hello everyone. and welcome to "amanpour and company." here's what's coming up. >> mr. speaker, this is the right deal for britain, because it delivers on the democratic decision of the british people. >> can the british prime minister get her brexit deal past parliament? and an election in the deep south of the united states exposes racial and political fault lines. what we can learn from mississippi's senate runoff. plus, why one of america's long-time tech entrepreneurs is looking beyond silicon value qu -- valley for his next hit. >> uniworld is a proud sponsor.

when bae tollman founded a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams and those dreams were on the water. 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 you were, asia, india, egypt and more. bookings available through your travel agent. >> additional support has been pred by rosaynd p. walter, the cheryl and philip millstein family, seton melvin, judy and josh weston and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> welcome to the program, everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in london. the brit irk prime minister, theresa may, has leapt one hurdle only to face another. it is the story of brexit, the

united kingdom's long road to leaving the european union, which is this country's most consequential decision since the second world war. the prime minister has won european approval of her deal. now she's about to launch a two-week tour of the land trying to convince people and parliamentarians to approve it, too. it faces criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. speaking in the house. commo -- of commons today, her agreement should be passed because it fulfills the promise of the 2016 referendum, which is to leave the eu. >> mr. speaker, this has been a long and complex negotiation. it has required give and take on both sides, and that is the nature of a negotiation, but this deal honors the result of the referendum while providing close economic and security relationship with our nearest neighbors and in so doing, offers a brighter future for the british people outside of the eu. and i can say to the house, with

absolute certainty, that there is not a better deal available, and my fellow leaders -- my fellow leaders were very clear on that themselves yesterday. our duty as a parliament over these coming weeks is to examine this deal in detail, debate it respectfully, listen to our constituents and decide what is in our national interest. we can back this teal, deliver on the vote of the referendum and move on to building a brighter future of opportunity and prosperity for all our people or this house can choose to reject this deal and go back to square one. >> european leaders also only grudgingly approved. here's german chancellor angela merkel. >> translator: i think we have created a diplomatic piece of art. i wanted to point that out. in an extremely difficult situation, in an unprecedented situation, as said, my feelings are divided, feelings of

mourning, but i also feel a sense of relief that we have reached this point. >> the british justice minister and a conservative mp who has been hard at work defending theresa may's proposed brexit agreement joins me now in the studio. rory, welcome. >> thank you. >> not so long ago you were sitting on the bench close to prime minister, defending her, trying to give her some support. why do you support this deal? >> i support the deal partly about national healing, so this is an incredibly divisive polarizi polarizing, toxic -- if i go on social media, i can't tell who i'm being attacked by. they represent the people, i'm a traitor, i'm never going to be forgiven. this kind of language can only be healed having a moderate pragmatic middle that acknowledges the brexit vote happened, that means leaving the eu and the point remains, this is economically risky unless we

retain a close trading relationship with europe. that's the only deal that does that. >> you talk about sort of a moderate, would people call this a soft brexit? >> i think you can call it anything you want. i think the important thing for the prime minister's point of view, it's a bespoke brexit and that is in a sense a victory for her negotiation, because europe said, you can have norway or canada. what she said she got is something that's better than norway from the point of view of the fact she has control over immigration, which norway doesn't have and better than canada, because she has a much, much closer trading relationship with europe than available to canada. >> so what i want to ask you is, do you really think it is the best deal possible or is there such a thing as a better deal than what we have now, being in europe? last week, you said to channel 4 that basically you were talking about as you said it respects the results of the referendum, but it is going to be -- i'm not arguing it's going to be a huge

economic improvement, which means it might be worse, and in fact, we have findings, national institute for economic and social research has just come out with key findings that, if the government's proposed brexit deal is implemented so the uk leaves the customs union and the single market, then by 2030, gdp will be 4% lower than it would have been had the uk stayed in the eu. that's pretty dramatic. isn't it? well, your commentary on that? >> i think the first thing is, they're making a lot of assumptions about the future relationship, so they're talking about leaving the single market, talking about the customs union ear they're assuming what that future relationship will be, and we, frankly don't know yet. we have a head of terms agreement through the political agreement, which defines we want a close working relationship with europe. if you're a car manufacturer, for example, we remain part of the single market effectively on goods. on the other hand, the

advantage, so it's economically mutual and what is the long-term trading relationship? how does the british economy change, how does the european economy change? but it also does something that remaining in the european union doesn't do, which is acknowledges that 17.6 million people, the majority of people voted to get out of the european union. if you stay, you have the british national party taking off, a uk independence party, you'd have immediate push for a third referendum, even if the second referendum campaign narrowly won, which would not put britain into a stable position in europe again. we cannot undo the fact the referendum happened. people are underestimating in a mature democracy what would happen if for the first time in history we chose to overrule three years after it happened a major democratic vote. >> let's go back to now what has to happen, and i wonder if you picked up angela merkel saying she's in mourning, on the other hand, this was a little bit of, i think she's called it a work

