>>> HELLO, EVERYONE.

WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO." >> A VOTE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN IRON AND AROUND THE WORLD AS THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE GOES TO JAILED ACTIVIST NARGES MOHAMMADI.

WE HAVE THAT EXCLUSIVE REPORT AND WE LOOK BACK AT SOME OF CHRISTIANE'S REPORTING ON THE IRANIAN WOMEN FIGHTING FOR THEIR FUTURE.

>>> THEN THE SUPREME COURT RETURNS FOR A NEW TERM.

AS CONTROVERSIES CAST A SHADOW, WE LOOK AT THE CASES COMING ONE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL.

>> HOW DO WE LOOK AT PEOPLE WHO CAME BEFORE US AND SEE HOW THEY FACED A SIMILAR MOMENT AND GOT OUT OF IT?

>> HOW AMERICA GOT TO THIS POLITICAL MOMENT AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THAT STORY.

HISTORIAN HEATHER COX RICHARDSON SPEAKS TO MICHEL MARTIN ABOUT HER NEW BOOK, DEMOCRACY AWAKENING.

PLUS -- A RECORD BREAKING CAREER SHOWING NO SIGNS OF SLOWING.

I'M JOINED BY GRAMMY-AWARD WINNING TRUMPETTER HERB ALPERT TO DISCUSS HIS NEW ALBUM, WISH UPON A STAR.

>>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- CANDACE KING WEIR.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

MARK J. BLESHNER.

SETON J. MELVIN.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M IN NEW YORK SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

A WOMAN, A HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE AND A FREEDOM FIGHTER.

THAT'S HOW THE NOBEL COMMITTEE CHAIR DESCRIBES NARGES MOHAMMADI, THE WINNER OF THIS YEAR'S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

SHE'S SPENT HER LIFE CAMPAIGNING FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY.

IN COUNTRY.

WORK THAT HAS COME WITH REPEATED PRISON SENTENCES AND A BAN FROM SEEING HER HUSBAND AND CHILDREN.

IN A PREPREPARED MESSAGE SHARED WITH CNN BY HER FAMILY, MOHAMMADI SAID I WILL NEVER STOP STRIVING FOR THE REALIZATION OF DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.

THE COMMITMENT TO THAT CAUSE.

AHEAD OF THE NOBEL ANNOUNCEMENT AND THROUGH THE HELP OF INTERMEDIARIES, CORRESPONDENT JOMANA KARADSHEH INTERVIEWED MOMENTI VIA LETTER AND AUDIO RECORDING FROM INSIGN EVIN PRISON.

>> Reporter: NOT EVEN THE DARKEST CELLS OF THE NOTORIOUS EVIN PRISON HAVE SILENCED THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.

♪ NARGES MOHAMMADI.

A NAME THAT HAS BECOME SYNONYMOUS WITH THE BATTLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS.

IT HAS BEEN A CYCLE OF ARREST AND REARREST, NOW SERVING A TEN-YEAR PRISON TERM AND SENTENCED TO 154 LASHES.

NOT ONLY HAS THE REGIME TAKEN AWAY HER FREEDOM.

THE LAST TIME SHE HELD HER TWINS WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO.

THEY WERE ONLY 8.

A SACRIFICE SO PAINFUL, BUT LIFE WITHOUT LIBERTY AND EQUALITY, SHE SAYS, IS NOT WORTH LIVING.

FOR HER ACTIVISM, SHE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF ACTIONS AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE STATE.

AND SHE'S NOW FACING MORE CHARGES AS SHE CONTINUES TO DEFIANTLY SPEAK OUT FROM BEHIND BARS.

IN AN EXCLUSIVE RECORDING FROM INSIDE EVIN, MOHAMMADI READS EXCERPTS OF A LEDGER SHE SENT CNN.

>> THEIR JOB MAY BE DEMOCRATIC -- >> Reporter: THIS LETTER IS NOT WRITTEN BY A FREE FEMINIST IN A FREE, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BENEFITTING FROM CIVIL PROTEST METHODS AND CIVIL RIGHTS BUT RATHER BY AN IMPRISONED WOMAN, WHO LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHERS, HAS BEEN LIVING UNDER THE OPPRESSION OF A MILITARY SYSTEM WITH IDEOLOGICAL, PATRIARCHAL FOUNDATIONS.

SINCE THE AGE OF 6, DEPRIVED OF LIFE, YOUTH, FEMININITY AND MOTHERHOOD.

>> IN HER LENGTHY LETTER, SHE RAILS AGAINST IT.

FEMALE PROTESTERS AND PRISONERS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AS IRANIANS ROSE UP ON THE STREETS LAST YEAR, SHE LENT HER POWERFUL VOICE TO THE UPRISING.

FOR THAT SHE WAS RECENTLY SENTENCED TO ANOTHER YEAR IN PRISON.

THAT HASN'T DETERRED HER.

WITH THE HELP OF INTERMEDIARIES, SHE RESPONDED IN WRITING, DETAILING INCIDENTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS DATING BACK TO 1999.

SHE ALSO MENTIONS HER OWN EXPERIENCE.

BUT SINCE THE PROTESTS, SHE SAYS, THEY HAVE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, DESCRIBING THEM NOW AS SYSTEMATIC.

SHE WRITES IN PRISON I HAVE HEARD THE NARRATIVES OF THREE PROTESTING WOMEN WHO WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.

ONE OF THEM WAS A WELL KNOWN ACTIVIST OF THE STUDENT MOVEMENT WHO UPON ENTERING THE PRISON, FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE AUTHORITIES AND ANNOUNCED THAT AFTER BEING ARRESTED ON THE STREET, HER ONE HAND AND ONE LEG WERE CUFFED AND TIED.

AND IN THAT POSITION, SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.

I WENT WITH ONE OF MAY CELL MATES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF TAKING A PRISONER.

WE SAW BRUISES ON HER STOMACH, THIGHS, ARMS AND LEGS.

THE IRANIAN REGIME HAS DENIED ALLEGATIONS INCLUDING A CNN INVESTIGATION OF USING SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND RAPE TO SUPPRESS THE PROTESTS CALLING THEM BASELESS AND FALSE.

FOR YEARS, MOHAMMADI HAS BEEN THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS, FIGHTING FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS AND SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.

SHE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE BOTH ENDURED.

THE FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER WHO WAS JAILED FOR 14 YEARS NOW LIVES IN EXILE WITH THE CHILDREN IN PARIS.

HE'S HAD TO BE BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER TO THE GIRLS.

>> Translator: SHE USED TO SAY, WHEN MAMA IS HERE, DADDY ISN'T.

WHEN DADDY IS HERE, MOM ISN'T.

WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSE AS PATH, THEY MUST ENDURE THE HARDSHIPS.

>> Reporter: THE LAST TIME THEY WERE ALLOWED TO CALL HER WAS 18 MONTHS AGO.

SHE STILL VIVIDLY REMEMBERS THE DAY HIS MOTHER WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.

>> Translator: IT WAS AROUND 6:00 OR 7:00 A.M. MAY MOM MADE ME EGGS.

SHE SAID TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND STUDY HARD.

I GOT IN THE CAR AND WENT TO SCHOOL.

WHEN I GOT BACK, SHE WASN'T THERE ANYMORE.

>> Reporter: EMHE'S PROUD OF HIS MOM AND HAS SECOND THIS LIFE.

IT IS FOR FREEDOM OF IRAN.

