captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: a political stalemate. as the nation reels from more than 200,000 dead from covid, and millions more out of work, congress and the white house remain divided over providing relief. then, trusting information. how the director of national intelligence spreading russian disinformation complicates knowing what to trust. and, unfinished business. how older americans are embracing a mimalist lifestyle in these trying times. >> i think with the combination of just how things are in the world right now, people are

really wanting to jump into vans and buses and just, alternative housing situations. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ >> when the world gets complicated, a lot goes through your mind. with fidelity wealth management, a dedicated advisor can tailor advice and recommendations to your life. that's fidelity wealth management. >> consumer cellular. >> johnson & johnson. >> financial services firm raymond james. >> bnsf railway. >> the kendeda fund. committed to advancing restorative justice and

meaningful work rough investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at kendedafund.org. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by conibutions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: it is yet another sign that the economic pain from

the coronavirus pandemic won't be subsiding anytime soon. 837,000 americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week. that number did inch lower from last week's figure, but it remains at historically high levels. meanwhile, prospects for new federal relief are still uncertain tonight. talks between house speaker nancy pelosi and treasury secretary steven mnuchin continued this afternoon. and for the latest on where things stand, we turn to our own lisa desjardins covering capitol hill, and yamiche alcindor covering the white house. lisa, to you first, where do things stand and what are democrats asking for? >> hope is not gone, judy, but it does seem late today that there has been more look at the disagreement between the white house and democrats than the agreement. still, it es seem both sides are highly motivated to try and get a deal for a number of reasons.

but let's look first of all at what democrats have on t table at this poi. their plan is $2.2 trillion. of that, $436 billion would be for state and local governments including tribal governments. $600 a week additional benefits for the unemployed. that's money that has run out. $75 billion for testing and tracing and $71 billion for rent and mortgage assistance. this all speaks to what americans are facing and the fears of lawmakers who try to push for a deal that in coming months especially if cases rise that things will get worse. >> woodruff: yamiche, at the white house, what are they saying about what they want, what they expect from this covid relief bill. >> as lisa said, hope isn't gone, but ut looks as if this will be a tough thing. they have been negotiating for weeks and months, and they still have not been able to get

together and really focus in on agreeing on some key things. so the white house and president trump have been told, especially is it white house has heard from president trump instructing treasury secretary steve mnuchin to keep coming up with his number buzz g..p. lawmakers don't want to spend more than $1 trillion. the latest offer is $1.62 trillion. $250 billion for state and local governments, $186 billion less than democrats want to spend. $400 per week in additional job benefits, that's $200 less than democrats want. $75 billion for testing and trailing. there's agreement on that as of now. $60 billion for rennele and rtgage assistance, $11 billion less than democrats'. so the numbers are hiring but nowhere near each other especially on the critical issue of state and local government. >> woodruff: yamiche, how is the white house working with republicans in congress to get

this bill passed? >> well, g.o.p. lawmars, especially republican senators, have really been remiss to want to agree to anything that's more than $1 trillion. but each time the treasury; steve mnuchin and nancy pelosi speak, mnuchin then briefs senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell today says he wishes them well talking about nancy pelosi and steve mnuchin, saying we have been trying for a long time and hoping they can get something together but really good luck with that. it's a little of mitch mcconnell saying i'm not sure this is going to come together. this is critical because if they don't come together, we might have seeing massive layoffs -- more layoffs, rather. so many more americans are struggling without jobs, so the president sees this as not wanting to look like he failed when it came to negotiations between white house and congress especially when he's looking at his reelection bid. >> woodruff: quickly, lisa, these talks had been frozen for

weeks and weeks. why the sudden movement? >> two reasons. one, moderates from both parties have been hearing from businesses in their districts, in their stots saying they are worried about e next few month if they don't have any more relief. second, the airline industry, their announcements that furloughs, job cuts to the tune of tens of thousands can come without congressional action, that's taken seriously. we see leaders trying to avoid furloughs by the airline industries. >> woodruff: we're watching the airline and other industries as well. yamiche alcindor, lisa desjardins, we thank you both. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, information has surfaced about supreme court nominee amy coney barrett having signed a 2006 newspaper ad that called for overturning roe v. wade, the

landmark supreme court abortion rights decision, saying it was an "exercise of raw judicial power" with a "barbaric legacy." president trump had said that her view on roe is not known. the ad was not included in the documents barrett submitted to the senate judiciary committee ahead of her confirmation hearing. the trump administration is further slashing refugee admissions to the u.s. in a late-night memo, the state department announced that it intends to admit only 15,000 refugees into the country in the 2021 fiscal year that started today. that is down from 18,000 during the previous fiscal year. it is another record low in the dern refugee program. texas republican governor greg abbott issued a proclamation today limiting each of the state's counties to just one drop-off location for mail-in ballots. abbott said that the move was meant to strengthen election

