tv PBS News Hour PBS August 22, 2017 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: is a hard line with pakistan key to success in afghanistan? we look inside president trump's new plan for the united states' longest war. then, re-thinking college tuition. how one university is banking on its students' future earnings. >> unlike student debt, it shifts the burden-- or the risk, i should say-- entirely from the student to the investor. >> woodruff: and, when a fad solves a problem. how detroit is using tiny houses to give struggling residents a new lease on life. >> it's really about home ownership and the american dream for people who stopped dreaming. we really were looking at not only eliminating homelessness,
but with dealing with poverty for people. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: u.s. military and diplomatic leaders are moving ahead on the afghanistan strategy that president trump
laid out in a speech to the nation last night. his remarks brought reaction today from the region, and the world. nick schifrin begins our coverage. >> reporter: today, in the birthplace of the taliban, afghan president ashraf ghani praised president trump's decision to deploy more u.s. troops without an end date. >> ( translated ): from now on, there will not be any timetable or conditions. america will stand with the afghan nation till the end. >> reporter: afghan chief executive abdullah abdullah, who came to prominence fighting the taliban, said the new strategy should serve as a warning. >> the message is very clear: that if there are groups that they think that they can win militarily, they should give up their thinking. >> reporter: but afghan officials say that statement also applies to u.s. the u.s has been targeting the taliban for 16 years, and the 4,000 or so troops that will newly deploy is a fraction of the 100,000 troops who didn't break the taliban's back during the war's peak. ( gunfire )
so u.s. officials say most of the new u.s. troops won't be firing their own weapons, but teaching afghans how to fire theirs. that's a mission nato trainers have been doing since the war began, like these near the border with iran earlier this year. the afghans attach go-pros to their guns to train raiding a target. the american trainers will embed in lower level afghan units, trying to instill confidence in a force responsible for the vast majority of the fighting. >> the stronger the afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do. afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. >> reporter: president trump's speech last night largely echoed the military stablishment's thinking, and he tried to increase the pressure on afghanistan's neighbor, pakistan. u.s. officials have long accused pakistan of allowing some of afghanistan's fiercest militants to go back and forth across the porous 2,600-mile border freely,
an accusation secretary of state rex tillerson repeated this afternoon. >> we have witnessed terrorist organizations being given safe haven inside of pakistan, to plan and carry out attacks against u.s. servicemen, u.s. officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of afghanistan. pakistan must adopt a different approach. we are going to be conditioning our support for pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area. >> reporter: pressure on pakistan isn't new, but the administration's language is stronger than its predecessors. pakistan didn't respond publicly today, but china came to its defense, a sign of china's desire to increase its regional diplomacy and protect major investments in pakistan, like this arabian sea port. >> ( translated ): pakistan is on the front line in the struggle against terrorism, has actively made efforts and great sacrifices to combat terrorism for years. >> reporter: president trump's strategy hinges on a regional approach. but many of the diplomats who would execute that strategy are
not in place, including ambassadors in kabul and new delhi. and critics of the president's speech described it as a rehashing of already failed strategies. from the right, kentucky senator rand paul said, "the mission in afghanistan has lost its purpose, and i think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war." and from the left, maryland senator ben cardin on msnbc's "morning joe:" >> we know that a military surge-- we've tried two under the obama administration. that did not work. >> reporter: the political center praised the president: >> i'm pleased with the decision. i'm actually pleased with the way he went about making this decision. >> reporter: it was a decision mr. trump said will produce immediate results. but it's been 16 years, and right now, commanders admit they consider afghanistan a stalemate. for the pbs newshour, i'm nick schifrin. >> woodruff: we will discuss the president's strategy in more detail, after the news summary. in the day's other news, tensions eased just a bit in the war of wills between the u.s. and north korea. secretary of state tillerson said the north is showing new signs of restraint. he pointed to the fact that the
regime has not carried out any missile or nuclear tests since the u.n. adopted new sanctions, earlier this month. >> we hope that this is the beginning of this signal we've been looking for. that they are ready to restrain their level of tensions, they're ready to restrain their provocative acts, and that perhaps we're seeing a pathway to, some time in the near future, having some dialogue. we need to see more on their part but i want to acknowledge the steps they've taken so far. >> woodruff: at the same time, the u.s. imposed new sanctions on more than a dozen chinese and russian companies for supporting north korea's weapons programs. china called it a mistake, and warned the u.s. to correct it "immediately." the head of iran's nuclear program now says tehran could ramp up uranium enrichment within five days, if president trump abrogates the 2015 nuclear deal. the president has charged iran is violating the spirit of the deal.
ali akbar salehi says the islamic republic could quickly resume enriching uranium to the 20% level. from there, it could quickly be concentrated to levels used in nuclear warheads. u.s. navy divers today found human remains in a destroyer damaged off the coast of singapore. they were looking for the ten sailors who were missing after the u.s.s. "john s. mccain" collided with an oil tanker early monday. as rescue crews continued their search today, officials said they are also working to determine what went wrong. >> from my visit in "john s. mccain" today, i can tell you that she has sustained significant damage through her port side aft. the flooding was halted but the extent of the damage is still being determined. we will conduct a thorough and full investigation into this collision.
