tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN July 30, 2017 10:00am-11:01am PDT
policy, from russia to health care to gender issues in the military? and what does the world make of this circus? i have a great panel to talk about it all. and america's new nationalism. ronald reagan's republican party wa all about free markets, free trade, and open arms to immigrants. no more. >> we have taken historic steps to secure our border, impose needed immigration control like you've never seen before. >> journalist joshua green on steve bannon and the new american nationalism. also, america closes itself and china is opening itself up. forging alliances and rising. i will talk about the eastward shift of global power with the f.t.'s gideon rachman. finally, summer on the french riviera. instead of hot parties this year unfortunately all the talk is of scorching fires. i'll explain.
but first here's my take. in london last week i met a nigerian man who succinctly expressed the reaction of much of the world to america these days. "your country has gone crazy," he said, with a mixture of outrage and amusement. "i'm from africa. i know crazy. but i didn't ever think i would see this in america." the world had gone through bouts of anti-americanism before, but this one feels very different. first, there is the sheer shock at what is going on, the bizarre candidacy of donald trump, which has been followed by an utterly chaotic presidency. the chaos is at such a fever pitch that one stalwart republican karl rove described the president this week as vindictive, impulsive and short-sighted and his public shaming of the attorney general as "unfair, unjustified, unseemly and stupid." another republican, kenneth starr, the one-time grand inquiz tor of bill clinton, went further, calling trump's
treatment of jeff sessions "one of the most outrageous and profoundly misguided courses of presidential conduct i have witnessed in five decades in and around the nation's capital." but there is a larger aspect to the fall in respect for america. according to a recent pew research center study of 37 countries, people around the world increasingly believe that they can make do without america. trump's presidency has made the u.s. something worse than feared or derided. it is becoming irrelevant. the most fascinating finding of the pew survey was not that trump is deeply unpopular. 22% approval compared to obama's 64% at the end of his presidency. that was to be expected. but that there are now alternatives. on the questions of confidence in various leaders to do the right thing regarding world affairs, xi jinping and vladimir putin got slightly higher marks than trump. but angela merkel got almost twice as much support as trump.
even in the united states more respondents expressed confidence in the german chancellor than trump. this says a lot about trump, but it says as much about merkel's reputation and how far germany has come since 1945. trump has managed to do something that fear of putin could not. he has unified europe. facing the challenges of trump, brexit and populism a funny thing has happened on the continent. support for europe among its residents has rizzen and plans for deeper european integration are under way. if the trump administration proceeds as it has promised and initiates protectionist measures against europe, the continent's resolve will only strengthen. under the combined leadership of merkel and the new french president emmanuel macron, europe will adopt a more activist foreign policy. its economy has rebounded and is now growing as fast as that of the united states. countries from canada to china have in various ways announced
that since washington cannot be relied on to shape the global agenda anymore, others will step in its place. the most dismaying aspect of pew's findings is the drop in regard for america goes well beyond trump. 64% of the people surveyed expressed a favorable view of america at the end of the obama presidency. that has now fallen to 49%. even when american foreign policy was unpopular, people around the world still believed in america, the place, the idea. this is less true today. in 2008 i wrote a book about the emerging post-american world which was, i noted at the start, not about the decline of america but rather about the rise of the rest. amidst the parochialism, ineptitude, and sheer disarray of the trump presidency the post-american world is coming to fruition much faster than i ever expected. for more go to cnn.com/fareed
and read my "washington post" column this week. and let's get started. okay. you heard my take. let's bring in a great panel to discuss these issues and more. joining me here in new york are tim naftali, a cnn presidential historian, and the former director of the richard nixon presidential library. julian zelizer, political historian at princeton and a cnn political analyst. in d.c. robin wright joins us. she writes for the "new yorker" and is a joint fellow at the u.s. institute of peace and the wood rie wilson center. and david frum joins us from l.a. he is a senior editor at "the atlantic" and a former speechwriter for president george w. bush. julian, i want to start with you because it feels to me like we are at a very important moment in terms of congressional reaction to donald trump, republican reaction. when the sessions thing broke,
you saw senior republicans like mitch mcconnell publicly disagreeing with trump in absolutely flat out terms. on the russia sanctions they are passing a bill that the white house did not want. on health care three republican senators voted against. but i want to read you, steven pearlstein in the "washington post" had this wonderful story where he tells that lisa murkowski, very conservative senator, is called by the secretary of interior threatening that they will no longer support, you know, projects of hers in alaska. she responds by essentially dissing the white house and the department of interior, voting against the health care bill, and then postponing all hearings on interior department jobs and on its 2018 budget. this feels like a republican revolt against donald trump. >> it's beginning. i think we often hear a lot about the importance of the base to president trump and how he crafts most of his strategy
around the base, but really it's the republican party that protects him and it's the republican party upon which he depends broadly defined. and this week all the events you've talked about i think are some cumulative evidence that the firewall of the republican congress is starting to weaken if not fall apart. and this is very significant. he can't afford this. and with the story of attorney general sessions, for example, we've seen ongoing pushback, which is making it difficult for him to do what seems to be the movies looking for so that he can go after the special prosecutor. >> david frum, let me read you from your old place of employment. you were a editorial writer at the "wall street journal." the journal, part of rupert murdoch's empire, has generally been very supportive of trump and very critical of his opponents. so let me read you what the "journal" has said this week.