of art, how the sort of negotiation was finally completed. do you understand why they're saying mourning? >> absolutely i understand why they're saying mourning. for angela merkel, the european union is an incredibly precious project, central to german and certainly french visions of european security, almost since the second world war since this idea began to develop and britain is the second largest economy in europe. you can absolutely see why, for her, this is a difficult day. i think what really is to the credit of angela merkel and all the european leaders is this isn't a deal, in the end, despite everybody's prodictions trying to punish britain. it's a diplomatic work of art because it's practical, quite clear eyed and practical on economic trade and it's trying to get partnerships on things that really matter, on human rights, on common european values, ocommon visions of democracy and all of that gives space diplomatically for britain

to continue to engage very energetically on the continent of europe, if not within the european union. >> weirdly, everybody seems to think it's a feeble deal. it's not a good deal, remainers, brexiters, tories, labors, northern ireland, to shore up theresa may's government. what is likely to happen? we think we'll have the first parliamentary vote mid-december. they floated the idea of december 11th. what if it doesn't go through? >> let me just go back to your first claim. so there are extremists here, who are never going to like any deal. so if you are deeply attached to remain in the european union, if you didn't think the first referendum had validity, any brexit deal is no good and none of the people are describing a brexit deal they'd accept. they want to be in the european union. the hard brexiters have a radical idea of restructure this britain, getting rid of

environmental legislation, and they, too, would not accept any deal give us a close customs relationship with europe, but those people are the minority in the house of commons, and what was interesting in that debate i was sitting in for two hours before i joined you is that the very same people who seem to be standing up saying they wouldn't accept this deal were often ruling out a second referendum, or ruling out no deal. if you're talking abby deout a you're talking about something that much looks like this deal. many other suggestions in the house, norway, switzerland, have a lot of the elements of in deal. this deal has the advantages of those, with an added advantage of control over immigration. >> what happens if it doesn't pass through parliament, because there's a whole nother set of procedures that is unleashed. anything from no confidence to another tloex another referendum. >> theoretically all those things could happen. if it didn't do through in syria, there could be no

confidence vote, leadership challenges. none of that seems to be happening. we had people on the extreme brexit side who launched a leadership challenge against the prime minister and have clearly not got 48 votes because this thing hasn't happened, which suggests very strongly that 250 at least members of the conservative party in the house of commons remain strongly on the prime minister's side. that's not likely to happen. there isn't likely to be a general election. she said clearly she isn't going to do that. much more likely we'll come back again to the house of commons and say, and perhaps in a different way. let's do the conversations like this. how many of you are in favor of a second referendum? a dozen hands go up. over 600 people didn't support it. how many of you want ideal brexit, 40 hands go up. we talk about a deal and this is the deal. this is the only deal angela merkel is offering. it's important. the final thing is a piece of domestic legislation. you don't have members of parliament amending legislation. this is an international treaty.

you've got to get on board 20 more member states in the european commission, so you need one prime minister, one negotiator, not 650 people putting christmas tree bangles on the deal. >> she has seen off, to an extend, as you mentioned, leadership challenges, those hardliner, which the ft has said these people are putting their own egos and policies ahead of the national good and your party is driven by this internicene warfare and they call them hard liners. it is all about your party we've gotten to this point, otherwise there wouldn't have been a referendum to begin with. how has the prime minister personally been dealing with this daily assault from every single side? >> i think it must be extraordinary. i can't imagine what it would feel like to be her. she's put in two years negotiation and not just the prime minister, thousands of incredibly serious, intelligent

civil servants sitting there in these negotiations with europe. they know that europe compromised, britain compromised. they know in their absolute bones this is the best deal they're ever going to get out of europe. it's a workable deal, much better than they feared. you come back with that deal and suddenly find the entire world firing at you, in completely inconsistent ways. one of the frustrating things in the house of commons not surprisingly because it's over a 500-page document, a number of questions asked is factually incorrect and people haven't read the document. so we need tort communicating to the people, and that's pretty difficult. you have generously put a lot of time into ts but generally on british tv we get one minute, two minutes to try to explain an incredibly complicated deal, which is going to shape the next 30, 40 years of british politics. and the final thing i think, which is difficult, is explaining to u.s. audience or an international audience that britain's relationship with europe has been complicated for over 40 years.

