Bronwen Maddox
Hello, everyone, a very warm welcome to Chatham House. I’m Bronwen Maddox, the Director, can tell from that applause how much people have been looking forward to this discussion. Many of the discussions we have do not get applause, but this one – before or after, but this one absolutely did. So, I am delighted to welcome Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Emerita of the House of Representatives.
And I want to start by thanking Chatham House supporter, Susan Schoenfeld Harrington, sitting right in front of me, for making this happen, and by thanking her and Nick Kukrika, for generously purchasing a copy of the Speaker’s new book. For all the people who are here in the hall, you should find one on your chairs. This is “The Art of Power: My Story as America’s First Woman Speaker of the House,” which is, of course, part of what we are here to discuss today. So, all those – you should find it on your chairs, but it’s standing room only, so I’m very sorry about that, I think we have some more copies, as well.
Well, it couldn’t be a better time, and we’re very grateful for Speaker Pelosi’s time, as we enter the countdown, if I can call it that, to the 2024 Presidential election. The importance of leadership is at the front of the debate, so are the things that those potential leaders might do. So, too, is the US’ standing in the world, and the role it chooses to take, and there is no one better to discuss it with than Nancy Pelosi.
Since her first election to the House in 1987, she has built what I think you would call beyond any doubt a central position in American political life and leadership. She served as the 52nd Speaker of the House of Representatives, from 2007 to 2011, and was the first woman to hold that role, and served again in that role from 2019 to last year. So, let me start by saying welcome.
Nancy Pelosi
Thank you very much, Bronwen, it’s an honour to be here. Thank you all for weathering the weather to be here, and it isn’t very inclement, but, nonetheless, thank you for being here. I was just saying to Bronwen that the term “Chatham House Rules” says two things to me. One – in one, Chatham House is an adjective, Chatham House rules and then in the other, Chatham House is a subject, Chatham House Rules.
And I was just reading some of the beautiful sayings on the wall from distinguished speakers and leaders of Chatham House, and one, Mahatma Gandhi saying, “The best way to resolve difference is to bring people with different views together to resolve differences,” and that has been a role Chatham House has ruled on. And also from Lionel Curtis, just, I love this, and it said, “We must replace the rule of force, but with the rule of law,” and that is so necessary right now. Did I have that accurate?
Bronwen Maddox
You had it completely right, and I was pointing Speaker Pelosi to some of the statements of our Founders, which are inscribed on the ceiling, including outside my office, which I do look at as I go out every day, because we are so much still in that spirit of the year after the First World War, of trying to bring together people, often people who cannot stand each other, to try to see if there is some kind of progress.
Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
So, on that note, let me ask you, what, in your view, is at stake in this election? Which is obviously for Congress and many other posts, as well as President, but the attention of the world very much on the Presidency.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, on the Presidency and the House of Representatives, as well, I’m very honoured that Suzan DelBene is here. She’s the leader of our effort to win, win the House of Representatives, we think that is very essential, because – well, because we want to win the House for all the issues we care about. But, also, that on January 6th Hakeem Jeffries will have the gavel, and the Democrats will have the majority for the peaceful transfer of power, which is essential for our country, whatever the outcome of the election. Well – but it is very important, and that’s part of the reason that we are here, and Susan, thank you, and Nick for making this visit possible as well.
I understand that the Ambassador may be here, I don’t know if she is here yet, but I’m very honoured that she was very excited about the visit to Chatham House, as well. What’s on the ballot is nothing less than democracy, democracy in our own country, democracy writ large among our al – in our alliances throughout the world. The – in our own country, the issue is about honouring our Constitu – our oath of office to the Constitution, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that is very much at risk in this election.
I’m from Baltimore, originally. I represent San Francisco, for a long time in the Congress, I have, but – very proudly, but I grew up loving the flag, born in the neighbourhood, near Fort McHenry, where the national anthem was written. And I – my colleagues, Suzan is probably tired of hearing me say, and my daughter, Christine, is with me, she’s probably tired of hearing me say, as well, my favourite line in the national anthem is, “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” Sorry, friends, that was the War of 1812. “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” We have to give proof through the night during this election that our flag is still there, the American flag that we pledge to every day. At the end we say, “With liberty and justice for all,” all of that is at stake in this election.
We have two different varied visions of the future for our country. What is relevant to all of you is what that means to our leadership role in the world, and I – there has been a clear signal, in the course of the former President’s Presidency, and since, of his disrespect for NATO, for saying, during this – I’m pointing to my Ukraine pin, the fight in Ukraine, “If Putin wins that and he wants to go into other countries, even NATO members, if they haven’t paid their full 2% in defence – of their GDP in defence, have at them.” Have at them? The President of the United States, how could that be? It can’t be, and so we must win the election.
And we would hope, Bronwen, if I just may call you by first name, Bron, and you call me Nancy, that we have to find some common ground there. But it’s hard, it’s really hard in this election. The other point that Mahatma Gandhi made about bringing people together of different views, who really – did he say “Can’t stand each other,” or was that your phrase? Whatever, people…
Bronwen Maddox
Oh, that was my phrase, not Gandhi’s phrase.
Nancy Pelosi
…would find common ground. Well, that is what we always have to strive for, that is our respond – that is our responsibility, but we cannot shirk our responsibility, as well, to make sure. This has never been the case in an election with John McCain or Bob Dole or George Bush or George Herbert Washer – Walker Bush and Mitt Romney, that hasn’t been the kind of election we’ve had, but it is with the current nominee of the Republican Party.