about trump's sessions abuse. "he is harming himself, alienating allies and crossing dangerous legal and political lines. if trump wants to blame someone for the existence of special counsel mueller, he can pick up a mirror." on the health care bill, "he never tried to sell the policy to the american public, in part because he knows nothing about health care and couldn't bother to learn." on priebus, "the shuffling of the staff furniture won't matter unless mr. trump accepts that the white house problem isn't mr. priebus, it's him." now, in the past conservative intellectuals like yourself denouncing trump have not made much difference. will this -- is this -- are we seeing something new? >> we are seeing something new because the "wall street journal" does speak with and for paul ryan. the challenge for the republican party as an institution is while president trump is a severe problem so also is the editorial page of the "wall street journal." with a republican president elected in 2016 needed to do was to lead the party out of the
cul-de-sac into which it had backed itself on health care. the republican party had taken an unsustainably radical position on total repeal of obamacare, return to a prior status quo, that would not make good on the guarantee of near-universal coverage that's been in place now for almost seven years. they needed -- and as we saw in the vote, republican senators and republican members of the house themselves did not believe in that commitment, but they backed into it. where leadership serves is by taking a party that has put itself into someplace unsustainable and the president says i'm going to offer a vision, i'm going to offer something that is sustainable, tass relevant to the country that does suit a larger part of america than just my tiny little base, and i will give you all cover to do something responsible, to do something that will save you from yourself yourselves. instead donald trump as the journal said, he knew so little about health care that he believed the "wall street journal" and that's a bad place to be. >> tim naftali, is this all
going to be solved by the appointment of a military man as chief of staff? i ask you, somehow the world keeps coming back to your area of specialty, richard nixon, because the last military man to be chief of staff was of course alexander hague, appointed in the turmoil of nixon's second term. >> the modern chief of staff, the institution of the chief of staff is only a little over 40 years old. many presidents have always wanted to be at the center of the wheel and then all the spokes would lead to them. that's disaster. richard nixon allowed bob haldeman, his first chief of staff, to be the gatekeeper. the problem with haldeman and nixon is it didn't always work. nixon would go around haldeman. and haldeman also had some ethical personal problems. but the strong chief of staff is the haldeman model. when presidents leave that model, as we've seen with trump, they only encounter troubles.
trump's problem is he lets other people talk to him, besides his tweeting. his problem is bannon has direct access, kushner has direct access. >> scaramucci. >> scaramucci has direct access. in order for a chief of staff, whether he's a general or not, to be successful, he has to be the gatekeeper. he has to not only control the president's time. he has to be able to tell people no, you can't see the president. will trump allow kelly to do that? we've seen trump delegate to mattis. but trump is delegating things he doesn't really understand. military operations. will he delegate to kelly? that's the key. and we'll see. >> the one thing i think we can say about kelly, military people generally have a code of honor. and the one thing i think you will see is if trump asks john kelly to do something he thinks is illegal or unconstitutional, he won't do it just as al haig -- the general destroyed the tapes. >> president nixon asked alexander haig to destroy the
tapes and haig said oh, no, don't ask me, ask your valet manolo sanchez. he was thinking about it and he said no. >> we're going to come back and go straight to robin wright, who has been to north korea many times, and we will ask her about the crisis in north korea, perhaps in iran. and i wonder whether these crises will serve as a way for the president to distract from these deep domestic troubles. i love you, couch.