security, but with, for example, harris county, the home of houston, with a population of 47 million, texas democrats argued that it is a form of voter suppression. amazon is reporting more than 19,000 of its workers have tested positive for covid-19 during the pandemic. it is the first time the company has shared such information about thnumber of cases among its more than 1.3 million frontline workers across the country. the roman catholic diocese of rockville centre, new york, an incorporated village on long island, has filed for bankruptcy, citing financial pressure from clergy sex abuse lawsuits. more than 200 lawsuits have been filed against the long island diocese since 2019, after a state law extended the statute of limitations. today, the bishop explained the decision. >> what became clear was that

the diocese was not going to be able to continue to carry out its spiritual, charitable and educational missions if it were to continue to shoulder the increasingly heavy burden of litigation expenses associated with these cases. >> woodruff: rockville centre is now the largest of more than 20 u.s. dioceses to file for bankruptcy amid the scandal. in russia, a war of words between the kremlin and recovering opposition leader alexei navalny. moscow accused the politician of working with the c.i.a., after navalny blamed president vladimir putin for poisoning him in august with a soviet-era nerve agent. navalny threatened to sue the kremlin's spokesman over the c.i.a. claim and demanded evidence. in hong kong, police arrested at least 60 people they say violated coronavirus rules and a new national security law that

bans large protests. pro-democracy activists gathered downtown in opposition to a holiday marking the founding of communist china. police then detained and searched people in the street, as those in the crowd spoke out. >> ( translated ): a lot of people want to voice out their demands peacefully. but due to the severe police brutality, lots of us feel like our personal safety are under threat. so the co-called "peacefulness" is an illusion. woodruff: this year's pro- democracy protests in hong kong have paled in comparison to last year's massive, near-daily demonstrations, on account of the pandemic and the security law that was enacted in june. trading on the tokyo stock exchange ground to a halt today due to a technical failure in its computer systems. it was the first time that the world's third largest stoc exchange experienced an all-day outage since it switched to its fully-electronic system in 1999.

it is still unknown what caused the malfunction, but trading is set to resume tomorrow. back in the u.s., trading was light on wall street today. the dow jones industrial average gained 35 points to close at 27,817. the nasdaq rose 159 points, and the s&p 500 added nearly 18. the washington monument reopened to the public today after a six-month closure due to the pandemic. coronavirus safety procedures are now in place, including mandatory face coverings and limited elevator capacity. the monument will also be closed for one hour each day to clean and disinfect. and, former president jimmy carter celebrated his 96th birthday today, and another year as america's longest-living president. carter has largely withdrawn from public view during the pandemic, but he remains active in politics through the carter center in atlanta, which, for

the first time, is monitoring a u.s. election, after declaring the country as a "backsliding democracy." still to come on the newshour: how to ensure a peaceful election, despite recent comments by the president. why russian disinformation presented by the u.s. director of intelligence raises alarms. older americans hit the road in the face of trying times. and, much more. >> woodruff: this year's presidential election faces unprecedented challenges due to the ongoing pandemic. amidst the challenges, president trump has not committed to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election.

but, despite his rhetoric, the white house and biden campaign's transition teams are doing the work to ensure the government enters its next chapter in an orderly fashion. to help us better understand how the transfer of power works, i'm ined by david marchick, the director of the center for presidential transition, a non-partisan group that helps presidential candidates prepare for the next administration. david marchick, thank you so much for talking with us. of crse, we don't know what's going to happen in november, who is going to win this election, but give us a sense of how massive the transition process is. >> it's a huge undertaking, judy. thanks for having e. basically, there's 78 days between election day and januara reelectioa reelectedpresident da newly elected gobbled has to put it together. covid, 26 million people that applied for unemployment insurance last week. there's a huge racial crisis.