HE SHOWS OFF ALL THE AWARDS HIS WIFE HAS WON WHILE IN PRISON.

SHE'S AN ENDLESS ENERGY FOR FREEDOM, SHE TELLS US.

AN UNSTOPPABLE FORCEFUL HER FIGHT EXTENTING DEEP INSIDE EVIN WHERE SHE CONTINUE TO PROTEST.

THE CHANTS CAPTURED IN THIS RECORDING SHARED WITH CNN.

THEY SING THE FARSI RENDITION OF THE ITALIAN ANTIFASCIST RESILIENCE SONG.

>> WHAT INCREDIBLE BRAVEBRAVERY.

WHEN HE FOUND OUT THE NEWS, HIS HEART EXPLODED WITH JOY.

>>> THIS NOBEL PRIZE IS PROVIDING RECOGNITION FOR ALL THE WOMEN IN IRON WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING LONG AND HARD FOR A BETTER FUTURE.

IT'S A STRUGGLE CHRISTIANE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THROUGHOUT HER CAREER.

IN THIS 1988 REPORT, SHE SPOKE OUT FOR THE FIRST PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE.

IT WAS AROUND THE CASE OF A CHILD CALLED ARIANE WHO WAS MURDERED WHILE IN CUSTODY OF HADDER FATHER.

ARIANE'S MOTHER FOUGHT FOR JUSTICE AND THE SYSTEM STACKED AGAINST THEM.

>> SHIRIN EBADI REPRESENTS HER.

SHE IS AN OUTSPOKEN CRUSADER FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS BUT SHE KNOWS SHE CAN'T MAKE HIM PAY FOR HIS CRIME.

BY LAW, A FATHER CAN'T BE CONVICTED OF KILLING HIS OWN CHILD.

>> Translator: IF ARIANE'S FATHER HAD STRANGLED HER TO DEATH IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY, HE WOULD NOT HAVE NOT PUNISHED.

>> IT'S INCREDIBLE.

THE CLERICS, THE COURTS DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT?

THAT HERE WAS A COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE SITUATION.

YET THE CHILD HAD TO STAY WITH THE FATHER UNTIL SHE WAS KILLED?

>> Translator: THE COURT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAN.

THE COURT IS RESPONSIBLE.

IT WASN'T JUST HER FATHER WHO KILLED HER.

>> BY TURNING THIS TRIAL INTO A FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, SHIRIN EBADI TREADS ON SENSITIVE GROUND AND THE CLERIC PRESIDING OVER THIS COURT REBUKES HER.

>> Translator: THESE RULES ARE IN THE KORAN AND ARE SET BY GOD WHO IS ALMIGHTY.

THE LEARNING OF ALL PEOPLE IS NOT EQUAL TO ONE DROP OF GOD'S WISDOM SO WE CANNOT QUESTION THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

>> WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM, WHEN THE COURT TOLD YOU THAT AND THEREFORE, STOP INTERFERING, WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT?

>> Translator: I SAID I DON'T OBJECT TO ISLAM.

BUT THE STUDY OF THE KORAN, OUR HOLY BOOK, IS NOT RESERVED TO CLERICS OR MEN.

WOMEN HAVE ONLY RECENTLY HAD ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION.

BEFORE MEN COULD INTERPRET RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY TO SERVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS.

>> ARIANE'S FATHER WAS ACQUITTED OF THE MURDER AND RELEASED BUT HER STEPBROTHER WAS FOUND GUILTY.

ARIANE'S MOTHER DID NOT FEEL LIKE SHE GOT JUSTICE FOR HER DAUGHTER BUT THE CASE DID LEAD TO A CHANGE IN IRAN'S CUSTODY LAWS WHEN SHIRIN EBADI SPOKE TO CHRISTIANE LAST YEAR IN THE MIDST OF THESE NEW PROTESTS, THERE WAS MORE HOPE AND SHE TOLD HER SOME MEN ARE FINALLY COMING ON BOARD.

>> Translator: IRANIAN MEN HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE TO SUPPORT WOMEN.

THEY HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT DEMOCRACY WILL ONLY COME TO IRAN IF WE WOMEN SUCCEED.

IN FACT, IT IS THE WOMEN WHO WILL OPEN THE GATE TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAN.

>> DESPITE THOSE HOPES, MANY DO FEAR BACK LASH OF THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE CASE WHEN CHRISTIANE SPOKE WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER NAZ SOTOUDEH.

>> IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OFFICIALLY, WHETHER THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED OFFICIALLY, NO.

I CAN TELL YOU IT IS EXACERBATED.

IN FACT, OFFICIAL AUTHORITIES ARE TRYING TO FLEX THEIR MUSCLES MORE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO SHOW THEIR STRENGTH A LOT MORE THAN BEFORE.

BUT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CONTINUES, AND MANY WOMEN COURAGEOUSLY TAKE TO THE STREETS WITHOUT WEARING A HEAD SCARF OR ANY FORM OF THE HIJAB.

>> AND FINALLY, ARE YOU SCARED FOR YOUR SAFETY NOW AFTER SPEAKING OUT PUBLICLY AND AFTER ALL THAT YOU DO AND SAY ON BEHALF OF IRANIAN WOMEN?

>> Translator: YES.

KNOWING THAT MY FAMILY, MY CHILDREN ARE BEING THREATENED, AS A MOTHER, BECAUSE I KNOW IT CAN CURB THEIR EDUCATION.

I AM FEARFUL BECAUSE OF THAT.

BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M ALSO FRIGHTENED THAT IF I DON'T DO ANYTHING, IF I STAY PASSIVE, THAT WOULD LEAD TO WORSENING OF THE SITUATION.

IT IS KIND OF SLAVERY OF OUR YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN.

SO DESPITE MY FEAR, I TRY AND DO WHAT IS GOING TO BE MORE HELPFUL FOR FREEING THE COUNTRY AND FREEING OUR PEOPLE.

>> ONE THING IS CLEAR.

THIS MOVEMENT IS NOT OVER.

THAT WAS IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER NASRIN SOTOUDEH SPEAKING TO CHRISTIANE IN FEBRUARY.

>>> TURNING NOW TO THE U.S. WHERE THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED TO THE BENCH THIS WEEK, DIFRG BACK INTO THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF THE MOMENT AMID SCANDALS OF ITS OWN.

HERE TO WALK US THROUGH WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET, GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

LET'S GET TO THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL CASES.

LET'S START WITH THE GUN RIGHTS.

IT IS WHETHER PEOPLE WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS CAN OWN GUNS.

THIS LAW WAS INVALIDATED BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.

TALK ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE.

IT DID SPARK A QUICK BACK LASH FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ASKING THE JUSTICES TO GRANT REVIEW AND REVERSE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT'S RULING.

AND HERE'S WHAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SAID.

THAT IT WOULD THREATEN GRAVE HARM FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

GIVE US MORE CONTEXT HERE.

>> WELL, WE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH THERE WERE THREATS MADE TO THE GIRLFRIEND OF RAHEEMI.

AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, SHE SOUGHT A RESTRAINING ORDER AND RECEIVED IT.

SO HE'S TO STAY AWAY.

BUT UNDER FEDERAL LAW, A RESTRAINING ORDER IS STATE LAW.

BUT UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND SOMEONE UNDER A RESTRAINING ORDER IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A WEAPON.

IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE.

