METROFOCUS: NOVEMBER 14, 2019

November 15, 2019 at 5:30 am

MetroFocus hosts Rafael Pi Roman and Jack Ford break down the testimony and the evidence of yesterday’s hearing, and take a look ahead at round two of the public impeachment hearings set for tomorrow. Famed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin examines “Leadership: In Turbulent Times” by taking a look at our history to make sense of today’s national narrative.

Aired on November 14, 2019.

Transcript Print

>>> TONIGHT ON "METROFOCUS," THE
CASE FOR AND AGAINST IMPEACHING
DONALD TRUMP.
WE ARE BREAKING DOWN THE
EVIDENCE AND WHAT'S NEXT AS
CONGRESS GETS SET FOR ROUND TWO
OF THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT
HEARINGS.
>>> THEN IT IS A LESSON IN
LEADERSHIP FROM DORIS GOODWIN,
THE FAMED HISTORIAN DEMONSTRATES
LEADERSHIP IN TURBULENT TIMES
AND LOOKS AT OUR HISTORY TO MAKE
SENSE OF TODAY'S NARRATIVE.
THOSE STORIES AND MORE AS
"METROFOCUS" STARTS RIGHT NOW.
§

>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH
RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD, AND
JENNA FLANAGAN.
>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE
BY
JAMES AND MERRYL TISCH,
SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III,
THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA
PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT
ANTI-SEMITISM.
BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ,
ROSALIND P. WALTER,
AND BY --

>>> IN THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING
TODAY WHERE WE IMPEACH
PRESIDENTS FOR TREASON OR
BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES
WHERE IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
IN THAT CALL?
ARE EITHER OF YOU HERE TODAY TO
ASSERT THERE WAS AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE IN THIS CALL?
SHOUT IT OUT.
ANYONE?
>> MR. RATCLIFFE IF I COULD
RESPOND, LET ME REITERATE.
>> I HAVE ONLY ONE MINUTE LEFT.
>> I KNOW --
>> I HAVE GOT 30 --
>> YOU ASKED THE WITNESS.
>> I WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.
>> I AM NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE
SIDE OR ANOTHER.
THAT'S YOUR DECISION.
>> LET ME ASK YOU --
>> THE GENERAL WILL SUSPEND.
A MEMBER OF MY STAFF COULD HEAR
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE
ASKING AMBASSADOR SOUNDLAND
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.
THE AMBASSADOR TOLD PRESIDENT
TRUMP THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY
TO MOVE FORWARD.
FOLLOWING THE CALL WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE MEMBER OF MY
STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR WHAT HE
THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE.
THE AMBASSADOR SAID THE CH
PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT
THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN.
>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO
"METROFOCUS," I'M RAFAEL PI ROW
MAN.
LAWMAKERS WILL BE BACK AT IT
TOMORROW AS THE FORMER U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE
TESTIFIES IN WASHINGTON.
THE FIRST DAY OF OPEN HEARINGS
FEATURED PLENTY OF THEE AT RICKS
AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARD
FROM TAYLOR THE AMERICAN
DIPLOMAT IN THE UKRAINE AND
GEORGE KEPT ANOTHER AMERICAN
DIPLOMAT FROM THE STATE
DEPARTMENT.
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
HOW IS THIS ALL LIKELY TO PLAY
OUT?
JOINING US NOW WITH INSIGHT AND
ANALYSIS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
IS JACK FORD.
JACK WHO IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR
COVERED EVERY DAY OF
THE:IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
JACK, WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."
>> YOU AND I HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS ALL THE TIME OFF
CAMERA.
IT IS NICE TO HAVE THEM ON
CAMERA ONCE IN A WHILE.
>>.
SO OF THE CONVERSATIONS MAYBE
NOT.
LET'S START WITH THE BASICS AS
IF THIS WAS THE FIRST DAY OF ONE
OF YOUR CLASSES.
WHERE DOES THE CONCEPT OF
IMPEACHMENT COME FROM?
HOW DID THE FRAMERS INTEND FOR
IT TO BE USED?
>> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT SO
MUCH OF THE CREATION OF OUR
DEMOCRACY OF OUR REPUBLIC IS
BASED UPON WHAT WE DIDN'T LIKE
ABOUT GREAT BRITAIN.
ONE OF THE THINGS WAS THAT THE
FOUNDERS FOCUS ON, THE FRAMERS
OF CONSTITUTION, WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE A CHIEF EXECUTIVE HERE.
HOW MUCH POWER IS THAT PERSON
GOING TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE.
PEOPLE WANTED A MONARCHY AND
OTHERS WHO WANTED JUST A
FIGUREHEAD.
THEY COMPROMISED AS SO MUCH OF
THE CONSTITUTION DID.
BUT THE FRAMERS DID INCLUDE A
NOTION OF IMPEACHMENT.
