WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: People begin returning to Southern Lebanon, as the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah appears to be holding.

We speak with the U.S. envoy who helped broker the deal.

President-elect Donald Trump chooses a skeptic of COVID lockdowns to lead the National Institutes of Health, a further sign of major shifts in key governmental agencies.

And, lacking enough manpower to push back Russia's invasion, Ukraine resorts to harsh means to force draft dodgers into combat.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The cease-fire between the Israeli and Lebanese governments, and including the militant group Hezbollah, that went into effect early this morning, appears to be holding.

And for the first time in nearly 14 months, residents on both sides of the border are heading back to their homes rather than running from bombs.

Nick Schifrin speaks to the American negotiator who helped secure the deal.

But, first, he reports on the situation the ground today.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today in Southern Lebanon, a rare and precious feeling, hope.

Families displaced by 14 months of war rush to return home.

And Lebanese soldiers rush to the country's borders, the first step to implementing the cease-fire.

In Hezbollah's stronghold in Southern Beirut, a celebration amidst destruction.

They say the U.S.-designated terrorist group ended the war with victory, but at great cost.

The U.N. says Israeli airstrikes damaged or destroyed nearly 25,000 homes.

MAHMOUD AL AWNEY, Lebanon Resident (through translator): I have no other place to stay, so I'm forced to do this.

We say that as long as we are safe, everything can be compensated.

NICK SCHIFRIN: On the Israeli side of the border, soldiers today patrolled through areas no longer under rocket fire.

And, inside, Lebanon-Israeli commanders planned to withdraw, also claiming a form of victory, having killed most of Hezbollah's leadership and removed Hezbollah's weapons as recently as last night from near the border.

But for the more than 60,000 Israelis who fled their homes last October, some have nothing to return to, and they feel skeptical the cease-fire can hold.

KOBI KATZ, Israel Resident: We are afraid that Hezbollah will start again to build the forces.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The agreement calls for Israel's withdrawal and the Lebanese Armed Forces' deployment to conclude within 60 days, alongside Hezbollah moving its fighters north of the Litani River, which, on average, is about 17 miles north of the border.

To discuss the cease-fire, I'm joined by Amos Hochstein, President Biden's special envoy who led the negotiations.

Amos Hochstein, thanks very much.

Welcome to the "News Hour."

It's been about a day since you announced this cease-fire.

Is it holding so far?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN, White House Special Envoy to Lebanon: So far, it is holding, a couple little things here and there, but to be expected on day one.

And I think, most importantly, at about 9:00 p.m. our time last night, 4:00 a.m. local time, people woke up for the first time in almost 14 months without bombardments, raids, sirens, drones, et cetera.

So I think, for most of the people living in South Lebanon and Northern Israel, this has been a pretty monumental day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: One of the key differences between this agreement and the agreement that ended the last war, 2006 war in Lebanon, which is enshrined in Security Council's resolution 1701, is for the U.S. to chair a mechanism that will monitor and judge violations on both sides.

First question is, will that chair be a U.S. military official?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: The chair will be both a U.S. - - it will be co-chaired by U.S. military and a U.S. civilian foreign policy or national security official on that committee that will look at the monitoring and making sure that any violation is reported immediately and dealt with immediately, not by us, but by the Lebanese army and security forces.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As you know, some in Lebanon fear that the fact that the U.S. is chairing that mechanism is primarily designed to call out Hezbollah operations and therefore provide a green light to Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Is it?

And how can you assure parties in Lebanon beyond that it's not?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Look, I have spent a lot of time in Lebanon over the years and especially over the last one year.

And I think that most Lebanese, in fact, were demanding that the U.S. be the chair of it.

I can tell you, during the negotiations, every one of the parties, except for Hezbollah, wanted the United States to -- not only wanted, but insisted that the U.S. be on the committee and chair it, because I think they know that -- one, that we can work both with the Israelis and with Lebanon.

And I want to remind people, the United States has been the largest supporter and trainer of the Lebanese Armed Forces over the years, more than any other country.

So I think there's a lot of trust in the U.S., both in the Lebanese army, as well as in the Israeli military.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Beyond the cease-fire agreement, there is a letter of assurance to Israel.

In effect, have you given Israel wide discretion and latitude to act inside of Lebanon?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Look, the agreement itself that has now become a public document, the -- it says specifically that both Lebanon and Israel retain the right to self-defense as prescribed under international law.

In addition, the president of the United States, President Biden yesterday in the Rose Garden, specifically said that, if there are any violations that pose a direct threat to Israel, meaning that it has not been handled through the mechanism, that it would have the right to defend itself under international law.

And that is our commitment.

We did not make that a secret.

That is part of the agreement.

But the expectation is here that the Lebanese army will be able to prevent such violations and, if they do happen, that they will be mitigated or destroyed or dismantled or discouraged in a manner that does not require anyone to take any other military actions.

