s. as a strange -- as a wounded, pitiful giant. but he does say that. it's unfair. we're getting rumbled by the rest of the world. how does he get away with that? >> i'm not sure because we are the most powerful country in the world. we are still the one with the biggest military, that has an economic advantage over many other countries, and we have something that almost no one else has. we have allies. we have 55 formal treaty allies. the chinese have one, north korea. and the russians have five, such stalwarts as armenia. this isn't an advantage the united states has and we're underestimating how important the u.s. is to global stability.

>> i wanted to ask you because a lot of people say that's what the american people want and their president is delivering. however, recent polls say that americans are, in fact, worried the united states is losing allies and support for -- their support for global engagement is rising according to the pew research center. they say international trade is good which is different than when 68% said there was. people in the united states are reacting and wanting more engagement rather than more protectionism and less leadership. >> the chicago council on global affairs does an annual poll. it is remarkable. internationalism is something americans are embracing. we have seen the highest percentage of americans saying trade is good for creating jobs, for consumers like them, for the american economy. support for nato and south korea and japan are at the highest level we've ever seen.

americans want allies and believe that having allies in the u.n. on their side is something that is important for them to achieve their objectives. we're finding americans -- it's like oxygen. you only miss it when you can't breathe anymore. internationalism and american leadership is something that americans now desperately want because they see what it means when it's no longer there. >> ivo daalder, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> tuning now to the bitter fight over brett kavanaugh's appointment to the united states supreme court which is being felt across the pond as well. the right of center "financial times" says this has left the republic in a moment of acute danger pointing out that a justice who was eventually confirmed by a 50-48 vote along party lines will affect rules on climate change, gun laws, and women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies. so will the united states supreme court, long views as a

bastion of impartial justice, join the legislative and executive branches in the partisan sinkhole? here to discuss is robert george, princeton's professor of jurisprudence as well as director of the james madison program and american ideals and institutions, and he's joining me from princeton. professor george, thank you very much indeed for being with us. will, as i put it, will the current state of partisanship that we see in the legislative and in the executive branch which you've spoken a lot about follow itself into the supreme court? what do you think? >> well, the supreme court is already bitterly divided, a liberal wing, progressive wing and conservative wing. justice anthony kennedy and before him justice sandra day o'connor were swing voters, sometimes voting with the left wing, sometimes voting with the right wing of the court. they are now gone and it looks like there is a pretty solid but narrow 5-4 conservative majority

on the court. for many years during the war in iran and for sometime after that, you had a majority liberal court, and the court weighed in on many big cultural issues often without being able to give a very good account of where or how to justify its positions by reference to the text or logic or structure or historical understanding of the constitution and so the court in cases such as row versus wade was a focal point in controversy and divisiveness and we had huge battles over supreme court nominees. and it looks like that will now continue but ramped up by the bitterness and animosity among citizens coming out of the latest confirmation controversy. >> so i just want to read you the tweet that came from the white house, from the white house press spokeswoman, sarah huckabee sanders when kavanaugh was confirmed on saturday.

and she basically said, congratulations, judge kavanaugh. instead of a 6-3 liberal court under hillary clinton we have a 5-4 under president trump cementing a legacy for the president and a better future for america. that goes a little bit to what you were saying about the previous decades of a more liberal court, but it also is fairly pointed political testimony from the white house. so when the presidential spokesperson goes political, what must people be thinking? what do people of the united states think is going to happen in their supreme court going forward? >> i'm not quite sure i understand the question, christiane. because americans have long understood, at least going back to the new deal and really probably before that, that the supreme court is not immune from politics. franklin delano roosevelt and

very carefully made his appointments. the court he inherited was striking down those policies. so he made an expressive political judgment as to who to appoint and, in fact, prior to getting those appointments roosevelt tried to pack the court, threatening the very ideal of judicial independence in an effort to overcome the resistance of the court to the new deal. and we get the same thing in the 1960s. we get the same thing in the 1970s. this is not new to americans. it's the more general atmosphere of severe partners and polarization that i think makes this situation different. >> well, let's talk about that. you said severe and it is. i mean, everybody around the world, their heads are spinning at what's happening. people believe that it's an unprecedented situation. i know you say it's not that new, maybe in the strict legal sense you're talking about, but people have not seen anything like this for a long, long time, and i think you have said that