>> woodruff: this was the second major collision this summer for the navy's 7th fleet. the trump administration today defended a decision not to exempt coal-fired plants from environmental laws. the coal industry wanted an emergency order, but the energy department declined. the head of murray energy claimed the president had personally promised to take action. the white house did not respond directly, but it did say: "president trump continues to fight for miners every day." the wife of treasury secretary steven mnuchin, louise linton, has apologized for a scathing online attack. yesterday, she had posted a picture of herself and mnuchin getting off a government jet, and pointed out the brand names of her designer outfit. when a commenter criticized the post, linton shot back, "have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? i'm pretty sure we paid more taxes than you did."
today, she said her response was "highly insensitive." wall street shot higher today after reports of progress toward a tax-reform package in congress. the dow jones industrial average gained 196 points to close just short of 21,900. the nasdaq rose 84 points, and the s&p 500 added 24. and, the supreme court of india has struck down a muslim practice allowing men to instantly divorce their wives. a group of muslim women challenged the religious law. it lets a man terminate a marriage simply by saying a single word, "talaq," three times. the rule has already been banned in more than 20 other countries. still to come on the newshour: can the trump administration persuade pakistan to help with the war in afghanistan? tensions heat up ahead of the president's public rally in phoenix. why students are promising to pay back part of their future salaries. and, much more.
>> woodruff: as we've reported, president trump last night laid out several new approaches to the conflict in afghanistan, including proposals for how to involve neighboring countries. he offered few details, but he singled out pakistan's support for the taliban as being particularly problematic. we get two views about what was new in the address and what this all means. husain haqqani was pakistan's ambassador to the united states from 2008 to 2001. he's the author of several books about the history of pakistan. he is currently the director for south and central asia at the hudson institute. and, laurel miller was the deputy and then acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan from 2013 until june 2017. she served on the national
security council staff and at the state department during the clinton administration. she is now a senior political scientist are the rand corporation. we welcome both of you to the program. ambassador haqqani to, you first. overall, what was new and different about this speech, and in particular the fact that the president said the focus is now going to be on rooting out terrorists and it's going to be conditions based. what did that mean to you? >> well, the two most important things that i saw in president trump's address were a removal of deadlines,. that to me is very important, because the taliban have had a saying for years that the americans have watches and we have the time. when you set deadlines and show urgency about leaving afghanistan, they really know they can wait you out, and so can the pakistanis who support them. so that i think is the change. it might be easier for the united states to get out of afghanistan by saying we do not intend to get out without doing
what we really came here to do, which is to eliminate a terrorist safe haven. the second thing i found interesting was that instead of offering a carrot to pakistan, which has been the past practice, and a little bit of reprimanding pakistan, there was a clear acknowledgment of the fact that pakistan is not a good actor in afghanistan. it pains me to say that. i am a pakistani. i served pakistan as ambassador, but pakistan has never been transparent about its attitude toward afghanistan. and it has had an imaginary fear of india having a strong presence in afghanistan. president trump has implied that he will invite india into afghanistan, bringing pakistan's nightmare to reality. and that may have some effect in changing pakistan's calculus that several billion dollars in american assistance did not do. >> woodruff: let's take those one at a time. laurel miller, what about this notion that the president is
talking about conditions? he pointed out last night that the u.s. gives pakistan billions of dollars, he said to a country is reporting that terrorists we're trying to get rid of. and today we heard secretary tillerson say we're going to be looking at whether pakistan delivers, and there will be chamber of commerce if it doesn't. >> the u.s. has provide substantial support the pakistan, primarily security related, but that's been dwindling quite considerably over past years and is expected to dwipsd l further. as a consequence, it's not really a major point of leverage with the pakistanis. the u.s. is not providing billions of dollars any longer to pakistan. >> woodruff: so that was incorrect to say? >> if you calculate the amount that has been provided over a long stretch of time, it's billions of dollars, but on an annual basis now, it's nowhere near that.