That is the goal of Israel.

That's the goal of Lebanon and is certainly the goal of the mechanism that we will be chairing.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You have been mentioning the Lebanese Armed Forces, known as the LAF.

They will have to secure Southern Lebanon, indeed all of Lebanon's borders, with some 10,000 forces.

But, as you know, LAF officials have long said they don't have the resources to be able to do that.

How will you help get them there?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Yes, so I think, if you see the agreement, what I have tried to do is -- in this document is to learn the lessons from the mistakes that were made in 1701 that you referenced at the beginning of the top of the show.

There was no implementation.

And it called for things that I believe, even at the time, were not realistic.

It called for 15,000 LAF, Lebanese army, troops.

Not possible.

This -- therefore, the cease-fire that has gone now into effect means that nobody's shooting anymore, but the Israeli military is still in Lebanon.

They will withdraw in phases.

So you will start seeing them withdraw in the next -- within the next two weeks as the Lebanese army advances to the south and deploys there.

The reason for that is what you said.

They do not have the capacity to deploy 10,000.

So what I see happening is about 5,000 Lebanese troops will be deployed to the south in the coming 60 days.

And then in the several months after that, we will do additional recruits and training of more troops to be able to go down south and get from 5,000 to 7,000 to 8,000, et cetera.

And probably it will take over a year, maybe two years to get to 10,000.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Beyond that question of capability, though, I want to go beyond that and ask about political will, political maneuverability for the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Given Hezbollah's political strength, given the sectarian nature of the army, will the LAF really be able to take on Hezbollah?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: You talked about earlier that the big difference is the mechanism.

I would say there's one other big difference.

The end of the war in '06, 2006, Hezbollah arguably fought Israel to a draw.

That's not the case here.

Hezbollah is extremely weak at the moment.

It has lost a significant part of its capacity, its military capacity, its political capacity.

Its leadership has been decimated.

Its 30-something year leader, Nasrallah, is dead.

His successor is dead.

Much of the leadership that has been there for the last several decades are no longer there.

So there is a moment of opportunity here for Lebanon to actually -- for other parts of Lebanon to rise up and establish the sovereignty of the state, the strength of the state.

And that's what we intend to help, together with the French and other allies, to help the Lebanese do.

And then we're going to try to do that, not just supporting the LAF with the resources they need and the equipment they need, but also to support the economy of Lebanon to rebuild and return to prosperity.

NICK SCHIFRIN: What's to prevent Iran from filling in those gaps that Hezbollah now has?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Well, they're going to try.

But I would say Iran is significantly weaker today as well than they have been.

And part of this agreement is, we're going to try to make sure that the rearming, which happens from Iran through Syria, is at least diminished, slowed down, if not eliminated.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Who's responsible for that stopping of or who's responsible for that interdicting of weapons?

Will Russia play a part in that?

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Well, there's two parts of this, Nick, as you well know.

Part of it is what happens inside Syria and what happens inside Lebanon.

This agreement is about what's happening inside Lebanon.

The agreement calls for the Lebanese state to take control over the -- all the crossings, all border crossings.

I think it -- believe it says authorized and unauthorized border crossings.

So the Lebanese army, but also there are other security services that are responsible for those border crossings to make sure that are -- that they take and assert their control over.

And then there's a separate question of what happens inside Syria, and that's probably a matter for a different conversation on a different day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Amos Hochstein, thank you very much.

AMOS HOCHSTEIN: Thank you.

Take care, Nick.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We start the day's other news here in the U.S.

The FBI is investigating incidents of alleged bomb threats and so-called swatting attacks against several of president-elect Trump's Cabinet picks and appointees.

Swatting is when law enforcement is called against a target under false pretenses.

In a statement, a Trump spokesperson said the victims -- quote -- "were targeted in violent, un-American threats to their lives and those who live with them."

Separately, Trump has tapped Keith Kellogg to be special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.

The retired Army lieutenant general served as chief of staff on Trump's National Security Council during his first term.

Kellogg is poised to play a vital role, as Trump has signaled he wants to bring a swift end to the war.

Two closely watched congressional races were called today, leaving just one still undecided.

In California, Democrat Derek Tran defeated the incumbent Republican in the state's 45th District, which is centered in Orange County.

And, in Iowa, Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks won reelection in the state's First Congressional District after a recount confirmed her victory.

That win gives Republicans just a bit more breathing room as they look ahead to holding a razor-thin majority in the House come January.

The final undecided race is in California.

Three Americans who've been imprisoned in China were released today in a rare diplomatic breakthrough with Beijing in the waning months of the Biden administration.

One of them is Kai Li, seen here in a photograph held up by his son.

He had been jailed since 2016, accused of spying.

John Leung was sentenced for espionage last year.

The third, Mark Swidan, was sentenced to death on drug charges.

On a separate, but related note, the State Department lowered its travel warning to China today, saying Americans should -- quote - - "exercise increased caution when traveling to the mainland."