THEY WERE CONCERNED, WHAT
HAPPENS IF WE HAVE A CHIEF
EXECUTIVE, A PRESIDENT WHO
ESSENTIALLY GOES ROGUE?
AS A CONSEQUENCE THEY SAID WE
ARE GOING TO BUILD IN A
MECHME
MECHANISM HERE, THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS AND THEY ALSO SAID IT
SHOULD BE RIRLY IF EVER USED.
IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY PROCESS.
THEY MADE IT CLEAR IT SHOULD NOT
BE A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ELECTION
BUT IT SHOULD BE THE MANNER OF
THE PUBLIC DEAL WITH SOMEONE NOT
RULING IN THE WAY THAT IT IS
ANTICIPATED.
THEY SAID LET'S HAVE IT HERE,
HOPEFULLY WE NEVER HAVE TO USE
IT BUT IT NEEDS TO BE THERE JUST
IN CASE.
>> IT IS VERY DIFFERENT AS WE
DISCUSSED EARLY THAN A CRIMINAL
OR CIVIL LEGAL PROCEEDING, RYE?
>> THAT'S THE CRITICAL THING
PEOPLE NEED REALIZE.
IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
YOU HEAR DUE PROCESS, WHAT TYPE
OF EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, DIRECT,
CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
THE REALITY IS THIS IS NOT A
LEGAL PROCESS.
IT MIGHT HAVE THE TRAPPINGS OF A
LEGAL PROCESS IF IT GETS TO THE
STAGE OF A TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
BUT THE RULES ARE CREATED BY THE
CONGRESS ITSELF.
SO HER NOT GOVERNED BY THE
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.
>> FOR THOSE OF US WHO REMEMBER
BOTH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND
THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
>> YOU AND I ARE OLD ENOUGH TO
REMEMBER BOTH OF THOSE.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, TRUE.
THIS ONE LOOKS QUITE DIFFERENT.
>> YES.
>> WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?
DO THEY MATTER.
>> I THINK THE PROCESS HAS BEEN
DIFFERENT SO FAR.
AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE IT IS
DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN -- I AM
NOT TAKING A SIDE BUT YOU HAVE
TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT MIGHT
BE DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
IT IS NOT INEFFECTIVE OR NOT
APPROPRIATE.
IF YOU REMEMBER, WITH PRESIDENT
NIXON, THIS ALL CAME FROM A
CRIMINAL EVENT, A BURGLARY, A
BREAK-IN.
THEN IT UNFOLDED AND EVENTUALLY
THE CHARGES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
FILED AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON IF
HE DIDN'T RESIGN WOULD HAVE HAD
TO DO WITH OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVEN.
IF YOU REMEMBER WITH PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT.
IT ALL CAME FROM THE STARR
REPORT, THE STARR INVESTIGATION
THAT STARTED WITH WHITEWATER AND
MOVEDAN TO SO MANY DIFFERENT
THINGS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT YOU.
>> DIDN'T HAVE THESE PRELIMINARY
HEARINGS USUALLY DONE BY THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT
YOU SAW WITH PRESIDENT NIXON.
ESSENTIALLY CONGRESS TOOK THAT
REPORT AND SAID WE WILL USE THAT
NOW TO DECIDE HOW FAR WE ARE
GOING TO GO.
AND THEY ENDED UP GETTING TWO
CHARGES COMING OUT OF CONGRESS
AND THAT WERE TRIED BY THE
SENATE.
HERE YOU HAVE SORT OF A MIX OF
THOSE THINGS.
YOU HAVE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAD
BEGUN.
NOT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
THEY WILL ESSENTIALLY GET
WHATEVER INFORMATION IS
GENERATED FROM THIS OTHER
COMMITTEE THAT'S DOING THE
HEARING.
AND THEN THEY WILL MAKE A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THE FIRST QUESTION IS SHOULD
THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP,
BE IMPEACHED.
PEOPLE SOMETIMES CONFUSE THE
NOTION OF IMPEACHED WITH
CONVICTION.
IMPEACHMENT IS LIKE AN
INDICTMENT.
CONGRESS IS -- AGAIN MAKING
PARALLELS, ALMOST LIKE A GRAND
JURY, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
IF THEY DECIDE YES THERE IS SOME
BASIS TO CHARGE PRESIDENT TRUMP
WITH SOMETHING, IT THEN GETS
HANDED OFF TO THE SENATE AND THE
SENATE COULD CONDUCT THE TRIAL.
>> WHAT ARE THE CRIMES, OR THE
OFFENSES THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS
ARE CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH?
WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE HE DID THAT
MERITS IMPEACHMENT?
>> THAT'S SUCH A GREAT QUESTION
BECAUSE IT IS FAIRLY COMPLEX.
THE INSTITUTION TALKS ABOUT THE
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT BEING
TREASON, STRAIGHTFORWARD, YOU
KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BRIBERY, AND
THEN THEY THROW IN OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A HIGH CRIME AND A
MISDEMEANOR.