it's well under a billion dollars a year. by contrast, the chinese provide much, much greater levels of support to the pakistanis. so it's quite notable that the chinese have come out today, giving a boost of support for the pakistanis. >> woodruff: so ambassador haqqani, is it really that serious leverage then? because we hear laurel miller saying it's not that much money. >> well, with all due respect to laurel, here are the facts: pakistan has refused $43 billion since 1954. pakistan built its nuclear program while promising not to build it. a long track record, pakistan offered bases in which return pakistan was supposed to have been compensated way back in the '50s and '60s. only provided an intelligence base, didn't provide the air base promised. the point is there is a pattern here. and that pattern is enabled by arguments like the one that, this is not as much money. china on the other hand gives pakistan loans, which is what
they are offering, and they have investment schemes which the pakistani government has facilitated. pakistan has not made those offers to united states investors. but what is more important is that what is pakistan doing basically that is... that amounts to coincidence of u.s. and pakistan interests. pakistan wants the taliban back in afghanistan. the u.s. does not. pakistan is a major nuclear proliferator. the u.s. does not want that. >> woodruff: let me just stop you there. >> what is the interest that 2t united states is paying pakistan, whatever, hundreds of millions? and the money is important to pakistan, because pakistan is a hard currently poor country, and pakistan's government does not raise enough taxes. so for that reason --. >> woodruff: i'm sorry. >> yeah. >> woodruff: i have to interrupt because i want to give miss miller some time to speak,
as well. i think bottom line here is is there leverage the united states has to get pakistan to close that border? >> there is some leverage. look, the border can't be closed. it's a very porous border. it's very difficult territory. so the idea of literally closing the border is an impossibility. but certainly there's much more that the pakistanis could do to close down the sanctuaries that taliban leadership in particular enjoy in pakistan. but, you know, it's not that there's no leverage on the pakistanis. but the pakistanis are not going to change their perception of their own national security interests based only on american pressure. there has to be something that attracts the pakistanis to cooperate in a positive way with the united states. >> woodruff: do you see that as part of what the president has proposed? >> i don't.
to the contrary. one of the key missing elements of what the president announced last night is any semblance of a political strategy for afghanistan, a political end game in afghanistan that could bring stability to the country and that could give the pakistanis and other regional players an opportunity to see the potential for their own interests to be satisfied. moreover, one of the few new elements in what the president announced last night was an invitation to india to play a more significant role. >> woodruff: can that have a salutary effect? >> that is going to significantly antagonize the pakistanis. that pushes the pakistanis' most sensitive buttons. what pakistan is most concerned about with with respect to an indian role in afghanistan is the prospect for afghanistan to become a more india-friendly
place and more pakistan to be encircled in that way. >> woodruff: so many threads here to follow. we'll continue to look at all of. this laurel miller, thank you very much. ambassador husain haqqani, we thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: as students are heading back to campus, we kick off a special series we do each year on innovative ideas in higher education, called "rethinking college." we start with a look at how one university is fighting the rising costs of tuition by investing in its students. hari sreenivasan has our report, part of our weekly segment, "making the grade." >> sreenivasan: college
graduation: a time for celebration. but for those with student loans, it's also a time of financial anxiety, because the repayment clock just started ticking. last year alone, u.s. student debt reached $1.3 trillion. the average amount owed was $37,000 dollars. the sobering statistics led purdue university in indiana to offer students a new way to pay for their degrees. >> i just know you are bound for exciting places, great achievements, thrilling moments. >> sreenivasan: this year, purdue began funding students who agreed to pay back the university a percentage of their future earnings. >> we're so very, very proud of you. >> sreenivasan: president mitch daniels says the new funding model, called an income share agreement, can be viewed as an investment, much like investing in the stock market. >> unlike student debt, it shifts the burden-- or the risk, i should say-- entirely from the student to the investor. >> sreenivasan: that's because the terms of the agreement,
called an i.s.a., are made well before students launch their careers, so even if a student ends up in a low-paying job, the pay-back percentage stays the same. >> if the student's career doesn't pan out too well during those early years, then the student is not on the hook and the loss falls on the investor. >> sreenivasan: in this case, the investor is purdue's research foundation, which funded all 160 students who applied. throughout the year, purdue sponsored workshops to explain income share agreements. >> we think education financing should be based on your potential. >> sreenivasan: will nelligan, who helped create purdue's i.s.a. model, explained how the agreements work. >> freedom from debt. you don't have a fixed amount that you need to repay, there's no interest attached to it. >> sreenivasan: not having to pay interest caught the attention of purdue junior alek
benturino. >> the worst fear is, even if i graduate and have a good job, because of the interest, it's not like you're just paying off a certain amount and it goes away. it will take years to pay off. >> sreenivasan: proponents of income share agreements say universities haven't been held accountable for graduates who fail to repay their loans. >> i think it would be a good thing if schools had more, as they say, skin in the game. >> sreenivasan: in 2016, 11% of the nation's former students defaulted on federal loans. >> i personally think that it's been a mistake that universities, and ours included, are not at risk when a student doesn't pay back their student loan. i very much favor the accountability that would come from the school owning a little bit, taking a little bit of the hit. >> sreenivasan: this year, senior melissa gillbanks signed up for purdue's i.s.a. until last year, she relied on private loans to pay her