The previous guidance had been to reconsider travel altogether.

The U.S. announced sanctions today on 21 allies of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

That comes nearly four months after he claimed victory in the country's highly disputed presidential election.

The sanctions target military and Cabinet officials aligned with Maduro.

They come a week after the Biden administration recognized opposition leader Edmundo Gonzalez as the nation's president-elect.

He fled for exile in Spain two months ago.

Ohio's governor has signed into law a measure that would ban transgender students from using multiperson bathrooms that fit their gender identities.

The new law says public and private schools must have separate facilities for the exclusive use of males and females based on their assigned gender at birth.

Ohio joins at least 11 other states who have similar such bathroom laws.

Two dozen states have measures that dictate which sports transgender women and girls can play.

And 26 states have laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

On Wall Street today, stocks slipped ahead of the Thanksgiving break.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 100 points, or about a third-of-1-percent.

The Nasdaq also shed more than 100 points.

The S&P 500 snapped a seven-session winning streak, giving back about 20 points.

In South Korea, the biggest snowstorm in more than 50 years blanketed the nation's capital.

Up to 10 inches of snow fell in parts of Seoul and nearby areas.

Hundreds of flights were canceled and icy conditions disrupted traffic, but many seemed happy with the weather, including a pair of giant panda twins at a Korean zoo.

They're seeing snow for the first time in their young lives.

And before putting turkey on the table, millions of Americans will first need to navigate the Thanksgiving travel rush, which is expected to be the busiest ever.

TSA was prepared to screen 2.9 million people at airports across the country today.

They're expecting even more on Sunday when people return home.

Car traffic also clogged highways this afternoon, but forecasters say it should be smooth sailing for those who plan to hit the road tomorrow.

And perhaps no one will be further from home this Thanksgiving than these NASA astronauts.

They showed off their holiday fare ahead of tomorrow's feast.

BUTCH WILMORE, Starliner Test Flight Astronaut: We're thankful for zero gravity.

It's fantastic.

And, of course, in a personal sense, our family, our friends, those that are lifting up prayers for us and have been, we're grateful for that.

We're grateful for a nation that is a spacefaring nation that lets us live free, say what we think is important to say, and so many other things.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams have been on the International Space Station since June, months longer than expected, because of safety concerns with Boeing's Starliner capsule.

Their families will certainly be thankful for their safe return, which is expected in February of next year.

Still to come on the "News Hour": how Donald Trump's reelection fits into a broader acceptance of authoritarian leadership; Judy Woodruff explores how psychology can help bridge our divisions this Thanksgiving; and a new exhibit highlights the intersection of art and the brain.

President-elect Donald Trump has selected one of the nation's most prominent critics of COVID-19 era lockdowns and mandates to lead the National Institutes of Health.

Stanford University physician Jay Bhattacharya famously co-authored what's known as the Great Barrington Declaration, a 2020 manifesto that advocated allowing COVID to spread among most people in order to achieve herd immunity and focusing instead on protecting the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

It was widely criticized by top public health officials at the time.

For more on this pick, we are joined again by Jennifer Nuzzo.

She runs the Pandemic Center at Brown University's School of Public Health.

Jennifer, so good to have you back on the program.

So, Bhattacharya's tasked with running the NIH, the nation's preeminent biomedical research organization.

What do you make of this pick?

DR. JENNIFER NUZZO, Brown University School of Public Health: Well, it's a really controversial pick for a few reasons.

The first one is that,typically, the people tapped to lead these organizations, this organization, are people who have a long history of doing clinical research or maybe they have spent a long time working in laboratories doing laboratory research.

Dr. Bhattacharya is an economist and he is trained as a medical doctor, but he is an economist and he works more on policy.

So that's one way that that's controversial.

And then, of course, the second area of controversy is what you referenced, which is that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he was a really outspoken critic.

He was one who really questioned a lot of issues.

And for that, I think people sort of worried whether his approach to this job will be driven by dogma versus evidence.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, I went back and reread the Great Barrington Declaration.

And in hindsight, there is a part of it that does have some grains of truth.

And that was the low risk that COVID posed to young people and the larger risk of keeping them out of school for so long.

I mean, when you -- again, hindsight is always 20/20.

But when you look at that, how do you look at his COVID advocacy at the time?

DR. JENNIFER NUZZO: Yes, I mean, there are some things that I agreed with him on.

I think calling out school closures as being particularly harmful is something I very much agreed with him on.

Obviously, it's also true that those who are of advanced age were always at greatest risk of experiencing severe illness if they became infected with COVID.

So those points, he was quite right on.

I think what was quite challenging about the Great Barrington Declaration was that it proposed that we sort of only sequester people who are high risk and just sort of let everybody else go out potentially to get infected.

And even if you thought that was a reasonable idea, it was just impractical, because there was no way you could truly sequester people who were high-risk.