IT IS CONFUSING.
BAD STUFF AND NOT SO BAD STUFF.
THE FAMOUS QUOTE CAME FROM THEN
CONGRESSMAN GERALD FORD.
THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NIXON.
AND HE WAS ASKED, WELL, WHAT
SORT OF OFFENSES CAN CONGRESS
LOOK AT?
AND HIS ANSWER WAS, WHATEVER
CONGRESS AT THAT MOMENT THINKS
IS A PROBLEM, THINKS COULD FALL
WITHIN THAT CATEGORY IS WHAT IT
WILL BE.
AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO WHAT WE
SAID BEFORE.
IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS, IT IS
NOT A LEGAL PROCESS.
THEY ARE LOOKING A THE
POSSIBILITIES.
THESE ARE POSSIBILITIES AT THIS
POINT OF AN ABUSE OF POWER, IN A
THE ARGUMENT IS USING
PRESIDENTIAL POWER FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.
>> YEAH.
>> THEY ARE LOOKING A THE
POSSIBILITY OF EVEN SOMETHING
SUCH AS EXTORTION.
REMEMBER, EXTORTION IS I AM
LEANING ON YOU TO GET SOMETHING
BACK AND LEGALLY, IT DOESN'T
HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO ME
FOR IT TO BE EXTORTION.
>> YOU CAN HEAR THE LANGUAGE
CHANGE FROM QUID PRO QUO TO
EXTORTION AND BRIBERY.
THAT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE.
>> YOU HAVE AN ARRAY OF
POSSIBILITIES, IT WOULD DEPEND
IF THEY EVER GET THERE AS TO
WHAT THE HOUSE THINKS, IF THEY
THINK THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE AND
THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH IT
IF THEY GET THERE.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
DEMOCRATS WERE ABLE TO BUTTRESS
THEIR ARGUMENTS THEIR CHARGES
YESTERDAY?
WHAT DEGREE WERE THE REPUBLICANS
ABLE TO UNDERMINE THEM?
>> IT IS INTERESTING WOULD YOU
SAY IT GOES BACK TO THIS IS A
POLITICAL PROCESS.
IN THIS INDICATE AND AGE WE ARE
HYPER POLITICIZED HYPER
PARTISANSHIP.
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND A LOT OF
THIS IS POLITICAL THEATER.
I DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH WHAT
HAPPENED BUT TRIALS IN SOME WAYS
ARE THEATER.
I USED TO TEACH LAW STUNTS HOW
TO TRY CASES AND I WOULD SAY
THINK OF IT AS A PRODUCTION.
YOU ARE THE STAR, YOU ARE BRING
YOUR CAST IN TO THE WITNESS
STAND.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE.
IT IS POLITIC THEATER.
DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
IT IS EXTRAORDINARILY
SIGNIFICANT FOR BOTH SIDES.
I THINK WHAT YOU GOT IS THE
FIRST DAY OF THEATER.
>> YEAH.
>> THERE ARE MANY MORE DAYS TO
COME.
AS YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IN A
THEATRICAL PRODUCTION YOU LIKE
THE FIRST ACT AND DON'T LIKE THE
SECOND ACT AND VICE VERSA.
YOU ARE GETTING SOME PEOPLE --
DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING IT WAS
GOOD.
REPUBLICANS, IT WAS TERRIBLE.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSIONS SINCE YESTERDAY
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS' DECISION TO
START THE HEARINGS WITH THESE
TWO DIPLOMATS WHO ADMITTED THAT
THEY HAVE NEVER MET THE
PRESIDENT, AND WHO ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT WHAT THEY KNOW IS LARGELY
FROM WHAT THEY HEARD.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HAVING
STARTED WITH THOSE TWO?
>> I THINK IF I AM PUTTING THIS
LINEUP TOGETHER FOR THE
DEMOCRATS I AM SAYING, THESE TWO
MEN HAVE INTEGRITY.
IT IS HARD TO CHALLENGE THEIR
INTEGRITY.
I THINK THE FACT THAT, REMEMBER,
THEY SAID WE ARE NOT OFFERING
OUR OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE
IMPEACHED THAT'S NOT OUR JOB.
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN
SUBPOENAED AND WE ARE TELLING
YOU WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I THINK
THEY WERE GOOD WITNESSES TO
START WITH.
I AM SURE SOME WOULD SAY LET'S
GO WITH THE HEAVY HITTERS THE
ONE THAT WE HEARD ABOUT WHO
APPARENTLY SAYS HE OVERHEARD A
CONVERSATION BUT THE THOUGHT MAY
BE LETS USE THAT AS OUR CLEANUP.
USING BASEBALL AM GEES.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE WHFLER.
HE GOT A LOT OF PRESS.
