Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2021

The Current Transcript for June 23, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

COVAX is ready to deliver, but we can't deliver vaccines we don't have. Export bans, vaccine nationalism and vaccine diplomacy have caused distortions in the market.

MG: When it was created, COVAX was meant to be a way to ensure that poor countries wouldn't be left behind when the covid vaccinations arrived. Unfortunately, in the words of one of the program's creators, rich countries behaved worse than anyone's worst nightmares in 30 minutes. Why COVAX has fallen short and what that means for actually ending this pandemic. Also, Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard on Canada's role in COVAX, the rise of the Delta variant and why some here are vaccine shopping and cancelling appointments when their preferred dose isn't available. Plus.

SOUNDCLIP

CROWDS: USA... USA... USA.

[Chaotic noises]

MG: You have to. It was the seat of U.S. democracy stormed by protesters as authoritarianism grows around the world. Historian Anne Applebaum and former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes assess the state of democracy and why it seems to be under threat. We begin, though, in Afghanistan with the increasingly desperate situation for those left behind by Canada, the interpreters who worked side by side with Canadian soldiers and now fear for their lives. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. And this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Afghan interpreters who helped Canada’s military face death threats as allies pull out

Guests: Abdul, Dave Morrow, Marcus Powlowski

MG: When Canadian troops served in Afghanistan, they didn't do it alone, Afghan interpreters served by their side, they helped connect soldiers with local leaders and build trust. They risked their lives to do that work. Now, with the United States and other NATO allies withdrawing their soldiers, the translators are feeling more vulnerable than ever. The Taliban know who they are and they're hunting them down. Advocates for the translators from around the world are calling on governments, including Canada's, to fast track visa applications, which would allow them and their families to resettle outside of Afghanistan. Abdul worked as an interpreter with the Canadian military. We're not using his full name to protect his identity. He's in Afghanistan. Dave Morrow is a retired infantry officer and Afghanistan war veteran who worked with Abdul and has been trying to help him find a way to resettle in Canada. Good morning to you both.

ABDUL: Morning. Good morning, sir.

MG: Abdul, what did you do as an interpreter for the Canadian military?

ABDUL: I was just translating between Afghan and Canadian how the mission to be successful and I was their trust.

MG: Tell me more about building that trust and how important your role was in creating that trust.

ABDUL: The trust was between Canada, coalition forces in the region, and Afghan people, how they can trust and they can work together as a team in the country.

MG: Dave, from your perspective, how important was the work that Abdul was doing?

DAVE MORROW: Mission critical. We couldn't have done our job without Abdul providing really good translation. In a war zone, when you're on the ground and you don't know the language of the people that you're dealing with, if you're unable to communicate well, it's pretty it's pretty evident that you're not going to have a very successful mission.

MG: Take me to the ground there. I mean, and you've hinted at a couple of examples there. But describe one example where his work and that trust building that he was describing was mission critical for you.

DAVE MORROW: There's a few I mean, if we look at our weekly meetings, they're called shuras, with village elders, there were some times and I remember one specifically where there's some tension being built up due to land disputes. And I knew it was critical in ensuring that the negotiations took place and that everybody got a fair deal so that no blood was spilt between warring parties.

MG: As you do that work. I mean, what sort of relationship develops between you and an interpreter like Abdul?

DAVE MORROW: Well, initially it's a professional relationship. But when you spend literally every day talking with, learning about their families, building trust, you become more than just professional acquaintances. You become friends.

MG: Hmm. Abdul, from your perspective, how close was that relationship between yourself and and the Canadians that you were working with?

ABDUL: Yes, there was a close friendship. We're just to working together. And we were just eating together. You were passing time together and you have the same mission. So that was a friendship, like a family.

MG: How dangerous was it at the time?

ABDUL: That was a danger from the time, but no one was care about that because there was a big hope in the future for you.

MG: What was most dangerous about that work? What were you facing then?

ABDUL: The most dangerous was that when you have it in the shura and the meeting, there was a lot of people they were gathering together and you were talking and there was like between them, maybe some bad people, Taliban, they took my picture, they took my video and they took my [unintelligible] was finally going to take.

MG: What was the threat?

ABDUL: Phone calls, when I changed my number and we got the night letter that threat letter at my home in Halman my family they gonna take and they had a Shura to kill me.

MG: What did you do to protect yourself?

ABDUL: I'm not going stay in Halman. [Unintelligible] now i just in Herat Province. I was so for now I'm in Kabul. I'm going to change my location every six months and also and I'm gonna chang my phone number as well. So I'm going to hiding.

MG: But to you, that work was important enough that you would still face those threats.

ABDUL: Exactly. 22 days ago, my family, my parents, they were in Halman at night. There's a mosque that the people, the Taliban, they had a Shura, the intelligence, they wanted to take hostage my family, my parents and they leave. They have to leave tonight, otherwise in midnight the Taliban will come. They had my picture. They show to the villagers, if anybody knows this, these two guys, me and my brother, and they work, where they work. They are the home is and the one of the villager, they show my home. And they wanted to attack my home. So they're like this. Everybody, every single person interpreter they have the same problems. The intelligence, the Taliban intelligence. They're looking for those people who have worked for coalition forces.

MG: That sounds terrifying.

ABDUL: Exactly.

MG: Dave, what's it like for you to listen to this? I mean, earlier you described Abdul and those who are working with you as friends and families, and now you hear the threats that they're facing all these years later. What is that like for you to hear?

DAVE MORROW: It's gut wrenching, it brings up a lot of emotions. A lot of anger that we haven't done anything in over 10 years to ensure that those like Abdul that worked for the armed forces are protected. So I have a hard time hearing about cases like Abdoul, and he's the one that I have a very close relationship with, but there are plenty of others.

MG: How worried are you that this is going to escalate?

DAVE MORROW: I have no doubt. I mean, in my opinion, it's going to be a massive humanitarian disaster that we're going to be a part of by not doing anything. We have a responsibility to protect these individuals that worked for us. And if we do nothing, then Canada is going to have a huge, huge red mark on their international reputation because there's going to be no end for the Taliban when it comes to hunting down and killing, like Abdul said, and threatening and punishing all those that worked with coalition forces during the war.

MG: Abdul, how does it feel to have helped foreign troops and then have those troops leave and leave you there facing those threats?

ABDUL: So the first of all, we put our lives in the risk. Right now and they are responsible for us to give us a shelter, to save our family. So I want it to be responsible, the coalition force, to respond for us. We put ourselves in danger to help them exactly. So that now they leave us behind so we get killed, not ourselves, our families as well. So there's no hope in the future if they don't do anything for us.