racial justice crisis, and in preparation for a transition today is critical for what happens on january 20th. >> woodruff: so give us a sense of what's going on. we know that the biden -- there's now office space provided in washington and federal government offices for the biden team to occupy. what are some examples of things that are happening right now. >> well, there are three key players. there's the trump white house which is preparing for a second term, but also, under t law, the presidential transition act, needs to prepare for potential loss. there are federal agencies all across the government, hundreds and hundreds of people hich are preparing for either eeventuality, again, under the law. these are career officials preparing for whatever happens. then the biden team has a very good team, a strong team that's working in the background to be ready for day one. they're working on personnel, on policy, on working with the

agencies. they're getting ready to stand up a government on day one, should they win. >> woodruff: and what's the sense of cooperation between the trumadministration and the biden folks? how much real interaction is there? >> well, there's a lot of very, very tough rhetoric, but behind the scenes, there are hundreds of career officials working on transition planning. they're meeting all the milestones. the presidential transition act lays out a number of milestones from six months before the election all the way up through election date, and, so far, every single one of those mileones has been hit. now, we have a long way to go between now and january 20th, and there's a lot overuncertainty. the rhetoric, is frankly, unappealing, but hopefully the rule of law will continue to prevail and people are working hard to be ready for whatever happens. >> woodruff: you mentioned, you said the rhetoric is unappealing. some people would say it's been remarkable. the president on repeated

occasionrefused to commit to a peaceful transition, and there's a group called the transition integrity project. we notice that they have id recently that it would take virtually a landslide, based on the information they're gathering, for joe biden, if he were to win, in order for there not to be some sort of activities they call street-level violence and a political crisis. how much does that scenario worry you and the others who are looking at this? >> well, the rhetoric is very, ry unfortunate. the peaceful transition of power is one of the bedrocks of american democracy. for 223 years, since washington handed the keys to john adms, we've had a peaceful transition of power. no troops have been called, no arms raised. that's part of our country. we're a country based on rule of law and there are institutions that have been bent but i don't

believe they have been broken and i'm confident, on january 20, the will of the american people, whatever happens, will be followed. >> woodruff:le david marchick, i know a lot of people are going to be reassured to know the process is underway, even though very much behind the scenes. david marchick with the center for presidential transition. we thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> woodruff: now, from worries about a potential transition, to worries about the use and possible abuse of intelligence and the levers of government by the trump administration. here's nick schifrin. >> schifrin: when president trump argued during tuesday's debate that he was the victim of a clinton conspiracy-- >> you saw what happened today with hillary clinton, where it was a whole big con job. >> schifrin: --he had new evidence, released just hours before. a letter from director of national intelligence john ratcliffe declassified a russian

assessment that hillary clinton planned to "stir up a scandal" in 2016 by tying candidate trump to russian hacking, even though ratcliffe admitted he "does not know the accuracy of this allegation." it was also cited yesterday by judiciary committee chairman and trump ally senator lindsey graham. >> you've got a letter now from ratcliffe saying there was a-- they intercepted information about an effort in july where hillary clinton approved an effort to link trump to russia, the mob. >> schifrin: u.s. officials and former intelligence officials tell pbs newshour, the.b.i. in 2016 considereit might be russian disinformation; it was rejected by special counsel robert mueller and the bipartisan senate intelligence committee; and ratcliffe released the letter, over the objection of career c.i.a. and n.s.a. officials. democrats accused ratcliffe of politicizing intelligence. senate intelligence committee vice chairman mark warner released a statement: "it's very disturbing to me. 35 days before an election, the director of national intelligence would release

unverified russian rumored intelligence." ratcliffe said the information was not russian disinformation, but "obtained" using "sensitive sources and methods." that led to criticism from house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff. >> to do tt days or weeks before an election, with a patently political purpose, and then reveal that this is based on "very sensitive" sources and methods-- which means he has just compromised those sources and methods-- it's inexcusable. >> schifrin: former senior intelligence officials accuse president trump of installing loyalists who release helpful intelligence, and withhold intelligence harmful to the president. last thursday alone, attorney general bill barr disclosed documents helpful to president trump's first national security adviser michael flynn, declassified information that cast doubt on the infamous 2016 dossier that tied trump to russia, and revealed the case of nine discarded ballots in pennsylvania, which president trump used to doubt the election's fairness. >> they found ballots in a

wastepaper basket three days ago, and they all had the name-- military ballots. there were military. they all had the name trump on them. >> schifrin: in a july abc news interview, barr denied he was acting for political reasons. >> i'd like to hear some examples of people we've charged that they think were unrighteous cases to bring. and-- you know, i-- i haven't seen any specifics on that. >> schifrin: at the department of homeland security, acting head of intelligence brian murphy became a whistleblower. he said he was pressured to suppress intelligence that would irritate the president, and alter reports to reflect the administration's policy. the department also withheld an intelligence bulletin warning of a russian scheme to disparage former vice president joe biden, to help the president's campaign. acting secretary chad wolf said it was withheld because it "wasn't good enough." >> the report that you referenced was, at the end of the day, a very poorly-written