IT WAS HIS COMPLAINT THAT
STARTED THIS WHOLE THING.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAYS HE WILL NOT
CALL HIM AS A WITNESS AND HE
WILL NOT ALLOW THE REPUBLICANS
TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS.
WHY?
>> I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING
AND VERY COMPLEX DECISION.
YOU HAVE GOT START OFF WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER, BY FEDERAL
STATUTES -- IT WAS A DIPLOMAT
STATUTE, REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS JOINED TOGETHER SAYING
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CREATE A
MECHANISM HERE BUT WE ALSO
PROTECT THE PEOPLE SO THIS IS A
REAL MECHANISM AND PEOPLE WILL
BE WILLING TO COME FORWARD IF
THEY HAVE SEEN SOMETHING WRONG.
ON THE ONE SIDE THE DEMOCRATS
ARE SAYING IT WOULD DESTROY THAT
NOTION OF PROTECTING HIM.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALSO ARGUING,
LOOK, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS NOT
THAT IMPORTANT ANYMORE.
BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
STARTED THE PROCESS BUT IT GOT
OUT US TO WITNESSES WHO NOW KNOW
THING INTO RIGHT.
>> BUT I THINK FROM THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THINGS THERE
IS A SYMBOLISM HERE.
THEY ARE SAYING LOOK THIS
STARTED THE WHOLE PROCESS, WE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK
QUESTIONS OF THE PERSON WHO
STARTED THE WHOLE PROCESS.
>> IT IS EVEN MORE THAN THAT FOR
THE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE AS MOST
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING
THIS ALREADY HAVE A SENSE OF
WHO -- ACCORDING TO PEOPLE WHO
KNOW, IT'S KNOWN WHO HE IS, EVEN
HIS NAME IS KNOWN.
AND APPARENTLY HE'S -- WELL, HIS
BACKGROUND WOULD INDICATE THAT
MAYBE HE IS PREJUDICED.
>> COMMENTS THAT HIS LAWYER MADE
WERE CLEARLY SAYING I AM FOR ONE
SIDE HERE.
>> RIGHT.
GIVE THAT, THEY WANT TO, YOU
KNOW, PUT HIM IN PUBLIC TO SHOW
HIS POLITICAL LEANINGS.
FAIR?
>> YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT
TO DO THAT.
AGAIN, IT IS THEATER.
POLITICAL THEATER.
IF I AM ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
THE ARGUMENT IS LET'S SHOW THAT
THE PERSON WHO GOT THIS STARTED
IS ALSO HYPER PARTISAN.
THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT.
TO SHOW THAT THIS THING FROM THE
BEGINNING HAS BEEN BIASED.
NOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO ACCEPT
THAT?
SOME WILL, SOME WON'T.
BUT THEY ARE SAYING AT LEAST WE
SHOULD HAVE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
OF HAVING HIM IN HERE AND ASKING
SOME QUESTIONS.
>> 30 SECONDS.
THE SENATE ULTIMATELY MAKES THE
DECISION WHETHER THEY ARE GOING
THE OUST THE PRESIDENT OR NOT.
FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, 20
REPUBLICANS HAVE TO VOTE TO
CONVICT THE PRESIDENT.
IS THAT LIKELY TO HAPPEN?
DO YOU BELIEVE WITH MOST PEOPLE
THAT THE HOUSE WILL INFACT
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT?
>> MY RESPONSE WILL BE IN
RESPONSE TO THE LAST PART THAT
YOU HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF
DEMOCRATIC CONCERN ABOUT THIS
THAT IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME
THAT IT COMES OUT OF THE HOUSE
SAYING YES WE HAVE COME UP WITH
CHARGES HERE.
HE IS IMPEACHED.
WHEN YOU GET TO THE SENATE
TRIAL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MATH
AND THE RESPONSES YOU HAVE HEARD
EVEN IF YOU GET PEOPLE ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE TO SAY -- WE
HAVEN'T HAD MANY OF THEM YET TO
SAY THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
IT IS NOT A CONVERSATION THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD BE HAVING, MY SENSE IS
THEY WILL SAY BUT WE DON'T THINK
IT IS ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM FROM
PROCESS.
THE MATH WOULD SUGGEST HERE THAT
YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING THE
SEE REMOVAL COMING OUT OF THIS.
BUT THERE ARE STILL DAYS OF
HEARINGS YET TO COME.
WHO KNOWS?
>> JACK, THANK SO MUCH.
WE WILL PROBABLY BE TALKING
ABOUT THIS AGAIN.
>> I SUSPECT WE WILL.
OUGHT IN THE HOLLOWAY WE WILL
PROBABLY BE TALKING ABOUT IT.
ALWAYS GOOD TALKING YOU.
>>> WHAT MAKES A LEADER?
AND ARE LEADERS BORN OR ARE THEY
MADE?