you give us comfort. and we give you bare feet... ...backsweat and gordo's everything. i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪ new febreze fabric refresher with odorclear technology... ...cleans away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and plug in febreze to keep your whole room fresh for up... ...to 45 days. breathe happy with new febreze.
time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork... your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.
north korean government really ever in its history. what do you make of what is going on in north korea and trump's response to it, which seems a kind of series of random tweets about the chinese? >> well, it's very dangerous, actually. we are now at a point where the north korean capabilities are so sophisticated they have a range now of over 6,000 miles for their intercontinental ballistic missiles. we are at a point also where the window for diplomacy is beginning to close. and the president, rather than working this issue, as he's preoccupied with his war at home, is not taking the kind of steps that will get us closer to resolution, that will diminish the threat. he is treating the president of china the same way he's treating jeff sessions. he's belittling president xi jinping in tweets. he's saying that the chinese are doing nothing for us.
this is not the way to deal with the most populous nation on earth, the only nation on earth that can really help us with whether it's imposing sanctions on north korea or engaging in some kind of diplomatic resolution. the reality is that north korea is reaching the point that it's going to be a nuclear power and there's very little the united states can do about it except try to diminish the dangers of north korea using it. and so president trump has put us in a very vulnerable position by not dealing more thoughtfully and diplomatically with this fundamental challenge, the one that may well define his foreign policy legacy. >> robin, let me ask you about another one because you're so knowledgeable about iran. there are reports that donald trump -- more than reports. he's essentially publicly said he wants to find them in non-compliance with the iran deal even though the iea, the agency appointed to look at it, has several times certified that they are in compliance. what would happen if the united
states in a sense unilaterally disagreeing with international -- with the inspectors on the ground would say we believe that iran is in non-compliance? >> well, the trump administration clearly wants to force iran to walk away from the deal, to nudge them in -- or confront them in any number of ways, not just on the nuclear deal. yes, through inspections, possibly demanding inspection of sites that are not on the list or not suspected of having been involved in a nuclear program, but also in ways, whether it's imposing new sanctions, opening fire on iranian ships in the persian gulf, imposing sanctions because of the detention of americans that there are a lot of ways we're moving toward i think a position that the united states looks like it is supporting regime change. and i saw, as you did too, the iranian foreign minister and i think the idea that the iranians are going to walk away from this is unlikely. and that puts us in the position of what is our policy?
we are now split with the europeans. 40 years we've been together in trying to pressure iran on its nuclear program and other issues and now the europeans are going ahead and doing business with them. putting their ambassadors back in tehran. and so you know, this is where the president lacks the kind of sophisticated knowledge of the world. it was reflected this week when he stood next to the lebanese prime minister and said that lebanon was on the front line of fighting isis, al qaeda and hezbollah. and hezbollah of course is a major part of the lebanese government, and it's fighting alongside the lebanese army today against isis and al qaeda in eastern lebanon. it's really disheartening when you understand that president trump knows so little about the world. >> julian, you think these crises are an opportunity or a challenge? >> i think they're a challenge. i think the same problems we've seen play out with domestic policy will recreate themselves on foreign policy. so all of the presidential behavior that we've seen,
threatening allies and opponents, tweeting randomly and distracting not the public from what he's doing but his party from what they need to be doing and lacking some real sense of policy and a vision, as robin's talking about in terms of where this all goes, all of those will be problematic as this turns to the international stage. >> david frum, another seeming distraction, or at least some people would regard as a distraction, was the transgender issue. what do you think trump was doing there? and i'm assuming it's an attempt to play the sort of culture war card and force democrats to have to defend a very small minority that many people would regard as odd. i don't. but will it work? >> it's a culture war that actually turned into a culture skirmish because as you said there just isn't enough excitement about this issue, one side or the other. and it is a sign of how the
president has a tendency to start his wars, without allies and without preparation. and that is a very ominous warning for the larger and non-metaphorical wars that may lie ahead of him. it is really worrying, as julian was just saying now. the united states is stumbling without plans, often without friends, into confrontations it doesn't seriously intend to make good on but that may be real. one of the clever things that people say in washington is what happens if these guys ever encounter an international -- a crisis that is not of their own making? what happens when they face a true international crisis? but the situation is much worse than that because this team is an international crisis. this is itself, this government is the greatest threat to america's national security we've seen maybe since the end of the cold war. we are careening -- we are going to end up in some kind of confrontation and we're going to probably end up there alone. >> tim naftali, when you look at the way this administration is handling itself, something that