what's happened, it's a nation where citizens are not necessarily bound together by a common ethnicity, race, religion, linguistics, it's critical that we not view each other as evil or monstrous even when we have deep disagreements over very divisive issues. expand on that for us a little bit because that's exactly what seems to be happening in the u.s. right now. >> well, you've quoted me accurately, christiane. we are not a country whose bonds of citizenship are based on blood or soil or throne or honor. we are different ethnicities, religious groups. we don't even have a deep common cultural history or linguistic background. we are many different types of people. what binds us together is our commitment to certain fundamental constitutional ideals. the principles of the declaration of independence, we've always said that's what

makes us an exceptional nation. but that means that we will only hang together as a nation if we recognize each other despite our disagreements, sometimes profound disagreements, not as enemies but as friends, friends who have disagreement but as reasonable people of goodwill who don't always come to the same conclusions but who wish to be bound together as citizens. since we're not bound together by blood or race or ethnicity, religion, if we lose our will to be fellow citizens, to live together in this democratic republic, we will fall apart. the republic will be lost. james madison and the 10th federalist paper warned the new citizens of the united states as they were considering the new constitution and its ratification. he warned what has always brought down republics in the past wherever they've been tried is faction, faction, polarization. we had it in a severe way in 1800 and even more severe in

1860 and 1861 when we had the civil war which almost brought the republic down. we had it in the 1960s, and we have it now again. and anything could touch things off to make it even worse. we've already had a shooting. steve scalise was shot in an attempt by a partisan to assassinate the entire republican leadership of congress. you have people on both sides of the aisle getting death threats. this is not a good situation. we have had some violence in the streets. we could have more violence in the streets. this is a terrible situation. we need to take it very seriously. >> right. well, i guess the next obvious question is what do you do about it? it is a terrible situation and when the supreme court suddenly becomes, again, at this particular point as people are saying, suspect for being -- for entering the political zone that we've seen congress and the white house over the last several years, people start to lose their faith. and i guess i just point out some of the stuff i've been

reading, the appointments of previous judges, let's say ruth bader ginsburg and others, had only very few votes between them. they were appointed if not unanimously then not with the huge partisan divide that we've seen over justice kavanaugh. and kavanaugh who wrote the court should be apolitical delivered this during the opening statement, i wonder whether you can comment on it. i'll play it and you tell me afterwards. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars and money from outside left-wing opposition groups. >> i mean, that was generally thought to be incredibly partisan. how do you recover from that?

what do you do when you go into the supreme court, apparently tomorrow he'll put on his robes for the first time and there will be cases that come before him. does he have to somehow make up for that broadside or not? >> well, what every justice has to do is to do his or her best to be nonpartisan, to be fair, not to be prejudiced but, of course, justices have political views. and so long as the supreme court, christiane, continues to wade into big cultural, moral, political struggles, lacking any warrant for doing so in the text, logic, structure or plain historical understanding of the constitution, we will get this kind of partisanship. we will get partisan judges. we will get partisanship and conflict and controversy in our confirmation processes. if the supreme court stuck to the constitution, played less of

a legislative role, withdrew from that, let congress and the state legislatures handle legislation, stuck to its article 3 authority, it would be much better for the nation and it would help to depolarize things a bit. we would still have polarization, but it wouldn't be nearly so bad. as long as the supreme court is making the final decision in great big issues that people profoundly care about, controversy will find its way to the supreme court. we will be struggling on either side to get our own partisans appointed to the bench. >> i laid out some of the controversial huge cultural issues at stake, whether it's climate change, gun ownership, women's rights, roe vs. wade. i'm interested to know what you think. since the beginning of this millennium we've had cases like bush vs. gore, citizens united, the landmark ruling in 2010 on campaign financing and, of course, women are very concerned and many, many men that the next target of an ideologically

divided court, a politically ideologically divided court, will be roe vs. wade. do you consider it set law, or do you think it's up for grabs by the supreme court? >> i do think it's up for grabs, christiane. and i would challenge you on your reference to women think and some men think. women have minds of their own. some women are pro-choice and some are pro-life. they care as passionately as they do on the pro-choice side. the real question is does the constitution by the fair interpretation of its text settle the abortion question, or does it leave it to the legislative branches? it seems to me it's left to the legislative branches. but when the court stepped in to take control of the issue, rather than the permitting it to be handled by democracy as it has in most european countries, it guaranteed polarization and partisanship around that issue at the court. >> obviously it's a bitter cultural struggle. women and women have different views depending on religious and

other political views. the majority, i think, are in favor. it is going to be incredibly divisive again, this whole fight, as we go forward. and i wonder if i can end by playing a sound bite from elena kagan just as this fight over kavanaugh's nomination was going through congress, she was, i think in princeton where you are -- i misspoke and said you're in new york. you're at princeton. she spoke about the need for some moderation somewhere in the center of the supreme court. this is what she said. >> there has been a person who people found the center where people couldn't predict in that sort of way. it's not so clear that going forward that sort of middle position, you know, it's not so clear whether we'll have it. >> yes, she's right about that.

