CNN.com - Transcripts (2024)

[10:00:39]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you live from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program, the fallout continues from Thursday night's tough debate for the president.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He is the worst in history by far.

ZAKARIA: I'll get insights on next moves for Biden and the Democratic Party. I'll get the global reaction from the "Financial Times'" Edward Luce. Then Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said last week that the intense phase of the war will soon in, but key questions remain. What comes after. And what about signs of a new war with Hezbollah in the north? I'll ask Israel's former prime minister Ehud Olmert.

And I'll talk to Rabbi Sharon Browse about American Jews sentiments towards Israel and a growing generational divide.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Later in the show, I'll bring you my take. A case for optimism despite all the worries people have these days. But first to the fallout from Thursday's presidential debate.

It was a moment for President Biden to calm concerns about his age and to present former president Donald Trump as a dangerous and divisive figure. Instead the nation saw a sitting president with a weak voice, often stumbling through answers, sometimes incoherent. So rather than revived Biden's reelection campaign, his performance has prompted panic among many Democrats and calls for him to drop out of the race.

I want to bring in today's panel. David Frum is a staff writer at "The Atlantic," who was a speech writer for President George W. Bush, and Edward Luce works for "The Financial Times," where he is a columnist and U.S. national editor.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining me. I want to ask, Ed, let me start with you. It feels to me that the defense so far being presented by Barack Obama that Biden had a bad night, sort of misses the point. The problem was that people were already worried as to whether or not he was competent to do the job.

I wrote a piece I think three months ago pointing out that in 2020, Biden led Trump by nine points on the question of who is more competent to govern. Trump now leads by 16 points. So it's all -- this was going into the debate there are 25 point gap between, you know, people -- who they thought was more competent.

In a CNN poll right after the debate, 57 percent of viewers said they had no confidence in Biden's ability to lead compared to Trump who was at 44. So the problem feels to me like putting the president out again in scripted staged events with teleprompter is not going to solve the problem of what people saw on that debate night.

EDWARD LUCE, U.S. NATIONAL EDITOR AND COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: I don't think it's going to solve the problem at all. I mean, remember that Biden on Thursday night was Biden after several days of prep and rehearsing with aides at Camp David. That was the result of really intensive preparation and it was obviously an embarrassingly bad performance.

He is going to have another debate if he's -- if he remains the nominee and doesn't stand down in September which most probably will not be radically different to what we saw on Thursday night. But by then it would be too late. By then, there will be no opportunity and no window to replace him to have an open convention. The convention would have been gone.

And if you look at the numbers since Thursday night, it's still a bit early to get the really baked response from the electorate. But if you look at the CBS News poll that came out this morning those who thought Biden had the cognitive ability to be president for another four years went down from 35 percent to 27 percent, 27 percent.

[10:05:03]

An almost half of Democratic voters don't think he's fit to be president for another term. These are numbers that suggest he's going to lose in November. And there is time to do something about it. So the circling of the wagons, I understand probably President Obama spoke to people around Biden, realized Biden is not going to stand down. And therefore he's making the best of a bad job.

But we know what people are saying in public. It's very different to what they think in private. And I say that with confidence because that's been the parallel universe I've been living in, in Washington. Everybody says one thing in private. And then follows the scripted in public. And I think now that's just impossible to hold after Thursday night.

ZAKARIA: Ed, let me press you on that issue, which is, do you know much about what is going on right now in the Biden inner circle? There are reports that there is a kind of family meeting taking place. Is that real? Is it consequential?

LUCE: Well, I believe they're all there, most of the family, the children, the grandchildren, his sisters, brother. They're all there at Camp David with him today and this is the key circle. You know, this is the inner cabinet. This is the moment for family intervention if that is what is going to happen. I think from watching the first lady and listening to her understandable desire to stoke up her husband's, you know, sort of bruised confidence after Thursday night, judging by her four more years, you're the only person for the job, that family intervention probably isn't going to happen.

And I think Obama's post on X reflected that too because I can't believe that wasn't the product of conversations. So I'm worried that this is going to get more and more intense and it's going to take weeks for Biden to realize what is staring him in the face. And that will waste precious time in which candidates can put their names forward. He can release his delegates for an open convention that will choose a new ticket.

ZAKARIA: David Frum, tell me what you think the path forward is -- I know you have concerns about Trump and the way he performed, but first tell me, what do you think happens that might put pressure on Biden? You know, one of the things I wonder is, there are going to be Democrats who are running for governor, for Senate, for -- you know, all kinds of positions who are going to worry that they are going to be affected by Biden being at the top of the ticket because it is leaving the Democrats dissolution. They might not turn out. Is that kind of pressure more likely to play some role here?

DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, first, I have a little PTSD here because if you will remember this, in 2004, George W. Bush got clobbered in the first of two debates with John Kerry. He was hazy. His performance was so bad that a Democratic cut made a video where they took images from his 1994 debate when he ran for governor in Texas contrasted it with 2004, and suggested that George W. Bush was in the grip of early onset dementia. He was 58-years-old at the time.

The presidential brain is over promote cognitive demands, and presidents get a little -- certain presidents got a little arrogant about their abilities, and that is why for serving presidents, Reagan, Obama, Bush, tend to do very badly in their first debates.

Now let's not to make any excuse for what happened. Biden, there clearly is an issue there, but it also needs a context. I am extremely skeptical that the Democratic Party, ribbon as it is along racial, sexual, ideological class, regional lines can come together at a convention and have a rational discussion and produce the best possible (INAUDIBLE). What you are much likely path is bloodbath.

You know, we're a century -- this will be exactly 100 years from the famous Democratic convention of 1924, where they took more than 100 ballots to pick a candidate because they could not sort their differences between the pro-prohibition, pro-Ku Klux Klan, (INAUDIBLE), and the anti-prohibition, anti-Ku Klux Klan northern delegates, and tore themselves apart and Coolidge won in a landslide in 1924.

That may seem like ancient history now. That kind of -- it's a self- destructive party. It is a party. There's a coalition of many different elements. It's not Republican coalition, it's smaller, but cohesive, and it falls a lot. Democratic coalition is big, but it's very diffuse. And it's full of animosity. And the idea that airing all those grievances on national television for four days, that doesn't seem to me a wise way forward.

ZAKARIA: Stay with me. We will come back and talk more about all these issues. The paths forward for the Democrats with 127 days until the election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:14:23]

ZAKARIA: The editorial boards of "The New York Times" and "The Atlantic Constitution" have called for President Biden to drop out of the presidential race as have a number of America's most respected columnists including some staunch allies of Mr. Biden.

So what happens now? Joining me are "Financial Times'" Edward Luce and David Frum who once was speech writer for President George W. Bush.

David, you raised the issue of Bush's weak performance and Reagan's weak performance and Obama's weak performance in their first debates. But isn't this different in that what people are worried about here is that this confirms something they all suspected?

[10:15:01]

That President Biden is indeed very frail, and that when placed in a situation, 90 minutes without a teleprompter, he was at various points incoherent, and that is not a bad night. That is portentous about a bad four years going forward.

FRUM: Well, it is a different thing. He is older, of course. But it also is a reminder of how we like to focus on the wrong question. Look, if Biden last night had debated or this week had debated Nikki Haley, you would say just what you said, and you'll say, you know, it's a warning of a bad four years. So even if I don't love Nikki Haley's policies maybe he could do the job a little bit better and that offsets.

But what we have here is a battle between the fire brigade and the arsonists. We are in this jam because the Republican Party is rallying around someone who tried to overthrow an election, thus the Constitution, who's a proven fraudster, who's got half a billion dollars' worth of claims against him for civil frauds and is a convicted criminal in New York state court with many more criminal trials to come.

And one party has rallied to this person and there is a sense that the Democrats have to now be responsible people, they have to be grown-up and tidy this up. But we are having this discussion not only secondarily because of Biden's frailties, we're having -- t primarily because of Trump's criminality. That's why Biden's frailties are a problem for the country and not just for his part. ZAKARIA: Ed, I want to ask you about the debate with regard to the

kind of things David was talking about. Because it even struck me that bite Donald Trump standards, it was really extraordinary how much he lied. You know, CNN has tabulated I think 30 lies, but those are sort of the major allies. And what was striking to me was he was completely unconstrained in even pretending to, you know, (INAUDIBLE) to the truth.

There was -- you know, in the old days, I think they used to be kind of a kernel somewhere in there that was true and was wildly exaggerated. Here he said that he, you know, actually negotiated insulin prices down for seniors when in fact it entirely a product of, you know, decisions and legislation passed by President Biden.

There were so many cases in which it was just an out and out lie is -- it does feel like it makes you wonder whether this format is one that one should accede too in the first place. I realized Biden acceded to it, but it does raise that question it does raise that question.?