many british people joined europe feeling it was something like nafta. it was a free trade agreement, and belatedly realized it was a much bigger political project that suddenly puts them in a situation of trying to explain to american friends or others that they don't feel this is like texas leaving the united states. they feel it's like the united states leaving nafta. unless we manage to communicate that it's difficult to explain to the world what is going on. >> it has been complicated. rory stewart, justice minister, thank you for joining me >> thank you. it is an uphill battle to get this deal approved, as we've just heard. here's what the opposition leader, jeremy corbin, of the labor party said today. >> the prime minister may have achieved agreement across 27 heads of state, but she's lost support of the country. many young people and others see opportunities being taken away from them. many people who voted remain, voted outlook looking and

inclusive society and fear this deal and they fear the rhetoric of the prime minister in promoting this deal. likewise, many people from areas that voted leave feel this deal has betrayed the brexit they voted for. it does not take back control. it will not make them better off, and it will not solve the economic deprivation that affects far too many communities and towns and cities across this country. this deal is not a plan for britain's future. so for the good of the nation, the house has very little choice but to reject this deal. >> and then what? allistair campbell was spokesman an adviser to tony blair. he's a fervent remainer. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> you heard the leader of your labor party and rory stewart, trying to defend the prime minister and trying to get what

they believe to be the best negotiation. what do you think is going to happen when they bring it to parliament? >> i think they lose the vote. i don't think there's any doubt about that. i mean, i watched her statement this afternoon. i think we were almost an hour in before anybody spoke in support of her agreement and somebody made the point that it's one thing to be stoic and to keep going, but when you're keeping going in the face of what is clearly overwhelming opposition, and the point is, there are very good reasons for the opposition. if you're, as you say, very much on one side of the argument, and i think this has reached a situation where people like me are saying why on earth are we doing this, when we're going to be doing so much damage to the country, and if you're a fervent brexiter as you heard from many today, they are setting out a whole series of reasons why this is not in their eyes brexit. people voted for it are saying this is not what we want. >> yes, but some of those are the hard liners in their own

party and never be satisfied with anything except for, you know, jumping off a cliff. >> i think, but if you take something like the rule taker, not a rule maker, that's a big point. you take the european union having a veto on the back stop. >> it's complex. >> these are big points, legitimate complaints. you're also left with people saying we're paying 39 billion pounds and we're not even able to do these trade deals that flow froleaving. so i think there are very legitimate reasons for saying this is a very, very bad deal, wherever you come from. >> but they will take back control of our money by putting an end to the vast annual payment. >> she says that, but we're going to be paying in well into the next decade, and what's more, this process is standard, we end up paying more. i have to say, nicholas sturgeon put it well yesterday. >> the leader of the scottish. >> theresa may's letter to the

nation yesterday has a fairly trumpian approach to fact i have to say. lot of kind of, you know, we got into this mess because of the lies that were told during the referendum campaign and i think it's time for the country to be told the truth there, is no easy brexit and she's trying to pretend this deal -- and rory stewart, he's the minister, he has to defend her but hit the nail on the head, she's trying to please them a bit and please them a bit and ended up pleasing nobody. >> but what about his point, which is probably true, that if one had a second and maybe even a third referendum, this goes on and on because the warfare in the political environment in both parties sun likely to be tame, that is going to rip this country apart more than even an unsatisfactory sort of compromise over brexit. >> i think the unsatisfactory compromise is breaking the country apart.

the last time i saw her, her deal, this is before the deal was actually done, but the outlines of the deal, the proposal was polling lower in the uk than donald trump and saudi arabia. both of those things are not very popular at the moment at the uk. so the idea that she's taking forward something that, i don't know, at a guess, at least three-quarters of the country probably are saying i don't like this deal, so i think that he's got a point that there has to be a deal, and that involves compromise and what have you, but she's ended up and now comes out saying we have to bring the country together. having spent two and a half years making no effort whatsoever to bring the country together, pander to the right wing she's now upset because she's not delivered them finally what they want. there's no easy way out of this now and of course any debate risks being divisive, but surely the job of parliamentarians in the end is to try to get the country to do the right thing.

>> so one of the things she said in her letter was, this will be in our national interest, take back control of our borders by putting an end to the free movement of people once and for all. and in all the sort of analysis over brexit, it looks like people but a large factor voted because of immigration and because of fear or hatred or whatever it is, xenophobia. your government, the government of tony blair, was one who opened the doors. it was under those years that the expansion of free movement happened, and tony blair wanted even more than actually exists right now. do you think that there is a point, and your own diaries you said we should have been more careful and conscious of this m immigrati immigration, this influx. do you think that's where the table was laid for this? >> partly. there's no single factor that you can say that's why i'm having brexit.