report. >> schifrin: for a deeper look at whether the trump administration is politicizing intelligence and the community that provides it, and a broader look at the state of american democracy, we turn to john mclaughlin. he served as acting director of the c.i.a. during the george w. bush administration, and as the agency's deputy director. he's now at johns hopkins university's school of advanced international studies. and larry diamond has written extensively about the decline of democracies and the rise of authoritarianism. he served under the george w. bush administration, and is now a senior fellow at stanford university's hoover institution. we welcome you both back to the newshour. john mclaughlin, let me start with you. what's your reaction to the letter that the director of national intelligence john ratcliff released earlier this week? >> well, nick, i have to say with great it really strikes me as a very blatant example of politicization of intelligence, that is using intelligence for political purposes. i can't think of another reason why the derrick would release declassify this particular information at this time, when, in fact, it has already been

reviewed by the senate intelligence committee, republican chair, and set aside as not worth very much. it can serve nothing but a political purpose to help the president, which is, at the end of the day, something a senior intelligence leader is just not supposed to do in a democracy, particularly ours. >> reporter: i just reported in the story that preceded our conversation that the c.i.a., the national security agency, objected to the release of this letter over concerns about revealing source and methods. after all, this is a russian assessment, and the u.s. had to learn about that assessment somehow. is that a concern that you share with this, the revealing of sources an methods? >> absolutely, and i don't know, of course, what the precise source is, but anytime you declassify information, you run the risk of revealing a source, which, in the russian case, is almost always sensitive. and there's another danger here that's equally important, i

think, and that is that you give hostile intelligence services an invitation, then, to at the sieve you in the future. once a mark of an authoritarian society is the receptivity of intelligence leaders to information that will be somehow pleasing to their political bosses, and, so, once a hostile intelligence service senses that exists, they'll try to feed your information on the theory you will run right to the boss with it. so that's the other dangerous in signaling that you are this politically attuned as an intelligence officer when you're not supposed to be. this is the only part of the national security apparatus that is mandated to be totally nonpolitical, objective, clinical in its view of the world. >> reporter: larry diamond you just heard john mclaughlin use the word authoritarianism. talk about how you see the letter that john ra ratcliff set along with the overall behavior

of president trump and the politicization of the department of justice and the department of homeland security. >> well, nick, i think the most disturbing as speck of this is a long pattern dating back to the 2016 presidential election campaign, but certainly to the early days of president trump's presidency of trying to demonize opponents, demonize the media as feigns and enemies of the people and instrumentallize all the agencies of government to serve the personal it mr.le purposes and really the personal glorification of the president of the united states, demanding loyalty from the f.b.i. director james comey, trashing the current highly respected and fiercely nonpartisan director of the f.b.i. christopher wray as somehow no loyal to the president and not on top of the

real national security threats facing the country. and, nick, i have to underscore firing in the space of a few weeks in april and may five different inspectors general of different departments and pieces of the government -- the intelligence community, the defense department, health and human services, transportation and the state department -- because they were pursuing investigations that might have somehow embarrassed or questioned the behavior of the trump administration. this is all behavior that is part of a pattern of misusing executive power and transgressing the checks and balances in our government in order to defend and enlarge the political interests of the president of the united states. >> reporter: i should say here if there was an straiks official defending themselves and the president himself has said this that those inspectors general whom he fired were not up to the

job and the intelligence officials who also have been fired and in the president's words were not up to the job. >> and i gue james mattis and h.r. mccaster weren't up to the job, and a variety, general kelly wasn't up to the job. it seems that no one who doesn't slavishly submit to the personal political interests of donald trump and his infallibility is up to the job. >> reporter: john mclaughlin, let me turn back to you. how do people in the intelligence community whom you continue to be in touch is view the way the president and the administration are dealing with intelligence? >> well, i think we can have confidence that the working professionals in the intelligence community are doing their jobs as they are supposed to and, to use the phrase everyone employs, speaking trout to power as they should be, but they have to be discouraged when they see particularly the top professional, the top leader, i should say, of the intelligence

community john ratcliff actually doing something that to most people in the intelligence world will be transparently political, given that their mandate and that's stressed in all their training and professional ethics that this is not what you do. it seems to be true also in the days of d.h.s., department of homeland security. again, i don't know all the details of the case and i'm always hesitant to condemn people without knowing everything, but just on the surface,f the head of the intelligence service there brian murphy was actually told as alleged not to pass information to the white house on things like the interference of the russians or the role of white supremacist groups, that's complete violation of everything that you learn in the intelligence business. >> reporter: and larry diamond, these questions of the politicization of intelligence, how does that affect american democracy? >> well, it is undermining the

rules and norms of our constitutional system. yu know, nick, we have a very old constitution. it's not very specific about a lot of things, and it isn't really adequate in some ways to the age that we're in, but it's survived r over 200 years because every previous president has respected informal norms of conduct, of respect for checks and balances and the rule of law, and the minimum standards of decency and respect for opposition and respect for the independence of the crucial institutions of rule of law, oversigh and the intelligence community and the national security apparatus in the military that need to be nonpolitical if our democracy is going to work well. but the one president who most egregiously violated those before, richard nixon, of course, was forced to resign.