LUCE: It does race that question. And you are absolutely right and others have made that observation are bang on. That this was unhinged Orwellian, unending stream of lies from Trump, even by his standards but the frustration was, I understand Jake Tapper and Dana Bash's decision not to fact check in real time because otherwise it would just be one long fact check. But that was Biden's job. So this to me does bring us back to we have the biggest liar.

We have what Mitch McConnell calls a despicable human being up there on stage and the president, President Biden, is unable to fact check him effectively on almost anything. That is an enormous missed opportunity. You imagine what Pete Buttigieg would be doing in that situation. You imagine, I think what Kamala Harris could be doing in that situation or Gretchen Whitmer, or any number of potential other Democratic nominees could be swatting down most of those lies, January 6th one, the one about immigrants, illegal immigrants poisoning lifeblood.

The one about Trump having the best economy. I mean, choose that almost any sentence he uttered. So I think there is that frustration. I have to go back, though, to the fact that this should have been found out months ago. This should have been a real primary here. There would have been debates if there had been a real primary with real challenges to Biden and we would have discovered Biden's limitations, so to speak, in those debates. And there would have been more time to address this.

And just the final point, everything David says is correct, you know, about the risks of an open convention and a messy convention. And I wouldn't for a moment dispute David's grasp of that. I agree with him. I just think these are two very bad choices we've got here for the Democratic Party. And the question is, is which is worse? And I think Biden continuing in this vein, not one bad night, I think this would be most nights, is the worst choice.

But I appreciate, I fully respect what David just said about the risks of Chicago '68 or 1924 Democratic convention. Those are real. ZAKARIA: David, is it your contention that the nature of the

Democratic Party is one where to leave this to a kind of last minute process would create -- throw open all those fissures?

[10:20:01]

Because I do think, I mean, you're right that there '24 and '68 are bad examples, but I mean, after all that was how presidential nominees were picked all the time until 1968. And there are many cases in which it went well, you know, the party that nominated Franklin Roosevelt four times so is it -- you just don't think it's possible to imagine the party rallying behind somebody? It's too little time? You know, why do you think it has to be -- it has to spiral downward the way it did in '68 or '24?

FRUM: When Harry Truman was -- sorry. Henry Wallace was moved out of the vice presidential slot in 1944 at the Democratic convention, Harry Truman was moved on and all that followed, the Berlin airlift, Marshall aid, Structures of Peace and (INAUDIBLE), that decision was really made by somewhere between six and eight people, were able for the lock themselves in a room and keep all kinds of consideration.

That's not what will happen. This would turn into because the people want a pass by Joe Biden also want to pass by Kamala Harris. They want to have a completely open debate. Put aside the first black woman vice president and that is going to be a nightmare. Ed is right about the process. You know, they didn't have to agree to this debate in the first place. I argued back in April that the debate was a mistake, not because of any lack of confidence in Joe Biden, but because of the nature of putting the president on the stage for a joint media appearance with a convicted criminal.

That's not something that makes sense, and there are a lot of ways that the Democrats could fight, that could have brought this contest. There are still a lot of ways. But what they're proposing now is an internal bloodbath.

ZAKARIA: Ed, forget about what you would like to see happen. How likely do you think it is at this point that Biden is replaced and to what extent are the fears of a bloodbath going to deter Democrats?

LUCE: I don't think it's fear of bloodbath that is deterring Democrats. I think it's fear that Biden will just be to stop and to change his mind and that therefore, you've got to make the best of a bad job and go with that because only Biden can decide. There's no committee of elders who can tap him on the shoulder and it looks like Jill Biden is not going to be that person, if she were that person I think what Joe to say is look, Joe, you could go within the space of 15 minutes from being a national embarrassment to be very frank right now, to being George Washington of the 21st century, to being somebody who, for the greater good of the nation and to protect their own legacy, walked away and said, seven weeks is a long enough time.

To showcase what we're standing for. We say democracy is on the ballot, while here is democracy in action. We are going to choose amongst, it'll be noisy, it'll be vicious, it'll be personal, but at the end it will produce a nominee and a running mate. And by Labor Day, the party will be united behind younger, more energetic, articulate people who can read back and crushed Trump as he deserves to be crushed.

I would say that would be a good argument and that's why I marginally come out against what David is very, very intelligently arguing. I just think it's the less path here of the two choices.

ZAKARIA: And of course, the entire British election will take place in seven weeks. So it is at least theoretically possible for democracies to do this.