So that's where the real controversy comes from.

But at the end of the day, it was quite hard to figure out what was the right thing to do.

And people of all sorts, and myself included, didn't get everything right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

It's a novel virus.

That's why they call it that.

At the NIH, when you're in charge of marshaling the federal government's enormous resources and deciding what to focus on and what not to focus on, what's the concern there with someone like him at the helm of that organization?

DR. JENNIFER NUZZO: Well, so the concern for anyone tapped for this position -- and it is a really important position.

The NIH is a critically important agency for the U.S.

It's the place where, if you have a loved one with a rare disease or someone with a cancer, it's where you're going to look for cures.

So it is critically important for the nation's health.

It's also critically important as a driver of the U.S. economy.

And for every dollar that NIH spends, it contributes about 2.5 times that in terms of economic activity.

So it is a really important economic driver, as well as the place where people are hoping for cures.

You want anyone who's going to lead the agency to do so driven by evidence, not dogma.

You want to fulfill the obligations of the responsibility of the role, and not necessarily out of some kind of perceived loyalty to the person who appointed them.

That is true for everyone.

And it is my hope that, as a physician and as a researcher, that Dr. Bhattacharya will be driven by evidence.

He does have scientific training and he has done scientific research.

And so it's my hope he will use that scientific mind to look at the evidence and make decisions about the running of that organization and its outcomes as the evidence drives him, not due to personal grievances or any perceived dogma or biases.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: When you look at him within the constellation of Trump's other selections, obviously, we have RFK Jr. at the very top of that pyramid.

He has been a wellspring of misinformation about vaccines.

Dr. David Weldon, the former congressman to run the CDC, he has also falsely linked vaccines and autism.

Dr. Marty Makary to run the FDA, along with several others.

When you look at this suite of individuals who will be running the nation's health policy, what is your overall sense of how this is going to go?

DR. JENNIFER NUZZO: So my biggest worry is really about the nomination for the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Compared to the other nominees, he is really in a class all by himself.

Whereas I have some disagreements with some of the other nominees these are people who have training in the areas that they are going to be potentially overseeing.

They are people who have engaged in some level of considering evidence.

RFK Jr. stands out quite -- quite as a fringe character.

He has really made a whole career of not only not paying attention to evidence, but just pushing consistently debunked talking points just to fulfill an agenda that is really quite outside of the norm.

It is really quite fringe.

It is really quite considered wacky in many instances.

I mean, some of his views are just simply very strange.

So I am quite worried, because the head of HHS is the boss of all of these individuals.

And so, even if you have good people with good training and credible scientific minds at the helm, the question is always, what are they going to be able to do, given the fact that the person who may potentially run the Department of Health and Human Services really is one who is prone to favor conspiracy theories over actual evidence?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jennifer Nuzzo at Brown University School of Public Health, as always, thank you so much.

DR. JENNIFER NUZZO: Thanks for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Today, a U.S. official said Ukraine should consider dropping the age of eligibility for military conscription from 25 to 18 years old.

It is a stark acknowledgment that Ukraine simply doesn't have enough troops to fight the seemingly endless volume of Russian soldiers, especially now that they're being bolstered by North Korean troops.

Special correspondent Jack Hewson looks at Ukraine's dilemma and the country's sometimes harsh solutions.

JACK HEWSON: The promise of excitement, thrill and adventure.

This ad is one of hundreds designed to appeal to young Ukrainians to sign up to fight.

But some are not well-suited for the role.

Anton is one of them.

ANTON, Ukrainian: I'm the pacifist.

So, I avoid any violence.

And I can't imagine now that I will shoot someone.

But if I have two options, go to the war or go to the jail, I will choose go to the jail.

JACK HEWSON: Others have chosen to leave the country.

These men were caught trying to cross a river into neighboring Hungary by night on an inflatable dinghy.

Dozens have been drowned or rescued after attempting to swim.

Many are smuggled out of the country in the back of vehicles.

Rather than join them, for now, Anton has simply gone into hiding.

ANTON: I have to look around.

All my actions are blocked.

I don't use any bus, metro.

Wanted to avoid the situation where I stay alone on the street.

JACK HEWSON: And he does this because young men are increasingly being stopped in public spaces by recruitment officers.

As Ukraine's casualties have mounted, a new law has mandated all men over 25 to update their contact details so they may be called on to replace the fallen.

If I were Ukrainian and wishing to avoid military service, then this would be a very hazardous place to be.

Territorial recruitment officers can approach me and ask to see my documents.

And if they're not in order, I can be summoned.

If I refuse to be summoned, the only person who legally is supposed to be able to detain me is a policeman.

But, in reality, territorial recruitment officers have been bundling men into the back of vehicles and sending them off to training centers and then on to the front.

Scores of videos of men being dragged off of the street have emerged on social media.

And there are many more who have been deceived in other ways.