Bronwen Maddox
So, how do you account for the popularity of Donald Trump? Because the – this looks like being a very, very close race, and when you come down to the states, they’re going to determine it extremely close.
Nancy Pelosi
It is a close race. I cannot account for the appeal of Donald Trump. I don’t understand it at all. I would say this, that being respectful of other points of view, there are those that we will never get there, the anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, anti anything new that is not who they are. We’ll never get them, okay, so put that over there.
And then you have the very rich in America, the billionaire class, not all of them, but some of them, there are not that many of them electorally, but they’re plenty of them money-wise into campaigns, and they just care about one thing, they don’t want to pay taxes. Some of them don’t pay any, many of them don’t pay their fair share, and that’s a motivation for them to just – it’s a cost of doing business for corporate America and individuals to just pour big money into the races and that is – that’s a factor in elections, unfortunately.
But, in-between, there are people who have really – and this is where we have to try to find our common ground, they have legitimate concerns about innovation, globalisation, some of them, even immigration, which really is the le – lowest threat to their job security, but they just don’t always see it that way. But innovation, my – I was a – my father was a truck driver and now we have driverless trucks, but, you know, I don’t have to explain it to you, you all know that.
And then the globalisation, we had a factory down the road, it’s now in another country, so, the impact of that globalisation has had a fertile territory for a message from knowing – what Joe Biden has done, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, working with a Democratic Congress, by and large, sometimes bipartisan, slightly. But, nonetheless, there, is to have – to address those concerns, to have a rescue package, to have an infrastructure package, to have a CHIPS Act, to make us more self-reliant in making the science part of it, extend opportunity in education to many more people to participate in the innovation. The PACT Act, which addresses the concerns of our men and women in uniform, exposed to burn pits, but, nonetheless, to keep them healthy and hopeful about their future. And, of course the – our IRA, our Inflation Reduction Act, which put $370 billion into reducing the climate and fighting the climate crisis. Nothing like that ever happened before, we still have to do more.
But the candidate – Republican candidate for President has said to the fossil fuel industry, “Give me a billion dollars for my campaign, I’ll get rid of all of that.” He said to the pharmaceutical industry, “Gi – support me, give me money, and I’ll get rid of what the IRA does to lower the cost of prescription drugs.” One, in particular, insulin, was five to $600 a month for seniors on Medicare, it’s now $35 a month. He’ll get rid of – they’ve already taken us to court on that, imagine, imagine. And insulin was discovered a long time ago, we’re not talking about research here, and going from five, 600, to $35 makes a difference. These are kitchen table issues of – for the American people.
We just have pur – I’ll quote a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, he said, “Public sentiment is everything, with it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, practically nothing.” But for public sentiment to prevail, people have to know, and we have to make sure that they know what Joe Biden did. His legacy is tremendous, the legacy of – Harris legacy is tremendous, and it’s our legacy too.
In the Congress, we passed a rescue package which did remarkable things, without one Republican vote. We passed the Infrastructure bill with 13 Republican votes, which meant 200 Republicans voted against it. Didn’t mean they didn’t show up for ribbon cuttings and groundbreakings, and vote no and take the dough, we – it – they passed – we passed the CHIPS Act with 24 Republicans, after we reached 218. Their leadership would not allow them to participate in our reaching 218, and that meant that 187 of them voted against it, and that – the list goes on like that. IRA, not one Republican vote to…
Bronwen Maddox
So, these…
Nancy Pelosi
…protect us from the climate crisis.
Bronwen Maddox
So, this is a long list, as you said, a lot of money going in. Why is it you think that voters don’t give Biden, and then Harris, more credit for the economic growth which the world is – or – envying? Or I’m certainly speaking for this…
Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
…country. Because they don’t seem to be giving them credit for the things that you’ve…
Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
…described. Instead, they are worried about migration, all the kinds of things that Donald Trump says are reasons to vote for him.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, it is true, but we have to make sure people know, as I said, public sentiment only weighs in when people know. And I think that not – and a better job could have been done to make sure people know. But when you – and I always said this when I was Speaker, when you’re working, you’re working, you’re saying, “I can bake the pie or I can sell the pie, but I can’t do ‘em both at once,” and so we were doing all of this, but we – again, we would hope that the bully pulpit now would be saying more, and give us more air cover for all of this.
We fully intend to win this election because we fully intend to own the ground, right, Madam Chair? We fully intend – this is a turnout. When you have an even election, it’s about who votes, it’s not about polls or any – who knows about polls? But it’s about who turns out, and we have to make sure that we turnout. And one of the biggest issues for us, I go back to democracy, is the freedom of women to make sure that they have the size, timing rest, of their family.
Would you believe this? Well, it’s a fact, so, take it or not, in the Congress, after the Dobbs decision, after the Dobbs decision, we put a bill on the floor to enshrine Roe v Wade into the law of the land. Not one Republican vote. Okay, well, they don’t believe in that. Okay, we get that. So, then I said to the Members, “I’m going put a bill on the floor that says this.” Kathy Manning of North Carolina, she had this bill and it said that “women have a right to contraception.” Some of the Members said to me, “Why are you doing that?” “Suzan,” they said, “why are you doing that? You’re going to make them look like they give a damn.”