richard haas said to me, the president of the council on foreign relations. he said looking at scaramucci, looking at so much, he said nobody seems to care about the dignity of the office that they hold. and that starts with the president, but it goes down throughout the white house. there is no sense that these offices are kind of national treasures. >> no, there's no sense of that. and that has an effect. it has a corrosive effect. in three different ways. one, imagine the morale of the people in that building. imagine them having watched priebus be publicly humiliated with apparently no consequence other than priebus loses his job. two, how do you recruit new people? this is an understaffed administration. you need more people. and three, the effect on our international reputation. if we're going to stare down foreign adversaries, they have to believe that we are not only unified but professional. the scaramucci show that we saw this week isn't amusing at all.
it would be amusing if it were reality television. but know, what the u.s. presidency is not reality television. no matter what the president thinks. that's not the way we can run this country. we're a superpower. >> on that note we have to end. next on "gps" a case of a missing $3.4 trillion. the strange math in the president's budget and what it highlights. the gop's abandonment of facts, science, and analysis, when we come back. hi..and i know that we have phonaccident forgiveness.gent, so the incredibly minor accident that i had tonight- four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.
when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance. but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner...
...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke.
now for our "what in the world" segment. the number i want to focus on is $3.4 trillion. at the end of may the trump administration released details of its proposed budget for the next fiscal year. and on july 13th the non-partisan congressional budget office released their analysis of president trump's budget. the cbo says the president's budget underestimated the loss in federal tax revenues caused by its proposed tax cuts by a
whopping $3.4 trillion. how could the smart goldman sachs guys on trump's economic team, gary cohn, steve mnuchin, make such a big basic math error? actually, they did it intentionally. the administration assumed that because of its tax cuts the american economy would grow by 3% a year for the next decade. the cbo instead says the president's plan would increase gdp growth to 1.9%, which most economists agree is the sensible assumption. note that the american economy has grown on average just 1.8% over the last 15 years, no more. this method of fudging the numbers is called dynamic scoring. common sense would tell you that if the government cuts taxes it'll get less money in tax revenues. but sprinkle the magic pixie dust of dynamic scoring and you can project much higher growth rates and then the revenue
numbers soar upwards in theory. the story of dynamic scoring is the story of the republican party's abandonment of facts, science, and analysis in favor of ideology. decades ago republicans were advocates of fiscal restraint. they were the party of green eye shades, conservative assumptions and careful accounting. they did not believe in wide-eyed assumptions and in counting chickens before they were hatched. in fact, when ronald reagan proposed tax cuts that he claimed would pay for themselves, his traditionalist republican rival george bush sr. derided his approach as voodoo economics. but with the reagan revolution came a new mantra. tax cuts were the answer to every problem and the economics could be bent to make it all work out in theory. in fact, the national debt tripled under ronald reagan. and after george w. bush cut taxes, the national debt increased again. bill clinton by contrast actually raised taxes and ushered in stronger growth and
higher tax revenues. but the mountains of evidence have not stopped republicans from using dynamic scoring. in 2010 kansas governor sam brownback wrote a tea party wave to power and he slashed taxes across the board predicting there would be a boost to the kansas economy and thousands of new jobs would be created. except the promised growth never materialized. instead between 2013 and 2014 the state's budget of $6 billion was butchered as tax revenues fell by a massive $713 million. this year there was a $218 million budget shortfall, forcing state legislators to pass tax hikes despite brownback's opposition. in 2015 the gdp of the state grew by an anemic 0.2% while the rest of the nation grew at 1.6%. job growth since the cuts dropped to a dismal 3.5% while the rest of the nation experienced a rate of 7.6%. sam brownback has been rewarded
for his failure by being nominated this week to be the state department's ambassador at large for international religious freedom by donald trump. bruce bartlett, who was a senior policy adviser to presidents reagan and bush sr., says that dynamic scoring is not about honest revenue estimating, it's about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize republican ideology into the budget process. steve mnuchin, gary cohn, and others in the administration know better. instead of smoke and mirrors they should use facts and figures, economics and analysis on a subject as serious as the nation's economic outlook. next on "gps" -- >> build the wall! >> the proposed wall on the mexican border is just the start of the nationalism and isolationism that could be coming to this new america. the man behind it all, steve bannon. we'll go inside his brain when we come back. really. for me. bye.