Mykhalio, speaking to me independently of the military chain of command at his new base in Donbass, was tricked into driving straight to a training camp when he voluntarily updated his details at medical commission office.

MYKHALIO, Ukrainian Soldier: And before they took me to car, they was very polite.

They smiled at me and said: "Everything will be OK. No, no, no, don't worry.

It's just two hours and you will come back."

And when I sit to their car, it's like, I was like a prisoner.

JACK HEWSON: So how did that make you feel?

You must have been very angry.

MYKHALIO: Yes, I was confused, angry and lost about this, because they even -- even didn't give me time to go home to kiss my wife, to kiss my baby.

JACK HEWSON: Compounding this anger has been arrest footage of government officials with literal piles of cash allegedly harvested from draft-dodging scams.

This woman, Tetiana Krupa, is a regional medical commission head accused of taking bribes to certify individuals as disabled, enabling them to skip military service.

The Ukrainian government declined our request for comment on the allegations.

President Zelenskyy has condemned the scandal.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): I expect swift and decisive action from law enforcement.

JACK HEWSON: Many like Mykhalio are incensed at the system's injustice.

MYKHALIO: I think that a lot of people don't want to go to army now, because they see how corrupted is our government.

JACK HEWSON: Despite this, the mobilization drive is still attracting recruits, like Call Sign Gart here trained to be a drone pilot near the eastern city of Kharkiv.

CALL SIGN "GART," New Recruit: Basically, we have two choices.

Either we don't fight, and we all die one way or another.

Russia will occupy us.

They will kill us, rape us.

The other choice is to join military and fight.

And then we have a chance to win and have a safe life.

So, for me, the choice is obvious.

JACK HEWSON: But there aren't enough young men and women now making this choice.

At the beginning of the war, hundreds of thousands volunteered.

Now the majority are drafted, some against their will.

On the front line, the lack of keen recruits is sorely felt.

We visited an artillery unit near to Chasiv Yar to ask what is most severely needed.

Ammunition shortages are a major problem in the face of Russia's advance.

But troop shortages are just as critical, in particular, an acute lack of infantry.

Can you feel any difference from the recruitment drive?

ANDRIY, Artillery Commander (through translator): No, we don't know where the newly mobilized people are.

Almost nothing has changed for us.

They don't add people to help here, yet they may even take some from here instead.

JACK HEWSON: Many of those on the front are close to exhaustion.

Some haven't had a break since they first signed up when Russia invaded in 2022.

Andriy dutifully told us that morale was high, but his face seemed to tell a different story.

ANDRIY (through translator): We feel that fatigue from this war, but, you know, if we give up, then the situation will be far worse than it is now.

But, yes, we are tired.

We are all so fed up with this war.

JACK HEWSON: And so Kyiv's glossy recruitment campaigns continue, as the country seeks desperately to persuade young men and women to replace the thousands who have been killed and injured, fending off a far bigger invading force.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Jack Hewson in Ukraine.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President-elect Donald Trump ran a lot of his campaign promising retribution for his enemies and asking absolute loyalty from his supporters.

Now, as he prepares for a second term in office, Laura Barron-Lopez has a look at what that might mean for the future of U.S. democracy.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: William, according to the Associated Press, 55 percent of voters said they were very or somewhat concerned that Trump would steer the U.S. toward becoming an authoritarian country, one where a single leader or small group has unchecked power.

Still, more than one in 10 of those voters supported him anyways.

To discuss this further, I'm joined by Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale University and author of "Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future."

Professor Stanley, thank you so much for joining.

Why did voters on one hand acknowledge and express fear that the country could very well tip towards authoritarianism under Trump, but then on the other hand still vote for him?

JASON STANLEY, Yale University: The idea that democracy is a value upon which voters vote or place enormous priority on is false.

Voters prize a number of things over democracy, especially voters who have regularly lived in a country where you can replace leaders and parties by elections.

The idea that democracy should be a value, well, that's something that schools and universities teach.

That's something we try to emphasize, but it doesn't mean that people are born that way.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President-elect Trump has openly embraced a number of strongman leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Trump has also said that he would be a dictator for a day.

He has expressed a desire to seek revenge against his political enemies, and he's also threatened to use the military against civilians during times of civil unrest.

If Donald Trump ends up governing like a strongman, what does that mean for the future of democracy?

JASON STANLEY: He will end up governing like a strongman.

He generally does what he says, which is why voters consider him authentic, perhaps, rightfully so.

He's appointed Pete Hegseth as his defense secretary, whose writings show that he regards leftists, political opponents, university professors as the enemy, as the real enemy.

So, every indication we have is that he's going to rule like an authoritarian and maybe not step down from power, certainly adjust the levers of power in our very flawed democracy so that Trumpism remains in power for some time to come, perhaps a very long time to come.

And we know that they have been taking advice from Orban.

And for a long time, people said, including me, that the United States was too large to do what Orban did.