the biggest thing was the copse que que -- consequence of the crash. they, ordinary people, took a hit. >> true, but they point at the foreigner. >> that's what happens, one of the reasons for trump as well. but i think, so i'm not saying immigration politically isn't a big issue and has been for some time. the question is what do you do policy wise to address that? and is this brexit that she's bringing forward now, is that really the way that we're going to address the problems in our public service and our economy? you're already seein the health service facing a recruitment crisis because of so many european union doctors and nurses decided we're not welcome here, we're going to go home. now, who benefits from that? so i think that none of this is easy. none of it is straightforward. there's no route that any of the leaders can take that doesn't have some sort of difficulty ahead. but i do think that it's possible for an informed debate, and let's be honest, the one in 2016 was not informed.

an informed debate with remainer on the ballot paper and some form of brexit, i think the country could unite around the results of that and i also believe, by the way, because people do know so much more now, my side of the argument would win comfortably. >> how do you see this happening? what cascade of events needs to happen before somebody says well, let's have another vote or whatever, called the people's vote, not voter referendum. >> effectively it would be a people's vote campaign because we're basically saying the people should have the final say. the people cycled the government to negotiate this. the government has done that. they've come back with something. the country should be allowed to say whether that is what they meant by brexit and i don't think the brexiters will say it is and i don't think people like me will. first thing that is going to happen is that she loses and i think she deserves to lose. i think it's a miserable brexit deal and in the chaos that may ensue from that, the terrible thing, supposed to be the party of the economy, the conservative party, think they're banking,

people talk about the t.a.r.p. experience -- >> the bailout from the u.s. crash. >> they're banking on the idea the markets will tank and amid the chaos, they'll be able to say to the mps look at the risk. we have to get to the right conclusion on this. in that process, i hope at some point the grownup als will stanp and say we need more time and use that time to take this back to the people, here is the brexit she's brought forward, do you want that, and if you don't, we stay. if the bryce johnsons of this world want something harder on the ballot paper, they have to fight for that. >> we didn't get to northern ireland. that we'll talk about later. thank you very much for joining us. bitter political battles are no stranger on the other side of the pond, the senate race in mississippi earlier this month ended without a clear winner. so tomorrow, the republican cindy hyde smith faces democrat mike espy in a runoff election.

the state last elected a democrat 36 years old. hyde smith has a slight edge, but the runoff has gotten closer, and has exposed deep fault lines in the deep south in particular, this short clip cell phone video of hyde smith appearing with a supporter, highlighted that. in case you missed it, she said that if her supporters held a public hanging, she'd be right there in the front row. she later apologized, but what is to be made of this? the songwriter and music producer tina clark knows the state very well. she was born and raised there, to a privileged family. she has just published a memoir growing up in mississippi called "southern discomfort," and joins me now from atlanta. tina clark, welcome to the program. >> thank you, christian. >> so what are we to make of all of this? i listed all your accomplishments but you are, to

an extent a political activist as well and following this very, very closely. what duo you think is going to happen in the runoff? >> to me it's an extremely important race and it's going to be, if the people in mississippi that are poor, 52% of the people in mississippi are poor, if the poor, the disenfranchised, underserved people in mississippi, who have the power for change, if they get out and vote, then i think change will happen. if they do not get out and vote, everything will stay the status quo, and that's exactly what a lot of folks are counting on in mississippi. >> so we put that little clip from the cell phone video that's caused such a hullabaloo in mississippi and rightly so. hyde smith's camp said it was an

off-the-cuff off-color joke and apologized. what do you make of what she said? is it unusual? how did people react to it? >> well, obviously the reactions have been extremely, extremely disturbing, and i just, you know, am i shocked? what do i make of it? if it had been years ago when i was growing up there, no, those kind of comments were made all the time. if it had been before between then and now, this particular person who is in office in the united states white house, since he's been elected, i would say i'm not shocked, because it has gone backwards. now, let me say, though, there are a lot of amazing people in

mississippi, a lot of amazing people fighting the fight for equality and justice -- >> thank you, mr. president. >> -- and there's a lot of hope there. but it's taken on a whole new, it's going down a whole -- >> let me ask you about that, because hyde smith has wrapped herself and we're seeing her with president trump, and he's making a lot of appearances for her in mississippi this evening, today. what have you heard from people there? you say, you know, things have gone backwards since trump has become president. >> well, i mean, the bottom line, and i think reverend barber said this. this is not a red/blue issue. this is a moral issue. this is a right/wrong issue, and if you're okay with people talking about and joking about hanging and lynchings, and the good old days of the way it used to be, et cetera, et cetera, if

