Brooks and Capehart on Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington and defending democracy abroad

Read the Full Transcript

• Judy Woodruff:

  Mr. Zelenskyy comes to Washington, the January 6 Committee recommends changes and charges, and border policy remains in limbo, as communities deal with rising migration and plummeting temperatures.

  And to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

  And what a full week it has been.

  (LAUGHTER)

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Seriously.

• Judy Woodruff:

  It's so good to see both of you on this Friday night before Christmas.

  So, David, let's start by talking about Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a surprise visit. We only learned about it right before it happened. What did you make of his coming? And what did you make of the remarks to Congress and to the American people?

• David Brooks:

  Well, the cameras lingered on Zelenskyy, obviously, but I was focused on the audience.

  I wanted to see how members of Congress would react. And I have to say, in a country that's bitterly divided, I thought, time and again, the room rose almost as one. Of course, there were dissenters in the room. But, by and large, there was whooping, there was cheering. There were women in blue dresses, guys in yellow ties.

  It really struck me this is something that's touched deeply a lot of Americans of all different stripes. And I think Zelenskyy used his remarks to show that his cause is very much akin to the ancient American cause of defending freedom, defending human dignity, opposing authoritarianism.

  And so I thought he reminded us of what we would like to be. And I think, in that way, it was a triumph.

• Judy Woodruff:

  What did you see and hear?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  I have to agree with David that I thought President Zelenskyy's speech was a reminder of who we want to be, who we are, who we are to the world, that we have grown up watching those grainy black-and-white videos of Churchill speaking before Congress.

  Everyone talks about Churchill. Now we have our generation's Churchill, President Zelenskyy. And I don't think it was lost on a lot of people just how dangerous the trip was for him, to leave his country, to get to the Polish border, to get on that plane, have those meetings, give that speech, and then get back in place to help run the war, push back against Russia.

  It was historic. It was inspiring. And those — and it was nice, in a town where there's so much division, to see a majority of the Congress stand up. But those few dissenters are also people who are going to have positions of leadership and authority in the next Congress, in the next Republican majority. And that is just the one thing that I found concerning.

• Judy Woodruff:

  And so, given that, David, does his — does that visit and what he had to say, his very presence, make a difference in terms of being able to count on aid continuing to come from the United States?

• David Brooks:

  I think, if you had asked us if support would be this high back in February, I think we would have thought, oh, it'll — some of it will drain away.

  Will Europe be strong as they are? We would have thought some of it would drain away. But that really hasn't happened. Vladimir Putin has done an excellent job organizing and uniting opposition to him.

  I think it's also significant, first, that, of the trips he made, and this dangerous one, he came to Washington. People think we're a nation in decline, but it's still a reminder that U.S. leadership is still needed around the world.

  And I think the conversations with Biden, not giving him everything he wants, but giving him something, shows that you can act with moral clarity without losing your head. American policy has had a tendency to oscillate between extreme interventionism to oppose authoritarianism, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Iraq, or extreme, no, let's stay behind our oceans, and we will allow genocide to happen. We won't act to shore up Ukraine when Putin was testing the waters.

  I think the Biden administration has done an excellent job of finding that balance. They did not find it as we withdrew from Afghanistan. That was not idealistic enough. But the balance between ideals and practicality, saying to Zelenskyy, we're going to give you a lot of weapons, but not long-range missiles that could destabilize them. You can dream of total victory, and we support that, but you have really got to think about making some agreement with Putin someday.

  And so I think the Biden administration has done a good job of finding that balance between the ideals we believe in and something that's actually practical and useful.

• Judy Woodruff:

  What about that and whether Zelenskyy helped his case?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, I think he helped his case certainly with the American people.

  It's rare the American people get to see a war hero standing there addressing them, reminding them, again, to what we were talking about before, about who we are and how their story, how the Ukrainians' story fits into the larger global story of democratic ideals, small-D democratic ideals, in the world.

  I also think, to the point about the unity that's been — that's held here in the States, but also in Europe, it made — when you said that, I thought about the midterm elections. That was an existential moment for the country. Are we going to — are we going to allow MAGA Republicans to take over, or are we going to push back?

  And I think that support for the war — for Ukraine's efforts push back against Russia, it's an existential — an existential war. And I think the president has framed it well. This is not just pushing back against Russia's invasion. It is about democracy vs. autocracy. And democracy must win.

  And I think, as long as people understand that, fundamentally, that's what Ukraine's mission is, I think the support will be there.

• Judy Woodruff:

  And speaking of democracy, the January 6 Committee did — it's very near the end of the year. They did come out with their final report this week. They laid hundreds and hundreds of pages out, their recommendations. We talked to Zoe Lofgren about it tonight.

  David, what statement do you think most stays with you about what they have done? And, I mean, what is their — what is the legacy of this committee?

• David Brooks:

  Well, I think, in the eight chapters they had there, they laid out the broad scope of the conspiracy.

  It was not only starting the lie. It was not only sending people to Capitol Hill. It was trying to influence the states. It was a whole — it was a whole broad thing. And so I think they really established that. And even if people weren't always paying attention, they clearly had an effect on the political culture of the country.

  The second thing, before this committee, we would have a witness, a few bloviating members of Congress, and it was good. Some of them were good. But that's not how committees are going to be held anymore. They clearly took the reins. They said, we're going to have an audiovisual lesson every time for the American people.