out-of-state tuition. how deep in debt are you? >> a lot. i think currently, my sallie mae loans are sitting at like 80k. that's without interest on top of that. >> sreenivasan: in exchange for an additional $30,000 from purdue, gillbanks agreed to share 5% of her future earnings for ten years. would you have done an income share for the whole thing if you could have? >> absolutely. >> sreenivasan: gillbanks is a digital design engineer, and feels pretty confident she'll land a good salary. >> i try not to think about it, because it's a little daunting, because i know i'm going to have a good job-- well, fingers crossed i'm going to have a good job. >> sreenivasan: each agreement is different. the percentage of a student's future income and the number of years a student must pay back purdue is based on how much money that student is likely to earn. who are you going after, the ones who are going to be engineers, doctors, lawyers,
bankers? >> it's a common misunderstanding, but we had 70 different majors in the first cohort of 160 i.s.a.s. from electrical engineers, and stem graduates, all the way down to philosophy students, and historians. >> sreenivasan: critics argue that universities should not be in the business of making bets on financial outcomes based on fields of study. and, questions have been raised about how this could impact a student's choice of majors. >> wouldn't this kind of program push incoming freshman or sophomores to a more lucrative field? the earning potential of an art major just isn't that of a computer science major, so do you think this income agreement could push students to pursue something that they're not interested in, simply because they can get funded for that major? >> a more professional major might pay a smaller share of their income for a shorter
period of time, and an art history a slightly larger percentage for a slight longer period of time. >> sreenivasan: senior zach meyer will pay a smaller percentage than fellow student gillbanks, the design engineer. that's because meyer is majoring in financial counseling and likely to have a lucrative career. for $10,000 he's agreed to pay 3.8% of his future income for ten years. but before meyer's signed, he had one question. >> if i'm making a lot of money, am i going to have to pay back just a ton of money? >> sreenivasan: the answer was no. >> they cap at two and a half times whatever you borrow, so the ost i'll be paying back is $25,000. so i guess it's not a big deal. >> sreenivasan: purdue also sets a minimum income threshold. if, in the future, you are out of work, or earning very little, you don't pay. >> what feels most important to you? >> the protection when times get tough, so that way if you are unemployed, rather than interest piling up, you're already struggling to get back on your
feet, you don't need interest on top of that. >> sreenivasan: is it a good investment for the university? >> well, we'll find out. frankly, i'll be disappointed if this new instrument doesn't grow over time, so that it attracts all kinds of investors, people who see a chance help a student, but also make some kind of a return. >> sreenivasan: this fall, purdue university is expanding their income share agreement program from juniors and seniors, to incoming sophomores. in indiana, for the pbs newshour, i'm hari sreenivasan. >> woodruff: in his address to the nation last night, president trump also stressed the need for unity, and urged americans to "heal our divisions within." but those divisions could be on full display tonight in phoenix, arizona. our lisa desjardins joins us to
explain. >> desjardins: right, judy. the president will give his first campaign-style rally since the tragic events in charlottesville. he will be talking to some of his most faithful supporters inside the phoenix convention center, even as, outside, officials are bracing for thousands of protestors to greet president trump. in his first trip to arizona as commander-in-chief, president trump toured a customs and border protection facility and visited with marines in yuma. but not everyone in the western state is welcoming trump. on monday, phoenix mayor greg stanton, a democrat, called for trump to delay his visit in light of the violence in charlottesville, virginia. >> i did not feel it was the right time to do it. it was too close after charlottesville. that was such a difficult situation, not only for the people in charlottesville, but for all americans. and so a campaign-style rally so shortly thereafter, i did not think was appropriate. >> desjardins: trump's fellow
republican, governor doug ducey, plans to greet him at the phoenix airport, but not the attend the phoenix rally, saying he needs to focus on "working with law enforcement toward a safe event." and the president is on shaky ground with both of arizona's senators, john mccain and jeff flake. most recently, the republican senators condemned the president's response to charlottesville. in turn, president trump tweeted support last week for flake's primary opponent, adding that the senator is "weak on borders" and "toxic." arizona is also a state where candidate trump saw large crowds of both supporters and protesters during the campaign. >> dump trump, dump hate. get the fascists out of our state. >> from maricopa county, arizona, sheriff joe arapaio. >> desjardins: among his prominent arizona supporters, former maricopa county sheriff
joe arapaio. >> i have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration. and i know donald trump will stand with me and other proud americans to secure our border. >> desjardins: in july, arpaio was convicted of a misdemeanor for ignoring a judge's order to stop his anti-immigrant traffic patrols. he is scheduled to be sentenced in october, but the president told fox news he is "seriously considering" a pardon of the divisive sheriff. and late today, a white house spokeswoman said mr. trump will not use tonight's rally to announce a pardon for sheriff joe arpaio. joining us now outside the phoenix convention center, where the president will speak tonight, is vanessa ruiz, of arizona pbs. thank you so much for join us. can you just set the scene for us, the size of the crowd, the temperature of people, and of the air. it's incredibly hot there today, isn't it? >> yes, it is, lisa. in fact, it's 107 degrees right