you're okay with that, then yes, you should vote for the trump candidate. if you're not okay with that, and you want mississippi to progress, and you want mississippi to be a beacon of light and hope in this country, then you will not vote for her, and it is just still beyond me that we are talking about this, and dealing with this today, but i guess with everything that we've seen, in the last two years, that's what makes it, frankly, not surprising now. >> you know, hyde smith's camp says the democrats are making much adieu about nothing. she called it an off-color, off-the-cuff joke/comment. what do you make -- i was going to say listen to mike espy, a political campaign ad he made addressing this. >> how embarrassing is cindy hyde smith? walmart said hyde smith's recent comments clearly do not reflect

the values of our company. we've worked hard to overcome the stereotypes that hurt our economy and cost us jobs. her words should not reflect mississippi's values either. cindy hyde smith, so embarrassing, she's be a disaster for mississippi. >> tina, we talked whether she is considered embarrassing by the majority of mississippians, but alsofor mississippi. >> tina, we talked whether she is considered embarrassing by the majority of mississippians, but alsodisaster for mississipp. >> tina, we talked whether she is considered embarrassing by wants to be a senator, pians, representative for everyone. again, how is that going work in today's mississippi? we've seen quite interesting races in the south in the midterm. we saw stacey abrams get close to becoming the first female black governor of georgia. we saw florida nearly elect andrew gillum. we've seen them coming very, very close. describe the difference between florida, georgia, and mississippi. >> well, i think the economy,

for one thing, is so different in florida, and in georgia, and i feel like, that florida and georgia also, because of the economy, and has the people moving in to those areas, those states, are much different than it is in mississippi, and we can't get the economy going in mississippi and have new jobs and new manufacturing and companies come into mississippi with the ridiculous, you know, laws that are not laws that we should be, you know, getting rid of from years ago, but we're adding and re-enacting hateful, i mean laws of hate, laws of discrimination, and so therefore, we're not attracting any jobs. we can't attract any jobs. what companies are going to go there that are okay with that

kind of rhetoric, and those kind of laws and bills that are being passed. to me, it's pandering to a particular group that is hanging on for dear life, the older, white -- not all older white mississippians, but you know, that group of mind-set hanging on for dear life to the days of the patriarchy and how things are supposed to be, and until we can get those jobs and people coming in and people being able to be educated, and have the educational needs met, et cetera, it's going to be hard to get out of this rut, but i do feel, with all of that said, i feel like there's a lot of hope, and i've been down there a few times recently in the past month, and there is a lot of hope and hope within, you know, many more mississippians than there used to be. so it is a slow thing that is

coming, but it's coming. it's just whether it will be this time or not but i have hope that it will be. >> let's talk about the hateful laws you talk about. you've been, you know, opposing one of the state laws, called hb 1523. it practically codifies homophobia. tell me exactly what it means and what's the fate of it under this election now, this runoff. >> well, it was, i think it was, went into effect the summer of '17, if -- i think i'm correct on that. it's a law that took homophobia to a whole other level and really made the lgbtq community second class citizens in mississippi. it's saying that, you know, that we don't believe that you have your god-given rights, that even if it's, for example, one of the areas that it touched on -- i

mean, there are other states that have -- a few other states that have these horrible laws. to me, mississippi is the first on the list of things you don't want to be first on the list you don't want to be last on and that's not a good place to be in, and so with this particular law, like i said, it basically makes the gay and lesbian community, lgbtq second class citizens, but also, it stretches into areas like counseling, or at school with school counselors, or even teachers, that they can turn down a student's right to have counseling because if they're of the lgbtq community, they can say no, our relingious right sas that, whatever, i don't know, if you want to say conversion therapy or whatever we think you need -- >> it affects doctors, too, tis that right? >> i'm not sure.

i was told that was the case in the medical care, but i checked on that. i know that was up for debate. i checked on that this morning, and that is not the case, but it does affect counseling. >> okay. let's go back to your book, and you know, your growing up in mississippi. you come from a very privileged and wealthy republican family in mississippi, and you were growing up sort of -- well yes, right, slap bang in the middle of the civil rights era. so all of this must be particularly raw for you. tell me about your upbringing, but also you say you were raised, you write very pointedly about your nanny vergie, a black, an african-american. >> yes, and you know, i tell people also about growing up in mississippi, that in this little town, in this rural mississippi, where i grew up, i would not have wanted to grow up anywhere else, but there. the lessons and the things that

i learned and said i would not only that i took from there, but also said i would never repeat and fight against, all of those things they create character and i think those trying times and hard times as they were in mississippi, that's why i'm sitting here today because i don't want to see it repeated, and it looks like it's being repeated. but yes, i had a woman who helped raise me. she was my nanny, and she taught me about simplicity. she taught me about unconditional love, and those things i have carried with me, my whole life, because that's not, you know, it's not about money, and as we all know, money does not make you happy, and i would see that, in her little one-room shack, in this little bitty town, in the quarter where

she lived, there was love, and you can have all the money in the world and still be in search of love. she did not want to come over to equality. as much as it was being fought for african americans to have their rights and equality, there was a large percentage that didn't want any part of that, and why? because they were afraid, because they had been, it had been that way as long as they knew, and they had been pushed down for so long, that they did not know what the other side would look like. >> it was very difficult times. you say she did not want to come to equality because it was scary and so much opposition to it despite the law. you write poignantly you as a kid thought i'd take vergie to the dine are.