MG: Have you spoken with Canadian officials? Have you gone to the embassy, for example?

ABDUL: In 2012, I got a letter. So I got one of the letters which I got from Dave Morro who I [unintelligible] . So I took the letters and I went to Canada Embassy in Kabul and I explained him. So they said they're going to inform us. They're going to notify if something's come up. So after few years so nothing's happened is still waiting for. I don't know.

MG: So a few years later, they still haven't informed you as to whether there are any opportunities to come here?

ABDUL: They didn't say that. They just said they're going to keep the people if something's come up, if there was any process for immigration. So I didn't receive any email yet.

MG: Dave, we received a statement from the office of the minister responsible for this, Marco Mendicino. And it says in part, The government of Canada recognises the significant contributions of the brave Afghans who worked for us during Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan. Afghans who were ineligible under Afghan special immigration measures may apply to immigrate to Canada through existing provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Those not meeting immigration criteria under an existing immigration class can request humanitarian and compassionate consideration. We are closely monitoring the evolving security situation in Afghanistan. Dave, what do you make of that?

DAVE MORROW: Let me just compose myself a little bit, to be honest, because that statement really produces a lot of emotion for me, because, first of all, I'm appreciative that the minister has actually put out a statement because that's the first I've heard of this coming from the Canadian government. However, that doesn't mean that this solves the issue. In my opinion, the time for monitoring a situation is well past. That's our point. We've had 10 years to monitor the situation. And the idea that Afghan interpreters need to follow a process, a bureaucratic process at this point in time is infuriating. We cannot apply the same rules to this process right now because there's no time. It's as if the minister has zero concept of what it's like to live in Afghanistan right now. We do not have the time. The Americans, the British, the French, every major G7 member of NATO is conducting exfiltration of their allies. So they're locally engaged contractors that work for them. Canada doesn't have a plan, nor does it even have the capability to do any of this like we see in the other countries. And that, to me, is unacceptable. And to me, it's disgusting that we haven't even considered this as a part of our mission to ensure that we have an organised withdrawal from the country. And just that alone. And the statement is unacceptable.

MG: There used to be a programme that would bring interpreters and other Afghans who'd worked with the military to this country or to resettle them. What happened to that programme?

DAVE MORROW: That's a great question. As far as I can tell. It ended in 2012 and the conditions were pretty strict. So therefore, a lot of interpreters like Abdul fell through the cracks because they didn't have the exact bureaucratic criteria in order to come over. And to me, again, that's unacceptable. And since that time, it's been as if the Canadian government just wants to forget that we had a war and that we have responsibilities to people like Abdul in Afghanistan.

MG: Just finally, Dave, I mean, what's at stake here? What would you say to Canadians about why people like Abdul deserve to make a new home in this country?

DAVE MORROW: Well, in my opinion, Abdul is a member of the armed forces, was a member of an armed forces, he wore a uniform, he was paid by us. He conducted operations like us. And it would be the equivalent of leaving myself, one of my platoon mates in Afghanistan and saying, sorry, you need to find your own way out. That, to me, is unacceptable and we can do a lot better as Canadians. And if we don't fulfil that responsibility, my fear is that during the next war, we're not going to be able to recruit potential interpreters. We're not going to have the same credibility on the international stage as a country. And ultimately, we're going to have blood on our hands because inevitably interpreters that work for Canada are going to be assassinated by the Taliban.

MG: What would you say to Abdul knowing him as well as you do? You're both on the line together. What would you say to him, Abdul?

DAVE MORROW: I can't express how thankful I am that you haven't given up on me and you haven't given up on your family. And it's inspiring. And, man, I really hope that all this work is going to result in you and a lot of your Afghan brothers to get to a safe place and start fresh with your families. And that's that's my greatest hope right now.

MG: Abdul, what would you say to the Canadian government who in many ways has your fate in their hands?

ABDUL: Yeah, thanks. Appreciate it from Dave Morrow. Had been against a lot, obviously, for that. I just wonder because I'm kind of, like [unintelligible] to protect their uniforms, just as we used to be wearing the same uniform. So we used to leave behind. And I don't care about myself. My family is innocent. I need to, I need to rescue them by your help. So the Canada government is responsible for my family. That's all I want from them.

MG: Abdul, take care of yourself. I hope you're here soon. In the meantime, I hope you stay safe. And I'm really glad to speak with you. Thank you very much.

ABDUL: Appreciate it. Have a good time, brother.

MG: And Dave, thanks for the work that you're doing on this.

DAVE MORROW: Absolutely. Thanks. Thanks for having me on the show. Really appreciate it.

MG: Abdul is an interpreter in Afghanistan who worked with the Canadian Forces. Dave Morrow is a retired infantry officer and an Afghanistan war veteran. Marcus Palevsky is a liberal member of parliament who's been working on this file for two years, trying to bring more than 40 Afghan interpreters to Canada. He's been listening in. Marcus Powlowski, good morning to you. Morning. Why aren't Abdul and his family in Canada?

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: Well, it's a long story. There were a couple of programmes under the Harper government, 2009, 2012, which my understanding under those programmes we led in about 700 people. I think that the interpreters and their family, obviously there were problems with that programme. There were people who fell between the cracks or people that didn't quite meet the requirements of that programme. And then I think, as I'm not sure if it was Dave, David or Abdul said, I think to some extent we forgot about them. The Canadian forces left. There wasn't a big threat that there is now, because really this has come to a head because of the American pullout. And and what I think we're facing is a fall of Saigon sort of scenario coming soon that this kind of changed the situation. So I we've been advocating for we started off with with two people because someone who is my constituent, who served three rotations in Afghanistan, had a couple of friends, very similar, I think, to to David and Abduls friendship. And he'd been advocating for his friends to have them admitted to the country. There were bureaucratic problems with them coming. One of the one of them, he said he'd been given refugee status in another country, but that country didn't grant refugee status to his wife. So he returned to Afghanistan. But but our government was saying, well, he already had refugee status somewhere else, so he didn't qualify.

MG: But all of that, if I might, all of that speaks to what's going on here. I mean, this is not new. Abdullah is not the first or the only one. There are these documented stories that seems to be these bureaucratic problems. The statement from the minister seems to suggest that the interpreters would be accepted in Canada under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. What's the problem? Why are they still being left in a country where they face threats to their lives despite the fact that they helped this country?