WHEN POLICE OFFICERS SEARCHED HIS HOME ON ANOTHER CAUSE, THEY FOUND THE WEAPON.

EMIT WAS HIS WEAPON.

HE WAS CHARGED AND FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE FEDERAL LAW THAT PROHIBITS SOMEONE UNDER A RESTRAINING ORDER FROM HAVING POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

HE APPEALS.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UPON APPEAL, DECIDED THEY WOULD STRIKE DOWN APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL LAW IN THEIR STATE OF TEXAS.

WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME, I THINK, IN THIS CASE THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

WITH MASS MURDERERS, WITH THIS NATION BEING KNOWN AS A PLACE WHERE MURDERS TAKE PLACE ON VERY HIGH LEVEL ALL THE TIME.

THIS ONE FEDERAL ACT WAS A WAY IN WHICH IT COULD UNDERMINE THE TYPES OF MASS MURDERS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THAT INVOLVE GUN VIOLENCE.

INSTEAD OF UPHOLDING SUCH AN ACT, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DECIDED IT WOULD RATHER PREVAIL IN SUPPORT OF THE POSSESSION OF GUNS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

BECAUSE OF THE NEW YORK CASE, THEY FEEL THEY HAVE PRECEDENT TO DO SO.

>> AND IT WAS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RULING THAT THE LAW IS A QUOTE, OUTLIER.

OUR ANCESTORS WOULD NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE RULING WILL BE FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

BUT GIVEN ITS MAKE-UP, HOW DO YOU THINK THEY WILL RESPOND TO SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS?

>> WELL, I ACTUALLY WRITE BOOKS ON LEGAL HISTORY THAT WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT CONSERVATIVES WEREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE IN AMERICA 100 YEARS AGO, 200 YEARS AGO.

IN 1791, WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS DRAFTED.

SO CONSERVATIVES AREN'T THE ONLY VOICE THAT WE SHOULD BE INTERPRETING OUR LAWS AND HAVE APPLY TO OUR LAWS.

WHAT MY CONCERN IS, CLARENCE THOMAS IN THE NEW YORK STATE RIFLES ASSOCIATION CASE VERSUS BRUIN, SAID WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT HISTORY WAS LIKE IN 1791 UNTIL 1865.

THIS IS VERY ARBITRARY BECAUSE IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT FOR SOME REASON, ONLY THOSE CONSERVATIVE VOICES DURING THAT TIME PERIOD ARE THE ONES THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO LISTEN TO.

AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CASE, SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO APPLY THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, IT IS ALREADY SKEWED BECAUSE THERE'S A SKEWED LOOK OF HISTORY.

AN ARBITRARY LOOK AT HISTORY.

IF IT WAS ONLY A CONSERVATIVE VOICE THAT RULED THIS COUNTRY, WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A CIVIL WAR.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD CASES AND PEOPLE WHO WERE ABOLITIONISTS AGAINST SLAVERY, FIGHTING FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO VOTE.

WE HAD SO MANY WAYS IN WHICH THIS COUNTRY IS REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN JUST CONSERVATIVE ORIGINALISM.

THAT'S WHAT THE COURT'S CONSERVATIVES ARE RELYING ON.

ESPECIALLY CLARENCE THOMAS WHO IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE ON THE COURT RIGHT NOW.

>> ANOTHER CASE THE COURT WILL BE FACING INVOLVES FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES.

PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

WALK US THROUGH THE SIGNIFICANCE HERE AND THE IMPACT THAT SOME DECISIONS MADE BY ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHETHER OR NOT SOME ARE ACCUSING, HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR TAKING DOWN OR BLOCKING WHAT PEOPLE HAVE POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

>> I REMEMBER BEING ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT'S HEARING OF THE FIRST CASE INVOLVING A CELL PHONE.

AND THE CASES HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME.

BUT BASICALLY, THE COURT HAS HAD A DISCOMFORT WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS END AND TECH RIGHTS, OR THE RIGHTS OF THE WORLD OF SOCIAL MEDIA, OR THE META VERSE BEGINS.

AND IN ONE CASE WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE A SCHOOL BOARD THERE.

AND DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE SCHOOL BOARD'S MEMBERS, ACTUALLY TRYING TO, OF COURSE, HAVE THEIR ADMINISTRATION, RULES, REGULATIONS, ET CETERA, YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND IN THIS CASE, THE FAMILY, THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, WERE SENDING VERY DEEP CRITICISM, STARK REMARKS ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.

SO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS DECIDED FIRST TO DELETE SOME OF THE HARSH CRITICISM AND THEN TO BLOCK THE CRITICISM FROM COMING THROUGH AT ALL.

SO THEY WERE BLOCKED FROM BEING ABLE TO PUT THEIR COMMENTS ON THAT WEB PAGE.

THEY SUED AND SAID THEY HAVE A FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.

WE HAD THE TEXAS CASE IN FLORIDA, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES HAD LAWS SAYING THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS COULD NOT BLOCK CONSERVATIVES AND THEREFORE, ALL PEOPLE FROM SAYING WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO SAY ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.

SO YOU HAVE THESE CASES, THREE CASES, THE TEXAS AND FLORIDA CASE AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA CASE GOING BEFORE THE COURT.

AND THE COURT HAS THE DECIDE, AND REMEMBER, THEY HAVE THIS DISCOMFORT WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MANY OF THEM ARE MUCH OLDER AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA AS SOMETHING THAT IS PRIMARY TO FIRST AMENDMENT.

BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FACE THE FACT THAT THIS JUNGLE OF FIRST AMENDMENT LAW HAS TO IN SOME WAY, RECONCILE WITH THE PUT THE, WITH OUR TIMES TODAY.

AND ALSO, WITH THE ABILITY TO CONTROL HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA AS WELL AS RACIST SPEECH AND OTHER TYPES OF PROVOCATION BY HATE GROUPS AND WAYS IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE BEING MADE TO BE POLITICALLY DISENFRANCHISED.

>> YEAH.

TECHNOLOGY REGULATION OVER ALL IS ONE OF THE MOST CHALLENGING ISSUES FACING NOT ONLY THE COURT BUT CONGRESS AS WELL.

ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WILL GO UP BEFORE THE COURT IS GERRYMANDERING OR REDISTRICTING.

THEY WILL CONSIDER A PLAN DRAWN BY SOUTH CAROLINA'S REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE.

I'M WONDERING HOW YOU THINK THEY WILL RULE HERE GIVEN THEIR RECENT DECISION, REJECTING ALABAMA'S BID TO USE A CONGRESSIONAL MAP THAT HAD JUST ONE MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT.

DO YOU THINK THEY'LL FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT RULING IN THIS ONE?

>> PEOPLE WERE VERY SURPRISED BY THE ALABAMA OUTCOME.

BECAUSE OF WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE DOBBS RULING, UNDERMINING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, AS WELL AS OTHER CONSERVATIVE RULINGS FROM THIS COURT.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MADE HIS BONES IN VOTING RIGHTS.

HE WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE THE OPINION THAT GUTTED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN 2013.

MY CONCERN HERE IS, THESE CASES ARE SO BLATANT THAT WE'RE GIVING THE SUPREME COURT PROBABLY THE CONSERVATIVES MUCH MORE CREDIT.

