♪ welcome to "amanpour on pbs." tonight, president trump prepares to fly into the mouth of the tiger, also known as the progressive economic global elite forum at davos, switzerland, and we get two takes on his current state in history with renowned presidential historian doris kearns goodwin and the colombian president juan manuel santos, who is at davos waiting to hear trump's vision of the world a year after his american carnage, america first inaugural address. ♪

>> announcer: "amanpour on pbs" was made possible by the generous support of rosalind p. walter. good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london with "the global perspective." almost exactly a year since his inauguration, president trump takes his nationalist view of america to the annual gathering of nations at davos. they model themselves on america's liberal economic and political order established after world war ii. but after a year in office, president trump's critics say that he's damaging that world order and its democratic underpinnings. president trump sees himself as the truest successor to abraham lincoln, tweeting and talking about it over and over as a measure of his own success. >> you know who was right up there? honest abe lincoln! can you believe it? he was a regulation culture.

cutter. can you believe it? abe lincoln was a regulation cutter! who would have known that. i said, you mean, i beat abraham lincoln? that's pretty good for ten months. >> so, what would honest abe think of president donald trump? doris kearns goodwin is america's foremost presidential historian, chronicler of everyone from lincoln to teddy roosevelt to lyndon johnson, and she joins me now from washington. welcome to the program. >> i'm delighted to be here. >> so, what do you think of those quotes, those tweets? what do you think of president trump's comparison to abraham lincoln? >> well, so many things stand out. it's just an astonishing comparison. i mean, lincoln was known for having a deep-rooted confidence, but also an extraordinary sense of humility about himself. when trump was talking about his own humility, he said that he loved pope francis so much because pope francis was very, very humble, just like him.

i think there's nobody that would imagine that president trump is humble. there's also a sense in which one of the great things about lincoln was that he had gone through adversity. he had lost time and time again. he lost his first seat for the state legislature, lost twice for the senate. he never gave up. and when trump was asked about his temperament, he said i have the best temperament of anyone who's ever run for president because i never, ever lose. i always win. there's just so many things temperamentally that are so different that i'd like him to look up to lincoln, maybe he can learn from him, but it's very, very hard to make that comparison. >> well, let's give him some time. just just been one year in office, and if he truly holds him up as his model, what about lincoln's ability to get over or to pass through the storms and the hurricanes of what he went through without reacting on a daily, minute-by-minute basis? obviously, there wasn't twitter then. there wasn't the kind of communications access that we have today. but what's the difference there, do you think, in their communications strategy?

>> well, i think there were several things. i mean, one thing that lincoln understood that there were times he'd be really upset with what was going on, so he had a ritual where he would write a hot letter to the person. for example, general mead failed to follow up with general lee's army after the victory at gettysburg and he wrote him a long letter saying i'm immeasurably distressed you didn't do what we asked you to do, the war is over and knew it would go month after month. but he knew it would paralyze the general in the field, so he put aside the hot letter, hoping he would never send it. his papers were opened in the 20th century and there was underneath the notation, never sent and never signed. the opposite of that is when president trump gets angry with somebody, that tweet goes out immediately. i sometimes think if only he had a hot tweet and a cool tweet, maybe things would be a lot better. he understood that words mattered. he could speak extemporaneously, lincoln could, as well as anybody, but he knew as president, you can't do that. even though he was a great

debater with steven douglas, he would prepare almost everything he said to the public, fearful that he would say something that could be taken the wrong way. so, he could certainly learn in that from tweeting when you get angry in a moment of anger or eyre. >> and yet, we are talking almost 200 years later, and this is a comferent communicationsera, andnd president trump's supporters would say it's the very ability to use the language, no matter its shape or form, and the medium that has propelled him to this success. >> that's a very fair comment, because i think each president uses the media of his moment to an extreme, if they are doing it well. lincoln's was the written word. your speech would be printed in full in the newspaper, so having that extraordinary ability with language helped him. when teddy roosevelt came along at the turn of the 20th century, his short, punchy language was able to get into the mass market newspapers. fdr had the voice for video. reagan and jfk had the looks and

the ability to talk on television. and there's no question that president trump has mastered social media. everything he says becomes the narrative of that moment. even if it may not be the right narrative for keeping his agenda going, it puts him in the center of attention. so, the question is, it allowed him to win the election i think in a lot of ways, but governing is different from campaigning. and sometimes what you are able to win with has to be censored when you finally get -- maybe people like the idea that he doesn't have a girdle on him like many politicians have, but i think it's gotten him into a lot of trouble, some of the let's talk about the d. governing. obviously, many critics, as i suggested, are concerned about the degradation of democracy. and again, going back to lincoln, who apparently at the age of 28 wrote one of his great speeches, and he foreshadowed a sort of cesar-like figure that might threaten the united states from within, and president trump