and i think what we're seeing now is a more serious threat to the norms of our democracy, certainly a more sustained one, than even we saw during the watergate era under richard mmm nixon. >> reporter: larry diamond, john mclaughlin, thank you very much. >> thank you, nick. >> woodruff: this week, a number of major companies, including disney and american airlines, announced new layoffs and with big parts of the economy still sputtering under the weight of the coronavirus, many americans are having to scale back-- but some older americans were already living a minimalist lifestyle on the road. our economics correspondent paul solman has their story. it's part of our "making sense"

series, "unfinished business." >> this whole entire industry is just exploding right now. >> reporter: at nomadikcustoms, marc vroman and his crew retrofit vehicles to live in. >> i think with the combination of just how things are in the world right now, people are really wanting to jump into vans and buses and, just, alternative housing situations. >> reporter: these days the "hashtag: van life" business is booming. vroman's hired eight new workers, but still can't keep up. >> at last count, i think i had something like 180 estimates to write, probably another 400 emails to return. and probably i think yesterday alone, we-- we received 37 phone calls. i el like i hopped on to a rocket ship, and i have just been doing everything i can to hold on! >> reporter: the last half-year of lost jobs has spurred a desire to escape. cheap mobile living enables it. but lots of folks, many older, were on the road before the "van life" hashtag, inspired by this 65-year-old. >> wouldn't you like to be out

here and see and live like this? i love my life. you can have it too. >> reporter: youtube celeb bob wells moved into a van 25 years ago when divorce left him unable to meet the rent in anchorage, alaska. >> i knew i could live comfortably in a van on $1,400 a month, because no house payment, no utility payments. i had solar, i was my own utility company. i enjoyed it. that was the amazing thing. >> reporter: enjoyed it so much, in fact, he created a website, cheaprvliving.com, and then a youtube channel, to teach others to downsize and thve on wheels. >> finding heat in your van is a really important issue for a lot of us. everything you need to stay clean is right here. the topic of today is poop. >> reporter: wells' videos, viewed over 80 million times, preach the simple life, especially appealing right now to those ages 55 to 70-- some three million of whom have been shoved out of the workforce.

>> 25% of americans don't have a penny saved towards retirement. so in five, ten, 20 years, that 25% are going to be living on social security, and social security won't be enough for them to live on. >> thanks for all you do. >> reporter: every winter in quartzsite, arizona, wells' devotees convene at the "rtr"-- the "rubber tramp rendezvous"-- for seminars and community. >> i feel like i'm a disciple. >> ( laughs ) >> you're moses and i'm the disciple. you're spreading the word. reporter: wells, a self- described introvert, is their celebrity guru. >> there's a lot of us here who are on social security, they're and their social security is anywhere from $600 to $1,000 a month. and so you can see they couldn't rent a home on that. but when they move into their vans, most of them slowly have to start dipping into their savings, their emergency fund, and so most of them will have to work sometime to repnish it. >> reporter: so, the topic of one r.t.r. huddle-- earning on the web. >> if you're not monetizing it,

you're not making money through your website or social media, then you're kind of missing out. >> hello, youtube family! >> reporter: inspired by wells' success, most people here seemed to ve a youtube channel of their own. >> we're camper-size living. >> and where can we find you? >> youtube, instagram and facebook. >> reporter: youtuber linda mastromonaco lives in her s.u.v., sleeps in the front seat. >> i curl up, i stretch out this way, i stretch out this way. >> reporter: two years ago, mastromonaco gave up her apartment, quit the last of her low-paying, no-benefits jobs. >> tget, kroger's, chico's, all the retail. i have waitressing background. just all kinds of things where you're on the treadmill. just trying to really, literally make ends meet. >> reporter: she now lives on the road, hawks inspirational cards online, has posted hundreds of videos to her youtube channel. up to nearly 30,000 subscribers. >> i'm thinking more people are

feeling stuck right now and making a plan when they can that leave the traditional lifestyle. >> reporter: how's your youtube channel doing, in terms of income? >> income has exploded over the last couple months. i was averaging, you know, $600 a month, and i'm over two grand for this month. >> reporter: steve turtle gives his youtube followers the down- and-dirty on "workamping"-- working seasonal jobs while camping, that is. >> i'm going to show you how i clean toilets. ( explosion ) that's how you clean a south carolina toilet right there! >> reporter: turtle's been hamming it up for over two years. and youtube rewards you for people watching your videos and the commercial. >> reporter: carol meeks has a youtube cooking channel for nomads on a tight budget. >> some people are living on $500 to $600 a month. so, i mean, we're not going to be having salmon and crab legs. you can do a lot of things for