BECAUSE THE THREE-JUDGE COURT THAT RULED ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA CASE, FINDING THAT THERE WERE STARK RACIAL GERRYMANDERING TACTICS BEING USED BY THE CONSERVATIVE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE TO TAKE 30,000 PEOPLE WHO ARE OF AFRICAN DESCENT PRIMARILY AND MOVE THEM TO ANOTHER DISTRICT, GERRYMANDERING, IS BASICALLY TO HAVE AN ENTANGLEMENT IN DISTRICTING IN A WAY THAT WILL UNDERMINE THE VOTING CAPACITY OF A PARTICULAR GROUP.

IN THIS CASE, AFRICAN AMERICANS IN CHARLESTON AND IN NORTH CHARLESTON.

AND THE BLACK VOTE HAS BEEN A POWERFUL VOTE SINCE 1870 WHEN BLACK MEN GAINED THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

AND THEN WHEN BLACK WOMEN GAINED THE RIGHT TO VOTE WITH OTHER WOMEN IN 1920.

THE UNDERMINING OF THE BLACK VOTE SHOWS ITS POWER BUT IT ALSO SHOWS HOW BLACK VOTE DILUTION IS WORKING.

AND THEN TO MAKE THE MINORITIES IN ANOTHER DISTRICT, RATHER THAN TO HAVE THE POWER, THE FULL POWER OF THE DISTRICT THEY'RE IN WHICH IS THE CITY.

I WOULD SAY THIS ONE LAST THING.

WITH REGENTRIFICATION AND MORE WHITE PEOPLE MOVING FROM THE SUBURBS, FROM RURAL PLACES INTO THE CITIES.

THE CITIES THAT WERE ABANDONED BEFORE AND BECAME A MAJORITY PEOPLE OF COLOR.

NOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE MOVING INTO THE CITIES AND THEY WANT CONTROL.

WHETHER OR NOT IT IS LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL CONTROL.

THAT WILL BE AN ONGOING ISSUE AS PEOPLE COME INTO THE CITIES AND WANT TO WREST AWAY THE POLITICAL POWER THAT HAS BEEN GAINED BY AFRICAN AMERICANS, IN THIS CASE, CHARLESTON.

I BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD FOLLOW THIS PRECEDENT.

IN SO MANY CASES, WE NEVER KNOW.

WITH THIS SUPREME COURT AND CONSERVATIVES ON IT.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT WITH THE RULING THAT THE FDA SHOULD NOT BE CHALLENGED IN TERMS OF THEIR DECISIONS AND APPROVAL PROCESS.

YOU MENTIONED THE DOBBS CASE, OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.

THE ABORTION PILL THAT IS THE MOST COMMONLY USED WAY THAT WOMEN TERMINATE PREGNANCIES TODAY, OVER 5 MILLION WOMEN IN THE U.S. HAVE USED IT FOR DECADES.

THAT IS COMING UP BEFORE THE COURT AS WELL.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO INCORPORATE THE PAST RULINGS AND PRECEDENT ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE?

>> MY CONCERN IS THIS IS WHEN THE SHADOW DOCKET OF THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO PLAY A MAJOR ROLE.

THE COURT HAS BEEN MAKING RULINGS WITHOUT ANY NAMES, WITHOUT ANY DECISIONS.

WHEN THE COURT DECIDED TO HOLD OFF ON THE MIFEPRISTONE AND DECIDE NOT TO HAVE IT, THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT TO NOT ALLOW IT TO BE TAKEN OFF THE MARKET, THE IDEA WAS THAT THE REPUBLICANS AND OTHER CONSERVATIVES ARE CHALLENGING THE ABILITY OF THE FDA, THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, TO MAKE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENTS.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED.

BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE POLITICAL JUDGMENT IS GOING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SCIENTISTS, WHO ARE DOCTORS, WHO ARE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT A DRUG IS SAFE.

THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE FDA WAS WRONG WHEN IT DECIDED THAT THIS DRUG WAS SAFE AND IT SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE MARKET AND THEREFORE, NOT MADE AVAILABLE.

AND THERE ARE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE TIME U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES ALSO WHERE THERE ARE CHALLENGES TO THE ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO BE THE SMARTEST, THE MOST INFORMED ABOUT THE CONTENT OR THE ISSUES BEFORE THE AGENCY.

AND THAT THE POLITICAL PROCESS, PEOPLE IN POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD BE DECIDING IN THE PLACE OF THE MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR AGENCY WHO ARE IN THAT AGENCY AND WORKING THOSE ISSUES DAY IN AND DAY OUT BECAUSE CERTAIN PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE DECISIONS OF THE AGENCY.

>> GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, THANK YOU.

SO.

A LOT TO TALK ABOUT.

>>> THE SUPREME COURT IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE ERODING TRUST IN AMERICA'S INSTITUTIONS.

FOR DECADES, AN ELITE MAJORITY HAS WEAPONIZED LANGUAGE AND PROMOTED FALSE HISTORY ACCORDING TO HISTORIAN HEATHER COX RICHARDSON.

SHE EXPLORES THIS IN HER NEW BOOK.

>> THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING WITH US.

>> SUCH A PLEASURE.

>> AS YOU AND I ARE SPEAKING NOW, WE'RE IN THIS REALLY STRANGE MOMENT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, KEVIN McCARTHY, IS LOSING HIS JOB BECAUSE HE COMPROMISED WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OPEN.

ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.

LOOKING AT ALL THE THINGS GOING ON IN OUR POLITICS AT THE MOMENT, IS THERE A WAY YOU CAN PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT FOR US?

>> YES.

BUT LET'S START WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

THE IDEA THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE TO WORK WITH DEMOCRATS TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OPEN IS SOMEHOW SOMETHING THAT MAKES HIM IN HIS OWN CONFERENCE BE UNPOPULAR.

THAT IS COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THE WAY THIS GOVERNMENT WAS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

SO FROM THE BEGINNING WE'RE IN A REALLY UNUSUAL MOMENT.

ONE OF THE THING THAT I STUDY IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE TO EMPHASIZE, THIS IS NOT YOUR MOTHER'S REPUBLICAN PARTY.

IT HAS BECOME AN EXTREMIST FACTION THAT HAS WITHIN ITS GOALS TO GET RID OF THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH WE'VE LIVED SINCE 1933.

SO YOU HAVE TO START FROM THE PREMISE THAT YOU CAN'T BOTH SIDES THIS ISSUE.

WE HAVE A NATIONAL PROBLEM THAT IS EMBODIED BY ONE HARD-RIGHT EXTREMIST PARTY.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE DEMOCRATS ARE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT THIS IS A MOMENT IN WHICH WE HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND RECOGNIZE A LARGER CHALLENGE TO OUR DEMOCRACY THAT HAPPENS TO BE EMBODIED RIGHT NOW BY A CERTAIN PARTISAN DIVISION, BUT ONE THAT ECHOS OTHER MOMENTS IN OUR HISTORY THAT WE GOT THROUGH BY WORKING TOGETHER TO ISOLATE EXTREMISTS.

>> AND I'LL ASK YOU TO WALK US THROUGH YOUR ARGUMENT.

THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR BOOK, "DEMOCRACY AWAKENING."

I WANT TO SKIP AHEAD TO THE POINT YOU MAKE SEVERAL TIMES IN THE BOOK.

YOU MAKE THE POINT VERY PERSUASIVELY AND CHILLINGLY, I HAVE TO SAY, THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE SO INVEST IN THE THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT'S TRUE.

SO I'M JUST INTERESTED IN, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE WE ARE, HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT?