I know my job, okay? 203 vote – 203 people voted of Republicans. Eight of them voted that a woman has a right to choo – to contraception. Eight Republicans voted that women have a right to contraception, women of America, but eight. Eight, that means like 195 voted they do not. So, that’s what we’re dealing with, that is a democracy issue, it’s an economic issue, it’s a personal freedom issue. You’re going to see a – you’ve heard of the gender gap, you’re going to see the gender gulf. It’s going to be a vast difference between those guys over here and the – and women. The turnout is going to be tremendous.
Now, again, it’s all close, because we’ll win the popular vote, there is no question about that. The question is in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, do we win enough of those states to win the Electoral College? It – that’s just some of the politics of it. So, yeah, you’re right, there isn’t an appreciation.
15 million, 16 million jobs created by – under the leadership, the Presidency of Joe Biden. The other guy, the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover, and the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover. People don’t know, and so we have to make sure that they do, and, right now, it’s about turnout. There – here’s what it is, it’s about 45, I would say, go his way, give him the – everything that you could give him, maybe for…
Bronwen Maddox
But I respect this principle of never uttering his name, that can be my role, but…
Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
…yeah.
Nancy Pelosi
And I’ll burn it [pause]. I’m sorry, Mahatma Gandhi, I’m not there yet, but I do love you, Mahatma Gandhi. The…
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, we’re talking about Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi
45, say, give him 45, give her, say, forty-se – give Kamala Harris, say, 47, so then they give about two to third party, whether it’s Libertarian or left-wing or whatever it is, and then you have about five of which we obviously want to get…
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
…three of that, and so, it’s a very narrow undecided, but they are there. And we’re here, and I was with my daughter, Christine, last night, doing the grassroots of UK, get out the vote, and all the rest of that, and it was wonderful, because that’s – the Democrats abroad were instrumental in our winning the House in 2018…
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
…voting into those districts, or voting every place, but having an impact in those districts, and so they will make a difference in these races, as well.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
But that – relentless, we have no wasted time, no underutilised resources, and no regrets the day after the election, that we could have just walked another precinct each, or another day of walking.
Bronwen Maddox
That is a very good principle for any election. Let me just ask you, and you’ve been describing the issues of particular concern to women, is it an advantage for Kamala Harris that she is female or a disadvantage in this election?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, I really admire what she’s doing. By the way, I know her quite well, she’s from our region, a person of faith and goodness, and that’s why she cares about people, that’s why she’s involved in public service. Officially, I know her as a person of strength, a person of strength. She knows the policy, she knows the strategy, she’s eloquent in presentation, she’s strong. And, politically, she’s very astute, you do not become the nominee of the party unless you’re politically astute. So, we know that she will not only be capable of her own victory, but, also, helping to have a Democratic victory, ‘cause am I talking politics right now in Chatham House? I was just telling civics and current events, right?
But in any event – and I’m glad that she’s not putting herself out and saying, “I should win because I’m a woman.” When I ran for Speaker, I said, “Don’t vote for me because I’m a woman, don’t vote against me because I’m a woman, just listen to what I have to say about policy and politics, and how we can win.” And that’s to the nth degree what she is doing nationally. It will be icing on the cake when she wins, it’ll be so fabulous and so wonderful, but it is not the point. The point is she’s the best person for the job. She happens to be a woman, she happens to be a woman of colour, glory ‘allelujah, but it’s not the reason to vote for – the vote for her is what it means in people’s lives to vote for a Democrat or a Republican in this election.
Bronwen Maddox
If we come on to just Joe Biden’s legacy, which is, also, partly Kamala Harris’s legacy…
Nancy Pelosi
Hmmm hmm.
Bronwen Maddox
…and I’m thinking now of outside the US, we’ve been talking a bit about inside, and you referred before, not only kindly to being in Chatham House, but to the, you know, importance for many, many countries round the world of this particular election. Yet, if we look at Joe Biden’s legacy, some of it is really quite uncomfortable, including for allies, such as, the UK. There has – was the exit from Afghanistan, which, for example, Britain didn’t want in that way, at that time. There was the support for Ukraine, which has been sometimes slow to come. There has been the difficulty of knowing exactly what the Biden Administration intends in the Middle East, and one could go on. I would love your take on what you think the world should make of Joe Biden abroad?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, let me first start with Ukraine, because that has been going on for so long, and it is about democracy, theirs and ours, it is democracy writ large. Now, the last money to go to – I was the first person to go to Ukraine, of – first person of higher up in the – I think I was the first person to go, actually. I was scared to death. I thought we were going to die, but we knew that that was our role to go support democracy. So, we were, shall we say, I don’t want to say scared to death, but we thought we could die.
And – but these people were putting their lives on the line, fighting Vladimir Putin, who thought he was going to have rose petals and live – be in Kyiv three days later, and here we are, nearly three years – two and a half years later. But, nonetheless, this last – and we came back, we did tens of billions of dollars, again and again. The last tranche of money took about six months, you know why? Because what’s his name told the Republicans in the Congress that they couldn’t send the money. And when we would talk to the Speaker and say, “People are dying, democracy is at stake,” he would say, “Well, I can’t do it until I do the budget,” and this and that; eventually they did it.
But the Republicans have a Putin-clique. Imagine that, a Putin-clique, in the Republican caucus of the House of Representatives, and they held this up quite a bit. And some people say, “Well, they’re going to be against the Speaker, ‘cause he eventually sent the money to Ukraine.” So, that was the last hold up.