another referral. our customers love us. (nail gun firing) (glass egg shattering) when the unexpected strikes... don't worry we've got you covered. the hartford strikes back. on a hotel just go to priceline. they add thousands of new deals every day at up to 60% off. that's how kaley and i got to share this trip together at this amazing hotel. yeah ash and i share everything - dresses, makeup, water bottles... we do? mmhmm. we share secrets, shoes, toothbrushes... what? yeah i forgot mine so i've been using yours. seriously? what's the big deal? i mean, we even dated the same guy. who?! uh, go to priceline and get the hotel deals you won't find anywhere else.
conventional wisdom has it that there are two competing camps in the white house, the globalists led by people like jared kushner and gary cohn, the director of the national economic council, and then there are the nationalists led by one man really, steve bannon. if you look at the major initiatives of the administration, from the muslim travel ban to the mexican border wall to pulling out of paris, it would appear that the nationalists are the ones winning. add to that the president's strongly nationalistic speech in warsaw earlier this month, and it is quite obvious that steve bannon's side has the president's attention, at least for the moment. my next guest, joshua green, has written a book explaining the rise of bannon and how the president's chief strategist came to his worldview. welcome, joshua. >> it's good to be with you. >> so the first question is bannon's worldview as i see it seems to dominate even with the transgender ban. but bannon has disappeared. is that part of a strategy?
i assume he recognized that the one thing you can't do in this administration is be more prominent or even close to as prom nept as the president. >> exactly. and i think he learned that the hard way because in the early days of the administration he was portrayed in popular culture and media as being this dark mastermind, this puppetmaster, president bannon as "saturday night live" called him, and as a white house adviser told me trump does not want to have a co-star, especially not one who's believed to be pulling his puppet strings. so bannon lost a bit of his influence then and i think understands that you can exert more influence and survive longer in trump's circle if you're behind the scenes whispering in his ear instead of on tv at the white house podium trying to explain trump's ever-evolving policies. >> there's so much in the book, but i want to focus on one piece, which is really this transformation ideologically. the republican party used to be the party of free markets, free trade, openness. that was reaganism.
that was the kind of formula. and trump and bannon both in their various ways realized that the base of the republican party was in a very different place. do you think that bannon came to his nationalist protectionist, populist views slowly, suddenly? what happened? this was a goldman sachs banker. >> i trace two strains in the book that i think led bannon to his worldview. the first is that he had a deeply traditional catholic upbringing. he went to a right-wing catholic military academy, became fascinated with traditionalist intellectuals including some of the nationalist thinkers of the 1930s and the 1940s who tended to believe that the world was in dpli decline, that the western world was under assault by the forces of islam, by the rise of secular modernity. i think the other thing is
bannon's own personal experience. he served in the navy in the persian gulf during the failed rescue mission to rescue the american hostages. and bannon -- >> this was under the carter presidency. >> this was under jimmy carter's presidency. and bannon was raised in a working-class irish-catholic democratic pro-kennedy family. so bannon at the time was ostensibly a democrat, but he described to me in interviews getting off the ship, taking shore leave in pakistan and being horrified and worried by what he described as these teeming masses of young anti-american muslims. and then watching the hostage crisis, he described the middle east to me as being primeval. he said it was like stepping back into the 5th century. so i think that was the beginning, that the roots of the islamophobia that has characterized his politics and trump's. >> trump seems to have
understood like a good salesman during the campaign that what people wanted to hear out in the -- on the hustings, the republican base, they don't want to hear about milton friedman economics and free trade and entitlement reform, the kind of stuff paul ryan talks about. they wanted to hear about mexicans, muslims, chinese people. so does he buy into the bannon vision, or is this just a convenient kind of marriage of expediency? >> i think he does to an extent but i think what trump sees in the bannon vision is not a philosophy or an intellectual underpinning for trump's own ideas. i think what he sees is a powerful and effective campaign slogan. the idea of america first nationalism. well, who could be against that? and trump, with his salesman skills, was able to distinguish himself from what bannon, what trump would consider the globalist pro free trade hawkish