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: That has been something I've been asking the minister's office as well. And certainly I think the reception that we've gotten has changed in recent months because of the advance of the Taliban and the danger that these people are facing now. This is my understanding. So I know when I heard the minister's statement, and I have to say, I somewhat agree with Dave that the time is passed for monitoring or watching closely, that we have to be doing something. And certainly that is my understanding that we are doing something that we're working on the problem. This is the government. I'm a backbencher. I can't speak for the government. But but I've spoken to Minister Mendicino several times about this as as well as to high up officials within the IRCC that they are working on the problem and they hope to have an announcement soon on a plan or a process to get these people to safety.

MG: What do you think it says, Dave compared this to, in some ways, leaving him or members of his platoon platoon back in Afghanistan? What do you think it says that the Canadian government would, if not abandon people like Abdul, and that's what he feels like at the very least, put this, you know, not even on the back burner, but off the stove.

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: I think it's morally incumbent upon us to do whatever is necessary to help those people. They work Canadian uniforms. They risk death when when the Canadian forces were there because of their involvement with the Canadian forces, because of the fact that they were helping us as Canadians. And I think our country has a moral obligation to them.

MG: And so when you raised this with your colleagues in Cabinet, are they receptive to the urgency of this issue?

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: My understanding is they certainly appreciate the urgency and the timelines involved in that. They have to get something done according to those timelines.

MG: And so appreciate it is one thing. But as we heard, I mean, with troops withdrawing in a matter of weeks and the threats on the lives of not just Abdul but his family escalating, is the government going to fast track this process? Is that your understanding?

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: Yes, that that is my understanding. Again, I can't speak for the government, but they are aware of the timelines. And I certainly feel the government ought to be judged by what they accomplish, not how hard they tried or what they say. I think that will ultimately be what we're judged by is how many of these people we have to get out of there or we actually do get out of there. And I'm hoping and I still have some faith, I'd say, and I hate the term cautiously optimistic, but I am cautiously optimistic, having worked on this for a couple of years, this is moving that we will have a process, that we are going to help these people. We were there, the Americans were there, the British were there. These people are at risk to a large extent because we were there. And I think it's morally incumbent upon us to perhaps slow down the withdrawal enough that we can help as many of these people as possible, because really it's on us and I'm using the word us for all the Western forces that were there. We put these people in peril. And I think it's up to us morally to try to help these people as much as we can.

MG: Marcus, it's good to speak with you and we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

MARCUS POWLOWSKI: Thank you.

MG: Marcus Powlowski is a member of parliament for Thunder Bay, Rainy River in Ontario. Your CBC News is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

To truly beat covid-19 anywhere. We have to beat it everywhere. And our collective commitments will result in over two billion doses being shared with the rest of the world. Canada's portion is 100 million doses.

MG: There has been a lot of talk from G7 countries about giving away vaccine doses. In six minutes, we'll talk about how much sharing is really going on. Spoiler alert, nowhere near enough. I Matt Galloway you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

How COVAX has fallen short in securing vaccines for poorer nations

Guests: Jason Nickerson, Andre Picard

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, did democracy die in Washington, D.C. early this year, and if it's still kicking, how much debris was left in the wake of the insurrection in that nation's capital. Two scholars of authoritarianism will be here in about 30 minutes to discuss democracy in the United States and the rest of the world. But first, the nations that are scooping up every last covid shot.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Chances are you have had the option of receiving at least your first dose of a covid-19 vaccine. Canada is one of the most privileged countries in the world when it comes to access to these shots. Millions of people in other places around the world are not so lucky.

SOUNDCLIP

So it would be very tough to reach the same level of coverage as we know, most of these vaccines have been or are currently being hording by high income countries. So I think it's just something very positive in the right direction.

MG: That was Richard Mihigo, the immunisation and vaccine development coordinator for the World Health Organisation, speaking earlier this year. The positive he was referring to was the delivery of doses to Ghana through a global vaccine sharing scheme called COVAX. COVAX was meant to share the wealth of countries like Canada and make sure that no population was left behind. It was a lofty goal called a heroic effort. But in an article published in The Lancet last week, COVAX was harshly criticised for falling short. Jason Nickerson is the humanitarian representative to Canada for Doctors Without Borders. Jason, good morning.

JASON NICKERSON: Good morning, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thank you for being here. How, as you understand, it, was COVAX supposed to work.

JASON NICKERSON: So COVAX was created sometime in 2020, really out of a recognition that the world has a fundamental problem in the way that new medicines and new vaccines are developed and distributed. And that problem is that there is a massive inequity in access. Probably comes as little surprise to you and to your listeners to know that new medicines, by and large, are launched in high income countries long before they are made available to people living in low income countries. And this is a fatal imbalance that our medical teams have witnessed for decades now, whereby some people living in wealthier countries have access to medicines long before people in lower income countries do so. COVAX has really created out of a recognition that this is a longstanding problem that we need to get ahead of as part of the covid-19 pandemic response to try and ensure that there would be a global equitable access to covid vaccines when they were developed.

MG: This was going to be done through through buying power, like the food pool, buying power in that way that, you know, the rich countries would be fine, but they would help out the poorer countries as well.

JASON NICKERSON: Yeah, that's exactly it. So there were two pillars to the COVAX initiative. And COVAX is run by three entities, the World Health Organisation, GAVI, which is the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Innovation, and then CEPI, which is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation. So three entities that came together with this two pillared approach. One which allowed wealthier countries to procure their their vaccines through the COVAX facility. So these are called self-financing countries. And Canada is one of them. And the other is something called an advanced market commitment, which is essentially an opportunity for donors to come together to pool resources. And this advanced market commitment would be a basically a pool of funds that would purchase vaccines for distribution to low and middle income countries. And so collectively, exactly as you said, the idea was to pool purchasing power, to become sort of a preferential buyer, to have enough money in the bank, to be able to purchase vaccines and then importantly to to distribute them on the basis of need to vaccinate high risk people like health care workers and people with chronic health conditions and so on, regardless of where they were in the world.

MG: When did the wheels fall off?