now here in the city of phoenix, but so far it seems that cooler heads are prevailing. i'm going to step outside for just a quick second so you can see behind me. that is the phoenix convention center. it's located in downtown right in the heart of the city. and as you see there, there's already a huge line wrapping around the entire building. people are lined up since about 9:00 a.m., waiting to enter the convention center to go ahead and be part of that rally that is being held by president trump. at this hour i can tell you i have been here on the scene now since about noontime, and there's been no major incidents reported. i can tell you the area where the counterprotests have been set up, that's located on the north side of the convention center. until about 40 minutes ago i would say there were about two dozen people there tops. certainly i can tell youles that phoenix police have made it a point to say that today they are what they are calling in maximum
staffing mode. they've also been working with the national guard and also with the secret service to make sure that those who do want to come out here and let their voices and opinions be heard can do so safely and securely. what they really do not want, of course, lisa, is to see a repeat of what we saw unfortunately happen in charlottesville, virginia. >> have a necessary centennial park i saw the "daily mail" editor tweet out shortly ago that there were 4,000 people there already. they've been wait tbhg that eat all day. we know the mayor wanted this canceled. we know top republicans in the state, a governor and two senators, are not expected to be there. what can you tell us about trump supporters, the ones showing up? what do they think of the remarks and what do they think of the rally tonight? >> listen, i think it's very clear when you look at the images that are happening right now around this convention center, trump supporters here, they follow him. they're still with the president. arizona has been a red conservative state for many, many years, although i do have to mention that in the 2016
election hillary clinton was behind donald trump just by 3.5%. so right now some say at some point arizona could actually turn purple. but again, those people here today are with their water bottles, their umbrellas, their signs. they're here to say, i stand with my president. to them, the criticism he has received, at least from what i've heard from the people i've been speaking to out here, they say he's similar ama a man who is misunderstood. they are standing by who they call their commander-in-chief. for them, arizona people, they're tough. they're going to come out here. they're used to this heat. they're coming prepared. they want the hear what he has to say during that rally. >> woodruff: vanessa, there's a lot of concern around the country at events just like this one tonight. >> well, you know, certainly it's caught some people off guard that arizona was going to be that first place where president trump was going to be having one of his public rallies. it's his first visit as
commander-in-chief here in the state of arizona. but he was here seven times as a candidate during the campaign. he knows he has a strong base here in arizona. >> vanessa, it looks like -- >> yeah, barricades, they have people on staff both on foot, bicycle, inside the convention center, outside the convention center. phoenix police chief jerry williams has very clearly said, we are here to allow people to voice their opinions, but we're going to do so in a safe and security manner, and in kind of violence will be tolerated. >> all right, vanessa ruiz, thank you for talking with us. try to get some shade. >> thank you.
>> woodruff: and a reminder, you can watch president trump's rally this evening on our website, www.pbs.org/newshour. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: a "tiny" solution for some looking for a place to live. and from the "newshour bookshelf," are the u.s. and china destined for war? but first, president trump has repeatedly positioned himself as the kind of president who would have a unique connection with c.e.o.s and corporate chiefs. but some business leaders publicly broke with him in the past week after his remarks about the violence in charlottesville. one question now is, what happens next with mr. trump and the business community? william brangham has a conversation about that. >> brangham: after the president was inaugurated, he proudly assembled several advisory councils where c.e.o.s from some of the nation's biggest corporations could come, give advice, and help steer national policy. but even before the president's remarks about charlottesville, a few of them had already quit,
including walt disney c.e.o. robert iger, and elon musk, the founder of tesla. they quit because of the president's stance on climate change. but after charlottesville, the c.e.o. of merck, ken frazier, also broke with the president, saying, "america's leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy." within two days, other c.e.o.s announced that they too would quit the council. the president then declared via twitter that he was disbanding the groups entirely. andrew ross sorkin has been covering this for the "new york times," where he's a columnist and editor. he is also co-anchor of "squawk box" on cnbc. >> brangham: welcome to the news hour. >> thank you for having me. >> brangham: so tell me, were you surprised by this exdoes of c.e.o.s? >> i was surprised only in so far of the timing. i always imagined at some point there would be a break with this president. what i didn't know was what it
was going to take for some of them, if not in this case, all of them to stand up and effectively rebuke the president. when they got involved with the president early on in his tenure, within first month really going to these meetings at the white house, going to these photo ops, having these council-like sessions, there was always a question as to what they were going to do if the president didn't do some of the things they wanted to see, whether it be the climate change issue, whether it be how he was treating immigrants and immigration as a policy issue. clearly they have an issue with taxes, and they want to reform taxes, but i think on this issue , on the violence that took place in charlottesville, it became a moral issue, and to some degree it because commercial issue. >> brangham: a moral issue really?