justice kagan is an old and dear friend of mine. i have great respect for her. we're on opposite sides of the political divide but she's wise and what she said there was wise as well. when she was dean at harvard law school was viewpoint diversity on our campus. she wanted liberals as well as conservatives, conservatives as well as liberals and, above all, she wanted, this is very much to her credit, those on the left and those on the right to recognize each other as reasonable people of goodwill who just happen to disagree but who can learn from each other, who certainly should listen to each other and engage each other not vilify each other, treat each other as evil or as monsters. we all have a lot to learn and it takes intellectual humility and a willingness to listen to the other person and consider maybe even on issues we deeply care about we could be wrong. the people on the other side might be right. so let's be adversaries when we must because we disagree but let's also be friends, not enemies, not people who treat each other as evil. >> that is an incredibly important note to end on. so, professor robert george,

from princeton, thank you so much indeed for joining. and now we turn to someone who is trying to bridge the yawning gap in america's new normal, the actor and comedian who was born in india. he was raised in the uk and he moved to the united states when he was 16 working in theater and television. until his big break came with "the daily show." mandvi is now going back to his theatrical roots, reproducing his one-man show "sakina's restaurant" that follows a family of indian immigrants in new york and is being released as an audio book. our alicia mendez sat down with him in greenwich village where his work is being staged. >> thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> what is this play about? >> "sakina's restaurant" is a story of an indian muslim immigrant family that own a restaurant in manhattan on 6th street down in the east village.

a young man from india shows up to work at this restaurant. his journey, he's completely open, excited about being in america and he's like this wide-eyed kid almost. >> oh, hello, how are you? oh my goodness. i made it. here i am. oh, my god. this new york is a crazy place. but welcome. i am the manager here. okay, i'm not really the manager. i am the owner. huh? no, no, no, i'm not the owner. >> and then he, through the magic of theater, transforms into the different characters that inhabit this family that own the restaurant, the mother,

the father, the daughter, the young kid, and through their journey he discovers himself and discovers his american story as he experiences the nuances, the heartbreaks, the joys, the sacrifice of what it means to be an immigrant, what does it really mean to be an american. so it's a little bit magical. there's real moments of heartbreak. >> do you see me? do you see my life? do you see my life since we came to this country? can you imagine me, me, i was that girl in india who was always on the go, museum, movies, money to burn. where have you brought me? where have we come? to this cold country where nobody talks to anybody. >> i can't believe i wrote it.

>> you wrote it 20 years ago, performed it 20 years ago. what is it like to bring it back all this time later? >> the play is pre-internet, pre-9/11, certainly pre-trump. you know? i thought, does this play have anything to say now? so i pulled it out, dusted it off, you know. that's how old it is. i literally had to dust it off. but i read it again and i think it works almost as a piece of the american story and what's interesting about the play is that it is, in a strange way, more relevant today than it was 20 years ago. >> how so? >> because the conversation about immigrants, the conversation about what it means to be an american, the conversation about who is allowed in this country and who is not, the conversation around muslims has blown up into a very different conversation.

americans didn't even know what muslims were. >> -- in 1998. now they very much know. and so that conversation about being muslim, being an immigrant, being all those things is much more at the forefront of our news cycle now than it was back then and what "sakina's restaurant" does in some ways is humanize that story, that immigrant story. >> you think you are too smart, huh? >> you think you are too smart, you think you have become an american girl. you think the world should not care now how you behave, what you wear, how you dress. nothing. you got all these fancy ideas from your american friends, laughing with all your american friends, you're saying, oh, my parents are introducing me to an indian man, nice, professional indian man, going to be a doctor. how foolish they are. >> why does it have to be one

person who embodies every role? >> because when i wrote the play i didn't know any other indian actors. there were only three of us. and the other two were women. so i'm writing a play for all indian actors, and i have to play all the roles. >> that's as good a rationale as any. you could have taken it and adapted it to include more actors. >> i could have but then i would have to deal with other people. the form is part of the story-telling and the transformation that the main character who is the waiter, the transformation that he goes through and the way he transforms into the other characters and then comes out of them and has another piece of the american story inhabiting

him, that is part of the structure of the show. it kind of is a story about one man, but his story is as he goes through different characters to arrive at himself at the end. [ phone ringing ] >> hello, "sakina's restaurant." oh, he's right here. i will get him right now. hello? sakina's. how may i help you? oh, hello, bob. >> south asians deal with two different types of stereotypes. model minority, you're a doctor you're an attorney, you're a venture capitalist, and then what many would consider the gritty underbelly, the working class jobs that you explore in the play. i wonder what the feedback was from your own community in you portraying that additional element of south asian life. >> when i wrote the play, i