Now if you’re referencing the technology and the use of it, that’s a different argument that is one that I’m – and I’m going to go all the way with this, because everything is at stake and lives are at stake, but the Administration, I think Joe Biden did a fabulous job on Ukraine and working with NATO.
I’ll just tell you this story. When I was a girl in school, I went to – on Kennedy’s inauguration, it was freezing cold, and it was beautiful and lovely, and everybody in America, if there are any Americans here, knows that in that speech, he said to the citizens of America, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Every child knows that, it’s history, they read it in the history books, it was my youth, it’s their history.
The very next line in the speech, which is the one that I took away, because that’s what I was studying in school, “To citizens of the – countries of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do, working together, for the freedom of mankind.” That’s exactly what Joe Biden did, working together with the NATO countries and beyond, Japan being a G7 country, but other countries throughout the world, working together, and the timing related to consensus among those people.
In the course of that time, NATO was strengthened, NATO was increased, welcoming Sweden and Norway. I mean, excuse me, Sweden and Finland, and that was a beautiful thing, a beautiful thing. And I said to him, “You had a very Kenny-esque – Kennedy-esque leadership role to play, bringing people together for the freedom of mankind.” And so, I think he deserves great credit for that. So, when you say his hesitation, I don’t know if you’re talking about technology and timing on that, I’m impatient too in that regard, but I think he deserves a great deal of credit for that.
And understand this, our support for Ukraine in the Congress is strongly bipartisan, in the Senate, as well, Mitch McConnell and that, but there are – the Speaker of the House was very beholden to Donald Trump, to – I said his name, oh my God. Don’t know, it’s a thing I have, I mean, Kamala Harris says, “I’ve prosecuted people like him, I know men like him and after that” – no, I know him, I know him, so that’s why I have a hesitation to use his name.
But, nonetheless – so, that’s one aspect of it, Ukraine. How dare he say if you haven’t paid your 2%, to Putin, “Have at them.” How does that play in the United States, in terms of our Polish-American commun – Polish – I’m not saying they haven’t paid their 2%, but all of the Baltic States, and the rest of that. In terms of the – what was it? Middle – you had three, Middle East and what was the third one?
Bronwen Maddox
Ukraine and Afghanistan, actually.
Nancy Pelosi
Oh, Afghanistan. Well, the Afghanistan departure was something that had been negotiated. We’re talking about what happened that day, which was tragic and sad, the 13 American lives – military personnel’s lives were lost, and it wasn’t a pretty sight in the departure, but the departure was all – had already been negotiated in the previous Administration.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
The – now, we could have stayed longer, yeah, I two days ago did a presentation with the Czech Government on women in Afghanistan. What a tragedy it is that for all the years that we were there, to see the advances of women – I’ve visited women in the countryside, the poorest women in the countryside, the professional women in Kabul, the children in school, to see the joy of the girls in school, the wom – the confidence of the young women in the military, and now they might not even be able to speak in public. That is a terrible tragedy. I don’t think you put that to us…
Bronwen Maddox
No, so, I don’t think there’s anyone here or online who would disagree with you. But the question is, couldn’t the US have stayed longer with that at stake? And it was Joe Biden’s decision, yes, begun by – a process begun by Donald Trump, but it was Joe Biden’s decision to exit at that point.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, the whole Afghanistan situation is a tragedy. We got attacked on 9/11, everybody came together, NATO and the rest, to make sure that the country of origin of these terrorists – well, what the country of origin is could be any other countries, but Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, in my book, which is – we’re not here to talk about the book, but in my book you will read that I say when we went into Afghanistan then we didn’t stay long. And in his book, President George W Bush, whom I have the highest respect for but disagreement on Iraq – on going into Iraq, he says, “We routed the Taliban.” Routed ain’t good enough, crush is what we have to do. They routed them and they headed for the hills. They just waited for their opportunity to come back, and they were infiltrating all along. So, we should never have left unfinished business in Afghanistan when we did then, a), in order to go into Iraq, and when I went to Iraq to visit the troops right be…
Bronwen Maddox
And you criticised the decision, I mean, not just that you did at the time, but you ment – it’s one of the things you’ve picked out in this book, which, as you say, is not a blow-by-blow political memoir, but it is one of the passages you’ve picked out in your…
Nancy Pelosi
Right.
Bronwen Maddox
…opposition to Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi
When I went into Iraq with Jack Murtha and Mr Hobson, who just passed away, from Ohio, we talked to the troops, right before the initiation of hostilities. We were in Kuwait actually, before they went into Iraq, and I said to the troops, “We want to see what the mora” – we wanted to see what their needs were, and the rest of it. I was opposed to it, but we have to support our troops, and that was a kind of a conflict in our own caucus on that. But I said to the troops, “What’s the mo – what is your morale like?” And they said, “Our morale is high, they hurt us, and now we’re going to hurt them.” I said, “Well, when did the Iraqis hurt us?” They said, “On 9/11.”
That’s what they were telling the truth. There’s no evidence of anything – that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but we were selling a bill of goods that they were on the verge of this nuclear programme – nuclear weapon, which they weren’t, and that they helped – they were part of 9/11, which they weren’t. So, again, the Irani – the Afghanistan situation is a tragic situation from beginning until now, and, sadly, women pay a big price and we cannot let that go ignored or go corrected.