>> WELL, YES, AND THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL TO ME.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SCHOLARS OF AUTHORITARIANISM AND TOTALITARIANISM HAVE IDENTIFIED AT LEAST SINCE WORLD WAR II.

THE QUESTION IS THIS.

WHY DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE RISE OF DICTATORS?

WHEN THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THE DICTATORS.

EVERY GENERATION HAS AUTHORITARIANS AND DICTATORS.

BUT ONLY IN SOME GENERATIONS DO THEY GET ENOUGH TRACTION TO TAKE OVER A GOVERNMENT.

I THINK WHAT WE SEE NOWADAYS IS THE RISE OF POLITICS THAT ERASES REALITY IN FAVOR OF A REALLY ATTRACTIVE IMAGE.

OR ATTRACTIVE IMAGE FOR SOME PEOPLE.

WHAT THAT SAYS IS WE CAN TAKE YOU PEOPLE WHO FEEL DISAFFECTED, ECONOMICALLY OR RELIGIOUSLY OR CULTURALLY, SOCIALLY, AND WE CAN MAKE YOU FEEL AS IMPORTANT AS YOU USED TO.

THE WAY WE'LL DO THAT IS BY GOING BACK TO A SERIES OF LAWS THAT ARE EITHER DIVINE OR SET DOWN BY THE UNIVERSE THAT OUR ENEMIES, AND WHO THOSE ENEMIES ARE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, ARE IGNORING.

AND ON THAT BEAUTIFUL STORY, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEGIN TO REST THEIR IDENTITIES.

THEY DON'T NECESSARILY EXPECT THEIR LIVES WILL GET BETTER.

THEY EXPECT THEY'RE DEFENDING THIS TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF A COUNTRY.

THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE UNITED STATES.

THE TRICK TO THIS IS THOUGH, PEOPLE BEGIN TO BE ATTRACTED BY THAT FALSE REALITY.

SOME PEOPLE REALLY DO GIVE UP THEIR IDENTITIES.

MOST PEOPLE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO EMBRACE A DIFFERENT IDENTITY.

AN IDENTITY THAT ACTUALLY SOLVES PROBLEMS.

AN IDENTITY THAT ACTUALLY MOVES THIS COUNTRY FORWARD TO EXPAND DEMOCRACY AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.

THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO BE TALKING TO AND EMPHASIZING RIGHT NOW.

NOT THE 20% OF AMERICANS WHO ARE SIMPLY LOST.

AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IN ANY KIND OF RISE OF A TOTALITARIAN MOVEMENT.

AND THEN IT'S FALL.

SOME PEOPLE CANNOT LET GO OF THAT IDENTITY BUT MOST PEOPLE CAN RECOGNIZE, EITHER THAT THEY'VE BEEN DUPED AND THEY'VE BECOME APATHETIC OR THEY NEED TO FIGHT BACK AND TAKE BACK A REAL COUNTRY.

>> SO WHO IS YOUR BOOK FOR?

WHO ARE YOU WRITING FOR?

>> SO THIS BOOK IS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND OUR COUNTRY, WANT TO FEEL A PART OF IT, BUT FEEL LIKE THERE IS TOO MUCH COMING AT THEM TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES.

WHEN DID THE PARTIES SWITCH SIDE?

WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY IN THE 14th AMENDMENT?

ALL THOSE THINGS IN THE NEWS BUT AREN'T THERE IN SUCH AN ORDERLY WAY THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THEY WILL.

SO THIS IS A SERIES OF SHORT ESSAYS THAT TAKE YOU THROUGH HOW WE GOT HERE FROM 1937 TO 2015.

WHAT THE RISE OF AN AUTHORITARIAN MEN FROM 2015 TO THE PRESENT, AND THAT FINAL SECTION, HOW DO WE LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO CAME BEFORE US AND HOW THEY FACE AD SIMILAR MOMENT AND GOT OUT OF IT?

>> LET'S START WITH THE NEW DEAL.

THAT IS THE FIRST SECTION OF THE BOOK.

YOU SAID FDR CREATED A LIBERAL COULD N CONSENSUS THAT DEFINED AFTER WORLD WAR II.

HOW DID THAT LIBERAL CONSENSUS COME ABOUT?

WAS IT THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAW MATERIAL IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR LIVES?

OR WAS IT THE EXTERNAL THREAT OF THE WAR?

>> THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF WHAT IS GOING ON.

I'M GLAD YOU CALLED THAT OUT.

THE LIBERAL CONSENSUS COMES NOT ONLY FROM FDR WHO DOES IN FACT HELP PEOPLE'S MATERIAL LIVES DURING THE DEPRESSION BY INVENTING A GOVERNMENT, OR PICKING UP A GOVERNMENT THAT REGULATES BUSINESS, PROVIDES A BASIC SOCIAL SAFETY NET, PROMOTES INFRASTRUCTURE, THINGS LIKE THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, AND BEGINS TO FLIRT WITH THE IDEA OF THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE STATES.

IT'S NOT REALLY THE DEMOCRATS WHO PUSHED THAT.

ALTHOUGH TRUMAN DOES QUITE A LOT.

IT IS UNDER REPUBLICAN DWIGHT EISENHOWER THAT THE GOVERNMENT BEGINS TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE STATES.

AND THOSE FOUR PIECES MAKE THE LIBERAL CONSENSUS WHICH DOES HELP PEOPLE'S ECONOMIC LIVES.

THAT MATTERS BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE'S ECONOMIC LIVES ARE BETTER HISTORICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE MUCH MORE WILLING TO ACCORD RIGHTS TO PEOPLE OF COLOR.

THEY'RE NOT WHEN THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

THEY ARE FIRST A REACTION TO THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEPRESSION.

CRUCIALLY, WHAT FDR BEGINS TO DO IS TO ARTICULATE THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY THAT MINORITY POPULATIONS HAVE BEEN HOLDING HIGH ALL ALONG.

SO HE BEGINS VERY ARTICULATELY TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY, AND TO DEFEND THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AGAINST FASCISM, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A WAY THAT REALLY INSPIRES PEOPLE TO CARRY THAT TORCH FORWARD.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT REALLY DRAMATICALLY IN THE MOMENT THAT ROME FALLS, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND HE GIVES A VERY POWERFUL SPEECH ABOUT EVEN THOUGH THE FASCISTS PROMISE EVERYTHING, LOOK WHO IS FEEDING THE STARVING PEOPLE IN ROME.

IT'S US, THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS.

SO THAT IDEA OF HELPING PEOPLE AT A VERY BASIC ECONOMIC LEVEL AND ALSO THE SOON TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE STATES THEN BACK'S PROFOUND DEFENSE OF THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN SELF-DETERMINATION AS IT IS EMBODIED IN DEMOCRACY.

>> YOU DRAW A THROUGH LINE FROM FDR TO JOE BIDEN.

THE INFLAKES REDUCTION ACT AND SO FORTH.

YOU ALSO DRAW A THROUGH LINE THROUGH THE COUNTER VEILING FORCES WHO YOU SAY TRY TO MARSHAL RACIAL GRIEVANCE IN THE SERVICE OF AN UNBALANCED ECONOMY THAT BENEFITS THE FEW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MANY.

I'M SOAR CURIOUS.

WHEN YOU SAY, WE'VE SEEN THIS HAVE MANY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHY DOES IT STILL WORK?