JASON NICKERSON: Well, that's a that's a good question. I think what we can say quite definitively is, is that what happened was a good idea. You know, this idea that there would be sort of enough purchasing power to negotiate firmly and fairly with pharmaceutical companies. But unfortunately, what happened is, is the market behaved in the way that I think many of us unfortunately expected it to. You know, we're not naive. The pharmaceutical industry is largely a profit motivated set of private companies. And what ultimately ended up happening was wealthy countries came to the table and struck their own bilateral agreements, basically to jump to the head of the line by putting, you know, large amounts of money on the table to secure advance purchase commitments and bilateral deals. And I think it's important to know that by doing so, there are a number of countries who are both donors and purchasers of vaccines through COVAX, who also struck bilateral agreements with pharmaceutical companies and really those bilateral agreements that have directly competed with COVAX's ability to to purchase and secure the doses that they need. And that competition has ultimately led to there being very few vaccines that are available to purchase on the market today and have really inhibited COVAX, its ability to secure the billions of doses that it needed. There's just, you know, a fundamental supply demand. The supply is is quite limited today.

MG: Well, the demand is through the roof. And you saw in this country, the Canadian government announced in March that it would take millions of vaccine doses from COVAX. The U.K. did the same thing. They say that they're following through in terms of the terms of their agreements. But what did you make of that decision by the Canadian government to to take some of those doses from COVAX?

JASON NICKERSON: Well, Canada is correct. You know, in following the terms of the agreement, they are entitled to take these doses as a self-financing country. But that is one of the ways in which they participated, you know, technically and I suppose legally that is correct. And morally, it's a different story. You know, I think coming back to what I said earlier, that the reality is that there are countries like Canada that participated in both ways as a donor and as a self-financing country that was going to purchase through COVAX that also went and struck bilateral agreements that directly competed with COVAX's ability to secure the doses that that they need. Canada is one of those countries that signed bilateral agreements with with Pfizer, with Moderna and with five other vaccine manufacturers. And it is not just, you know, one country sort of behaving in this way. This is really the behaviour of the majority of high income countries in the world that struck these bilateral agreements and have largely monopolised the available supply. And that's led to a massive inequity of access between high income countries and low income countries. It's fewer than one percent of all vaccine doses that have been administered in low income countries to date. So, you know, the short answer is that I think it was good that Canada was willing to participate as a purchasing country, but then to turn around and sign the bilateral agreements that really monopolised that supply and to then take doses from the COVAX facility was not the right thing to do. I think we should have set this round of those procurement from Kovács because those doses would have gone to to low income countries. I think that's quite clear that taking them was not the right thing.

MG: Was this doomed from the start? I mean, the whole idea was to get people to put the global good ahead of their national interests. But when you have. You know, the populations of countries like Canada saying, I want my vaccine yesterday, was this whole idea doomed from the start?

JASON NICKERSON: Well, you're right, it was a good idea. But we have a fundamental problem that COVAX ultimately doesn't address. And that problem is in the way that medicines and vaccines are researched, developed, produced and distributed in the first place. You know, we treat medicines like private market commodities and not global public goods. And so, you know, there's there's a fundamental problem here when we're in the middle of a pandemic. But, you know, certainly with other health conditions as well, in the sense that we very rapidly need to do things differently. And the model has really gone, I think, unchallenged. And I think that that's really one of the disappointing things that we've seen throughout the pandemic, was that there is really an opportunity to do drug and vaccine development in a different way to put, quite frankly, patients and populations over profit and to scale up manufacturing in a significant way to diversify it to different parts of the world. So that vaccine could reach traditionally neglected populations more quickly. And that's really gone unchallenged by COVAX, but also by the global community in general. And I think, you know, we're seeing the limitations of the sort of private pharmaceutical industry in being able to reach sort of low income countries in a quick and equitable manner. And so, in a sense, I think that it was doomed. And and unfortunately, we're not, you know, we're not naive. We sort of saw this coming. We provided advice to Kovács early on and to high income countries to say, look, you know, you need to remove some of the traditional barriers that we've seen, intellectual property rights. You need to be sharing data, know how manufacturing rights with manufacturers quickly. And those things, unfortunately, didn't happen.

MG: Just a few seconds left. I mean, Canada has given one dose of covid vaccine to at least one dose to 75 percent of those eligible here. Places like Sierra Leone, Mozambique, have done the same for just one percent of the population. Just very briefly, what needs to happen now to ensure that those nations actually get some vaccine in an expedited manner?

JASON NICKERSON: Well, at the moment, what we need is countries that have reserved doses or are sitting on a surplus of doses to be donating those to the COVAX facility into low income countries to to make sure that we get doses to places as quickly as possible. This doesn't address the larger sort of systemic problems of how do we scale up and diversify manufacturing. But it's an emergency stop gap. Think of it as humanitarian intervention to get those doses out to the places that need them. The Sudan, Central African Republic, many other countries that just don't have the doses. So, countries like Canada that have had options to purchase hundreds of millions of doses, those needs to be freed up so that they can they can be made available to places that need them urgently.

MG: Jason, good to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

JASON NICKERSON: Thank you.

MG: Jason Nickerson is humanitarian representative to Canada for Doctors Without Borders. This is all, of course, a reminder that the pandemic abroad and at home is far from over, even if we might feel like we're in the homestretch with restrictions lifting across Canada. André Picard is a health columnist with the Globe and Mail. He's been guiding us through covid for the last year and a bit. Andre, good morning.

ANDRE PICARD: Good morning.

MG: Was COVAX doomed to fail? Do you think?

ANDRE PICARD: You know, I think domestic politics were always going to trump global solidarity. So as The Lancet wrote, you know, it's a beautiful idea. But, yes, it was always going to be a big, big challenge to work. And it's by no means a failure, but it's disappointing.

MG: What's the effect of that? I mean, again, there's this idea that we are on our way out of the pandemic. That's not the case for many, many people around the world.

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah, just reminds us that the world is small. We have to pay attention. And I think we're going to pay a lot more attention when we're fully vaccinated. Unfortunately, it's going to be a little too late, but I think it's going to come around. You know, we have to be to be fair. Canada has been very generous to Kovács. Its donated 1.3 billion dollars. That's the equivalent of about 100 million doses. Now, the question is when? So I think it's just more of a question as we should be giving our donation sooner rather than later.

MG: On the other side of things, there have been reports of vaccine shopping, for lack of a better phrase. I got my second shot earlier this week and the nurse who checked me in said that she had had a number of people who stood up and left the clinic because they could not get the vaccine they wanted. What do you make of that?

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah, it's a very odd thing to say, you know, treating it like a commodity, like Coke versus Pepsi. And that's essentially what it is. All the vaccines are going to give you essentially the same protection. So this branding business is is odd, but there is some you know, I understand why it's happening. It's about trust. And there's a lot of trust that's been undermined. There's a lot of questions about AstraZeneca. For example, Moderna boggled, botched some of its delivery. They created these trust issues. And when you do that, people look for certainty. And the most certain one has been Pfizer. And ultimately, about 70 percent of Canadians are getting Pfizer. So it's not that big a deal, but it is troubling to see people walk away for no good reason.