has quite regularly tweeted, loosely paraphrasing from this speech, saying america will never be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedom, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. i mean, that is pretty insightful of him, but is he helping that destruction? >> i agree, fascinate -- no, i mean, it's fascinating that he called upon that speech to talk about it. and the interesting thing is, what lincoln said at that time -- it was a time of a lot of violence going on antislavery violence, pro slavery stuff in the south -- and he said the only way we're going to get through this turbulent time is by remembering the values of the founders. we have to reverence law. we have to use our institutions, and people should be reading about the founders. we shouldn't forgot what they did. and the interesting thing today, when people feel so pessimistic about america, in a lot of ways, the system itself has protections. we've seen the media who have been terrorized in some ways by mr. trump, and yet, the investigative reporting is as

good now as it's ever been. we've seen courts that have come back against his muslim ban. we've seen members of his own party speaking up against him. so, i think the very hope that an a democratic leader needs r protection from the system, that's my hope as an historian, that the system itself still has lots of power left in it. >> well, it's interesting you point to that, because in "the new york times," the conservative commentator, ross douseert, has talked precisely about what you're just saying, basically saying you could sort of sum up the presidency as fast rather than tragedy, because none of those things you have actually said have come true. and he also says for all his braggish talk, trump has done nothing that compares with the power grabs and norm violations of woodrow wilson, franklin roosevelt, lyndon johnson, richard nixon, george w. bush or even barack obama.

so, have they prematurely written the dire history of the trump administration? >> well, i wouldn't agree with the power violations of all those other presidents. i mean, what you judge power by is what is the purpose for which it is being used. and in those presidents, many of those, i would say, certainly franklin roosevelt and lyndon johnson, they were using power for expanding, except for war in vietnam, expanding the lives and opportunities of the ordinary citizen. and that's a very different thing from just using power for self. but i do feel more optimistic about the country than a lot of other people do. we have seen movements, the women's march on the eve of the inauguration, and new marches this year. as long as there's still only 35% of the people that support president trump and feel good about what he's doing, and they rightly can support him, but that means there's 65% of the other people who are not happy with the direction in which his presidency is going. not even policywise, but his temperament, then i think we're still safe. we don't have to worry that

we're entering into some terrible despotism. >> you have examined in minute detail some of the great presidents of the united states, but another historian also wrote this week that perhaps it's not constructive to compare president trump to the great president but maybe to some of the not-so-great ones. and he said, some of them performed reasonably well at first, only to slide into disaster later. might mr. trump grow in the job, making us forgot his rookie season bumbling, or should we expect more of the same through 2020? what do you think? >> i think the real question is whether he can learn from mistakes, whether he can be self-reflective. look, jfk's first term was marred by the bay of pigs, and yet, he learned that the way he handled that decision was wrong. he listened to the experts in the military, didn't have enough outside advisers, and he changed and cuban missile crisis was held in a very different way because of that. if you can learn from your

mistakes -- you have to acknowledge them, however. the battle of bull run was terrible for lincoln, but he stayed up all night writing a memo saying why did this go wrong? so, that's what we have to look for in him. you can grow. on his 100-day marker, president trump did sound whiskful, the first time i heard him say that, the presidency is harder than i thought, health care is more complicated than i thought, this job is taking more out of me than i thought. and i was hoping that allowed him to see some sort of marker. and it's true when the repeal of obamacare came, he didn't handle that well. he got the tax bill through. so i guess you have to hope you can learn from your experiences, but you have to have the temperament that allows you to acknowledge mistakes and not blame others for the mistakes, and then you can grow. and certainly, most of our presidents who have been great have grown in office. >> is it fair to compare the incredible political partisanship today which people all over the world look at and gasp at, frankly, to the incredible division that obviously lincoln presided over? i mean, there couldn't have been

a greater division than that led to a civil war. >> no question. i look at the 1850s and the cultural, political, social, economic notions of the south and the north were so at war with one another. it was almost like two countries, as it seemed, and you had partisan newspapers then, in those days before mass-market newspapers. for example, if you were a republican and you were reading about the debate between lincoln and douglas, you would hear that lincoln was so great, he was carried off on the arms of his achievers and they thought he'd you read about the democratic paper from that same debate, you'd say lincoln was so terrible, he fell on the floor and they were so embarrassed, they had to carry him out the hall. so, we had partisan newspapers then. we had huge divisions. the sad thing is, though, it ended in a war where 600,000 people died. it's just really the last 40 years that we've seen this polarization. that's why it's so hard for us. we've obviously had it in our history, and i think it has to do with the people in congress not spending time with each other. they're not there on weekends like they used to be with their