>> I'M MAKING THE POINT THAT THAT IDEA THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS CERTAINLY RUNS ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE UNITED STATES.

THROUGH THE 1890s AND THE RISE OF THE ROBBER BARONS AND THE SLAVERS IN THE 1850s, ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WHAT I'M REALLY ARTICULATING IS THE ONGOING STRUGGLE, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES, BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS THAT EVERYBODY IS CREATED EQUAL AND HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY BY THE LAWS AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IDEA THAT SOME PEOPLE REALLY ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS AND HAVE A DUTY AND A RIGHT TO RULE OVER THE REST OF US.

THOSE ARE TWO REALLY FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS ABOUT THE WAY HUMAN SOCIETY SHOULD BE ORGANIZED.

NOW, WHY WE KEEP EMBRACING THE ONE, THE EXPANSION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, AND THEN ABANDONING IT, I THINK IT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT BECAUSE IT WORKS, PEOPLE TEND TO THINK WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE IT AND THEY STOP PAYING ATTENTION AND THEY STOP DEFENDING IT.

IN 1960 THERE WAS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST WHO SAID, LISTEN.

WE ALL AGREE ON A LIBERAL CONSENSUS.

LET'S STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

AND INSTEAD, BUILD COALITIONS FOR THINGS THAT WANT DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THAT LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THAT LEFT ROOM FOR A NEW NARRATIVE TO COME UP OF THE SMALL FACTION OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO OVERTURN THE LIBERAL CONSENSUS.

THEY GAVE US THE IDEA OF THE COWBOY STANDING ALONE AGAINST THE BIG GOVERNMENT.

THE SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM, WHEN THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE STABLE, WE BACK OFF AND SAY WE'RE ALL SET NOW AND THAT OPENS THE WAY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST THAT CONSENSUS TO GET A REAL FOOT HOLD.

>> ON THE ONE HAND, MANY PEOPLE CONSIDER OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS TO BE AT A TIME OF GREAT PERIL.

BUT THEN OTHER PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND SAY THEY'VE SURVIVED BEFORE.

THEY'VE SURVIVED GRIEVOUS THREATS.

THE CIVIL WAR, FOR EXAMPLE.

IS THERE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY SELF-PROTECTIVE ABOUT THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE THAT ACTS AS, A I DON'T KNOW, BULWARK AGAINST THIS.

>> WHAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED TO ME IS THE EXCITING PART OF THIS BOOK.

AND THAT IS, THE CENTRAL QUESTION.

WHY WHEN ALL SORTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES FELL TO FASCISM, WHY DIDN'T AMERICA?

WHAT I CAME TO BELIEVE IS THAT WHEN I WAS WRITING THIS BOOK, THROUGH MY YEARS AS AN HISTORIAN, THE UNITED STATES HAS IN A FUNNY WAY HAD AN INOCULATION AGAINST FASCISM.

FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT HAS ALWAYS HAD SUCH A COMPLICATED HISTORY WITH RACE AND IMMIGRATION.

THAT IS THAT MARGINALIZED AMERICANS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING CENTERED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE IDEA THEY MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY BEFORE THE LAWS AND THEY MUST HAVE A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THEIR GOVERNMENT.

WHILE OTHER COUNTRIES COULD TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED OR SAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, WE DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

AMERICANS WERE OUT THERE EVERY MINUTE SAYING, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT ABOUT US?

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT CONSTANT STRUGGLE TO MAKE THAT LIBERAL DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY BECOME REAL, AMERICANS HAD IT IN FRONT OF THEM AND STILL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US IN A WAY THAT WE MIGHT NOT, WERE WE NOT SUCH A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY.

>> AN EXAM OF PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT HISTORICALLY MARGE ALLIESED PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD AMERICA TO ITS IDEALS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY JUMPED OUT IS THE NAACP, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE WHICH WAS FORMED IN 1909, SORT OF TECHNICALLY AROUND-ISH ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S BIRTHDAY WHITE DELIBERATELY.

IT IS A MULTIRACIAL, MULTIRELIGIOUS, MULTICULTURAL GROUP THAT SAYS WE MUST MAKE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TO EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY.

YOU LOOK AT THE NAACP AS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF IT IS IDA B.

WELLS, A FJOURNALIST IN THE LAT 19th AND 20th CENTURIES.

ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE, DEBOYCE, A BRILLIANT SOCIOLOGIST.

CO-DO ANYTHING HE WANTS.

WHAT DID DOUGH?

HE DECIDES TO EDIT THE CRISIS.

HE TAKES ALL THE EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS TO THE MAGAZINE AND CONSTANTLY HAMMERS ON, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS IN THIS COUNTRY TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BEFORE THE LAW THAN OTHERS.

IF YOU GO FORWARD FROM THAT MOMENT OF 1909, THE NAACP IS CONSTANTLY HANGING OUT FLAGS EVERY TIME SOMEBODY IS LYNCHED.

MAKING SURE THE POPULAR FIGURES IN AMERICAN CULTURE ARE OUT THERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS WHEN IN FACT A YOUNG WOMAN WALKING HOME FROM CHURCH IS GANG-RAPED.

WHAT IT MEANS WHEN SOMEBODY COMES HOME FROM FIGHTING IF WORLD WAR II AND HAS HIS EYES PUT OUT.

EVEN THOUGH THE PERPETRATOR CONFESSES TO THE CRIME, ENDS UP BEING ACQUITTED OF IT.

THEY KEEP THAT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE CONSTANTLY.

WHEN IT ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY IN MY ERA, WE TEND TO FOCUS ON HEROES.

FOR EXAMPLE, ROSA PARKS AND SAY HERE FEET WERE TIRED.

SHE WORKED FOR THE NAACP.

SHE HAD BEEN OUT THERE IN THE FIELD COLLECTING THESE STAT STATISTICS, WORKING WITH PEOPLE, MAKING SURE PEOPLE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE NAACP BECOMES THIS EXTRAORDINARILY POWERFUL WAY TO SHINE LIGHT ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION.

THEY'RE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE SAYING, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL.

IT'S NOT ABOUT A CERTAIN GROUP.

IT'S ABOUT THE COUNTRY AND WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR.

>> HOW DO YOU ADDRESS, BASED ON YOUR HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE AND YOUR DEEP REPORTING, THE ONGOING POWER OF WHITE GRIEVANCE?

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, AS YOU POINTED OUT IN YOUR BOOK, THIS KIND OF, WE'RE NOT GETTING OUR FAIR SHARE ARGUMENT.

OR THAT THESE PEOPLE, THESE OTHER PEOPLE, THESE MINORITY PEOPLE, THESE BROWN PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE AT THE EXPENSE OF US.

IT IS A VERY POWERFUL ARGUMENT.

HOW DO WELL-MEANING PEOPLE WHO DO BELIEVE IN A GOVERNMENT AND IN A COUNTRY THAT INCLUDES ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND CONTRIBUTE TO IT, SHOULD BENEFIT FROM IT.

HOW DOES ONE ADDRESS THAT?

>> WELL, HISTORICALLY, THAT IS WORKED BY MAKING THE ECONOMIC PIE FAIRER.

PEOPLE ARE VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO THAT LANGUAGE.

WHITE PEOPLE ARE VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TOM LANGUAGE WHEN THEIR OWN TABLES ARE BARER THAN THEY USED TO BE.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE RISE OF WHITE GRIEVANCE TRACKS VERY CLOSELY TO THE WEALTH AT THE TOP OF THE SCALE.

YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE 1990s, IN THE 1850s.

THE 1850s AND THE EARLY 1860s IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH.

IN FACT, WELTD WAS DRAMATICALLY CONCENTRATED IN 1% OF THE WHITE POPULATION, MUCH OF IT HOMELESS.

SO IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THOSE THING TRACK EXECLY AS WELL.

>> LET'S SAY, I KNOW YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A CONSERVATIVE.

YOU SAY THE WAY LINCOLN DID.

THESE WERE THE PRINCIPLES ARTICULATED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY?

WHO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

I'M A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SMALL GOVERNMENT.

I BELIEVE THAT TRADITIONAL FAMILY STRUCTURES ARE THE BEST.

I BELIEVE IN A MINIMAL FEDERAL FOOTPRINT.

DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR THEM?

>> YES.

AND THE ANSWER IS, OF COURSE, BY REACHING BACK TO LINCOLN AND TRYING TO RECLAIM THE MANTLE OF CONSERVATISM FOR PROGRESSIVISM, I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT TODAY'S REPUBLICANS WHO TALK ABOUT SMALL GOVERNMENT ARE SIMPLY NOT TRYING TO DO THAT AT ALL.

THEY'RE IN FACT TALKING ABOUT A LARGE GOVERNMENT THAT WILL IMPOSE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM ON THE REST OF US.

WE NEED TO HAVE WORKING POLITICAL PARTIES THAT ARE FUNCTIONING IN THE REAL WORLD IN THIS MOMENT.

AND IT'S THE GIVE AND TAKE BETWEEN THOSE THINGS THAT WILL GET US TO A REASONABLE GOVERNMENT THAT OPERATES IN THE REAL WORLD.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

AND WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THOSE THINGS NEED TO WORK WITH PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON IT TO GET RID OF THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES ALTOGETHER.

THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE AMERICAN GOV BUT DOES THINGS LIKE PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS, THAT DOES THINGS LIKE REGULATE BUSINESS OR HAS A BASIC SOCIAL SAFETY NET OR PROMOTES STRUCTURE.

THOSE THINGS THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AGREE ON.

IT IS TRADITIONAL IN THIS COUNTRY.

THEY ARE THE THINGS UNDER WHICH WE TEND TO HAVE THE MOST JUST SOCIETY.

ECONOMICALLY, CULTURALLY, AND RELIGIOUSLY.

AND THOSE ARE THE TRUE VALUES OF AMERICANS.

AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS ON WHICH WE NEED TO STAND RIGHT NOW.

ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, SURE, LET'S GO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL ABOUT MORTGAGE RATES.

LET'S GO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL ABOUT WHAT TO DO IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

UNTIL WE HAVE THE RESTORATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THE REST OF IT NEEDS TO BE MOVED OFF THE TABLE.

>> HEATHER COX RICHARDSON.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>>> FEIGNLEY, A REAL TREAT WITH A MUSICAL LEGEND.

HERB ALPERT MADE HIS NAME AS A TRUMPETER, SONGWRITER, AND BANDLEADER, RECORDING HITS LIKE "SPANISH FLEE" WITH HIS BAND, THE TIJUANA BRASS.

♪ W. WITH ARTISTS LIKE BURT BACHARACH AND SAM COOKE, HE SIGNED BUDDING MEGA STARS LIKE THE CARPENTERS, CAROLE KING AND JANET JACKSON.

NOW AT 88, HE'S REALLY SINGING A BRAND NEW ALBUM OF HIS OWN MUSIC CALLED "WISH UPON A STAR."

OUR WISH HAS CERTAINLY BEEN GRANTED TODAY.

HE JOINS US NOW.

I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE THE FIRST TRUMPETER TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE ON AMANPOUR.

DON'T QUOTE ME ON IT.

>> I LIKE IT.

>> IT IS SO GREAT TO SEE YOU.

I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU HOW EXCITED WE'VE BEEN FOR THIS SEGMENT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO YOU, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THE NEW ALBUM.

LET'S JUST START THERE.

IT HAS DEBUTED ALREADY IN NUMBER ONE ON THE CHARTS FOR CONTEMPORARY JAZZ ALBUMS.

IT IS A COLLECTION.

IT TAKES ON CLASSIC SONGS FROM THE BEATLES, AND ELVIS, AND THE NAME SAKE, WHEN YOU WISH UPON AER AT A. I WANT TO PLAY A RENDITION OF EASTBOUND AND DOWN.

>> OH, BOY.

♪ ♪ >> THAT TAKES ME BACK.

TALK TO US ABOUT THIS NEW ALBUM AND WHY YOU CHOSE TO MAKE IT.

>> WELL, IT'S JUST A SERIES OF SONG THAT HAUNT ME.

THAT SONG THAT YOU JUST PLAYED, I SAW THAT SMOKY AND THE BANDIT MOVIE ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, AND I COULDN'T GET THIS SONG OUT OF MY MIND.

IT WAS WRITTEN BY JERRY REED.

HE WAS IN THE MOVIE.

HE WAS DRIVING AN 18-WHEELER, AND THE SONG WAS PLAYING.

AND EVER SINCE THEN, I JUST FELT, IS THERE A WAY I CAN DO THIS SONG THAT MAYBE HASN'T BEEN DONE THAT WAY BEFORE?

AND JUST DID IT.

AND LO AND BEHOLD, I GOT INVITED TO PLAY WITH THE GRAND OLE OPRY, AND I DID IT ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

IT WAS A FABULOUS NIGHT.

ONE OF THE BEST NIGHTS OF MY LIFE AS A MUSICIAN.

>> YOU HAVE A LEGION OF FANS FROM AMATEURS, AND THOSE WHO ARE PROFESSIONALS ALIKE.

MILES DAVIS SAID YOU HEAR THREE NOTES AND YOU KNOW IT IS HERB ALPERT.

TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR UNIQUE STYLE.

IN FACT, WE SHOULD TELL VIEWERS, YOUR SONG "RISE" HAS BEEN CITED BY SEVERAL WRITERS INCLUDING NOTORIOUS B.I.G.

>> I JUST WRITE SONGS THAT TOUCH ME.

I TRY TO BE HONEST THE WAY I PLAY.

I'M A JAZZ MUSICIAN AT HEART.

I LIKE IMPROVISATIONAL TYPE MUSIC.

AND I JUST GO FOR THE SONGS THAT MAKE ME FEEL GOOD WHEN I HEAR IT.

ODDLY ENOUGH, I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE TOLD THIS TO TOO MANY PEOPLE.

ANYBODY LISTENING?

I MAKE SONGS FOR MYSELF.

I RECORD SONGS THAT MAKE ME FEEL GOOD.

AND THEN IF I HAVE A COLLECTION OF SONGS, I'LL PUT THEM IN AN AL BUM.

THAT'S ABOUT IT.

I DON'T HAVE LIKE A MAJOR PLAN, ACTUALLY.

I GET LUCKY.

AND I GOT LUCKY WITH, SOMEBODY PICKED UP ONE OF MY SONGS THAT I RECORDED 60 YEARS AGO ON TIKTOK.

AND SO FAR, I'VE HAD 200 MILLION STREAMS ON THAT ONE SONG CALLED "LADY FINGERS."

SO THIS IS TOTALLY OUT OF THE BLUE.