do you get the sense, were they getting pressure from customers? were they worried about the process? how do you apportion a percentage there? >> if you look at the council and the number of executives on it, many of them privately were not trump supporters. and so when i said it was a moral issue for them, i can't tell you how many of them privately will tell you that their family was upset with them about being on these councils and what it said about them and what it said about their companies and the idea of affiliating with the president in a formal way. and that's different than some of the relationships that businesses had with presidents in the past. president obama didn't have councils like, this but there were meetings. this was different. this was a formal council that you were signing on to, and a lot of people looked at it as an explicit endorsement of the president. >> brangha: i know that you believe that merck c.e.o. ken frazier was really the one who
deserves some credit for taking a pretty risky stance when he did. >> so many of these c.e.o.s either wanted to get off or find a way out, and virtually all of them were unwilling to do so, because they truly did fear the president. they feared what he was going to say on twitter about them. they feared what and how he might retaliate against them. >> brangham: and frazier got beat up for it. >> not only did he get beat up for it. i would suggest there was more courage in ken frazier's decision, because if you think about who the largest customer in the world is for merck, it is the u.s. government. so to the degree that you would have anxiety about the c.e.o. of the u.s. government, if you will, in president trump and taking a position that would be on the other side, and to do so so publicly, but that move
really did lead the other c.e.o.s to stand up, and they were able to stand up, though, in large part because there was safety in numbers at that point. >> brangham: so going forward, what does this mean for the business community's relationship with the administration? >> that is the big question. part of it is... you know, part of it we saw last week to some degree was symbolic. it was symbolic about the way the business community relates to the president. but in truth, i would suggest, and edon't want to say it's been overstated what happened last week. what happened last week was important. very important. but i do think that beneath the surface a lot of these companies still are going to be engaged in policy. they're still going to be advocating and lobbying for some of their both pet issues and larger issues, whether it be tax reform or how healthcare gets or doesn't get reformed or how an infrastructure project or plan gets implemented and how that therefore relates to their
businesses. they will still be at that table. they just may not be at the table personally with president trump with cameras in the room. but have no illusion. business is not walking away from washington, dc, any time soon, in part, and i hope this doesn't sound too sinal, because that's where the money. is. >> brangham: so business as usual, except no more photo ops with the president? >> i think that's going to be part of it. and i think there will be a sensitivity at least for some period about what kind of relationship there is. can you go to the white house at all? can you communicate with the president? can you communicate with his people? are they going to use intermediaries? you know, the president over the next several years i imagine will take trips to china and other places where historically oftentimes c.e.o.s and other business leaders have gone to conferences and such. will they still go to those things? or will they send delegates
there? these are some real questions, and does president trump continue to hold it against them? >> brangham: we'll keep watching. andrew ross sorkin, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: very small houses have become all the rage in recent years, as some people trade in their traditional lifestyles for an ostensibly simpler option: places that are less than 400 square feet. well, today, there's a twist. tiny houses are being seen as a way to give homeless and low-income people the chance at homeownership. jeffrey brown visited detroit to find out more for our ongoing series on poverty and opportunity in america, "chasing the dream." >> brown: they may be tiny, but they have lofty goals: putting roofs over the heads of people who never dreamed they could own a home. the idea for detroit's "tiny home" project was born in an
unlikely place: the floor of an old warehouse. >> people couldn't imagine what 300 square foot would look like. >> brown: well, could you? >> i couldn't. so we came out and measured it out and taped it out and thought, "where would i put the sofa and my bed," and wondered "is this enough room?" and we decided it would be. and now it is. >> so this is one of our studios. >> brown: studios, meaning no bedroom. reverend faith fowler is a pastor and community activist working to create jobs and provide homes for the city's most needy. >> some have large front porches, some have decks or patios in the back. all have a nice back yard, so they could have a dog or a barbeque or just sit outside and listen to the traffic. >> brown: each of the seven homes built so far has a kitchen, living room, washer/dryer, and bathroom. several have separate bedrooms.