wives and their children. they don't know how to have a common mission that combines them. many of them 50 years ago had been in world war ii or the korean war together. they knew how to fight across party lines. they spent so much time raising money, the gerrymandering is so terrible. all these things are fixable. you know, we think we're in some sort of inevitable situation of decline, but as franklin roosevelt once said, problems created by man can be solved by man. so, there are ways of thinking about how to make our system better, but it certainly is not a good time in my lifetime to see the broken washington the way it is. >> it makes one wistful, really, to listen to you. i just want you to, as president trump prepares to fly off to europe, tell us about the incredible stories of lincoln's renowned, how it even reached to siberia. you have a beautiful anecdote about that. >> well, lincoln dreamed from the time he was young of doing something that would stand the test of time, that would be remembered. he was in a near suicidal depression when he came out and said i've not yet done anything

to make any human being remember that i have lived, but even lincoln could never have dreamed of a story that told story told, the great russian riders told the story to a new york reporter at the turn of the 20th century that he had just come back from a remote area of the caucasus, barbarians who had never left that part of russia, they were so happy to have him in their midst, they asked him to tell stories of the great men of history. he says i told them about napoleon and julius caesar and the chief says we want to hear about the greatest ruler of them all, the man who spoke with a voice of thunder, who laughed like the sunrise, who came from that place called america that is so far from here that if a young man should travel there, he would be an old man when he arrived. tell us of that man, tell us of abraham lincoln. he was stunned that lincoln's name had reached this corner, so he told him everything he could about lincoln. and then the reporter said, so, what made lincoln so great after all? and tallstory said, well, he

wasn't as great a general as napoleon, not as great a statesman as frederick the great, but it was in the moral integrity of his character, and in the end, that's what we should judge all of our leaders about. lincoln got more than he ever dreamed. >> it really is a fantastic story. doris kearns goodwin, thank you so much for joining us. >> you are more than welcome. >> and as we just heard, leadership isn't easy, and great leadership is even harder. by any standards, the colombian president, juan manuel santos, has striven mightily to measure up, and he may go down in the history books. his term ends this summer, and throughout, he has steyer are tirelessly been negotiating with the farc marxist guerrillas, putting forward his case to the skeptical public, and it's paid off. colombia is at peace and santos has won a nobel prize. but sharing the same continent gives him a good view of president trump's policies, and

like all the leaders awaiting trump's arrival in davos, he tells me that he's eager to see which president trump turns up, the angry america-first nationalist or the charmer, eager to do business with his counterparts. president santos, welcome from davos! >> thank you for having me. >> so, i have to ask you, this time last year, there you all were, and in the middle of this conference was president trump's inauguration with that american carnage speech, the america first speech, and the darkness. do you remember what you all were thinking at that time in davos? >> yes, i remember very well. it was a world upside down. the chinese prime minister was here in davos, and he was promoting free trade, investments, open economies. and the people were saying, why are the chinese saying that, and we're hearing from the u.s. the

contrary, protectionism and controlled trade? so, it was the world upside down. that was the mood last year. >> and what do you think has changed about the intervening year? i'm hearing that most davos-goers believe that this populist wave is waning. >> well, what i hope that everybody understands that putting your country, could be the united states, colombia, whatever country first, is not incompatible with free trade, with economic integration. on the contrary. if you want to protect the interests of your country, you'd better be a proactive player in a world which is every day smarter, more globalized. >> so what do you expect? what are all your fellow leaders talking about as president trump prepares to come and deliver the closing address on friday?