it's the law, we can eat together. follow that story. >> it was right out of a movie. she did not want to go. i had a way of talking her into things, when i was very young, and i was like this little radical wannabe civil rights mover and shaker myself, even though i was young, and i was 12 and 13 and 14, and i took her into this restaurant, a restaurant we had gone into our entire lives but she always had to sit on the back porch, and i would always sit on the back porch with her, because i could not take it that she was not allowed inside, so this particular day, i told her she did not have to sit on the back porch anymore, and that we were going and she was going to see what it would feel like to be served a meal, to not have to cook a meal, to not have to clean up the dishes, to actually get to enjoy a meal by being

served. she didn't want any part of it, but we went, and she kept holding her head down, and everyone was staring when we were standing in line to go, and i should have known maybe i wasn't doing the right thing for her but i was so bent and excited about bringing her into equality, of her god-given rights. we go in, we sit down, we're served. i'm served as normal. everyone is staring, her plate is dropped from the table and i whispered to her, hold your head up, hold your head up, and my father calls, who basically owned the town, and there was a

pay phone between the booths and the man who owned the restaurant said to me in a very loud voice, so everyone in this little tiny restaurant to hear to my daddy was on the phone, and i'm sure they were all thinking well, that little girl's daddy is going to put her in her place. well, he's screaming at me on the other end of the phone, which i can't repeat, in this forum but instead of laying down and saying okay, daddy, we're leaving and i'm coming home, i said, "daddy, yes, sir, they have fried chicken, and mashed potatoes and corn on the cob and cornbread, all your favorites." i said, "would you like some sweet tea?" as you could imagine, everybody was staring, my father was screaming and i hung up the phone and i go sit down and vergie said, she said, "your daddy's going to kill me," and i said, "no, he's not. he was just hungry, vergie. he was just hungry," and we

laughed, and when we laughed after she ate, she tried to pick up the plates to wash them. >> oh. >> and i said, you don't have to do that, so we laughed and when we left, i realized that i had somewhat betrayed her. she was mortified. she was terrified. she was beat down, and i wanted just the opposite, and i think it was a valuable lesson for me. >> it's such a heartbreaking story, really, tina clark, thank you so much, for that memory from that book, thank you so much for joining us. and now, from a political race to a race to reform america's startup culture, silicon valley is the place to be for tech startups but that success helped cause brain drain from the heartland. tech entrepreneur steve case, best known for co-founding aol and of course that disastrous merger with time warner is hoping to change all of that,

together with j.d. advance, author of "hillbilly-elogy" he has a mission to jumpstart economic opportunities beyond the coastal hub. walter isaacson, he sat down with him, also on the board, to discuss it. >> great to be with us. >> tell me about the rise of the rest fund own your bus tours. why are you doing that? >> because we want to level the playing field for everybody, everywhere in the country has a shot at american dream. last year, 75% of the venture capital in this country went to three states, california, new york, massachusetts. the other 47 states fight over the other 25%. so we're trying to get venture capitalists to pay attention to what's happening went prenuit

with entrepreneurs in ohio and pennsylvania, not just new york. >> you're shining the spotlight on towns and cities that have a rise of entrepreneurship but not the venture capital to get them started? >> correct, and don't have people understanding what is happening. most of the places we visited, 38 cities, 10,000 miles, and interesting things are happening in each of these cities, most people don't know about it. and most of the investors aren't paying any attention to it. we're trying to change that paradigm and we really think some of the breakout companies of the future, are not just going to come from silicon valley but some of the cities in the middle of the country. >> why? you talk about it in the third wave in your book, a third wave that isn't engineer driven. >> the third wave is the next logical step of the internet. obviously the first wave is getting everybody online, getting america online. the second wave is building apps, software services on top of the internet, things like facebook and google. the third wave is integrating the internet and changing things like health care and our food