fowler's non-profit cass community social services purchased 25 vacant lots from the city for $15,000. they're bright spots, literally, in a neighborhood with many vacant, crumbling houses, next to one of detroit's busy freeways. >> we wanted this to be a part of a larger neighborhood, rather than being segregated, or separated, or isolated outside of a neighborhood. >> brown: yeah, because you drive around, and much of this neighborhood is still very blighted, right? >> it, often people are worried about gentrification, i'm not so concerned yet. >> brown: not an issue here, right? >> no. there hasn't been a new building in this neighborhood since 1974, and it was a garage, so you can imagine the excitement of seeing houses go up, like a barn raising here, as people are coming to watch, and sometimes even offering to volunteer. >> brown: a volunteer workforce built each home in about five weeks, using donated goods and services. that kept the cost to around $40,000 to $50,000.
the idea here is how to overcome something many of us take for granted-- how to buy your own home when you have few or no financial assets, and when the whole notion of owning a home seems impossible. for those living below the poverty line, and 40% of detroit's residents do, fowler says there are plenty of barriers to homeownership. >> they don't have enough money to get them through a crisis, so your car breaks down, or your hours get cut, or you get laid off, or somebody in your family gets sick, all of a sudden you don't have enough financial security to get through it, and so all of a sudden you're in a crisis that you may not recover from for years, and decades to come. >> brown: but this gives people something that they own. >> right, that they can have the pride of ownership, that they can have the dignity of using as a home even while they're renting, and ultimately something they can use as collateral if they have a crisis.
>> brown: the new inhabitants here will "rent to own:" they'll pay a dollar per square foot in rent. they're also required to take monthly financial literacy classes and volunteer for the neighborhood watch. after seven years, they'll own their homes. the tiny home trend is booming, fueled in part by cable design shows. but in these shows, people have made a choice to downsize and live simply. the detroit project has a different purpose. >> we were really looking for a way to give them a ladder. i mean, they've got to climb it, they've got to do the work, but we're providing the ladder. >> brown: the tiny homes are also smack in the middle of a built-in support structure. fowler's non-profit runs apartment buildings for people transitioning from being homeless. there's a bike borrowing service to help people get around. and there are jobs at green industries, for people re-entering the workforce. the company recycles abandoned
tires and more to fashion doormats, flip flops and keychains, with the old englis"" d" for the detroit tigers. kevin taylor makes coasters out of recycled glass. he credits his job here as a lifesaver, after struggling with addiction and spending time in prison. >> well, it changed my life. i'm employed, i have my own apartment at this point in life, which is a wonderful thing. learning how to live again. >> brown: what does that mean? >> well, that means waking up in the morning, doing normal things that normal people do, having coffee, breakfast, get ready to go to work, and go to work, come home. >> brown: that's the idea behind the tiny homes as well. and there's one more idea: that each should look and feel different. >> so often when you're considering affordable housing, it's ugly. it's a box, or a rectangle, it's identical, there's no colors, there's no design.
so again, we wanted it to be attractive, and to instill pride in people. >> brown: and so, different architectural styles, including so far: cape cod, modern, and shotgun. ed wier, an architect from ann arbor, donated his services to help design a future home in a victorian style. >> victorian, it's a classic american residential style, and a lot of people are drawn to a very ornate, a lot of detailing, and so people just are attracted to it, it appeals to them. so, obviously we had to scale it back, and kind of, how do we draw these things into a small house, into a small format? >> brown: it's hardly the norm for low-income housing. but, says wier, that's the point. >> it's a refined, elegant tiny house that somebody would love to live in. and it feels like home, which we talked about earlier. what says home to you? >> brown: i mean, that's the
final question, really, right? >> that's the final question. and i think for somebody this is going to say home. >> brown: and who will call it home? after a series of open houses, 122 people applied to live in the tiny homes. fowler is waiting on the city to give the green light before announcing the seven chosen to move in. in the meantime, 18 more tiny homes are on the way-- a small number of small homes. but a big idea. >> it's really about home ownership and the american dream for people who stopped dreaming. we really were looking at not only eliminating homelessness, but with dealing with poverty for people. >> brown: for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown in detroit, michigan. >> woodruff: are the united states and china heading towards war? a very theoretical question, but one with its roots in the prescient writings of an ancient
greek historian. in this latest addition to the "newshour bookshelf," margaret warner talks to professor graham allison of harvard university about his new work, "destined for war: can america and china escape thucydides' trap?" >> warner: to what degree do you think the united states and china fall into this trap that this historian thucydides set up 25 centuries ago? >> i would say almost precisely. he observed a competition between athens and sparta, and wrote famously about the rise of athens and the fear that this instilled in sparta. so when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, in general, bad things happen. in this case, we see almost a prototypical rising power in china, which is restoring-- being restored, as some think of it, to its natural place at the center of the universe, and is the dominant power.