MG: What do you say to the trustees, what do you say to people whose trust has been broken and they're insisting that they prefer Pfizer over Moderna?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, I think you have to just step back and say, what is it going to make a difference? And it's not. The best vaccine is the one in your arm. They both, essentially, they're interchangeable, especially Pfizer and Moderna. So I understand why people are leery, but I think you just have to sort of bite the bullet and take your vaccine. And ultimately, that will be the best thing for you.

MG: The urgency around this is real because of the Delta variant. What impact is this variant going to have on our control of the virus?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, I think there's no question what we're learning from the Delta variant is that covid is becoming more transmissible. So it's easier for the virus to spread. But the paradox here is a lot fewer people are getting infected. So this confuses the public, I think. But it's a reminder, and this is something we've been talking about since day one with covid, is that behaviour matters more than biology. So the biology is troubling that this new variant is more easily transmissible. But that doesn't matter if we're all vaccinated for a lot more careful with how we behave publicly. So there's always two sides to this equation. So overall, we have to remember deltas concerning. But there actually are very few cases in Canada at this point, only about 2000 that we know for sure out of 1.4 million. So we have to keep some context here. So we shouldn't get overly alarmed, but we should be careful about it.

MG: You wrote recently about concerns around vaccinating children. And again, people are looking not just to the summer, but to the fall when school might be back in across the country in class. And people say that vaccinating children is going to be a key part of that. What are you hearing from parents?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, there's a lot of hysteria out there, to be honest, people, you know, are afraid of vaccinating children. They say they don't need it, they don't get sick, et cetera. But ultimately, if we want to stop the pandemic, we're going to have to vaccinate children. So the question to me is not if, but it's when. And the fairness issue that we discussed at the outset is an important one. Should we be vaccinating 12 year old Canadians when there are 80 year old Africans who are not vaccinated? And the answer is no, we should the priority should, theoretically, in the perfect world, be people most at risk who are older people should get the vaccine first. But the reality is of domestic politics is we're going to be selfish. And if that's the case, then we have to ensure that we keep the the rollout going by age groups down to to younger people.

MG: You say hysteria. And I know that you have been the subject of a lot of hate online. Do you mind telling me about that?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, you know, that doesn't matter to me. That goes with the job of a journalist. I think what's concerning is people are just so overly alarmed by things that are not a big deal. A vaccination, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh not getting vaccinated. You know that covid is much more dangerous to everyone, including children, than vaccination will be. These vaccines aren't approved for under 12 yet, but there's no question they will be. There's no biological reason that they won't work for younger people the way they do for older people. They're incredibly effective. And we have to figure out some some technical details. What's the dosage the kids need just one shot or two. These are things that will be worked out. But to say, oh, children don't need a vaccine because they don't die at death is not the measure we should be using. We can if we vaccinate children, we stop older people from being infected. We stop them from being sick. We prevent things like long covid, which is concerning. There's all kinds of reasons to do this. I think people have to to get a grip a bit about this.

MG: We're on the just a couple of days into summer. What is your prediction as to what summer is going to look like?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, you know, I think we're we've we're talking for a long time about a one summer. I think we're headed to a two summer. We're up to more than 20 percent of people have two doses. Summer should be a very, very positive time. We know there seems to be a weather effect with the virus like many respiratory viruses. So things should look good. The numbers look excellent. I know we in the media are sort of Debbie Downer is all the time, but things are really positive right now and we should take advantage of that. But we should still be cautious. We want to avoid these spikes we're seeing in other countries where people get a little too Lucy Goosey with the rules. And they if we're a little bit cautious, I think we can have a great summer.

MG: I'd never call you a Debbie Downer. Andre, thank you very much.

ANDRE PICARD: Thank you.

MG: Andre Picard, health reporter and columnist with The Globe and Mail.

[Music]

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, my name is Matt Galloway. It is the end of June and that means that across this country, young people are graduating from high school, from university, from college pandemic be damned. They are all moving on up. That life milestone did look a little different this year, though. Most ceremonies, as you know, are virtual. The Proms were cancelled due to covid-19, but we here at your public broadcaster were not about to let this moment pass without making a fuss. This month on The Current, we hosted not one but two graduation shows to celebrate the class of 2021. Here's a bit of what they sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Hey, their class of twenty twenty one graduates, it's Hayley Wickenheiser. I know this year has been likely very challenging and difficult, but I'm a big believer that in life it's not necessarily what happens to us that matters. It's how we choose to respond to it moving forward that defines us.

VOICE 2: I know your generation that will change the world and I can't wait to see how. Good luck. Congratulations.

VOICE 3: OK, see you. Class of twenty twenty one. Today we are ready for the world and now the world's better. Get ready for us.

VOICE 4: Hi, this is your house. Oh that's so cute.

VOICE 5: You want to go to prom with me. Of course I do. That is really cute.

MG: From every corner of Canada. You were cheering on our grads and so many of you wrote in to tell us that. Our senior producer, Karin Marley, is here with some of your responses to those programmes. Karen, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning. It was really nice to read this mail. Much of it was really joyful. Let's start with Cecilia Melen from Massee, Ontario. She says, I was especially moved by the closing address by the fellow from Kim's convenience. That would be Paul Sun Hyng Lee. He spoke such truths about life, not to get too shook up about things not going your way, because that sometimes is the nature of life. Life has twists and turns, and your success can be measured by how you adapt to the changes. No dark time lasts forever, nor does the sun always shine and there are lessons to be learnt from all. I took his address as a message of hope for us. I'll also be kind to those you meet as you make your way through life because those individuals can make your dreams come true.

MG: We got some more advice for the class of 2021 here. This is from Sandra Olsen, who says that she graduated in 1971. Sandra writes, Be your own best friend and appreciate the things that make you you. Try, take chances, trust yourself, even when you make mistakes. Life can be confusing, but also surprising. The next rock in your path will be a stepping stone to your future when you do not have what you want, want what you have, make, do. Life isn't days and years. It's what you do with time. You have a strong and open mind to excel in your future endeavours. Now go for it.

KARIN MARLEY: Some of the letters were pretty funny as well. This one is from Mary Roseborough in Ottawa. And she said when this was first promoted, I thought, oh, this will be boring.

MG: My goodness.