For example, Orban took over the media, forcing the media to sell to his cronies and friends.

And the thought was, the United States is too large for that.

However, couldn't Elon Musk just buy the whole media?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: You said before that the signs were there in terms of showing that voters may very well say yes to a strongman leader.

Are there any historical parallels, past examples that you think mirror the moment that the country is in right now?

JASON STANLEY: Every authoritarian situation is somewhat different, but there's regularities of structure.

Putin, for example, is an extremely popular leader in Russia, right?

I mean, people would vote for him.

What we're seeing here in terms of the sort of character of Trump, the sort of self-representation, as theorists like Ruth Ben-Ghiat have correctly pointed out, is something like Mussolini.

There's lots of differences in underlying ideology, but what we have got is something similar to a fascist-supporting group.

We have got billionaire oligarchs and Christian nationalists, so both sort of radical and antidemocratic.

And once those two groups -- once you have a large group of Christian nationalists or ethnic nationalists, plus oligarchs, together in support, it's very hard to defeat that coalition.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: What could a second Trump term mean in terms of emboldening extremists or those who hold far right views about the future of the country?

JASON STANLEY: Well, I mean, those are the people he's taken into power, he's proposing to take into power.

These are people who believe that this is a Christian nation, that it's being ruined by secularists, everyone who's not a Christian nationalist or a virulent Trump supporter is a Marxist.

This is fascism when you call everyone who is not a supporter of the leader a Marxist.

You call your normal political opponents Marxists.

You target the schools and universities and the press.

You say they're controlled by Marxists.

This is the dominant vocabulary of the Trumpist movement.

And what it augurs is very problematic and worrisome.

But I don't think what will result is less popularity for the strongman leader.

Democracy is something you have to fight for.

You have to fight for its values.

You have to teach its values that every citizen is important, every citizen's perspective is important.

And those aren't values we're born with.

And as they attack the institutions that defend those values, the press, the universities and the schools, we will see a democratic culture, what we have of a democratic culture disappearing.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Professor Jason Stanley, thank you for your time.

JASON STANLEY: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Just a few weeks after a divisive presidential election, millions of Americans are about to sit down with their families for Thanksgiving dinner.

For those of you concerned with potentially difficult, even clashing conversations across the table, Judy Woodruff talks with social psychologist Keith Payne about identity and communication.

It's part of her ongoing series America at a Crossroads.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Keith Payne grew up in a small town in rural Kentucky with almost entirely white residents.

His family wasn't outwardly political, but they leaned conservative, like most of their neighbors.

His own political beliefs began to shift when he went away to college, and that made his trips home all the more difficult.

KEITH PAYNE, Author, "Good Reasonable People: The Psychology Behind America's Dangerous Divide": I couldn't stop getting into political arguments with my family members.

I come from a big family with a lot of diverse political views.

And, on the one hand, I found these conversations and arguments so infuriating, and, on the other hand, I knew that they were good, decent people who I loved who I was having these intense arguments with.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Payne is now a social psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

He's the author of a new book, "Good Reasonable People: The Psychology Behind America's Dangerous Divide," which attempts to explain why Americans feel so split over politics and why that can feel so personal.

KEITH PAYNE: We get a lot of our self-esteem and self-worth from the groups that we belong to, whether it's partisan groups like Democrats and Republicans, whether it's racial and ethnic groups, whether it's religious groups, community groups.

Belonging to those groups is really important to us.

And so much of what we do in life is based on reassuring ourselves that we're good and reasonable people, and the groups that we belong to are good and reasonable too.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you're saying that the psychological roots of this, the social identity roots of this are more important than political beliefs, issues, and the rest of it.

KEITH PAYNE: Most people are sort of all over the map when it comes to policies and issue beliefs.

Social scientists over the last 40 or 50 years have come to realize that most people don't have what we consider a political ideology.

What they have is these social identities, and that's what people keep coming back to whenever they figure out which party is my party, which candidate is my candidate.

JASON HOWARD, Owner, The Cardinal Bar: I mean, I grew up in rural North Carolina, conservative family, conservative views.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jason Howard is an owner of The Cardinal Bar in Raleigh, North Carolina, a neighborhood establishment known for inventive hot dogs and tongue-in-cheek signage.

Though Howard is a registered independent, he's also a supporter of President Trump.

He says, growing up in small-town Pittsburgh North Carolina, everyone around him was conservative.

Did you think of yourself as conservative?

How did you... JASON HOWARD: I didn't think there was anything else.

You kind of like -- you just take on your surroundings.

You know what I mean?

JASMINE GAILLIARD, College Student: I always knew because my mom did work for Obama when I was younger, and I always kind of just knew who I identified with, which party was best.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jasmine Gailliard is a senior public policy major at the University of North Carolina who volunteers at Habitat for Humanity on the weekend.

Originally from Philadelphia, she too says she always knew which party she'd support.