PUL LITSER PRIZE WINNING AUTHOR
AND PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN DORIS
GOODWIN HAS SPENT THE PAST
DECADES WRITING IN-DEPTH
BUYIOGRAPHIES OF AMERICA'S
LEADERS.
HER LATEST BOOK TITLED
"LEADERSHIP: IN TURBULENT
TIMES," SHE BRAS UPON ABRAHAM
LINCOLN, TEDDY ROOSEVELT, FDR
AND LBJ AND DEFINES WHAT MADE
EACH THE RIGHT LEADER FOR HIS
TEAM AS WELL AS TELLING WHAT
ASPIRING LEADERS CAN LEARN FROM
THEM.
WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."
IT IS NICE TO SEE YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
GLAD TO BE WITH YOU.
>> THEY ARE SO VERY DIFFERENT,
THESE FOUR CHARACTERS.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM AGAIN
THROUGH THE LENS OF LEADERSHIP,
DID YOU FIND SIMILARITIES
AMONGST THEM THAT MAYBE HADN'T
BEEN REVEALED TO YOU BEFORE?
>> YEAH, I THINK YOU KNOW IT IS
TRUE, THEY CAME FROM ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
TWO OF THEM PRIVILEGED, THE
ROOSEVELTS, LINCOLN AND LBJ,
POVERTY, CONCERNED ABOUT
ECONOMICS.
THREAT DIFFERENT TEMPERMENTS,
THEY ARE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
I THINK IT IS TRUE THAT
SOMETIMES THE TEMPERAMENT FITS
THE TIME.
BUT THERE WAS A FAMILY
RESEMBLANCE THAT I COULD SHE
WHEN I LOOKED AT THEM ALL
TOGETHER OF HUMILITY.
YOU WOULDN'T THINK OF LBJ
HUMILITY AT FIRST.
NOT HUMBLENESS.
IT IS THE ABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ERRORS AND LEARN FROM YOUR
MISTAKES.
>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WHEN
YOU SAY HUMILITY OPPOSED TO
HUMBLENESS.
LINCOLN, YOU MAY THINK IT BUT
NOT FOR THE OTHER THREE THAT
DOESN'T POP INTO YOUR MIND.
>> IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE MEEK
OR HUMBLE.
IT IS JUST THAT YOU ACCEPT THAT
HUMANS HAVE LIMITATIONS AND THAT
YOU CAN LEARN FROM YOURSELF WHEN
YOU MAKE MISTAKES.
TEDDY ROOSEVELT WHEN HE FIRST
GOT INTO THE STATE LEGISLATURE
CHUTE WILL HE RIGHT.
THEY NEVER THINK OF HIM AS
HUMBLE.
THEY ALWAYS SAID HE LOVED BEING
THE CENTER OF THE ATTENTION THAT
HE WANTED TO BE THE BABY IN THE
BAPTISM, THE BRIDE IN THE
WEDDING AND THE CORPSE IN THE
FUNERAL.
HE GETS IN THE LEGISLATURE, HE
REALIZED HE HAD A SWELLED HEAD.
BLISTERING HEADLINES ABOUT
COMPETITIONS HE MADE HEADLINES,
BECAME FAMOUS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN HE COULDN'T GET
ANYTHING DONE.
HE SAID HE REALIZES I HAD TO
CHANGE MY WAY I WAS NOT ALLOWING
MYSELF TO MAKE ANY COMPROMISE OR
COLLABORATION.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY HUMILITY.
>> WE ALWAYS HEAR FOLKS TALKING
ABOUT OUR TIMES AS BEING SUCH
TURBULENT TIMES.
YOU ALWAYS FORGET WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THESE FOUR FIGURES -- TALK
ABOUT THE TURBULENCE THAT
SURROUNDED THEM, AND THEIR
ASCENSION TO THE OFFICES AND
WHAT THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY FIRST
WALKED IN.
>> THINK ABOUT LINCOLN COMING
INTO OFFICE.
I MEAN HE LATER SAID THAT IF HE
HAD KNOWN THE TURMOIL HE WOULD
FACE, THE SOUTH WAS ALREADY
SECEDING BEFORE HE EVEN GOT
THERE.
WAR WAS BEGINNING TO RAMP UP.
600,000 PEOPLE WOULD SOON DIE.
HE SAID HE COULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT
HE COULD HAVE LIVED THROUGH IT.
OR TEDDY ROOSEVELT, TOO, COMING
IN AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF
McKINLEY, THERE IS A MOOD OF
REBELLION IN THE COUNTRY BECAUSE
OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND
THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN THE RICH
AND THE POOR AND THE WORKING
CLASS IS FEELING LIKE THEY ARE
NOT GETTING A FAIR SHAKE.
AND THEY ARE NOT.
HE COMES IN AND HAS TO DEAL WITH
ALL THAT TENSION.
THERE IS BOMBS IN THE STREET.
NATIONWIDE STRIKES GOING ON.
FDR COMING IN AT THE HEIGHT OF
THE DEPRESSION WHEN HE SAID HE
WAS AFRAID THE HOUSE OF CARDS
MIGHT COLLAPE BEFORE HE TOOK
THE OATH OF OFFICE.
LBJ HAS THE ASSASSINATION OF J
FFJFK
AND SO EACH OF THOSE HAD
TURBULENT TIMES.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO
REMEMBER THAT IN THE TIME WE ARE
IN RIGHT NOW.
THEY WERE THE RIGHT PERSON FOR
THE TIME AND THE CITIZENS WERE
ACTIVE WHICH MAKES A BIG
DIFFERENCE.
>> SO MANY GREAT STORIES HERE,
AND SO MANY THAT MAKE YOU FEEL
AS YOU SAID YOU ARE CONNECTING
WITH THEM IN SOME WAYS.
I WAS FASCINATED BY WHEN YOU
TALKED ABOUT WHO EACH OF THEIR
HEROES WERE.
TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
>> IT CAME AT THE END OF THE I
SUDDENLY REALIZED THERE IS LIKE
THIS FAMILY TREE THAT COVERS THE
WHOLE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY
BECAUSE LBJ'S HERO WAS FDR.
HE CALLED HIM HIS POLITICAL
DADDY.
HE MET HIM WHEN HE WAS RUNG FOR
CONGRESS.
HE WAS IN THE NYA, THE NATIONAL
YOUTH ADMINISTRATION.
AND ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HAD COME
AND SAID IT WAS THE BEST PROGRAM
IN THE COUNTRY.
THAT WAS HIS HERO AND HE
MODELLED HIS WHOLE EARLY LIFE AS
A YOUNG NEW DEALER ON FDR.
FDR'S HERO WAS TEDDY ROOFL.
HE WAS HOPING TO HAVE THE SAME
TRAJECTORY AS TEDDY WHEN HE WAS
A LAW CLERK AT 28.
WHEN THEY WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT
WHAT IS GAG TO HAPPEN TO US.
HE SAID I WOULD LIKE TO STATE
LEGISLATURE, THEN I WOULD LIKE
TO BE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY.
THEN I WOULD LOVE TO BECOME
GOVERNOR AND THEN WHO KNOWS,
MAYBE THE PRESIDENCY.
POLIO CUT THAT IN A DIFFERENT
WAY.
TEDDY ROOSEVELT'S HERO IS
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
HE READ ALL NINE VOLUMES OF NICO
LAY AND HAY AND HE WOULD TALK TO
PEOPLE AND SAY HE GOT THROUGH
THIS AND I CAN DO THE SAME
THING.
A RIGHT AND A LEFT AND A MIDDLE.
AND HE LEARNED FROM HIM OVER AND
OVER AGAIN.
AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S HERO WAS
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
AMAZING TO THINK YOU GO FROM LBJ
TO FDR, FROM FDR TO TEDDY, FROM
TEDDY TO ABRAHAM LINK ON, FROM
LINCOLN TO THE FIRST PRESIDENT
OF OUR COUNTRY.
>> THE FABRIC RUINS THROUGH ALL
OF THEIR LIVES.
THEY ARE DIFFERENT MEN, EACH THE
ROOSEVELTS, SAME EXTENDED
FAMILY, LIVES OF PRIVILEGE BUT
STILL TERRIBLY DIFFERENT.
DID YOU FIND A SINGLE SORT OF
CONSISTENT STRAPPED, OR A TRAIT,
A LEADERSHIP TRAIT THAT
IDENTIFIED EACH OF THEM.
>> I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO
CHOOSE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT
ONE WAS EMPATHY.
AND IT IS EITHER BORN IN YOU,
WHICH IT WAS I THINK FOR
LINCOLN, AND MAYBE FOR LBJ,
WHICH MEANS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND
EITHER PEOPLE'S POINTS OF VIEW,
THAT YOU CAN HAVE A FEELING
ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S WAYS OF
LIFE.
I MEAN LINCOLN FELT THAT AS A
YOUNG KID.
HE WOULD WATCH HIS FRIENDS
PUTTING HOT COALS ON TURTLES AND
KNOWING IT WAS PRODUCING PAIN
AND HE WOULD GO AFTER THEM FOR
DOING THAT.
LBJ, TOO, WHEN HE WAS A YOUNG
PERSON AND HE TAUGHT AT A SCHOOL
AND HE SAW THE PAIN OF PREJUDICE
ON THESE KIDS' FACES.
HE FELT IT EMOTIONALLY, HE DID
EVERYTHING HE COULD TO MAKE THE
LIVES BETTER THAT YEAR HE WAS
TEACHING.
BOTH ROOFLS HAD TO DEVELOP
EMPATHY, THEY LED SUCH A LIFE OF
PRIVILEGE.
THEY HAD TO DEVELOP IT THROUGH
POLITICS.