orthodox republicanism that characterized the views of the other 16 candidates more or less in the gop election. i think what trump did and bannon certainly helped this, was to practice a kind of political arbitrage. he understood that the policies being offered and pushed by the republican party leaders no longer met the needs of the party's white working-class, increasingly rural and isolationist base and took advantage of that in a way that exposed just how vulnerable the republican party really was. >> what's striking to me about it is there's a few slogans about american elections. people often say the taller candidate always wins, which apparently is mostly true. but the other one is that the more optimistic candidate always wins. and what bannon's worldview, whatever you may think of it, it's a very dark, pessimistic view of the world. a world in decline, a western decline, a kind of -- you're
surrounded, you're fighting to preserve the soul of america. is that where half the country now is? >> i think it is. and i credit bannon for being a shrewder analyst of both democratic and republican politics than anybody in washington, certainly anybody in either of the major parties. he understood this kind of roiling anxiety and dissatisfaction that i think was masked by the booming stock market, by the fact that urban areas are doing very well, by the fact that an entire political and media class, and i include myself in this indictment, did not believe that donald trump could actually within the presidency and therefore didn't take it seriously until election night. >> josh green, pleasure to have you on. >> thanks so much. up next, from america's turn in to china's turn out. how beijing is consolidating global power and influence as washington loses it.
a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to
neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. iso being cool comes naturally. on car insurance, hmm. i can't decide if this place is swag or bling. it's pretzels. word. ladies, you know when you switch, you get my bomb-diggity discounts automatically. ♪ no duh, right? [ chuckles ] sir, you forgot -- keep it. you're gonna need it when i make it precipitate. what, what? what? ♪
i love you, basement guest bathroom. your privacy makes you my number 1 place... ...to go number 2. i love you, but sometimes you stink. ♪ new febreze air effects with odorclear technology cleans... ...away odors like never before. because the things you love the most can stink. and try febreze small spaces to clean away odors for up... ...to 30 days. breathe happy with new febreze.
for thousands of years the world's most powerful and influential civilizations were not from the west but from the east. the east was where the money and the military might was. now after two centuries of western military, economic, and cultural domination, is the pendulum of global power swinging the other way? that is the question that gideon rachman set out to answer in his fascinating book "easternization: asia's rise and america's decline from obama to trump and beyond." the author is the f.t.'s chief foreign affairs columnist and he sat down with me recently to discuss china and an eastern renaissance. >> gideon, welcome. >> thanks. >> what you do in the book you describe already on the ground foreign policy changing,
international politics changing and in particular the rise of china has really transformed international politics which used to be for the last 20, 30 years single poll, unit poll, united states running everything to china now increasingly -- >> it's both a phenomena in europe and in asia itself particularly with the coming of she pi jinping in power, especially building islands in the south china sea to reinforcing controversial claims there and the slightly confused reaction of the u.s. of how much can they push back? china's got away with something and everyone kind of noted that. i've found in my travels around the world, a globals politics job, that people are beginning to factor the rise of asia and china into their thinking. a couple examples, turkey, a country for 100 years seen its
destiny as europe, essentially have begun to rethink the way they look at the world and said, well, maybe europe the not where it's at. maybe asia's where it's at and even russia, crimea to the west. maybe a mistake to think we would converge with the west, we're an asian nation as well and looking to build a relationship with china affecting it's whole of global politics. >> andy pound out even western countries of much more aware of their eastern destiny so that germany, the largest trading partner for germany now is not the united states but china. >> absolutely. i think that, you know, merkel spends a lot of time going to china, cultivating that relationship and what happens in my own company, brexit, the decision to leave the eu in a way justified saying, look, the idea europe's where it's at is over now. if we're making our destiny in the world we have to look to
asia and build special relationships with india and china, these are the future. it's changing foreign policy. the british reluctant to offend the chinese, literally lay out the red carpet for jinping and china began in 1840, a british invasion and now the brits cultivating the chinese. >> when somebody hears this against the backdrop of the syrian strikes, the american strikes on syria, will people say, well, wait a minute. it certainly seems like the united states is still running the world. you point out that, you know, the united states can act in this completely unilateral fashion in the middle east, and i think -- by implication wondering, could they do the same in asia? i think we all wonder were there to be an issue like this in north korea, or could the united states really act the way it did in syria in north korea?