never wrote it for south asians. i wrote it for america. i wrote it for white people because i was trying to tell a story about my family and an immigrant experience that was related to my family. i came from a lower class immigrant family. so for me that was the immigrant experience. my parents didn't come here with doctorates. so, for me, that story felt true and personal, and when we did it 20 years ago, it was the only story that was being done about a south asian family. indian people had never seen themselves in american theater before, indian-americans. and so -- and muslim-americans had never seen themselves portrayed in the american theater before. it was the first time they'd ever seen it. i got a sense that people were showing up going, wait a minute, this is our story. and i think there's something in the play that everyone relates to, like, whether you are a

neurosurgeon or whether you are a cab driver. i think there is an element of the experience of being an immigrant, the experience the core of dislocation, identity, a sense of what did you sacrifice, a sense of what america means, a sense of the hopes and what you have to give up for those aspirational things that you want in america. all of those things. and it wasn't just south asians. by the end of the run when we did it there were, you know, greeks and turks and, you know, hispanics -- >> you know what it means to be other. >> yeah, other. and they would come up and say this is our story. that's what i feel is exciting about the show. i think the show -- it's not an intellectual experience. it's an emotional experience for people. i think that that's what i'm interested in finding out what happens with the 2018 audience

when we're inundated with this dehumanization of immigrants, what happens when you walk into a theater and you just enter an immigrant family and you enter that world and you understand the nuances of why people come to america and what america means to the rest of the world or did or used to mean. >> you left "the daily show" in 2015, pre-trump. >> pre-trump. >> this miss america winner is a milestone. >> more than a milestone, more like a beachhead. >> beachhead? sounds like a military invasion. >> damn right, it is. wake up and smell the curry. indians are taking over america. >> are there nights, what i would give to be on tonight? >> it's changed so much -- >> the show or the political environment? >> well, the political environment. i mean, it is now kind of a joke on a joke. all you have to do now is --

there it is. so i feel like it's hard. i don't know if it would be as much fun because i find myself throwing my hands up. i always felt like on some level we were preaching to the choir. but now that those divisions have become so clear, and you just -- there's no talking. there's no conversation happening anymore. there's no way to say, hey, guys, come on. because it doesn't matter. >> to what do you attribute that? >> it's interesting because on one hand you have a giant movement to watch progressivism in terms of lgbt and immigrants, and then the backlash of that is a kind of nativism, a kind of closing our borders, and trump sort of represents that feeling

of closing our borders. even now, he spoke to the u.n. and he basically said it's not about globalization, it's about patriotism, and that is exactly the agenda. it's like we don't -- suddenly america is shutting off from the rest of the world, and that is a very different america than we've lived in in the last several decades. >> i think of you going from india to england to tampa, florida, of all places. so several displacements. learning to fit in. >> yeah. >> and then on top of that being an actor, being an actor who can embody serious spaces, funny spaces. when do you get to just be you? >> ultimately i'm a performer, i'm an actor, and an actor changes shapes, and that's what i do. that's when i'm the most comfortable and the best at what i do is when i'm changing shapes. when i was on "the daily show" i was that shape. it was a shape that i took on

for those ten years and was that person even though i felt like that "daily show" guy was not me. you'd have to ask my wife. i don't know. she probably is confused as well as to who she's going to bed with every night. >> keeps it interesting. aasif, thank you so much. >> thank you. mandvi's play runs until mid-november and will be released as an audio play on audible. and just before we go, make sure that you tune in tomorrow for my exclusive interview with hillary clinton. i'll be speaking to her at oxford university about why she thinks america's democracy is in crisis, the supreme court, midterms, and a whole lot more. that's it for our program. thanks for watching "amanpour & co." on pbs, and join us again tomorrow night. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman founded a

collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water, a river specifically. multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein family. and by contributions to your pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you. you're

[ theme music playays ] ♪ -♪ i think i'm home ♪ i think i'm home ♪ how nice to look at you again ♪ ♪ along the road ♪ along the road ♪ ♪ anytime you want me ♪ you can find me living right between your eyes, yeah ♪ ♪ oh, i think i'm home ♪ oh, i think i'm home ♪ -today on "cook's country," christie makes julia a show-stopping oregon blackberry pie, jack challenges bridget to a tasting of extra-sharp cheddar cheese, and bridget and julia make an easy one-pan supper --