a dollar a serving, if you know how to shop, and if you're creative in how you're cooking. i'm planning on becoming the anthony bourdain of van life. okay? >> reporter: but how many itinerants can support themselves on youtube earnings, like bob wells? >> for most people, it's not realistic. the idea of making thousands, very few do that. >> reporter: consider steve turtle's youtube take. >> i was somewhere around $150 a month, and then in march, it sort of fell apart. there was just not a lot going on. >> reporter: turtle stopped live-streaming when covid hit. he's back at it, but hasn't reached youtube's pay threshold. >> i don't think i'm going to try to survive off of youtube. >> reporter: but if you, like bob wells, manage to go viral-- pardon the expression-- you make 75 grand a year from youtube? that's what i read anyway. >> i make an amazing amount of money from youtube. >> reporter: more than $75,000, i take it. >> an amazing amount of money. you wouldn't-- i wouldn't

believe it. >> reporter: what do you do with the money? >> i give it away. what do i need money for? i live in a van! >> reporter: indd, wells has started a non-profit to provide homes on wheels for folks in need, in tune with his youtube channel's goal: to lend a helping hand. >> i've been devastated in life. in 2011, i have two sons, and one of my sons took his life. >> reporter: ( gasps ) >>that's the only reaction possible. there's nothing like it. it's just, how do you express it? and, well, every morning, you wake up and say, "how can i be alive on a planet on which he's not here?" and so the adequate answer is, i have something to give. >> reporter: he gives. his followers receive. carol meeks' youtube channel has grown since we met in the winter. >> just under 4,400 subscribers. and i actually think that that's been impacted because of covid,

because so many people are looking for entertainment and engagement and they're doing it online. >> reporter: in january, she was forming friendships with fellow nomads in the flesh. since the pandemic? virtual bonds. >> i have met so many people online and so many other people who have channels who are in this type of lifestyle, so, i feel like i have that community. >> reporter: meeks, like so many older americans, seems to have found a new tribe-- on the road, online. for the pbs newshour, this is paul solman. >> woodruff: former secretary of state james baker's distinguisd career and service to every republican president from gerald ford to george w. bush has elevated him to elder statesman status. his life, career, and legacy

are examined in a new book, "the man who ran washington," written by two veteran washington journalists, susan glasser and peter baker. and they join me now. welcome to both of you. now, we know, peter baker, we know you as the white house continuecorrespondents for the k times." susan, we know you as a wrir for "the new yorker." you're married to each other, in real life. susan, tell us, how did you decide you together wanted to write a book at somebody who has nod held public office in almost 30 years? >> i think jim baker is a unique figure of the last half century, he combinds a portfolio of a karl rove and henry kissinge he ran five presidential cam plains, was the secretary of state when the cold war ended. i think for peter and i, it was really an opportunity to write a big book about washington from the end of watergate to the end of the cold war and how

differenit is from today and the gridlock and dyunction, very different from a time when baker was famous for getting things done. >> woodruff: peter, i think of the phrase born with a silver spoon in his mouth. jim baker came from a prominent wealthy family in houston, texas, successful lawyer, made the jump to government and potics, found out he was very good at it. what was the secret? what was his secret? why was he so good at it? >> at the time, basically, there was an opening for people who wanted to make deals and jim baker is somebody who did that. i couldn't imagine him allowing a covid relief bill we've seen languishing for months go unpass ford so long. if he were here in his moment like his moment, there would have been a deal by now. i think he felt like he understoodwhat the person on the other side of the table needed. he had to give something to the other side. that sort of give an take is sort of out of fashion today. in toad's zero-sum politics,

compromise is seen as a dirty word. jim baker sat down with the democrats and redid the social security system, the tax code and ended the contra war. basically sat down with the soviets and ended the cold war in peaceful way and reunified germany. so baker was a part ofen era and a class of practitioners who understood negotiation was about getting something done, not about scoring political points. >> woodruff: and susan, develop that a little. he's described as the most successful secretary of state in generations. what was it -- give us an example of what he did or how he did ut that will help us understand what made it work. >> well, you know, right now is the 30th annirsary, actually, just this weekend of the reunification of germany, and i think going back and relooking at that episode for the book, you realize how in