Bronwen Maddox
I’m going to come in a second to questions, because there’s some brilliant ones online. I’m absolutely sure there will be loads here. We have not yet come to China, and so if that doesn’t come up in qu…
Nancy Pelosi
Or I didn’t go to the Middle East yet.
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah, so, we might – let me just ask you about the Middle East…
Nancy Pelosi
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
…then, what you think the next President of the US should do to try to bring about a resolution of what is going on at the moment?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, I think you see two different visions there, and what the Former President has said, you know, “We’ll just end it in a minute,” what does that mean? What does that mean? And what is – if you think of what happened on October 7th, and the anniversary just a few days ago, of a terrorist organisation, Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel, 1,400 people dead, people – hostages kidnapped, and the rest, it was a horrible thing.
The reaction with the collateral damage to civilians in Gaza is a tragedy, beyond – it’s so sad and gets sadder by the day, because more people are vulnerable. Joe Biden and the Democrats have, for a long time, supported a two-state solution, a two-state solution, “a solution” is the key word, not a two-state anything, a two-state solution, where these countries – people can live in peace.
Bronwen Maddox
And do you still think that that is credible?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, not with Netanyahu, no, I don’t think he’s ever believed in peace or two-state solution. I just – I’m very, very disappointed. The US, we’ve always supported Israel. It is our ally, we shared values, it was in our national strategic interest to support Israel, we continue to support Israel, but not the deaths of so many, so much collateral damage. Now, there are those who say the Israelis are taking very great precautions. Well, clearly, clearly not enough. But we really have to get to a place that is – and then the Arab world could be helpful too, they could be helpful too, and let’s hope that they will weigh in, in helping with the economic growth. The Palestinians are successful people all over the world. They’re entrepreneurial, they’re just industrious, hardworking, and visionary, and the rest, except not so much there.
Now, I visited the small businesses in Gaza, West Bank, and the rest of that, and that vitality is there, but not to the fullest extent that it could be with a two-state solution. You should know this, right before October 7th, and it – when we were getting to the yearend last year of our budget, our fiscal date is September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, I was asked by Rosa DeLauro, who is the Chair of our Appropriations – well, once and future Chair of our Appropriations, “Will you talk to the Republicans in the Senate, in the House, about getting some assistance for the Palestinians? We need humanitarian assistance for UNRWA,” you know.
So, I go to them, and they said, “Well, we’ll give you more humanitarian assistance, as long as none of it goes to the Palestinians.” This is, like, the 24th of September. Joe Biden had been fighting for more help for the Palestinians, in Gaza, West Bank, and all the rest, and actually in Jordan, where many of them are, or had been, now some in Syria, well, the Lebanese are going to Syria. So, it is a tragedy, it’s just – it cannot continue that way. So, the new President is going to, in friendship, to – excuse me, into – enter a friendship to Israel with respect for all parties concerned have to be very clear about the loss of life. As Gandhi said, and his statement really more addressed people who do not get along with each other, but “this cannot continue.”
And, again, for years we’ve been talking about a two-state solution. We really have to bring – although everybody doesn’t like the idea, global consensus to help the Palestinian people, and to help the Israelis live in peace. The course we are on is not that course. Now, I understand that they want to get rid of Hamas and this is what bothers me about Netanyahu, when the Qataris were helping Hamas, I said what – it is a recognised fact, it has been written up, that Netanyahu supported the Qataris helping Hamas, because he wanted to counter the Palestinian Authority. So, this is – he said, “Unless you’re from the Middle East, you can never fully understand the politics and the – whatever happens there,” but can you imagine? He has been recognised as enabling the support for Hamas to counter the Palestinian Authority, it’s a tough neighbourhood.
Bronwen Maddox
I’m just going to squeak in one more, do you think any US Government would put enough pressure on Israel to make progress towards a two-state solution possible?
Nancy Pelosi
It’s a – and it’s real – it’s way down the road now, would have been, the US Government had put pressure for a two-state solution, this was what, 1991? Was that when we had the meeting at the White House? 93, the handshake, we thought we were on that course, then, when Bill Clinton had the leaders of – at the White House. But I think the leadership of Netanyahu all these years has been counter to that, he doesn’t believe in a two-state solution.
Bronwen Maddox
Another debate which we have had on him. Let’s go to questions, because, yes, there’s loads and loads and loads of them.
Nancy Pelosi
Some women too, okay?
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah, let’s start here, indeed, with the woman in the front row.
Latika Bourke
Thank you, Bronwen. Speaker Pelosi, Latika Bourke, the Write – a Writer-at-Large, The Nightly, Australia. Kamala Harris was recently asked who the United States’ greatest adversary is, and she said, “Iran.” What is the Indo-Pacific to take from that? Is China no longer your biggest strategic threat? And does that signal a pivot away again from Asia under a Harris Presidency?
Nancy Pelosi
No, I don’t think so, at all. Kam – she is talking about immediate, and that immediate is what is happening in the Middle East and what would – how, shall we say, could some reaction by Iran trigger some – a larger conflagration there? I think war should be eliminated as a – Lionel Curtis said, “It should be eliminated as a possibility for the resolution of conflict,” and he said, “use of force replaced by the rule of law, rule of force, rule of law.”