>> i hope that his message will be one of integration with the rest of the world. no econy, however big it m be, can survive by itself in today's world. and the u.s. or any country would be much better off if they play with the rest of the world. >> given president trump's twitter diplomacy and the threats from north korea, and again, that region, what would you say to him about diplomacy, if you had the chance? >> well, i am in no position to give advice to president trump, but what i would not do is to have my foreign relations administered by tweet, because in a tweet, you only can express your emotions. you cannot argue. you cannot put your state of

mind or your reasons in a logical way. so, i think the tweets and diplomacy are mutually exclusive. >> and one other thing that obviously affects your region, vis-a-vis president trump and the america first doctrine, is, of course, nafta, the constant threat to either radically change it or even ditch it. do you think that that's what's going to happen? >> i hope not. and nobody will gain by doing away with nafta. mexico will lose. the united states will lose. canada would lose. and i think the whole region would lose. >> and what would you say to the president who's constantly telling his people, his base, his voters that nafta is very bad for american workers? >> right. i would say that nafta is not bad for the american workers. i think nafta is good for everybody. and the united states will be

better off in the long run if they open up to the rest of the world. if they close, the united states will be the one that will hurt the most. >> let me ask you about your region now. you are bang next door to venezuela, which appears to be imploding politically and economically, and there are stunning statistics about the number of desperate venezuelans coming across the border to your country. i think over the last year, nearly 250,000 venezuelans? i mean, those are staggering numbers! how are you dealing with them? your own economy is not faring brilliantly. >> yes, this is a major concern to us, and it's something that every day is a matter of discussion. every day we have more and more venezuelans coming into colombia. so far, we have been able to absorb them, but we are very concerned. i talked about this with the secretary-general of the united nations that went to colombia a few days ago.

we are going to set up a scheme to see how we can deal with this increasing problem, because it's like a snowball it increases every day, and of course, it's a great concern to us. >> so, explain to our viewers, both in the united states and around the world, why they're so desperate. and by the way, apparently, a total of more than a million venezuelans have special cards to allow them to come and buy scarce goods in your country. >> unfortunately, the venezuelan regime has not accepted the help in terms of food or medicine. we have offered them, but they are in a state of denial. they say, no, we don't have a crisis. and therefore, they reject not only our offer of help, but the international community, which is absurd. people are dying of hunger and lack of medicine, and the government simply doesn't accept that there is a crisis. so, it's very difficult to manage, but the venezuelans that

are coming to colombia are welcome with open arms and open hearts. i think it's our duty to do that. >> so, let's get back to the farc peace process. is that sticking? are the people of colombia still supporting the fact that you made peace with these very, very brutal and violent guerrillas? >> well, yes, because we have had the most tranquil and the safest year in 50 years last year, precisely because farc gave up their arms and are now a political party. people are now going to regions where they never went because of the war. of course, this takes time. there's still a lot of discussions about where you draw the line between piece and justice. some people are still not in agreement with what we did. that is comprehensible. i understand that.

but the step that we took to finish a war of 50 years with such consequences that we had, and now we're living a new life. this is something that the colombians are more and more appreciated. >> so, how much of a threat is the fact that the other big group, the eln, another major u, despite your efforts, and hd in fact, they've been attacking security forces, blowing up an oil pipeline? >> this is a much smaller group, and we have sat down again the day before yesterday. i ordered my chief negotiator to go to quito, where they're meeting with the eln to negotiate a new ceasefire in order to continue with the negotiations. we have already agreed on an agenda, and hopefully, when they say they are serious about

reaching an agreement, if that is true, then from our part, we have all in the world to reach an agreement as soon as possible, and that would be a very important step forward. but as i say, at this very moment, they are discussing a new cease-fire, and i hope we can reach an agreement soon on that also. >> in august, your eight-year term comes to an end. what do you think was the biggest challenge, the most difficult thing that you had to do as president, and what do you believe and hope your legacy will be? >> well, there's no doubt that the biggest challenge was to finish a war of 54 years. and thank god we were able to do that, and at the same time, we started to construct peace. i say that constructing peace is like constructing a cathedral. you have to have a solid base, and then brick by brick.

and what we have done on the other areas, on the social area, for example, colombia has been the country in latin america that has narrowed more of the gap between the rich and the poor. we took out of poverty more than 5 million colombians. we have made education free for every kid in colombia in public schools. we now have universal coverage in health. we have advanced a lot in the social indicators. we have a stronger economy, no doubt, than what we had eight years ago, a more inclusive economy and a more inclusive democracy because of the peace process. and i hope that my successor continues building on what we have built. >> it's an amazing turnaround. >> we have a brighter future. of course, we still have a long way to go, but fortunately, what any head of state can say, we

advance in the right direction. >> well, by any standards, it's a success story. president juan manuel santos, thank you for joining us from davos. >> thank you, christiane. >> and at a time with so much threat of conflict around the world, president santos there with concrete xmexamples of howo build peace brick by brick. and that is it four our program tonight. that is it for "amanpour on pbs," and join us again tomorrow night. ♪ >> announcer: "amanpour on pbs" was made possible by the generous support of rosalind p. walter. >> you're watching p

♪ ♪ ♪