TEDDY SAID WHEN I WENT INTO
POLITICS THE FIRST TIME IT
WASN'T TO MAKE PEOPLE'S LIVES
BETTER, HE JUST LIKED THE FUN OF
IT BUT THEN HE SAW CHILDREN
WORKING AND FACTORIES, AND SAID
HE WANTED TO CHANGE THEIR LIVES.
AND FDR, WHEN POLIO HET HIM, HE
SUDDENLY IDENTIFIED WITH OTHERS
TO WHOM FATE DEALT AN UNFAIR
HAND.
HOW TO YOU GET TO OTHER PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY WHO FEEL DIFFERENT
FROM YOU, HOW DO YOU HELP PEOPLE
THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM OUR
REGION OR YOUR CLASS OR OUR
RACE?
THEN THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE
THAT EMPATHY IN THE TECHNOLOGY
OF YOUR TIME AND BE ABLE TO
PERSUADE PEOPLE TO MOBILIZE THEM
TO ACTION WOULD BE THE OTHER
SIDE OF THAT EMPATHY, I THINK.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TURMOIL
THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING
TODAY -- I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT
JUST POLITICALLY.
I AM TALKING ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF
THE ISLES, SOCIETALLY,
CULTURALLY, WHICH OF THE FOUR
THAT YOU CHRONICLE HERE -- WHICH
OF THE FOUR DO YOU THINK WOULD
BE BEST SUITED TO BE A LEADER
TODAY?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE TEDDY
ROOSEVELT.
I MEAN THE REASON BEING THAT HIS
TIME WAS SIMILAR TO OURS.
HE ALWAYS WARNED THAT THE ROCK
OF DEMOCRACY WOULD FOUNDER IF
PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OR
RACES OR RELIGIONS BEGAN TO
THINK OF THEMSELVES AS THE
OTHER.
ET CETERA THAT DWEGS THIS OUR
COUNTRY TODAY THAT I THINK -- IT
IS IN A DIVISION IN OUR COUNTRY
TODAY THAT UNDERPLAYS THE LARGER
DIVISION THAT'S THERE.
HE KNEW HOW THE SPEAK TO PEOPLE
IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY.
HE ALSO WOULD BE GREAT TWEETING.
HE HAD SHORT PHRASES, SPEAK
SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK.
>> COULD YOU IMAGINE TEDDY
ROOSEVELT TWEETING?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
BUT HE WOULD THINK BEFORE HE
TWEETED.
HE EVEN GAVE MAXWELL HOUSE THE
SLOGAN GOOD TO THE LAST DROP.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
TEDDY ROOSEVELT.
>> I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY WHAT
HE ARGUED FOR WAS A SQUARE DEAL.
HE WAS ARGUING -- SO THERE IS
PEOPLE ON THE LEFT, PEOPLE ON
THE RIGHT.
HE IS SAYING I WANT THE DEAL FOR
THE CAPITALISTS AND THE WAGE
WORKER.
I WANT TO DEAL FOR THE RICH AND
THE POOR.
IF YOU ARE RICH THAT'S FINE AS
LONG AS YOU DEAL FAIRLY, IF YOU
ARE A UNION GUY I WILL BE FOR
YOU UNLESS YOU DEAL UNFAIRLY.
HE WOULD STAND IN THE CENTER BUT
PROGRESSIVELY MOVING THE COUNTRY
FORWARD.
HE IS A SENSE OF HUMOR, A
DEFINITE DEPRECATING SENSE OF
HUMOR.
MY FAVORITE STORY IS WHEN A
JOURNALIST WROTE A REVIEW OF HIS
MEMOIR.
HE SAID HE HAD SO PLACED HIMSELF
IN THE CENTER OF EVERY ACTION OF
THE WAR HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED IT
ALONE IN CUBA.
WHAT DOES HE DO?
HE WRITES A LETTER TO THE JRMIST
SAYING I REGRET TO INFORM YOU
THAT MY WIFE AND INT M.A. MAT
FRIENDS LOVE YOUR REVIEW OF MY
BOOK.
TO YOU YOU OWE ME SOMETHING, I
WANT THE SEE YOU, I WANT TO MEET
YOU HE WANTED TO BE FRIENDS.
HE WAS ABLE TO BE FRIENDS WITH
JOURNALISTS KNOWING THEY COULD
CRITICIZE THEM AND HE COULD
CRITICIZE THEM.
I THINK HE HAD THE ENERGY, HE
UNDERSTOOD I MEAN IN TODAY'S
WORLD, YOU HAVE TO BE SOMEWHAT
THE CENTER OF ATTENTION AT LEAST
AT THE MOMENT, G.I. GIVEN THE
MEDIA WORLD.
HE COULD DEFINITELY BE THAT.
HE WAS THE MOST COLORFUL
PRESIDENT WE HAD HAD UP TO THAT
TIME.