systems and other things that are going to require partnerships, and also going to require more domain expertise. if you want to revolutionize health care you have to understand how hospitals work and how doctors think. if you want to revolutionize farming with ag tech, having some sense of that culture of farming make sense. ag tech innovation will happen not just on the coast but st. louis, monsanto is or lincoln, nebraska. we believe the entrepreneurs are there, the talent is there and the creativity is there. the money is not there. there's a growing divide in this country that is a divide in part based on opportunity, and so if we're going to -- startups create most of the jobs, not the small businesses or the big businesses but the young high-growth startups. we create jobs in different communities and have more people feeling optimistic. they will have the domain expertise because they're close to what's happening, a couple months ago in chattanooga, the winner of our rise to the rest

competition is a company called freightways doing a bloomberg data system for the trucking industry. >> which is based in chattanooga. >> some of the big trucking companies are in chattanooga. if you start a company to serve the trucking industry, you'll have more expertise about what the needs are, and more customer and partners there, if you're in chattanooga as opposed to new york city, boston or san francisco. we're seeing that all over the country, where the next wave of great entrepreneurs building great companies will be. >> i loved the fact you picked chat into dpa. o -- chattanooga. the past is enyears chattanooga blossomed as an entrepreneurial startup. what makes a city like chattanooga blossom whereas others do not. >> it's a mix of things. there's a lot to be done. like a tennessee, last year, the whole state, not just chattanooga was less than 1% venture capital, ohio less than

1%, wisconsin less than 1%, pennsylvania less than 1%. we are making some progress in some of these cities but there's a lot of work to do. chattanooga specifically the business community rallied around the startups, the mayor and others put a priority on the startups, the university has done a better job of keeping talent. we've seen enormous brain drain over the last half century, people going to the great universities and our country then left those places to go to the coast, because the money was in the coast, the opportunity was on the coast. how do you slow the brain drain, how do you create a boomerage of talent, people wanting to come back. we start to see that happen in chattanooga and other cities. >> a wonderful phrase you used boomerage generation, people who return home. that notion of returning home seems to be catching on.ng geneo return home. that notion of returning home seems to be catching on. your partner j.d. vance wrote "hillbilliology" in the troubled times we're facing today, maybe

we should go home and tend our gardens. he goes back to columbus and you do a rise from the rest run there. >> exactly. j.d. is an example of people who pursued their dreams and career and taken on various places but sometimes there's a longing to come home, a desire to raise a family where you grew up or maybe where you went to school, but the opportunity hasn't been there in the last several decades. j.d. obviously hillbillyology was a success, and he wrote that book which defined the problem many people have, feeling left out, left behind, scared about the future and decided he wanted to be part of the solution and so he joined us at revolution and a managing partner of rise to the rest, because he wanted to be part of that and as part of that, he wanted to move back home to ohio. >> he goes back to columbus, and columbus is now flourishing, not just because j.d. moved back but it's become one of the great

entrepreneurial cities. only less than 100 miles away is dayton and it's not coming back. why does a city -- what makes a difference? why does a columbus come back and a dayton is still struggling? >> it's a very interesting question. we've seen this, dayton has lost half of his population the last half century. detroit 100 years ago was kind of like silicon valley, the most innovative city in the country but lost its mojo. it's fighting its way back but lost a lot of ground. thfference between a city like dayton and a city like columbus is the ability to attract the talent and capital. it's more difficult in dayton to keep the people want to be part of the innovation economy, people more likely to be that are trying to change that and some of the most innovative computer companies like ncr are based in dayton. it has a tradition of being an innovative city but a lot of people left there and not that sense it's time to come back. there is progress in dayton, a

reason to be optimistic but they dug a big hole and basically a lot of people felt like they had to leave to pursue opportunity elsewhere. >> you look at chattanooga, columbus, even say new orleans, austin, texas, what are the ingredients, if you had to say here are five ingredients you have to have if you want to be rising with the rest. >> it starts with talent. how do you slow that brain drain, people leaving, how do you become a magnet, boomerang for talent. capital is important. we are trying to help these regional venture capitalists raise more capital so they can back more companies. connection to universities, intellectual property, provide the connection to partnerships with big companies in the cities, provides that and a sense of possibility, almost a fearlessness in terms of the culture. there are a lot of communities around the country that are cautious, kind of risk-averse, and if you're going to be innovating, this is one of the great things about silicon valley.

has it has a sense of anything is possible. how do we create more of that in more parts of the country. >> you put a billboard in some cities that say "be fearless." >> and believe in your community. i remember when we were in memphis, recently, part of the reason people are trying to rally there, there's great big companies like fedex that are headquartered there but the startup community was not as developed as they wanted. we said well, we can only believe in memphis if you believe in memphis, if the business leaders, the government leaders shall t leaders, the leaders of universities aren't rallying, why do you think others would join you in silicon valley was growing fruit but had the connection to commuter revolution, and obviously stanford and other universities, where venture capital got started. it wept from being an agriculture valley to silicon valley. how do we create that dynamic in other places?