JASMINE GAILLIARD: I did a straight Democratic ticket.

It was very easy.

I honestly didn't have much to think about.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Among the many social identities people carry, where they're born, their education, their religion, Payne says that race is the most salient factor, which he says helps explain why, even in the most recent election, the overwhelming majority of Black Americans voted for Democrats, while the majority of white Americans voted for Donald Trump, a correlation which he says has deep roots in our country's history of segregation and inequality.

KEITH PAYNE: If you were born in a place that had a lot of slavery in 1860 and you're white, we can predict with high degree of accuracy that you're likely to support Republicans.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why is that person more likely today to be a Republican?

KEITH PAYNE: If you're a white person living in a place with stark levels of racial inequality, you look around and try to explain what's going on, what's the most likely explanation?

If you haven't learned about all of the history and the systems and economic processes that have been in play for the last 200 years, you're probably going to conclude that it has nothing to do with your group, your race, your history.

The easiest thing to conclude is that maybe Black people aren't trying hard enough, maybe they aren't working as hard as white people.

And that belief is one of the very strongest predictors of voting for Donald Trump.

JASMINE GAILLIARD: I think, like, her whole campaign, the Republicans kept talking about, oh, I didn't even know she was Black, I didn't even know she was Indian, or just blatant racist things.

They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jasmine Gailliard says she believes race played a major role on both sides in this election.

JASMINE GAILLIARD: I think also, on the flip side, the Democrats, some of them said, I'm going to vote for her because she's a Black woman.

And I'm a Black woman, and that makes me feel good.

And while that is completely valid, that should not be the only reason you're going to vote for someone.

JASON HOWARD: I'm not thinking of it as the white guy won, so I'm happy about the white guy winning.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jason Howard says race was not a factor in his political decision-making.

JASON HOWARD: I mean, race never - - has never played into that ever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What role do you think race played, if any, in the election?

JASON HOWARD: I think it definitely played a role for some people.

I think it played a role for the small-minded extremists on the left and the right.

But for the average everyday American, I don't - - I think we're over that time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: People who vote Republican, it seems to me their reaction is going to be, I'm not a racist.

So where is this coming from?

KEITH PAYNE: The point is not to call people racist.

The point is to understand that whatever beliefs both sides sincerely hold, we all approach any new argument or any new piece of evidence from the point of what I call the psychological bottom line, which is that we all believe that I'm a good, reasonable person and the groups I belong to are good, reasonable people too.

And I'm going to find some way to incorporate all this information, whether it takes mental gymnastics of this sort or that, in a way that adds up to preserve my belief that I'm a good person.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Approaching politics from that perspective leads Payne to think differently about how to discuss politics with friends and loved ones.

KEITH PAYNE: I'm not arguing that everybody has to set aside all their political differences.

These are important differences that are worth fighting for.

But if you're looking for a way to stay connected over the Thanksgiving dinner, what we need to do is ask questions about how the values and the emotions and the identities are working underneath.

So why do you believe that's important?

Why is that a value you care about?

Now you're talking to each other as people again.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why does all this matter?

KEITH PAYNE: Well, it matters because both sides are really fighting for what we believe the country to be and what we want it to be, because it's tearing us apart in so many ways.

And if there's one refrain that I hear again and again in talking to people, over and above, sort of, that I can't stand the other side, it's that I'm so exhausted by this, and I wish I could just have a normal Thanksgiving dinner with my family for once.

And so I think there is -- there's a lot of desire in the country to get past this.

We just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A Budweiser.

JASON HOWARD: Budweiser.

Would you like a glass?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, I would.

Thank you.

JASON HOWARD: We have all different walks of life coming here.

We just wanted to just have a community place where everybody could feel comfortable.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jason Howard is still trying to find a way to talk to friends with different political views.

JASON HOWARD: I have a diverse group of friends all across the spectrums.

We don't talk about it, you know?

It's kind of taboo.

It's almost like, I like this person too much to talk about politics.

And that's the state we're in.

And that's very sad.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But Jasmine Gailliard isn't sure she can keep speaking to the Trump supporters in her life.

JASMINE GAILLIARD: I think it says a lot about how OK with people are with blatant sexism and homophobia and racism.

And it's showing that there's a home.

There's a home for that in America.

And, frankly, it's, like, disgusting.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What is your thinking right now about people who voted for him?

JASMINE GAILLIARD: Personally, I'm detaching myself from his supporters.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does that mean cutting off friendships, relationships that you have had?

JASMINE GAILLIARD: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, in the wake of a bitterly fought presidential election, while some Americans try to set politics aside, others say political choices are fundamental to their definition of who can be a friend, very much a house divided as we head into the holiday season and beyond.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Chapel Hill and Raleigh, North Carolina.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Experiencing art is a highly subjective experience.

What draws one person to a given work may completely turn off someone else.