>> I THINK IT TAKES A LITTLE MORE THAN LUCK BUT LUCK GOES A LONG WAY, TOO.

YOU'VE HAD LUCK FOR 80 YEARS NOW.

YOU WERE 8 YEARS OLD WHEN YOU FIRST PICKED UP A TRUMPET.

I GUESS IT WAS LOVE AT FIRST SOUND.

SPEAKING OF TIMELESS MUSIC, CAN WE PLAY SAM COOKE'S "WONDERFUL WORLD"?

♪ DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY ♪ ♪ DON'T KNOW MUCH BIOLOGY ♪ DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE BOOKS ♪ ♪ DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE FRENCH I TOOK ♪ ♪ BUT I DO KNOW THAT I LOVE YOU ♪ ♪ AND I KNOW THAT IF YOU LOVE ME TOO ♪ ♪ WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD THIS WOULD BE ♪ >> I MEAN, TALK ABOUT TIMELESS MUSIC.

THAT IS JUST A SONG THAT YOU CAN HEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN NO MATTER HOW OLD YOU ARE, NO THE MAER WHO YOU WERE WITH.

WHEN YOU HEAR THAT SONG NOW, DOES IT RESONATE WITH YOU DIFFERENTLY THAN IT DID THE FIRST, I DON'T KNOW, THOUSAND TIMES YOU DID?

>> WELL, IT DOES.

I LEARNED A LOT FROM SAM.

SAM WAS A FANTASTIC ARTIST.

A WONDERFUL GENTLEMAN.

HE USED TO COME TO ME WITH A NOTEBOOK FILLED WITH LYRICS.

HE SHOWED ME THIS LYRIC AND HE SAID, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE LYRIC?

HE LOOKED AT ME.

THIS IS THE CORNIEST LYRIC I'VE EVER SEEN.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT TO HIM.

I SAID WHAT DOES THE SONG SOUND LIKE?

HE PICKED UP HIS GUITAR AND STARTED SINGING THIS SONG.

AND I'M SAYING, HOLY -- IT AIN'T WHAT YOU DO.

IT'S THE WAY HOW YOU DO IT.

THE WAY HE PHRASED THE SONG, THE MELODY HE PUT TO THE SONG.

THE PASSION HE PUT INTO IT.

I SAID THAT'S MUSIC.

THAT'S MAKING MUSIC.

I LEARNED A LOT FROM HIM.

WHEN I HEAR THAT SONG, I THINK ABOUT SAM.

HE WAS A LOVELY PERSON.

>> WE SHOULD NOTE THAT YOU AND YOU ARE WHY PARTNER AT A & M, YOUR ROSTER, CAROLE KING, JANET JACKSON, WELL, JERRY RECENTLY PASSED AWAY.

I'M SORRY FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR PARTNER AND DEAR FRIEND AND A LOSS TO THE MUSIC WORLD.

I WANT TO READ SOMETHING STING SAID IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES."

HE SAID THEY WERE GENTLEMEN.

I THINK THEIR EXTRAORDINARY SUCCESS WAS REALLY PREDICATED ON THOSE VERY HUMAN QUALITIES.

NOT BEING RUTHLESS BUSINESS OR KILL TO BE KILLED PEOPLE.

THEY WERE ARTIST FRIENDLY.

IT COMES AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS A DEBATE ABOUT GENIUS, NO MATTER WHAT INDUSTRY YOU'RE IN, HAS TO COME WITH SOMEBODY BEING RUTHLESS OR COOL.

YOU SORT OF DISPROVE THAT.

WOULDN'T YOU SAY?

>> WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.

TIMING PLAYS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART IN IT ALL.

WE WERE AT THE RIGHT PLACE.

AND PRIOR TO A & M, I RECORDED FOR A MAJOR COMPANY AND I WASN'T CRAZY ABOUT THE WAY THEY WERE TREATING ME.

I WANTED TO DO SOME THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE APPROPRIATE AND THEY WOULDN'T LET ME BECAUSE OF THE UPNION PROBLEMS, ET CETERA, AND I SAID IF I HAD MY OWN RECORD COMPANY, I WOULD DO IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

THE RECORD COMPANY, THE MUSIC COMPANY SHOULD REVOLVE AROUND THE ARTIST AND THAT'S THE WAY WE MADE IT.

>> I HAVE TO MENTION THAT BEHIND YOU, I SPY A TRUMPET.

AND I WOULD BE KICKING MYSELF IF I DIDN'T ASK YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU WOULD FEEL -- [ LAUGHTER ] >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR?

>> I'LL LET YOU PICK.

>> ANY PARTICULAR KEY?

>> I'LL LET YOU PICK.

I WON'T BE GREEDY HERE.

>> SO IT STARTED OUT WITH -- ♪ SO THAT'S THE ONE.

♪ ♪ THAT WAS WHAT YOU ALREADY PLAYED BEFORE.

SPA SPAN FLEA.

AND THEN -- ♪ ♪ THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE RECORD.

I HAVE THIS RECORD OF BEING THE ONLY ARTIST THAT HAS THE NUMBER ONE RECORD AS A VOCALIST, THIS GUY IS IN LOVE WITH YOU, AND THAT SONG I JUST PLAYED, RISE.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> I LOVE THAT SONG, SMILE.

A SONG WE PLAY IN CONCERT AND EVERY TIME I DO IT, IT GETS A GREAT REACTION.

SOMETHING ABOUT THAT MELODY.

IT IS ALL ABOUT MELODY.

I THINK IT IS ALL ABOUT MELODY.

YOU CERTAINLY HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD LYRIC IF YOU'RE WRITING, YOU KNOW, A VOCAL.

BUT THE MELODY IS SUPREME.

A GREAT LYRIC WITHOUT A GOOD MELODY ISN'T GOING TO GO AS FAR AS A GREAT MELODY WITH A GREAT LYRIC.

THAT'S BURT BACHARACH.

>> JUST LOVELY.

I DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO SPEAK.

I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THAT BEAUTIFUL MUSIC WITH THE SOUND OF MY VOICE.

IN THE FINAL SECONDS WE HAVE LEFT, WHAT IS NEXT FOR YOU?

YOU GOT A NEW ALBUM.

YOU'RE CLEARLY SO PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

WHAT DO YOU ENJOY DOING NOW?

>> WELL, I WANT TO GIVE BACK AS MUCH AS I CAN TO ARTISTS.

I THINK ARTISTS ARE THE HEARTBEAT OF OUR WORLD.

NOT ONLY MUSICIANS BUT PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, ACTORS, POETS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE ONES THAT KIND OF IDENTIFY AND MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD.

AND EVERYBODY FOR THE MOST PART IS CREATIVE.

I THINK WE KIND OF BEAT CREATIVITY OUT OF KIDS AT A YOUNG AGE.

IT WE SHOULD GET MORE CREDIT TO THE ARTS.

AND I HOPE THERE ARE POLITICIANS THAT RECOGNIZE THAT.

THE ARTISTS ARE CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR WORLD.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN A GIFT TO THIS WORLD AND I DO WANT TO CORRECT MYSELF.

YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST TRUMPETER ON WITH CHRISTIANE, OF COURSE NOT.

IN 2016, YOU'RE IN GOOD COMPANY.

SHE INTERVIEWED WHITNEY MARSALIS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

IT HAS BEEN A REAL SPECIAL TREAT.

CONGRATULATIONS ON THE ALBUM.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.

GOODBYE FROM NEW YORK.