But, no, I don’t – Kamala Harris is committed to the – of course, the Transatlantic Alliance, but, also, she spent a good deal of time travelling in Asia, the – receiving leaders from Asia, participating strongly in APEC, which met in San Francisco last November, that is – and, of course, we’re Californian, so, we’re Pacific, as well as Atlantic, in terms of the US, but, no, I don’t think that, at all.
The NATO countries are seeing it important for them to become more involved in the Pacific, as well, and China’s behaviour, aggressive behaviour, in the South China Sea and what that means for trans per – commerce, and the rest, is very important, the threat to Hong Kong, and just trade issues, and the rest, very important. No, the Pac – the Indo-Pacific is very important to the United States, and very important to Kamala Harris, and she has demonstrated that.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you for that, and we got a bit of China in there. James.
James Landale
Thank you, James Landale, the BBC. Can I just pick up on Latika’s question?
Nancy Pelosi
Yes.
James Landale
Kamala Harris is – it’s a bit of an unfinished page, I can put it, about her foreign policy, we’re all scratching our heads thinking, what would a Kamala Harris Presidency be? What would it mean for the rest of the world? Can you just give us your sense of her priorities, her instincts, on foreign policy across the board, to, sort of, fill in some of those gaps?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, I think you have to just look to the American experience, not as individuals, except for one, except for one, because since NATO was created, the greatest organisation for security for so many years, for 75 years, this is remarkable, and that is a commitment of the United States of America, and an ongoing one from one President to the next, except for one gap, one shocking gap there. So, there’s no question about that. As I said, her commitment, her travels, her experience in Indo-Pacific have been very clear. She understands America’s role in that direction, but not just America’s role, how we can, working together, focus on that region.
The – and when we talk about – see, you’re talking about one person, but we’re talking about our country. When we talk about our international relations, which – and when I, as Speaker, would send delegations to meetings or co-dels, or, you know, congressional delegations to meet with Heads of State and the rest, we had three principles, or pillars. One, security, and you can say it over and over and over again, security, security, security, and, again, NATO has been the preeminent alliance for security, and she will obviously continue America’s commitment to NATO.
The second, and, again, we’re talking about the rest of the world, as well, second is economics. What is the economic relationship that we have with the rest of the world? Because we want to have our economy succeed, but not at the expense of other countries. So, how do we address issues like the climate crisis, and the globalisation writ large and what it means, and migration and what that means, as well, all of the issues that relate to economics and how we can have prosperity throughout the world, not in one country at the expense of another?
And the third is governance, governance, how do people treat their people? But in addition to that, how ethical and how – or corrupt is a government, or when we want investment in a country to help it grow, is it going to be safely there, or is it going to be stolen by a corrupt government? So, those are the elements that we have worked around, and if – you know, you – take an example of any country, if you wish, but, nonetheless, our promotion of our economy, again, with the understanding that we’re all connected in this, and that globalisation has presented its challenges, and how do we work together on that?
Of all of those things, one of the issues that is affected by all of this is the migration issue. It’s an economic issue, it’s a cultural issue, it’s a governance issue, and it is sad when you see, especially people coming from Third World countries and the rest, who really don’t have the opportunities that we would like them to have, that’s why our security has to have a soft diplomacy, as well, to have our economics to invest in these countries, as well.
So, I think that, no, I think our country’s – really, in a bipartisan way, has always – and, by the way, in the Congress, when we talk about governance issues, like human rights and corruption issue, it’s very bipartisan. It’s like 400 to one or something – or three, or somebody says they made a mistake in their vote, it’s very bipartisan in the House and in the Senate. So, I think that people will see strength on the part of Kamala Harris. I know that she will be well advised, that there are strong voices for America’s role in the world, to keep the world safe, to keep the world democratic, to keep the economies fair and the governance just. And we can only do so much, but we have to show our values and we have to act upon our values.
So, I think she has these vision, she has the values, she has the strength, she has the support, and she has overwhelming support from people who served in the previous Administration, to say that the path that he went down was wrong, was wrong, and that what she will do is more in the tradition of America. But, again, with a fresh listening to other countries about how to go forward. I’m very proud of her in this regard.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you for that, and thank you for the question from Nashiru Abdulai, online, about immigration, which we partly covered. Let me just ask you one that’s come in online from Enis Demir, and she says, “Is there a risk of an insurrection, like the one on January 6th, again, after this election?”
Nancy Pelosi
January 6th, last year, who could have ever expected that a President of the United States would incite a violent insurrection of the Capitol, and then try to describe it as “a day at the Capitol”? A normal, tourist day at the Capitol, when they were defecating on the floor, looking for me to put a bullet in my F-word head, looking for the Vice President to put a noose around his neck, and when the President was told about that, he said, “So, what?” They’re going to – they’re going after Mike Pence, “So, what?”
This year we have – there has been declared January 6th as a na – a special national security event, which means that the – we won’t have to – we had to ask him for the National Guard, which he would not sent – send, but which he misrepresents now. But always represented from the start, because that’s who he is, but, nonetheless, the – this day will have the security in place should they try something.
Now, right now, today, in the press, in North Carolina, Rutherford County, North Carolina, there’s national agencies have withdrawn the FEMA workers and other humanitarian workers from Rutherford County, because they have encountered trucks of guys who are looking, hunting for FEMA workers. So, your question is well-founded about the mischiefs that some may want to pull. But we will be further prepared on that day for that occurrence, which is really so unhappy, such a sad thing in our country. Political violence has no place in our country, and yet what’s his name has blessed it.