and no ruling power has ever been sure that it belongs as number one than the u.s.a. so i would say, this is an almost perfect lucidity dynamic, and i think we're seeing the syndrome in both cases, and the behavior of both parties. >> warner: you call it the ruling power syndrome and the rising power syndrome. the sort of habit of mind takes place. >> so the rising power thinks," i've become bigger. i've become stronger. my interests deserve more weight. i deserve more say. i deserve more sway. the current arrangements are confining because they were set in place when i didn't really matter, so things should be adjusted." and the ruling power thinks the status quo is terrific. in which i'm the ruling power and you're a lesser power. and actually, this-- the status quo has been so effective, it provides an order that's allowed you to grow up, to become big and strong. so if you look at companies, when you have an incumbent and
disruptive upstart, uber versus the taxi industry, google and apple versus established industry-- generally what happens in this, is both of the parties, each, almost to the fact, act out this syndrome. and you can certainly see this in the u.s., thinking, "hey, wait a minute. china," as president trump said, "is eating our breakfast, eating our lunch, eating our dinners, all everywhere." and china thinking, "the u.s. is trying to keep us down." >> warner: what role does the-- do the sort of personalities, temperaments, governing styles of the leaders play in this. >> well, they can be substantial. and i think, i look at the last 500 years. i find 16 cases which a rising power threatens to take place of a ruling power. 12 of them end in war, four of them not in war. we take a war case, which is particularly instructive, world war i. how could the assassination of an archduke, who otherwise nobody cared much about, in
sarajevo by a serbian terrorist, have produced a spark that created a fire that burned down the whole house of europe? so devastating, that by the end of the war, historians had to invent a whole new category, world war. i mean, it seems incredible, but germany had risen great fear in britain. germany was being ruled by the kaiser. the kaiser, as bismark said about it, is like a balloon fluttering in the wind on the end of a string. and if anybody ever let go of the string, which they did, watch out. each of the parties distrust the other hugely. everything each other does is misinterpreted. external events can have impacts that would otherwise be inconsequential. the role that the leaders play can be very important. and in the german case, germany versus britain, the kaiser is a particularly instructive case.
>> warner: president bush and president obama have worked very hard with the chinese. the chinese leader president xi has even talked about avoiding the thucydides trap. so given all of that, is it inextricable? >> it's not inextricable. and if, god forbid, we find ourselves in a war with china in a year, or within the next several years, leaders will not be able to blame some iron law of history. but if we look at what's happening on the north korean peninsula today, that's the fastest path to war. not a war china wants, not a war the u.s. wants. but if the only way to stop kim jong-un from testing i.c.b.m.'s that can deliver nuclear warheads against san francisco and los angeles is to attack them, president trump has said he's going to do that. and if the u.s. attacks north korea in order to prevent this test, it's quite possible, that will be a trigger to what will ultimately end in a war between the u.s. and china. so i think it's extremely dangerous. >> warner: what can these two powers do now to avoid that track? >> what you would wish and hope, is that there was adult supervision. now of course, we know in international affairs, there's
not adult supervision. it's an anarchy and there's nobody on top of xi jinping or donald trump. but if they should sit down and just say, "let's for a moment, stand back from the situation. neither of us want war, there's a little pipsqueak country between us that's taking actions that may drag the two of us somewhere we don't want to go. let's think about it and look at it. and apart from the thucydides and dynamic, apart from the fact that there's zero level of trust between the two parties." when the chinese look at this situation, they think, "well, you shouldn't even be in the korean peninsula. if you weren't there, there wouldn't be a problem." and we look and say, "korea's one of the most successful countries in the world. it's really a poster child of the post-world war ii project to build a new international order. it's a democracy, market economy, so we think we need to be there." but you would wish that people would still stand back and say"" war would be catastrophic. we should become much more
imaginative about willing to adapt and adjust in order to find a way around this. >> warner: and so in the adjustments, is it the united states that's going to have to make more adjustments? >> i would say both parties would have to make very substantial adjustments, but historically, the ruling power has to make more painful adjustments than the rising power. >> warner: graham allison, author of "destined for war: can america and china avoid the thucydides's trap?" thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >> woodruff: on the newshour online right now: explore abraham lincoln's summer cottage in 360 degrees. take a tour of the presidential retreat here in washington, where historians say lincoln contemplated how to save the union. all that and more is on our website, www.pbs.org/newshour. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff.
join us online, and again right here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals. >> this program was made
>> rose: welcome to the program. it is the end of summer and as we prepare for the next season, we bring you some of our favorite conversations here on charlie rose. tonight justice ruth bader ginsberg and justice sonia sotomayor taped at the new york city bar association. >> i thought of myself in those days as a teacher. my parents thought teaching would be a good occupation for me because women were welcomed there and they weren't welcomed as doctors, lawyers, engineers. i realize that i was facing an audience that didn't know what i was talking about. they understood race discrimination, that was odious, but most men at that time