Fascinating to talk about the view. David Frum, Edward Luce, pleasure. Thank you.

FRUM: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next up, I was in Aspen, Colorado, this week talking to a series of fascinating people who are gathered at the Aspen Institute there. I'll bring you some of those interviews over the course of the next few weeks, but coming up next, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert on whether the United States Congress should rescind Benjamin Netanyahu's invitation to address a joint meeting at the Capitol next month. That's up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:35]

ZAKARIA: What would it take to achieve some semblance of peace in the Middle East? The first step would be leadership on both sides of the conflict that were dedicated to and capable of achieving peace.

My next guest is a former Israeli prime minister, who was the last leader to get close to a two-state solution and probably the last to meaningfully engage with the Palestinian Authority.

Ehud Olmert, welcome back to the program.

EHUD OLMERT, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: (INAUDIBLE).

ZAKARIA: There was an article in "The New York Times" by a series of very prominent Israelis saying that the Congress of the United States should disinvite Prime Minister Netanyahu from speaking to it because this is not the time or place for him to do so. What do you think of that?

OLMERT: When a group of some of the most prominent Israelis, the greatest fighters in the history of the state of Israel, former prime minister Barak was also chief of staff, the head of the Israeli intelligence, and (INAUDIBLE), former Israeli head of Mossad, the guys dedicated their lives to the security and the well-being of the state of Israel. If they think that disinviting Netanyahu know is in the interest of the state of Israel it has to be taken very seriously and I have to say that I subscribed wisdom.

[10:29:58]

I think that they did the right thing. The only possible outcome of Netanyahu's speech, in a joint session of Congress, will be to strengthen his political status in the state of Israel against what we all think is the real interest of the state of Israel, which is now to stop the war, to pull out from Gaza, of course, to bring back all the Israeli hostages, and to be prepared to embark on a peace -- comprehensive peace process with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu is not inclined to do any of these. Therefore, any strengthening of Netanyahu is in complete contradiction to the real interest of the Middle East and the state of Israel. And therefore, I entirely agree with guys that are as loyal to the national interest and security of the state of Israel as anyone.

ZAKARIA: You say that Bibi Netanyahu will use this address to Congress to strengthen his domestic position.

OLMERT: The only purpose.

ZAKARIA: What is his domestic situation? How fragile is this coalition?

OLMERT: Netanyahu is in decline. He -- in all of the last years polls in Israel, he is losing almost half of his political power and his coalition is deteriorating, and the opposition is gaining force.

ZAKARIA: What about the signs on both sides, but particularly on Israel's side, that the IDF may be -- the Netanyahu government may be expanding the war in the north with Hezbollah? Do you think that that's a good idea?

OLMERT: No, I think it's a bad idea. Look, either will be a comprehensive war in the north it's likely that Lebanon will disappear. There will be a mass destruction. We have the power to do it.

However, in the same time, if Hezbollah will use all their powers and they will use all their powers in the event of a comprehensive war Israel will suffer great pain greater than we ever suffered in the history of our consultations with our countries.

In other words, there is not an interest for Israel and the resulting interests with Hezbollah to engage in a comprehensive war. We can reach an agreement. It requires wisdom, patience, perseverance, and restraint. Both sides don't possess much of it presently. So, it's a problem.

ZAKARIA: Who would you like to see as the next leader of Israel?

OLMERT: The best person possible, but I don't know his name yet. What we want -- I'll tell you something that I truly believe in all my life. The time comes for a person to be in a leadership position, the one thing which is expected perhaps more than anything else is his ability to take a decision that may be in complete contradiction to everything that he was standing for and fighting for and defending for all his life if this is the right thing at the right time for his nation.

I look for someone in Israel in the potential leadership position that will have the courage to come up forward and to say, yes, I know it may not be completely popular at this time but what we need is a political solution. We need to make peace with the Palestinians. We can fight forever. We can occupy forever. But this will lead us nowhere.

What we need to do is peace now. And I'm prepared to fight for it, and to accomplish it. And I need the support of the people.

I believe that with this kind of courage and leadership and vision there is a chance to gain a majority. Who will do it? Let's wait and see.

ZAKARIA: Ehud Olmert, always a pleasure to talk to you.

OLMERT: Thank you very much, Fareed.

ZAKARIA; Next on GPS, what is an American rabbi to tell her flock as Israel wages war in Gaza and antisemitism rages in the United States? I'll talk to one of this country's most influential rabbis when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:38:52]

ZAKARIA: For many Jews in America and around the world, this time of war in the Middle East and antisemitism at home brings about deep reflection on what it means to be Jewish today. Interestingly, different generations seem to have very different answers to that question.