>> ALSO QUESTION FOR YOU.
IN TRYING TO LEARN THE LESSONS
OF HISTORY, AND WE'RE SO OFTEN
TOLD THINGS SUCH AS THIS IF WE
DON'T LEARN HISTORY'S LESSONS WE
ARE BOUND TO REPEAT THEM.
THE NOTION OF THE PAST WHEN
FAULKNER SAID THE PAST ISN'T
EACH PASSED.
DO YOU GET A SENSE THAT OUR
LEADERS OF TODAY -- I AM TALKING
ABOUT ACROSS THE BOARD HERE --
THAT OUR LEADERS OF TODAY DON'T
GRASP THAT, DON'T GRASP THE NEED
TO LEARN FROM THESE MEN AND
THEIR TURMOIL AND LEADERSHIP
SKILLS, DON'T GRASP THE NEED TO
LEARN SO THEY CAN LEAD BETTER?
>> YEAH, I WORRY THAT THAT'S NOT
HAPPENING.
EVEN FORGETTING ONLY OUR
LEADERS.
I MEAN HISTORY COURSES ARE BEING
NARROWED IN A LOT OF OUR
COLLEGES NOW BECAUSE OF STEM
STUFF.
WHAT YOU GET FROM HISTORY AS A
HUMAN BEING NOT SIMPLY AS A
LEADER IS YOU SEE HOW OTHER
PEOPLE DEALT WITH TROUBLE AND
HOW THEY CAME THROUGH
ADVERSITIES AND WHAT WERE THEIR
STRENGTHS AND WHAT WERE THEIR
WEAKNESSES AND I WOULD LIKE TO
THINK THAT STUDYING LEADERSHIP
HELPS YOU IN YOUR EVERYDAY
LIVES.
AND YOU JUST NEED TO TAKE THE
TIME TO GO BACK A FEW DECADES.
AND IT IS LIKE YOU LEARN FROM
YOUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS.
LEARN FROM LINCOLN, LEARN FROM
WASHINGTON.
THESE PEOPLE KNEW SOMETHING
ABOUT THE STRENGTHS OF
LEADERSHIP AND SOME OF THE
TECHNIQUES YOU CAN ACTUALLY
FOLLOW.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT LIRCHON'S
WRITING A HOT LETTER WHEN HE WAS
MAD AT SOMEBODY THEN PUTTING IT
ASIDE UNTIL HE COOLED DONE,
NEVER SENDING IT.
HOW HELPFUL THAT WOULD BE TO
KIDS WRITING EMAILS TOO QUICKLY
TODAY, RIGHT.
>> SURE.
>> BROADER THAN THAT, YOU
UNDERSTAND THEIR EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE WHEN THEY ARE
DEALING WITH A TEAM.
HOW THEY ARE ABLE TO SHARE
CREDIT AND SHOULDER BLAME.
THESE ARE HUMAN QUALITIES THAT
MANY OF THEM MAGNIFY BY BECOMING
LEADERS AND HOW YOU GROW THROUGH
YOUR MISTAKES.
I HAVE GOT TO BELIEVE THAT
EVERYBODY SHOULD LOVE HISTORY
BECAUSE IT REALLY CAN TEACH YOU,
TEACHES YOU ABOUT HUMAN TEACH.
ONE OF THE THINGS TEDDY
ROOSEVELT SAID IF YOU WANT TO BE
A HE HAD LOOER YOU HAVE TO READ
BOOK.
BOOKS ARE ABOUT HUMAN NATURE,
YOU READ IT IN POETRY IN PROSE
IN HUMAN DRAMA.
>> NO MATTER WHAT YOU READ YOU
HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK HERE.
AS ALWAYS, YOU TAKE US ON A
FABULOUS AND VERY PERSONAL
JOURNEY INTO THEIR BACKGROUNDS
AND THE STORIES.
AND YOU COME AWAY -- YOU COME
AWAY WHEN YOU CLOSE THE BOOK AS
IF YOU ARE SAYING GOOD-BYE TO
SOME FRIEND.
YOU AND I COULD TALK FOR HOURS,
ALWAYS FUN CONNECT WITH YOU AND
SPEND TIME TALKING TO YOU.
ANOTHER FABULOUS WORK BY DORIS.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> THANK YOU,
>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE
BY
JAMES AND MERRYL TISCH,
SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III,
THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA
PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT
ANTI-SEMITISM.
BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ,
BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG,
AND BY --

Funders

MetroFocus is made possible by James and Merryl Tisch, Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III, the Sylvia A. and Simon B. Poyta Programming Endowment to Fight Anti-Semitism, Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Rosalind P. Walter, Barbara Hope Zuckerberg, Jody and John Arnhold, the Cheryl and Philip Milstein Family, Janet Prindle Seidler, Judy and Josh Weston and the Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn Foundation.

WNET

© WNET All Rights Reserved.

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019