KARIN MARLEY: Never. Was I ever wrong? She says. I have thoroughly enjoyed both shows. You got me early on with a young man who was already a pilot and used as aviation abilities to ask his girlfriend to the prom. He said he's going to mount Allison for the aviation programme. My brother, who retired from Mount Allison several years ago, was instrumental in getting that programme off the ground, so to speak. He only began to fly in his late 50s, but enjoys it thoroughly, as do we in the family, who occasionally have a chance to fly with them.

MG: Carla Filemon from Owen Sound, Ontario, also had a bit of a change of heart when she listened to those shows. She writes, I have to admit that my pride ometer for being Canadian has dwindled in the last little while. But after listening to this show on the graduates of 2021, it's starting to improve. I have often commented that more needs to be told of the wonderful young people we have in this country. These intelligent, compassionate, hopeful, bright and loving people are our future and I can never be so sure that this country will heal and be better than ever.

KARIN MARLEY: One last one from Joe and Rob from Robert's Creek in British Columbia. She writes, Listening to the virtual national post-secondary graduation on The Current, I am encouraged, touched and impressed by stories of fortitude, determination, inspiration, even survival.

MG: Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: Karin Marley is a senior producer here at The Current. Now, some of you had suggested that we should also focus on teachers. Of course, teachers have had a rough couple of years as well. That is a good idea. And so we're actually going to do that story tomorrow. We welcome your thoughts on anything you hear on this programme. Get in touch. You can write us at thecurrent@cbc.ca or tweet us, we are @TheCurrentCBC. Well, coming up after your regional update, Donald Trump has left office. The Capitol Building has been patched up and buffed to a shine once again. But what is left of democracy and the United States and globally? I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stick around.

Democracies facing threats around the world

Guests: Anne Applebaum, Ben Rhodes

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway, you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

To those who wreaked havoc in our capital today, you did not win. Violence never wins. Freedom wins. And this is still the people's House. And as we reconvene in this chamber, the world will again witness the resilience and strength of our democracy. Even in the wake of unprecedented violence and vandalism at this capital, the elected representatives of the people of the United States have assembled again.

MG: That was former Republican Vice President Mike Pence on the evening of January six that felt like democracy in that country was hanging by a thread. A violent mob had just invaded the Capitol building at the incitement of a sitting American president. They were trying to stop illegal election of his successor. It might feel like a long time ago now or that things have gone back to normal. But my next guests say that cloud of doubt over democracy hasn't gone away. And it isn't just threatening America. Anne Applebaum studies authoritarianism. She's a Pulitzer prise winning historian and staff writer for The Atlantic. Her book, Twilight of Democracy The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, is just out in paperback. And Ben Rhodes is a former adviser and speechwriter to President Barack Obama. His new book is After the Fall Being American and the World We've Made. Good morning to you both.

ANNE APPLEBAUM: Morning.

BEN RHODES: Good morning.

MG: Anne Applebaum. Just briefly, what did you think when you saw thousands of Americans storming the Capitol building in Washington to stop Joe Biden becoming president?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: I thought it looked like scenes that I've seen in other countries. It was a organised, motivated mob that although its methods were questionable and I'm not sure whether it could have succeeded, it intended to stop the nomination of Joe Biden from becoming president. I think the really important thing to understand about the mob was that it was not representative of polarisation. These were not Republicans who were against Democrats. This was an anti systemic mob. They were trying to block the process of democracy itself. And that's that's a kind of protest that we haven't had in the United States in a long time, depending on how you define it. Maybe not since the Civil War. So it represented something new in contemporary American politics.

MG: Ben Rhodes, a majority of Republican congressmen and congresswomen, voted not to ratify the election of Joe Biden. So did a number of Republican senators. What did that tell you about the state of two party democracy in the United States?

BEN RHODES: Well, I think what it suggests is the uncomfortable truth that one of America's two major political parties is not committed to democracy, full stop. And this has been happening in plain sight for a long time. And for my book, a kind of a starting point for me, jumping off is talking to Hungarian activists about their transition to kind of a soft autocracy, single party autocracy over a decade. And they said, well, how did that happen? They said, well, Viktor Orban, our prime minister, got elected on a right wing populist backlash to the financial crisis. He redrew parliamentary districts to entrench his party in power, change voting laws to make it easier for his supporters to vote, pack the courts with far right judges who side with him. He enriched some cronies who bought up the media and turned it into a right wing propaganda machine. And he wrapped it all up in a nationalist us versus them both. The real Hungarians, us, versus them, the liberal elites, the Muslims, the immigrants, George Soros. And you could have been describing what's been happening for a decade in the United States. The Republican Party has embraced fundamentally illiberal means for entrenching minority rule of the majority in this country. That didn't change after Joe Biden's victory. It didn't even change after that attempted insurrection at the capital. And to this day, we see really aggressive efforts to adjust the voting franchise in over two dozen states in this country. So this is very much still an open question. And I think we have to adjust to the reality that there's one political party that would rather hold power than exists within a democracy in which they're agreed upon rules in reality.

MG: You tweeted yesterday the Republican Party, like any authoritarian movement, wants you to become cynical and apathetic so they can take away your power. You believe the Republican Party is an authoritarian movement.

BEN RHODES: Yes, and I think we have to I don't want that to be the case. You know, I the speeches I wrote for Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign were about red states and blue states coming together. I wish I didn't have to come to these conclusions, but I don't know, until we find the appropriate and accurate language for describing what's happening, I'm not sure how we're going to deal with it because any their leader is Donald Trump, a person whose only cause right now is propagating the big lie that he somehow won this election. And a majority of Republicans in this country believe that to be true. And there's so many characteristics of an authoritarian movement and and has written a lot about this as well, where you have to change literally reality so that your supporters live in an alternative reality, and so that the only true cause is the acquisition and maintenance of power and absolutely a characteristic of a Putin or Orban or anybody who subscribes to this brand of politics is to make to to to make your opponents so turned off, cynical, apathetic, believing that nothing can change, that you can continue to move forward with your agenda of controlling.

MG: And Applebaum, what's the long term effect of what Ben Rhodes called the big lie that the election was stolen?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: So first of all, let me make one adjustment to what he just said, namely that I do not think that the battle for the Republican Party is over. I do think that there's a part of the party that is going to try to resist this. This this is the authoritarian ization of the party and the trends, the transformation of the party into something undemocratic. I think there are still people in it, even in Congress, even in the Senate, who who who feel strongly about that. Not everybody yet understands what's happening. One of the one of the characteristics of a country which is sinking into authoritarianism is that not everybody recognises it. I mean, if you'd if you'd asked Hungarians at the beginning of Viktor Orban first term, is he an authoritarian leader, they would have said, of course not. If you'd ask Venezuelans in the early days of Chavez's government, is this country still a democracy that most of them said? Yes. And in fact, we have that we have that polling data, the understanding of what's going on, I don't think has penetrated that far. And so I think the battle is still on and it still can be won, although obviously we're at an advanced stage of it.