i wonder. >> technically, of course, they could. >> politically, would there be -- >> i think politically not. we all say of course america cannot tolerate this, might have to take out the north korean nuclear program even if that technically possible, there would be a problem with south korea. one would think they want that but they don't. they're completely in the firing line. the north korea's to level the south korea's capital of seoul and could you say, 35,000 troops on their soil. sorry. we decided to get you into a war with your northern neighbor. that would be difficult and i'm not sure the japanese would want it, because they, too, are within range of north korea's missile array. >> what does america look like in a world of easternization? >> well, you know, it's almost the single biggest question facing america strategically. particularly china. do they say we cannot tolerate another power dominating the
asia-pacific, never have, never will and prepared to risk a confrontation with north korea over that or passionately, we're com nant in our backyard, china in theirs and we have to come to accommodation. i don't think the americans decided that, really, and maybe it will take some big international crisis to tell us which way america's going to go. >> a pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. yeah, well it was $30 before my fees, like the pizza-ordering fee and the dog-sitting fee... and the rummage through your closet fee. who is she, verizon? are those my heels? yeah! yeah, we're the same size...in shoes. with t-mobile taxes and fees are already included, so you get four lines of unlimited for just $40 bucks each. the price we say is the price you pay.
it's just a burst pipe, i co(laugh) it. no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just because of a claim. i totally could've - no! switching to allstate is worth it. nit's softer than ever. new charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin it was always a dream of mine to become a professional soccer player, but i never imagined that i'd be playing in kansas city.
when i was first elected mayor, they would talk about kansas city, kansas like... i can't wait to get out of here. through the years we lost over 30,000 people. we turned that obstacle into an opportunity. the speedway was the catalyst... and because of the speedway we now have a shopping area and a wonderful soccer stadium. and now we're starting to grow in population. it's extremely important to have financial partners such as citi® who believe in that same vision. this area is now a destination. there's people that come out here for entertainment. there's people that come out here to work...to raise families. and before the stadium was built it wasn't like that at all. i wouldn't trade playing in my hometown for anything.
yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens.
in the more than six months since he took office president trump could not have been more visible dominating headlines just about every day. one country had the opposite question in recent months, which brings me to my question. which has not set foot in his homeland in over six months? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. i don't have a book of the week today, but i do have something very exciting to tell you about. my latest documentary called "why trump won." it's premieres right here on cnn on monday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. on cnn and cnn international.
trump's victory shocked the world, including me. how did we all miss the signals? >> a collective failure. >> the most unbelievableable thing. >> the media were dead wrong. >> how in the world did he win? that's what i dig deep into in this think program. why trump won. 10:00 p.m. eastern, monday night on cnn and cnn international. the correct answer to my "gps" question is c. after entrusting presidential powers to his deputy, nigerian president muhammadu bahary left for treatment for an undisclosed ailment. photographs of a smiling leader holding meetings in the capital. the first photos of the ailing leader in months. intense speculation back home and understandably so.
courts pointed out, a former nigeria died in office in 2010 shortly after taking months of medical leave in saudi arabia. his illness triggered a crisis over the transfer of power. thanks to you all for being a part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello everyone. thank you so much for joining me this sunday. i'm fredricka whitfield. a new threat to the u.s. north korea did beloy "a firm action of justice against the u.s. if sanctions on the relouisive regime continue." this threat coming two days after kim jong-un tested a ballistic missile experts say could one day reach the u.s. mainland. >> i'm convinced that north korea has never moved at the speed that this leader has. >> and early this morning, u.s. military said its successfully test add missile designed to intercept that type of