hindsight it may seem, of course, it was going to work out. but it was a shock when the berlin wall fell in november of 1989. nobody had a plan or a road map, and jim baker really was the one who not only came up with the plan and the framework under which he would bring in all of those constituents from world war ii who still were very skeptical, by the way. he had to convince the british and the french about german reif yoreunification after having fought two world wars, not to mention working with the soviets and germans to make sure they didn't feel their fate was being determined by outside forces. thfers a piece of diplomacy. >> woodruff: as jim baker was all about getting things done, what about the washington of today? you write he's very philosophicalldifferent from president trump. he told you, he even called -- i've seen you quoting him as

sayinge used the word crazy or nuts when he decribed president trump and yet, he told you he's voting for president trump. how does he -- how does he square that? what does say about the washington of today versus the washington he worked in? >> oh, he's very disenchanted with the way washington works, that preceded trump. he's very, very turned off by this kind of leadership. trump is aisruptor, baker is about bringing people together, solving problems. trump enjoys creating problems. he did tell us he thought trump was crazy and those were the words he used. he did say he might vote for joe biden and then a couple of months later said, no, i'm sticking with my party though my party has moved away with me. he's really wrestled with this, i think. >> woodruff: this is a very difficult time, washington is defined by gridlock. but do you think anybody, jim baker or anybody else, could get something done in this environment? >> that's a great question because the truth is the

incentives in american politics have changed. it's not just washington is missing elder statesmen like jim baker. there are no adults left in the room, that's true. donald trump kicked them all out. but this pre-dates donald trump, and i think that the political incentives have changed to make things done and the permanent campaign is easier to make war to mobilize your own side to come out and vote and be permanently angry at the her side. so a lot of the pressures now go against the kind of big deals. but i will say this, you know, individuals matter very much. back in 181, ronald reagan appointed sandra day o'connor to be the first woman on the supreme cou. it was jim baker who really pushed him to do that. there were plenty of people around ronald reagan who wanted a more conservate figure. they were violently against jim baker. in fact, he physically blocked them from having a meeting with ronald reagan. so his instincts mattered and made a difference as well and i

think, obviously, sandra day o'connor's appointment was one of reagan's major accomplishments. so, yes, jim baker might have made a difference, he certainly did when it was his turn in the barrel. >> woodruff: we're hearing again from president trump that he may not agree to a peaceful transfer of power if he's not reelected. i just wonder what a jim baker would say about that. >> well, you know, i think he would be distressed by that. remember, he worked for two presidents who did peacefully, you know, surrender power to rivals who beat them in elections, gerald ford and george w. bush. everybody in both parties respected that till now and it's hard to imagine we're in this position where that's even on the table. i think he would find that very distressing. baker was about order, institutions, norms, standards and about the way that government should operate, not just a constant battle for

power. >> woodruff: and he was integrally involved in the 2000 election recount. george w. bush, at that moment, asked him to come on board and help him lead his team as he contested the election. it does make you wonder what jim baker is thinking abwhat's going on right now. >> well, look, he is a canny, canny tactician when it was clear florida was too close to call, baker got on the plane, ended up in florida. we talked to many democrats aware of his reputation who said they knew it was over as soon as baker got there, that he was such a formidable opponent. but both bush and al gore were prepared to accept the results of a process. they were not trying to undermine the system but quite the opposite, extremely worried about being seen to do so. in the end it was the u.s. supreme court that made that decision. >> susan glasser, peter baker, we thank you so much.

the book is "the man who ran washington: the life and times of james a. baker iii." thank you so much. it's such a great book. >> thank you, judy. really appreciate it. >> woodruff: there has bn much discussion and analysis of tuesday's debate, mostly foced on the president's behavior. we take a deeper look now to ask, does the lack of real debate and civil discourse speak to something larger in american society? jeffrey brown talks with two distinguished political scientists for our ongoing arts and culture coverage, "canvas." >> woodruff: thanks, judy. i'm joined by danielle allen, widely-published author on democracy from ancient greece to today, and director of the safra center for ethics at harvard university.

and pete peterson, who writes and speaks on public engagement, and is dean of the pepperdine university school of public policy. welcome both of you. danielle allen, i'll start with you. we watched a president who has shattered many norms shatter yet another one. i know you've studied and watched debates through history, the language of debates. what did you see the other night? >> thank you so much for having me, jeff. i saw somebody who has no interest in rules, that simple. rules were agreed on in advance, allocated speaking times, and the president was absolutely insisted on just using physical force to power through the structure of the rules meant to make the debated productive. >> reporter: pete peterson, what was your take? >> i think it's fair to say the president treated the debate as if it were a press conference. he noted often he didn't really prepared for this debate as he felt like he did usually in press conferences which are