When my husband was assaulted…
Bronwen Maddox
But…
Nancy Pelosi
…in the sanctity of our home…
Bronwen Maddox
…has also been the target of assassination attempts…
Nancy Pelosi
Hmmm?
Bronwen Maddox
…two or three times.
Nancy Pelosi
Yes, and we’ve sympathised with him…
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah.
Nancy Pelosi
…on two times.
Bronwen Maddox
And it is something, by the way, if you’re reading the book, Nancy Pelosi begins with a very personal account of the attack on…
Nancy Pelosi
On my husband.
Bronwen Maddox
…on your husband.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, imagine your own home, the sanctity of your home, the danger of an assault on your husband when they’re looking for me, at a time when we didn’t even know if he would live or die, that the President was making jokes about it, as was his son, as was the Republican Governor of Virginia, as was Elon Musk, you know, they thought that was really funny, and that’s terrible. So, let’s – you know, when he was attacked, of course, we were all sympathetic, and again, that’s a horrible thing in our country for him to have two assaults like that, but the fact is it – we should have none of that.
But nothing is ever certain, and so you have to be protected. But you don’t have to be – I mean, in other words, we want people to participate in politics. We want more women, people of colour, more diversity, to participate. They can’t be afraid of the security of their family because they may speak out against a certain person who served as President of the United States, that just cannot be the case. But imagine that, right now, while people are trying to save lives in North Carolina, they’ve had to withdraw the humanitarian assistance because trucks of these people are hunting FEMA workers.
Bronwen Maddox
Leslie. I will try and get in a few more.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you.
Nancy Pelosi
Oh, you want me to answer…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Leslie Vinjamuri…
Nancy Pelosi
Yes.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I direct the US and…
Nancy Pelosi
Hi, Leslie.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…Americas Programme here at Chatham House, it is such an honour to have you…
Nancy Pelosi
Hi, Leslie.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…join us again.
Nancy Pelosi
And my honour.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It really is phenomenal. My question is about the Republican Party. Many people in the United Kingdom, and so many people across Europe and across the world, want Kamala Harris to win because they care about America’s global engagement and consistency. But we do, also, need in the United States a functioning democracy, and that requires more than one normal political party. So, I’m wondering what your perspective is, if Kamala Harris becomes the next US President, what is the prospect that, in time, the Republican Party would become normalised and engage in a foreign policy that, at some level, tracks back, maybe not to what the US’s position was previously, but to some, sort of, power and foreign policy that the rest of the world can engage with in a consistent fashion?
Nancy Pelosi
Thank you. Thank you so much for your question. I’ve always sa – and I say this all the time, and some of my San Francisco constituents are not jumping with joy, “The country really must have a strong Republican Party, there’s just no question about that.” We’ve had great leaders, and I named some of them earlier, two Bushes, McCain, Bob Dole, my dear personal friend, I loved him so much, I still love his wife so much, and we’re dear friends, Mitt Romney and the rest, it’s – these were great leaders in our coun – have been great leaders in our country and they have to have a strong Republican Party.
Now, I’m the last person to ask how that happens, but I will say what they’ve told me, not the ones I just named, but some others. We cannot beat these people in the primary. You have to beat them in the general, and then we can get back to our fight about the role of government, because that’s the difference between our two parties, on the spectrum of what is the role of federal government, role of local government, and the rest, and budget priorities, and the rest, which is the legitimate debate in a democracy. But if – with the redistricting that is there, and we have called for a non-partisan redistrict in our legislation, which, if we win – when we win, but if we can win in the Senate in a stronger way, that we could pass that legislation.
But anyway, getting back to this, in these re – highly gerrymandered districts, the other side is saying we can’t beat them in those districts. But as we open that up, hopefully, then we can – because I’ve served there a long time and it was never this way. It was always bipartisanship. It was a great kaleidoscope, and I talk about this in my book, say, one time it’ll be all the Democrats versus all the Republicans, and then another time will be half the Democrats and half the Republican, the back of the room versus the front of the room. So, you’re always a strength to each other, so you don’t want to diminish the strength of a possible resource to your cause.
And I think, to your question, there’s probably more common ground globally than domestically, globally than domestically, because, as I’ve said, the Republicans not over – not a majority in the House, but, overwhelmingly, have been supportive of, say, Ukraine, and the rest, but the – but there has to – something different has to happen. Right now, it’s a cult, and the Republican Party has turned into a cult. Why? Because of anti-diversity attitudes and big money, not wanting to pay taxes, and don’t want any regulate – clean air or clean water, forget about it, you know, that’s not what they are there for.
So – but that will always be the case, but in terms of people having legitimate differences of opinion of the role of government which existed since the beginning of our country, that’s – but on the global scene, I think there’s more basis for co-operation, yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
We’ve got a storm of, hands up. I’m going to take on the aisle here. Terrific questions online, including from Ghana, from Cameroon, but on things that we sort of have covered. Have you got the mic? Great.
Sir Peter Westmacott
Yeah, thank you very much. Peter Westmacott, former Ambassador to the United States.
Nancy Pelosi
Hi, Peter.
Sir Peter Westmacott
Madam Speaker, welcome back, wonderful to have you here. Just over three weeks to go, what are the things that the Biden Administration, or Kamala Harris, can most usefully do between now and then to ensure that what’s his name doesn’t get over the line in those battleground states that you mention?