Rabbi Sharon Brous is here to help us understand all this. She is an influential progressive L.A. based rabbi and the author of the "Amen Effect: Ancient Wisdom to Mend Our Broken Hearts and World." Pleasure to have you on.

RABBI SHARON BROUS, FOUNDER AND SENIOR RABBI, IKAR: Thank you so much for having me.

ZAKARIA: I want to talk to you because you are so thoughtful about these issues, but you have also been very outspoken in having very progressive views as, you know, in being in favor of an independent Palestinian state and things like that. And I'm wondering at the moment like this, do you worry about saying that kind of thing at a time when there is a rise in antisemitism -- a sharp rise in antisemitism? How do you -- how do you think about that? Do you worry that you're, you know, feeding the fires of something that you really don't want to be feeding?

BROUS: Well, our values, our safeguard, all we have is our core values.

[10:40:03] And my -- central to my theology and my world view is the idea that every human being is created in God's own image and deserves to live in dignity with justice and with freedom and in peace. And that doesn't change when things heat up in the outside world.

And so, I think that part of what we're called to do in difficult moments like this is really get back in touch with what those core values are. We may have to speak our messages in more tender voices in times of real conflict because people are so brokenhearted and full of anguish that it's -- I think it's harder for people to hear certain messages in this time but that the message itself does not fundamentally change.

ZAKARIA: Tell me what you think of this shocking rise of antisemitism.

BROUS: It's terrifying. It's real. There's a lot of gaslighting going on right now that sort of suggests that Jews are making up -- that there's antisemitism on the rise, but it's very clear and it's really pervasive. And it's increasingly violent.

And I think that that's part of a growing national trend toward political violence that I'm deeply concerned about as someone who cares a lot about democracy. But it's also happening not just here in the United States but globally we see that it's happening. And look, what's happening with the elections in France.

Increasingly around the world now we're hearing from Jewish communities that say, we don't feel safe here anymore. We don't feel that our neighbors and surrounding communities necessarily take our concerns seriously. And that's terrifying for Jews, but it's also very dangerous for any minority community.

We know that where antisemitism goes all forms of racism and bigotry and hatred follow. It's also terrifying for democracy. It's very dangerous for democracy.

ZAKARIA: What do you say to somebody who will say to you, for you to be saying all these things critical of the Netanyahu government in favor of a Palestinian state at a moment of rising antisemitism is a huge mistake?

BROUS: I think --

ZAKARIA: How can you -- how can you -- you know, how can you make those two things compatible?

BOURS: It's exactly the opposite. The state of Israel was established in 1948 to be a refuge for Jews who had just suffered a genocide in Europe. Jews who were survivors of violence from around the world, including the Middle East and north Africa over the next several years would make their way into this country as a refuge and safe haven. And a place for Jewish values to be made manifest in the public square for Hebrew literature to thrive, for a community that for 2,000 years had lived in exile to actually have a home where we could be safe and sovereign again. And that vision is a very powerful and profound vision. It is a national liberation vision that in no way precludes the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. Their need for dignity, their need for justice. These two visions are not incompatible.

And it's precisely because of my love and connection for my Jewish family, including some in the state of Israel that I really can identify with the yearning for home, with the anguish that many Palestinians express, with the sense that no one in the world cares about our fate and it's up to us to take our destiny into our own hands. I really understand that. And I think the idea of this false binary, you're either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine is doing so much damage to our national discourse and global discourse.

ZAKARIA: Do you see in your -- in your congregation and in your world this generational divide that the polling seems to pick up, that younger Jews are much less supportive? I mean, I think the way Peter Beinart puts it is there is now a tension between their liberalism and their Zionism. And they're often choosing their liberalism.

BROUS: I don't love that formulation but I absolutely see this. And I think there's a -- there's a very smart analysis that as your client offered to help us understand what's happening generationally, where my parents' generation saw Israel as the David in a sea of very powerful surrounding nations, really struggling to survive because there was no other home for the -- you know, for the Jews who came from DP camps in Europe and who fled the pogroms in the Middle East.

ZAKARIA: And they saw 1948, 1967 --

BROUS: That's right.

ZAKARIA: -- 1973.

BROUS: That's right. And then there's my generation whose formative time in which I grew to understand Israel was really in the 90s. That was the first time I spent time there, the Oslo years, in which Israel was now a powerful nation but a nation striving for peace.

And then there's my children's generation and they're growing up in a time in which Israel is a powerful nation that is not -- does not appear to be striving for peace, but instead has successive administrations that are actually entrenching in the settlement enterprise, which is antithetical to any future peace plan essentially trying to make a two-state solution impossible.

[10:45:09]

And I think that's why -- not universally, but that's why a lot of young Jews look at this situation and say, how can I attach to a narrative of power that doesn't make space for the dignity of others? I think what we actually have to do is bring a really deeply rooted understanding of who we are and who we're called to be.

ZAKARIA: Rabbi, pleasure to have you on.

BROUS: Thank you so much for having me.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, my take on the case for optimism. Yes, even now when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:22]

ZAKARIA: And finally, here's my take. Over the last two months, I've traveled around the United States and parts of Europe often to talk about my new book, "Age of Revolutions," which describes how we're living through a period of deep disruption in society, politics, economics, international affairs. I got the sense that people, even those well-off, even those educated, were unsettled by all these disruptions, and quite fearful that they were leading us into darker times.

Many of the questions that my book talks when something like, is there anything to be hopeful about these days? After Thursday night's depressing debate, people are feeling more despair than ever. So, I want to explain to you why despite all the dangers, I remain an optimist.

In Europe, many are fearful that a Trump victory in November could lead them into a new and dangerous world. They believe that America could turn its back on Europe, unraveling the continent's security architecture.

As one European statesman said to me, "We in the West have lived in a stable, peaceful, open world and we take it for granted. But we now face all these challenges, external and internal, and it can all come apart."

It can. The external challenges alone are immense. We are witnessing Russia, China, Iran, and now North Korea form and axis in opposition both to western power and western values. And yet, the return of great power competition is having an interesting effect. Western values and practices are often treated as ideals to be criticized by all for their shortcomings and hypocrisies but increasingly they have to be judged against the alternatives.

If you don't like a world dominated by western power and ideas, would you prefer Russian or Chinese ones? In a new poll commission by Ipsos and King's College London to coincide with my delivering this year's Fulbright Distinguished Lecture at Oxford, the shifting global mood is evident. Surveying nearly 24,000 people and 31 countries, the study found that people were thinking more seriously and critically of the growing power and influence of the autocratic powers.

They saw Russia, China, and Iran as three of the four countries, mostly using their influence for bad. And this represented a souring of views on all three countries since the last time the survey was conducted in 2019.

The number of people polled who see Russia as using its influence for bad has jumped by 22 percentage points. China by 10, and Iran by five points over the last five years. The other country on that list of four is Israel, a sad state of affairs which should come as a wake-up call to Israelis.

This survey is broadly consistent with another global one done by Pew in 2023, when people in 24 countries were asked whether they viewed China or America more favorably. A median of 59 percent of those polled had a positive view of the U.S. compared with just 28 percent for China.

The rise of China and the return of Russia have unsettled international affairs. But they have also reminded the world of the choice between two sets of values, western liberal ones, and autocratic illiberal ones. You can see the different starkly in the two contests at play in Europe and Asia over Ukraine and Taiwan right now.

In each case, the West is trying to allow people in Ukraine and Taiwan to choose freely as to how they want to live. Russia and China, by contrast, are acting to snuff out that freedom. That is a telling difference and people around the world can see it.

In the Ipsos/KCL poll, people in most countries viewed Americas influence on the world stage more favorably than they did in 2019. With one notable exception, in the United States itself. The loss of confidence among Americans in the country's own vitality, strength, and virtue is profoundly worrying. If you look at the facts, the U.S. is more powerful on many measures than it has been for years and years but that is not how many Americans feel.

And my book talks so many were troubled by the deep polarization and divisions within the country. Many wonder whether it is even possible to come out of this, to arrive at some compromise, some settlement that moves the country forward.

[10:55:06]

Even here, I remain hopeful. We're going through whirlwind of change. In America, these problems are constantly aired and highlighted. We wash our dirty laundry in full public view.

The talk of our failings convulses our political system. We will have to work through these problems. But surely that is better than repressing them, coercing people to conform, and presenting a North Korea style facade of unity to the world. And these surveys I mentioned suggest that people around the world can tell what is real and what is fake. When confronted with a choice most prefer the West and its values, warts and all.

If you're looking for a summer read, by the way, you can order my new book at CNN.com/Fareed. You can also go there for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week.

Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)