not trying to replicate silicon valley but take some of the principles around innovation and fearless spirit and back be the entrepreneurs but not focusing on what might go wrong but what might go right. >> let's get specific about some of the successes you think you've had. i know down in new orleans, one of the companies we invested in was ready responders. >> ready responders is a good example, instead of having to go to emergency room, they come to you, which is more convenient and cost effective way to deal with the health care system. there's a company in texas called shear share, basically allowing people who are stylists, barbers, to rent out space so they don't have to necessarily afafiliate with a salon. in baltimore a company didn't know coding is something they're good at, give a test, they pass the test, go through a curriculum and get a better paying job.

u.p.s. driver, driving trucks. nobody said you might be good at coding, went through the program and doubled the amount of money he's making because of program like that. i realize because i travel around a lot most people in the country wake up in the morning anxious about the future. they're worried about the future. the disruption we celebrated in silicon valley they view as a threat. it will lose jobs because of that. that does happen, disruption does result in job loss. few centuries ago, 90% of us worked on farms. now it's less than 2% because technology, you can farm more land and grow more food with fewer people. so there's going to be that job loss. the only question is can we offset the job loss with new jobs we create in these new industries of the future, and we can only do that if we're backing entrepreneurs everywhere, not just in a few places on the coast. >> one of the things some of the cities that are successful have,

austin, texas, nashville, tennessee, new orleans, i would say, as well, is a creative economy. i.e., everything from music to food to theater, creativity. is that part of the new mix, too, connecting creativity to the startup world? >> no question and also in terms of place, half a century ago if you wanted to revitalize a neighborhood, you try to get the artist to move in, soho in new york. that starts revitalizing the neighborhood, and you create jobs and that expands from that. there's no question, this is a battle for talent. as a country, we're in a global battle for talent. each city within our country is battling for talent, and how do you keep the best and brightest you have, and how do you track other people who want to be there, and part of it is based on the opportunity, but some is based on the broader creative community, and sense of possibility and sense of inclusiveness that these cities are trying to build. >> when you help build aol, and you were the one who made it into a great company, it was based on a premise of community,

of people who knew each other, bringing them together, and it wasn't really just pushing out content. do you think we've moved away from that wonderful model of social media bringing to create a community and social media is dividing us? >> there's some of that. i'm surprised and disappointed by that. one of the unintended consequences. we got started with aol in 1985, only 3% of people were online, only online an hour a week and we think the killer app of the internet is people, community, what's now called social media. that was the focus of aol's effort and more than half of our users, the thought was to bring people together. we want to stay closer and connect to people you didn't yet know but maybe should because you had shared interest and we have seen that dynamic kick in. at the same time, particularly in the last few years, it feels like social media has divided

us, in our own filter bubbles, paying attention to only certain voices, not really understanding the other side of issues and it has had the impact of creating a more divisive kind of world which has had an impact in terms of politics. there's no question there's downsides to it and one of them is the fact social media in particular and the diversity of voices which is a good thing also has the dynamic around fake news and not every voice is necessarily an accurate voice and a trusted voice, and so we have to figure out as we go forward how to strike the balance of creating that environment where every voice can be heard, while at the same time having some distinction between what's right and wrong. >> in the world of technology, and in the world of rise of the rest, and of entrepreneurship around the country and silicon valley, women, people of color, generally been left out of getting venture funding and whatever. how bad is it, and what can be done about it?

>> really bad. i talked about how the venture capital money goes to a few states, 75% going to three states. it's actually worse, if you look at people. last year over 90% of venture capital went to men, less than 10% to women, less than 1% went to african-americans. so you know, this is a great entrepreneurial nation, we should be proud but the data does suggest that it does matter where you live, it does matter what you look like, it does matter who you know, whether you have an idea, you can take it and build a company and pursue the american dream. so we really need to be more inclusive. we really need to level the playing field, and so everybody everywhere really has that shot, and there's a lot of work to be done on that front. >> steve, thanks for joining us. >> and that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour and company" on pbs. >> uniworld is a proud sponsor. when bea tollman founded a

collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams. and those dreams were on the water. 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 rosalynd p. walter, bernard and irene schwartz, the cheryl and philip millstein family, seton melvin, judy and josh weston and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> announcer: this is nightly business report with sue herera and bill griffeth. >> renewed optimism, stocks rise on hopes for a u.s. china trade truce days before a key meeting between the world's two largest economies. end of an era. united technologies is splitting businesses into three. marking the end of one of the country industrial conglomerates. >> giving tuesday. it's a day to give back. but could the new tax law put a dent in donations? those stories and more tonight on nightly business report for tuesday, november 27th. and good evening, everyone and welcome. from the white house to wall street, the focus today was on