obviously very combat nigh the way he hosts them and he stepped into a debate that was really meant to be an exchange of ideas and attempted to dominate. >> reporter: i want to broaden it to the rules of our society to put that debate into context. i want to read a quote to you from one report about the debate. for many, it says, a hallmark of thriving american democracy, the presidential debate was instead transformed into an emblem of democracy's deterioration. and the question i want to ask you is how much or in what way do debates matter? how much does public language matter? >> democracy depends on language, language is the instrument of free self-government. so the quality of our language matters immensely. i think one of the challenges is that in truth we don't actually any of us have a lot of practice with debates these days. so to think of conversation with structured rules, to practice take turns and so forth, once

upon a time, that was something that was practiced extensively throughout the american educational system. it's really fallen away. >> reporter: pete peterson, what do you see in the culture, in the way we talk to each other or don't talk to each other today? >> yeah, i think in many ways that we see a broader political culture that really does not stand fo disagreement and debate or persuasion. all of these skills we've known since our founding. the importance of deliberation and persuasion, in settling disagreements and coming to common agreement on important policy issues, have always been a part of the american system of governance, and what we've seen over the last few years and exemple side on the debate stage was not just what happened in a particular debate but really did illustrate a broken political cull sure. >> reporter: danielle allen, it's a big question, but what caused it? you know, what led tot what we

see -- what we saw the other night? >> i think there are a number of causes. one is serious disinvestment in civic edcation in the country. currently we spend about 54 fedel dollars a year on stem education but only 5 cents a year on civics education, and that's our priorities. debates have significantly retracted. similarly civics courses, there were three required in high school, that quantity has retracted. there's less time in schoolle in these areas and less opportunity for young people to practice these kinds of skills. that's one important element. we have to point to our media ecosystem and we have made a transition in the last decade and a half of being a really text oriented culture, ultimately a reading culture to being an oral culture. i think argument works

differently in an oral culture and we haven't built up healthy norms in a truly sound byte culture. >> reporter: you're both referring to the political tribalism that pervades so much of our political culture. pete is this. >> i agree. in fact, i would say one of the initiatives that we have here at the policy school has been exploring this issue of loneliness, something that we've seen now across disciplines whether it's economics or social psychology, these increasing senses of loneliness, even before the social distancing that we have been forced to go through here over the last six months, and it's been our view that these increasing senses of loneliness and disconnection from one another and from civic institutions, from churches to civil society has forced people to find their identity almost explicitly if not completely in politics, and once we find our identity completely in politics, that really does exacerbate

these tribal tendencies that we see. we don't see these mediating forces of identity that weve always had access to in america from our local communities to our churches and fath organizations, to broader civil society, and with the withering of those connections, we as human beings will seek that connection and unfortunately we've seen a lot of emphasis now put on our political identities. >> reporter: danielle allen, do you see any places in american society where there is civil discourse going on? >> one of my favorite examples is a program in lexington, kentucky sawed civic lex. this is a place using the tools of technology to rebuild local investigative journalism, local ex plan tore journalism. they're filling a news see dese. in addition, they're rebuild space force people to come process the news about politics

in the community. there's an important rule they use for the spaces. for every office holder whether elected or appointed who's in the conversation, there won't be more than seven members to have the general public. you're there to have a conversation with people at a scale where the kind of connectedness matters. >> reporter:ete peterson, do you see spaces where there is real dialogue? >> yeah, i'm a great fan of an organization called braver angels, used to be known as better angels. they use the concepts of marriage therapy into bringing together conversations with people across the left and right to not only better understand each other but to talk through very polarizing policy issues and also to focus on things that are more a local level, which i think is so important to in some ways disconnecting us from these federal issues to think about more about what'soing on locally where we can find issues

of agreement. >> reporter: positive news at the end of our discussion. danielle allen and pete peterson, thank you both very much. >> thanks, jeff. good to be with you. >> woodruff: thank you, jeff, for just such a wonderful conversation. so important for us a of us to hear. and that is the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> life well-planned. >> consumer cellular. >> johnson & johnson. >> bnsf railway. >> the ford foundation.

working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> fidelity wealth management. >> the alfred p. sloan foundation. driven by the promise of great ideas. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access

hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & co." here's what's coming up. >> it was like watching my own children have a disagreement at home. >> views from the voters with long-time gop adviser frank luntz and kevin sheekey. they join us to digest that debate. is america ready for a rising china? house intelligence chairman adam schiff says no, and he'll tell us why. plus -- >> you can rely on me, sir, to tell you i need loyalty. >> jeff daniels becomes jim comey. the actor tells hari the challenges of being an fbi director in the mini-series "the comey rule."