There's a new exhibit called Brains and Beauty: At the Intersection of Art and Neuroscience, and it explores just how our brains process these aesthetic experiences.

Stephanie Sy reports from Scottsdale, Arizona for our ongoing look at the intersection of health and arts, which is part of our Canvas coverage.

STEPHANIE SY: On a recent evening in Scottsdale, a neuroscientist and a museum educator led a tour of an art exhibit exploring the intersection of beauty and the brain.

Anjan Chatterjee, with the University of Pennsylvania, is a leader in the field of neuroaesthetics, which examines how the brain experiences and responds to beauty.

ANJAN CHATTERJEE, Director, Penn Center For Neuroaesthetics: Within the things our mind does, aesthetic experiences is one of the more important things.

We react to people based on how they look.

We react to our environment.

So, to me, this is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human and something deeply mysterious.

STEPHANIE SY: The exhibit is a visual exploration of the field of neuroaesthetics and asks some meta question: What is our brain doing when we look at art?

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: One of the things we're trying to do is to give people some tools with which to look at art that is informed by our research.

And so this is where this idea of the aesthetic triad comes.

STEPHANIE SY: The aesthetic triad, he says, is a system for engaging with an artwork.

LAURA HALES, Curator, Brains and Beauty: At the Intersection of Art and Neuroscience Sensory motor is the first, emotion valuation is the next, and knowledge meaning is the third.

Now, typically, when you have an aesthetic experience, you're activating all three at the same time.

I broke it up into those three categories and chose artwork that strongly -- I thought strongly represented something that I'm trying to show in one of those triads.

STEPHANIE SY: Laura Hales,who curated the exhibit at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art with Chatterjee, had always been curious about what draws people to certain pieces.

LAURA HALES: So I found out that, in neuroaesthetics, science is asking the same questions as we have been asking for a while in art education and art theory.

Science is finding hard data that support what art education has known for years.

STEPHANIE SY: The exhibit contains pieces that may be more objectively pleasing to the eye.

There are also paintings which might elicit a varied aesthetic experience depending on the audience.

Chris Rush's portrait shown here challenged conventional notions of beauty.

And then there are discordant objects in the show, which might cause one to question what the aesthetic is at all.

In this, the beauty, Hales says, lies in the idea behind the artwork.

LAURA HALES: I wanted to bring a piece in that, unless you know something about the context of this work, you're probably just going to be really confused, right?

STEPHANIE SY: Yes.

LAURA HALES: That you need to kind of know something about this to have an aesthetic experience.

So don't feel bad.

STEPHANIE SY: Arizona-based artist Monica Aissa Martinez's painting Thought Patterns might be more accessible to the average viewer.

It's a rendition of the brain and the artist hopes a visually appealing one.

MONICA AISSA MARTINEZ, Artist: The brain is actually my husband's brain, and it's him in profile.

When you see those bright metallic inks, that's going to give you some area of the - - where the default mode network sits.

It's kind of deep, deep in the front end of the center of your brain on the back end and the maybe some areas in here.

STEPHANIE SY: The default mode network is an area of the brain that shows increased activity when a person is resting or engaged in personal reflection.

It's a state Martinez was in herself at times during the creation of this piece.

MONICA AISSA MARTINEZ: So I just would like people to challenge their way of looking at the brain, experiencing it, understanding it, and then talking about it, communicating, sharing.

That's how we learn.

That's how we grow.

STEPHANIE SY: Beyond the art world, Anjan Chatterjee's work explores what's at stake when we think about beauty in society.

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: We can tell faces from houses, houses from cars.

We discriminate things pretty well.

Our ability to assign values and discriminate values is not as sharp.

And so what this means is that we find with some consistency that people will conflate aesthetic and moral values.

STEPHANIE SY: That's a problem.

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: It is a problem.

It is called the beauty is good stereotype.

And the social science evidence of this is quite clear.

People who are attractive get higher pay, they get higher more easily.

When they commit infractions, they're given less in the way of punishments.

STEPHANIE SY: He's hoping that exhibit visitors will come away with tools to engage with art and further use those tools to engage more deeply with the world.

You have an aesthetic experience.

It's not just about what you see.

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: Yes.

STEPHANIE SY: It is about meaning.

It is about, how does that person make you feel?

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: Yes.

STEPHANIE SY: It is deeper.

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: Yes.

STEPHANIE SY: Is that the goal?

ANJAN CHATTERJEE: That is the goal.

And getting back to art, we want -- we think this is a vehicle for self-discovery, so that it is not that you need to get the right answer.

What do you think, right?

And what is it telling you about yourself that you're having this reaction, right?

So, we think this also -- art then becomes a vehicle for people to query themselves.

STEPHANIE SY: Brains and Beauty runs through mid-January.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Stephanie Sy in Scottsdale, Arizona.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Remember, there is a lot more online, including a look at how the nationwide egg shortage is affecting Thanksgiving grocery prices.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you so much for joining us.