Nancy Pelosi
Well, Peter, thank you for your question. There’s a school of thought that says, “You’ve got to be more aggressive than telling people how – what is at risk in this.” And then there’s the other school of thought that said, “I’m tired of hearing about him, I know how bad he is, what are you going to do?” So, they have to do a combination of that. There is no question – you know, I talked about all the things that Joe Biden did and that, but Bronwen, it’s important to know, people don’t vote for you for what you have done, they vote for you for what you’re going to do.
Now what you have done…
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm hmm.
Nancy Pelosi
…demonstrates that you’re capable of doing things, but it’s never, “Oh, I’ve done this, you should vote for me.” No, “This is what is in store for you.”
Bronwen Maddox
That’s a really good point.
Nancy Pelosi
When you talk about job creation, education, 2025, their project abolishes the Department of Education, why? Because, you know, they teach critical thinking in those public schools, the United States of America, education, being central to a democracy. So, you have, say, a mountain of things that you can say, you have to pick three, boom, go right for the jugular, and – you didn’t hear me say that, did you? The three that are just, “This is what this means to you.” Not, “I’m a woman and I should be President,” no, that’s self-evident. “I have very little attention to pay to politics, what does it mean to me? My job, my pension, the education of my children, the cost of healthcare, the cost of prescription drugs, my kitchen table issues,” and so, they have to make that clear.
Now, the other side will misrepresent. He’s saying, “I have concepts about” – no, he’s a notion-monger, he doesn’t have the faintest idea even what a concept is. He’s a notion-monger, but, again, that doesn’t win any votes, what I just said. So, again, you have to show what is at stake. There will be a national ban on abortion in America, make no mistake about that, and women have to know that, and their families and women who care about them, have to know about that.
There will be a reduction of investment, and even feeding people who are hungry in our country, the budget priorities – when I was asking the Speaker for the money to go to Ukraine, he said, “I have to finish the budget.” What the fight was over was feeding WIC, women, infant and children, that was the fight. They didn’t want to spend money on food for women, infant and children, because, you know why? It was going to increase the national debt.
Okay, we want to be fiscally sound, that’s why it’s hard to understand why they support what they did and what they said they’re going to do again, a tax cut at the time added $2 trillion to the national debt, and the tax cut went – 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. So, I think it’s important for people to know who’s there for you, what is – this vote’s about you, who cares about you? Lowering taxes for women, working families or giving a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America who are not paying their fair share, many of them, to begin with, some nothing? Okay, so what does this mean to you in your pocketbook?
And then, again, the cost of prescription drugs, and the rest, so the cost of living and it’s hard because inflation was a phenomenon. We did the best in America on it, frankly, but that’s still not good enough. So, who are they there for? You’re for the rich, trickle down, it’s never worked, it’s never worked, and even its proponents have said it’s never worked, and it’s never paid for itself.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
It’s always been a cost to the national budget. So, if we’re talking about budget, shouldn’t we be feeding people with this costing, like, one hair on my head, rather than my whole head giving tax breaks to the wealthiest? So, I think they’re going to have to show the contrast as to what it means to people in their lives, and that is really what it comes down to, at this point.
And the whole idea of a national abortion ban, and no matter what they say, and then they say, “Leave it up to the states,” well, that’s the problem for women, as well, but it’s even going to get worse than that. And I say that as a mother of five, five children, six years and seven days, and I keep reminding my Archbishop of that. But the fact is that that was good for me and my husband, Paul, but not – that’s not – you know, it’s no Politician’s business the size, timing, etc., of a person’s family.
And so, again, I think what they have to do is just show the difference at the kitchen table, show the difference as to what it means in our democracy. At the start of our country, Thomas Paine said, “The times have found us, the times found us, to declare independence,” sorry, UK, “declare independence,” the most beautiful document ever written, I think, declare independence, declare war on the greatest naval power that existed at the time. Win that war, write our documents, but our documents were a compromise and our Constitution immediately had to have a Bill of Rights for our freedom, but it had, wisely, because our Founders were so wise, to have the process of amendment.
So, for the history of our country, de – freedom had been expanded, abolition of slavery, Black men having the right to vote, women having the right to vote, Roe v Wade, all of that, until the Dobbs decision, that’s when freedom started to be confined. And they said that day, “Since we have rejected privacy as a right in the Constitution and precedence as a force on the court, everything is up…
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm.
Nancy Pelosi
…for grabs.” So, kitchen table, democracy, and then, again, our role in the world I think is a very important issue. Not everybody responds to that, but we’re going – we have to be true to who we are as we go for that three to 4% that is there. But, also, to get out the vote for all, times found Lincoln to keep the country together, the times have found us now, prove through the night that our flag is still there.
Bronwen Maddox
We are going to have to stop there, I’m sorry, lots of hopeful hands up, brilliant questions online, thank you. So, a whole lot on the Middle East, a lot on migration. Thank you for – Gerson Fumbuka from Tanzania, “What would you like to be remembered for?” You don’t have time to answer it, but thank you for asking it. Megan Richards saying, “Why didn’t Nancy Pelosi ever run for President?” And Peter Fedika saying, “Looking at the candidates, should there be an upper age limit on entering politics?” And I think your performance, in fact, has dismissed that one. Lots of fascinating questions, and we didn’t even get on, really, to how to have five children and become Speaker of the House. But, please, thank you for coming, first, and can you thank…