  And my newspaper has a story on that Congress had no facilities, no control room, no audiovisual. It was just like a guy and a laptop. And so this committee hired a former ABC News executive, a whole team. They built a mock — a control room. They did what you would do if you want to lay a case out in an audiovisual way to the American people.

  I imagine that every committee from now on is going to do that. And so it will change the nature of committees, in some ways good, in some ways not so good. But they were a pioneer in how Congress does investigations.

• Judy Woodruff:

  What do you take away from their final report, the end of all of this?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  I am happy. We went through, what, 10 hearings, televised hearings, not all bunched together.

  The beauty of this report is that it puts it all in one place. It's — yes, it's 845 pages. Most people won't go through it. But that's not the point. Now we have a record for history that we can go back to, turn back to, to not only learn about what happened and just how coordinated this was.

  For a while, we all talked about the — January 6 as this organic uprising that just happened because the president gave a speech. And, no, what we see is, it was a multifaceted, coordinated effort to overturn a free and fair election. And to have all of that, not just the story, but the evidence, the testimony, the transcripts, everything in one place, I think, is something that, to David's point, will change the way Congress does investigations from here on out.

• Judy Woodruff:

  Any way — in any way. David, is it diminished, though, by the fact that, on January the 3rd, this new Congress comes in, Republican majority in the House, and they're going to — not only will the committee be disbanded, but they're going to turn the tables and start investigating Democrats.

• David Brooks:

  Yes, I mean, we will see.

  I don't think it's diminished. They laid out a strong case. They persuaded skeptics like me.

  (LAUGHTER)

• David Brooks:

  And they — as I say, they had an effect on the country.

  So, now we move to a different arena, whether the Justice Department will do anything with it or somebody else. So, that — it's not like this suddenly ends because the Republicans took over the House.

  The one thing I didn't like about the committee is the suggestion that we use the disqualification act of — the piece of the 14th Amendment. I just think — I understand why you would want to disqualify Donald Trump from being — ever being president again.

  I just think, in a society so full of distrust, where people think the Washington game is rigged, the people who need to disqualify Donald Trump are the voters. And if we try to do it anyway, it will have a negative consequence of a severe form, in my view.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  You're wrong.

  (LAUGHTER)

• Jonathan Capehart:

  When you have — when you have an example of Donald — as extreme as Donald Trump, absolutely, that should be in there.

  We have never seen anything like him, anyone like him before. And so it applies to — if it applies to him, if he's the only one who is gutsy enough to try to overthrow a free and fair election, and it only applies to him, great.

  I don't know if anyone would have the guts to do that again.

• Judy Woodruff:

  So, it is just a matter of hours before Christmas.

  (LAUGHTER)

• Judy Woodruff:

  And whether you observe Christmas or not, I have to ask a question about, OK, yes, there's a stocking hanging by the chimney.

  Who are some people, who is somebody, David, who you think should get something nice from Santa on Christmas, and who's somebody who you think maybe needs some coal?

  (LAUGHTER)

• David Brooks:

  Well, for the nice — I will stick with the nice. Maybe I will leave off the coal.

  (LAUGHTER)

• David Brooks:

  But the White House chief of staff, presidential chief of Staff, Ron Klain, everyone dumps on the White House chief of staff.

  They blame him for everything. They can't blame the president, so they blame the chief of staff. They have had a good year. The White House has had a good year. I assume Ron Klain has had something to do with that. And so I — the long-suffering, neglected Ron Klain, and I hope Santa, not even a stuffing stocker, a whole model train set.

  (LAUGHTER)

• David Brooks:

  Thomas the Tank Engine, whatever he wants to do.

• Judy Woodruff:

  Thomas the Tank.

• David Brooks:

  I think he deserves a train set.

• Judy Woodruff:

  Do we think he likes trains?

• David Brooks:

  I have no idea.

  (LAUGHTER)

• Judy Woodruff:

  And what about the coal?

• David Brooks:

  Well, this will be a little more serious.

  I just look at the schools and the effect that the long and overly, overly, overly long school closures during COVID had on school — student attainment and the lifelong prospects of a generation of young people.

  And I do blame a lot of different people for that, but I think the teachers unions blame — bear a share of the blame for really widening inequality, hurting social mobility, and hurting a lot of students. So, they get my coal.

• Judy Woodruff:

  They get your coal.

  All right, only a little over a minute. That's my fault, but…

• Jonathan Capehart:

  OK, so I'm going to start with coal as groups of people.

• Judy Woodruff:

  OK.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  First, the IRS for not auditing President Trump's taxes, as they were supposed to do under law, when he was president of the United States. That was one of the many breaking news stories that hit last week, this past week.

  And, also, the members of Congress who did not comply with the subpoenas from the January 6 Committee to do what I think is their patriotic duty, to talk about what they knew and what happened during January 6.

  As for nice, another — another group of people, the Democrats, the independents and the Republicans who came out in record numbers in the midterm elections to push back against MAGA Republicans who were seeking office, people who believed in the big lie, people who were supported by former President Trump.

  And the — I mean, it worked. Those groups of people getting the nice — getting on the nice list, they made sure that Democrats held onto the Senate, and the Republican red wave turned out to be less than a trickle in the House.

• Judy Woodruff:

  So, they get Thomas the Tank Engine.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Yes, they get the train set.

  (LAUGHTER)

• Judy Woodruff:

  It's great.

  Well, it's so great to see you both on this Friday before Christmas. Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Thanks, Judy.

• David Brooks:

  Thank you, Judy.

Improved audio player available on our mobile page