MG: I guess the concern, though, is that the rot settles in, that this lie can have legs, that it doesn't go away just after even an insurrection in January. It doesn't go away after months or years that that can settle in and destabilise something as fundamental as democracy.

ANNE APPLEBAUM: Yes. I mean, what's really dangerous about what Trump is doing, you asked about the big lie, the big lie being the lie that he won the election is that we've seen how conspiracy theories like this have worked in other countries. Nowadays, you don't necessarily need a full fledged authoritarian ideology. You don't need Marxism, you don't need fascism. You don't need a whole theory of economics and an agenda and a vision of the future in order to convince people to lose faith in their democracies. All you need is a lie that's powerful enough to undermine people's faith in the system and to break the consensus. I'm talking to you from Poland, where I watched this happen in the years between 2010 and 2015. I mean, it's it's a long story. There was a there was a plane crash that killed a president. And over time, the idea that the entire Polish establishment had somehow collaborated and his death became widespread enough that it led people to lose their faith in the entire Polish establishment as it would. What Trump is doing now is something very similar to that. In other words, he's telling people the voting system doesn't work. The media is lying to you. The establishment is lying to what everybody says isn't true. I'm really the president. Joe Biden is not the president. And all he needs to do is convince enough people that that might be true. You know, it's just, it creates enough doubt about democracy itself, that that it opens up pathways to behaviour that we haven't seen before, at least not since the Civil War. So you don't need a whole elaborate ideology or an explanation. All you need to do is make people doubt the system to cease to believe in it and to therefore believe that violence is possible and maybe necessary, that extralegal means are possible or are needed to take back control. This is a tactic that we've seen in a lot of other times in places.

MG: Ben Rhodes, in 2008, there were two big events. One was the economic meltdown. The other was that the United States elected its first black president. How important were those events, do you think, in creating a shift away from representative democracy and planting the seeds for what we're talking about now?

BEN RHODES: Well, I think really important and obviously people thought this at the time of the financial crisis, but I think the impact is even greater than we understood at the time, or at least that I understood at the time.

MG: What was that impact?

BEN RHODES: What I think it did is, you know, across the West, essentially, I think it marked a moment in which a significant number of people just lost faith in the process of American led globalisation and capitalism and to some extent in democracy itself. And if you look at a place like Hungary, you know, there had already been a building sense that maybe the new system wasn't working for everybody. And then when you have the bottom completely fall out and you're seeing a situation when it looks like the system is rigged and this system, it's not the same as the old system, but it's not offering me a sense of belonging and identity. And it appears rigged. And a guy like Orban steps into that moment and says, well, look, maybe I can solve all the problems. And and said, what's interesting is there's not a big economic ideology to this. What I can offer you, though, is the most familiar form of belonging in human political history, which is nationalism. I can offer you the kind of blood and soil nationalism, I will at least give voice to your grievances. And I think you see across the next decade in many different places, this common emergence of the kind of politician who, again, isn't putting forward a particularly economic programme. What they're putting forward is some longing for a more traditional sense of identity, the way things used to be, the way they make America great again, make Russia great again, make Hungary great again, make Turkey great again, always a longing for a traditional identity. I do think the 2008 crisis was this kind of destabilising moment. And what's interesting is the backlash didn't come from a populism of the left that says, you know, we have an economic system that favours the one percent and screws everybody else. It came from the right where I think politicians understood that there was so much grievance built up, that that kind of identity politics could work now in the United States. What was so interesting to me is to look at the parallel rise of the Tea Party movement to the rise of Viktor Orban's movement in Hungary, because you saw the same grievances, people who felt left behind by an economy that no longer work for them. People could look at the whole system and think it was rigged against them and and to favour a handful of elites and the political establishment and failed and the capitalist establishment failed. And there's a black president. And I think that the racialized component in the United States, given the fact that race has always been at the centre of a certain kind of white grievance based politics, you mixed together the cocktail of the anger over the financial crisis and the anger of a black president. And you get those mobs of Tea Party activists in 2010 chanting Take our country back. And to me, that was a moment that 2010 election in this country that vaulted the Tea Party to power. That's when the Republican Party really started to go down this road of essentially a white grievance based politics, not all about race. And some of this is very much tied to dissatisfaction with the system generally. But when you mix race into that equation in the United States, it can become very potent. And by 2011, we had Donald Trump with the birther movement, beginning his takeover of the Republican Party.

MG: Anne, the subtitle of your book is The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. I know that. I mean, in reading this, you have had a lot of conservative anti-communist friends and some of them drifted towards authoritarianism. You've spoken to some of them since you ended up splitting on kind of ideological lines. What does that seductive lure of authoritarianism?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: First of all, everybody has always known that there is a law of authoritarianism, including the greatest theorists of democracy, the authors of the American constitution know Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, were well aware that democracies had failed in the past. They were well aware of the power of demagoguery. One of the reasons the United States has the quirky constitution that it has, as they were trying to build in as many checks and balances, as many ways that you could prevent an autocrat from coming to power as they possibly could. So the idea that this is something new is I think is so is is our generation's problem. Past generations have known that. And and what they've known is that the there is a you know, there is an element of the human character that dislikes chaos, that dislikes change, that dislikes diversity. Not everybody feels that way, but some people do, and particularly in times of great turmoil. And I would add to Ben's description of the financial crisis, I would add to that the transformation of the information space created by the Internet and social media and the and the cascading consequences of that. I would add to that the the feeling that we now live in this era of information overload, of cacophony, of of angry, divisive argument, of ]problems that can't be solved. And when you live in an atmosphere that that affects some people quite strongly and it affects people in all social classes and people on the right and people on the left, but it does lead for a desire for something more unified, something stricter and and perhaps something led by one person. The Trump administration understood this desire in this instinct very well. When you saw, last summer, when they sent a kind of police force that nobody knew existed. This was the Department of Homeland Security police troops from the Coast Guard and from other parts of from the border guard when they sent them to Portland to do battle with demonstrators. That was a visual picture that was created for the benefit of people who were afraid of disorder. And the fact that they kept talking about disorder and flashing photographs of disorder all the way through Trump's campaign was because they were seeking to appeal to people who fear that. And we do live in a time of of rapid change of divisiveness, as I said, of cacophony. There were a lot of demonstrations last summer. And in those times you find that people are drawn to something different. They want stability. They want safety. They want something that seems familiar, many of them. You've already talked a little bit about this nostalgia that people feel for a time in the past when supposedly things were more predictable, more stable. Some of them like to hear that message as well. And I think that there are a number of political leaders all over the world who are seeking to appeal to that strain and humanity. And it's happened in the United States, as well as many other places.

MG: Do you worry that fighting for democracy is a lost cause, then? I mean, in the book, you say that given the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will.

ANNE APPLEBAUM: I don't believe there's such a thing as a lost cause. I mean, the future is never inevitable. Everything depends on the choices that we make today. You know, we can change the the circumstances that we live in. I mean, we can, for example, regulate the Internet, by which I don't mean censor it. I mean think harder about how the algorithms work that decide what it is that we that that makes us angry and excited and divided. We can create alternatives to public service, alternatives to to social media that that that value consensus and civilised discussion rather than shouting and and performing. There are ways that we can change the current situation if we want to. But it is important that people understand exactly how grave the situation is, what extreme circumstances we find ourselves in, and how easy it is to lose democracy and how difficult it is to regain it once it's lost.

MG: Ben Rhodes, you were part of the Obama administration for eight years. The subtitle of your book is Being American in the World. We've made. What sort of world has America made?

BEN RHODES: Yeah, well, I think that if you look at in the book, I kind of look at the 30 years since the end of the Cold War that kind of brought us from that moment when it seemed like democracy was at its high watermark or inevitable to where we are today. And obviously nothing is inevitable, as Anne says, each generation has this kind of cycles of conflict between democracy and authoritarianism. But what I found is we have to acknowledge as Americans there's some symbiosis between the kind of nationalist authoritarian trend we see around the world and the momentum of that American hegemony for 30 years. And I really looked at kind of three areas in which I think the excess of America's hegemony contributed to this trend. One, which we've discussed, but the kind of unbridled, unregulated brand of capitalism that washed across the world, creating a lot of wealth, by the way, lifting a lot of people out of poverty, doing a lot of good, but also creating a lot of inequity and a lot of anger and ultimately the bottom falling out. The extent to which that created some of this vacuum that is particularly been acute since 2000, 2008 crisis. I think our post 9/11 foreign policy not only contributed to, I think, the overreaching excess of Iraq, which in some ways also discredited the idea of democracy promotion in the world because the war itself became associated with that agenda. But you also saw and you still see today the war on terror frame being used by autocratic leaders to justify their own policies around the world. And importantly, as Anne said, the American creations of social media platforms and development of artificial intelligence that seemed like these power, these tools, incredible empowerment of individuals. And, yes, they did empower individuals. I don't to suggest these things don't have positive benefits, but disinformation as social media becomes the perfect tool of the disinformation or someone like a Vladimir Putin or the perfect tool of surveillance and control. And if you look at China and their use of technology, the blending together of data dominance by governments and the kind of dystopia of how they're able to use technology to kind of control what citizens can can read and ultimately think, if you have such total control over the information from a society, these are things that, again, are not all totally American creations. But I thought the excesses of our our brand of capitalism, our brand of kind of post 9/11 militarism and our technological innovation has contributed to the different flavours of nationalism, authoritarianism we see now. These are all areas where in the Obama years, you know, I feel like we were trying to address, we're trying to promote a greater equality in terms of the American economy, we're trying to wind down wars and and reshape America's role in the world. But the reality is America itself is an ocean liner. As President Obama used to always tell me, we could have done a lot of things better, I'm sure, but it's also the case that we have to get out of the habit of thinking that one president can come along and fix all these things. The question ultimately this is my subtitle is we have to decide, what does it mean to be American? Does it mean doing the work of promoting and advancing a multiracial, multiethnic democracy? Or does that mean, I think what it means to Trump, which is this is a country that is supposed to belong to some people only and not others? And that ultimately, I think, is the contest that is playing out, which is why things are so intense in American politics right now.

MG: Just in the last few minutes that we have, and I'll ask you first, Ben, what are you most worried about?

BEN RHODES: I'm most worried about I mean, within the United States itself, but I'm most worried about is the extent to which some people are just they're not living in in reality. And and so it's one thing, you know, there can be people who have intense disagreements with me. And I'm sure I'm wrong about some things, about the role of government or American foreign policy. But but the sky is blue and and climate change is real. And Joe Biden won the election. And and when you look, you cannot ignore the fact that because of the collapse of the media ecosystem in this country and the development of a very powerful media ecosystem that combines social media, talk radio, television news, there's a bunch of my fellow Americans who are living in a different reality. And that, to me is is hugely corrosive to democracy. I think globally, what worries me is how if you look at what if you look at Hong Kong, it's kind of in miniature where this blend of capitalism and technological innovation and totalitarianism can lead, where you have the appearance of a society that is working in some ways, it's generating a degree of wealth, but you are losing all forms of individual liberty and agency. And that, to me, is why the Hong Kong protest movement should be such a warning. These people did not want to opt into that model, even though it could deliver prosperity. And we need to listen to that, those types of voices before it's too late in our own society.

MG: Anne, what are you most concerned about?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: I'm most concerned about a stolen election, a failed election, perhaps one in which the Republican Party has managed to alter votes, or there's a possibility they could use state legislatures to to overthrow or throw out votes in states that go to a Democrat.

MG: Which they tried to do.

ANNE APPLEBAUM: Which they tried to do in 2020. I'm worried they'll try it again in twenty twenty four and I'm worried they'll succeed. And that could lead to an extended period of unrest. And I think anything that can be done either by Republicans or Democrats to prevent that from happening is extremely important.

MG: These are two bracing books and it's great to speak with you both about this and where we may go from here. Thank you very much.

GUESTS: Thank you. Anne Applebaum book Twilight of Democracy The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism is out in paperback this week. Ben Rhodes new book is After the Fall Being American in the World We've Made. And that's it for The Current for this Wednesday. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's Q. Maybe we've got you thinking about what defines a democracy. We'll take a couple of minutes to consider that question with a great Canadian, Bruce Cockburn. This is a song Ben Rhodes is kind of talking a little bit about this, about the promotion of democracy. This is a song about the perils of promoting democracy around the world. It's Bruce Cockburn and call it Democracy. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

Wednesday June 23, 2021 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode