♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: karl rove is here. his new book is called "the triumph of william mckinley." 1896contents that the present race holds lessons for the 2016 elections.

rove has said that little separates ben carson, donald trump, marco rubio, ted cruz, and jeb bush. he writes the gop race is a most unprecedented in its closeness. he says nomination could still be up for grabs when the gop .onvention opens on july 18 karl: thanks for having me. charlie: do you really think this could go to the convention> karl: the rules have been changed. as a result we have 28 states that are going to vote between the very first and march 12. all but one will be proportional in nature. it's not until the ides of march that the rules allow states to be winner take all, and were grandfathered in. trump wins in at iowa, wins in new hampshire, i

had significantly. and he wins in south carolina. does that put him in a unstoppable position? karl: no. take a look at iowa, take the latest poll that we have in iowa and divide the delicate up. he has 9, cruz has 7, carson has , bush andave 4 fiorina and 2, and the rest of the cuts have to be -- of the delegates have to be apportioned out. unless you begin the process of consolidation. we started with 17, now we are down to 14. we've never had a field as big as this. the bigger the field, the bigger the field of trouble candidates that can last. -- probable candidates back in last. say willay may, i just . that.e: money drives

scott walker, bobby jindal, rick perry. what's interesting is walker declined in the polls. his money got spent. charlie: spent badly? karl: spent badly. we now have a sole funder, trump. we have two well-funded candidates with super pacs. three, bush, cruz, and rubio. then we have a candidate that is able to raise a lot of spare money, carson. and we have two candidates that seem to have sufficient resources to keep themselves alive through at least new hampshire and further on, and that is christie and kasich. one candidate that doesn't need much to get there is fiorina. we may have a couple of candidates at the bottom, rand paul, for example, who is running out of cash and airspace. we probably have 5-6 candidates

that can last until at least february 1 with iowa. maybe through mid-or late february depending on how well they do. we clearly have 4-5 that will be there through march. i'm watching and waiting. it's important that the republicans when. -- win. i didn't write the book for the 2016 election. alerted to better understand the 1896 election. charlie: it has important lessons and i know it's relevant. a lot of people believe in the end it will be marco rubio versus ted cruz. karl: could be. i do think trump is going to be a factor. i'm not sure he will go to the convention. he is an idiosyncratic guy.

first of all, he has a high floor and a lucy like. he has durable numbers in the low to mid 20's. -- and a low ceiling. he does things that are causing resistance to build things. you cannot belittle the rest of your competitors as idiots, mo rons, clowns and losers and expect them or their supporters to feel warm and fuzzy with you. you have to look at addition, not subtraction. charlie: in american politics you can say anything you want and not be held accountable. karl: there was that -- those that want trump are so angry in the country that they just want somebody who is strong and will pick up a break and throw it to a plate glass wall. charlie: who are his core

supporters? karl: ron brownstein had a good article on this. he runs twice as no among high school educated republican voters than college. he has basically a blue-collar working-class constituency. charlie: is it ideological in that it's strongly anti-immigrant? karl: the thing about trump, don't call him ideological. any republican who used the word only" "republican in name has lost the moral authority to use rhino. he is not a conservative. trump is a guy that still today says he thinks the single-payer health care system that they have in scotland is the way to go. this is a guy that gave money to 10 kennedy and hillary clinton

and harry reid. charlie: jeb bush have been making these arguments. karl: that is my point. when it comes to the people that support him, they could careless about that. he is a strong leader that says thing that they would like to have said in a way that sets the politically correct -- that upsets politically correct system. charlie: they like the fact that he has been successful. karl: yeah. in a general election, the things that he say what have animal -- an enormous impact on the election. the first debate when he asked about his bankruptcy, he said i took advantage of the laws. do you think the democrats would not have that shown in television ads interspersed with interviews with contractors and bondholders?

whoo, baby. [laughter] charlie: it keeps on giving, as you'd want to say. william mckinley. . -- here's a guy that wanted the republican party to expand. he wanted it to be a party that was reaching out, a party of the future. karl: because it was an act of political survival. 24 leading up to the gilded age look like today only worse. the two political parties right up against each other's. 5 presidential election in which nobody gets 50% of the vote. we have 2 elections in which we have somebody that wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. black and white republicans in the south, their right to vote is being wiped out.

one president wins both the electoral college and the popular vote, and his march in the popular vote is 7000. parties where it's divided government are 20 out of 24 years, divided government. they are at each other's throats in a way that make today look like cool by -- charlie: if al gore beat your guy-- karl: he won the popular vote because earlier that election night, the networks called the election by saying al gone won florida. if you divide america at that point in comparison to 1996, there is a significant improvement in the total number of votes cast. look at all those states to the west of that line, and the turnout is very rarely up from 1 896. jerry was our

california german. he was a political novice. -- our california chairman. he said they are saluted in california. people are walking out of our phone banks saying that it's over, and that bush lost, what do i do? i'm not sure if all things being equal, if networks have not prematurely called the election and interfered with the free exercise of appellate, bush would have lost the popular vote. -- with the free exercise of the ballot. we have endowed them with a false sense. we have to rely them to give us a general sense where things are going. how many people answer their telephone anymore? we gone through one big eruption in polling. polls were basically conducted door-to-door and they started out. it was always having someone work and people not answering their doors, so we went to the telephone. that lasted for 40 some odd

years. but now who answers their landline? i have one in austin, you know why? so that when people push the button at the gate, they have something answers. but i never use it. karl: we got out the republican base. the replicant party means that 44% of latinos. getting 13% of the african-american vote up from 6%. erasing the gender gap, that's just getting out the base results. charlie: if you raise the level of african-american and latino, even though the war was going on. and bush got 25% more votes than he got in 2000, 25% or people -- more people.

what we did is went after every persuadable swing voter we could get. listening to the election of 1896, listening to people who wanted to change american politics by making the republicans a majority party and all about. karl: which i did want to do. charlie: i know you did, and didn't. karl: war poisoned the well waters. but it was the right thing to do. charlie: what are your regrets about the war? karl: well, you can make lots of regrets. we have completely disbanded the iraqi military. knowing what we knew after 9/11 -- think about how the world would look today if we had saddam hussein in power in iraq, having found his nose at 14 yuan resolutions. -- 14 un resolutions. he clearly said to his

interrogators, in essence, i think i had a wmd. charlie: i thought i did? he said "i thought we had weapons of mass destruction?" not nuclear. karl: chemical and biological. he didn't have nuclear. stealing lots'm of money from the oil for food program to keep together the scientist,s engineers, and technicians typically reconstitute -- to quickly reconstitute." he was funding those people and were admitting he could. he thought the west was losing interest. you are getting into mckinley deep here. charlie: i am going back to that. my impression is that you, you, and a masking have said -- i'm asking have said that if

intelligence said there are no weapons of mass destruction, we have -- we should not have invaded iraq. was unanimity that the intelligence was correct. even ted kennedy says that he has wmds. we concluded that he had wmds. charlie: but the intelligence was flawed. if you thought he didn't, you were saying we would not have gone to war. karl: the president would not have advocated it. charlie: he would not have advocated invading iraq? karl: that is my sense. charlie: will you know. karl: that is my sense. charlie: but you said to me before, we would not have gone to war if we didn't know that there were weapons of mass deception. this is an interesting book and mckinley is an interesting guy.

it becoming a party that is appealing to the ascending majority, the changing demographics. karl: i would not say ascending. that gives a sense of dominance. growing diversity of the country in 1896, he was keenly aware of it. charlie: isn't that happening in 2016? karl: my point is not to compare the two. my point is that there are lessons to be derived. charlie: what are the lessons? karl: one is that you really do need to have -- mckinley won in part because he looked around and said, i can't win with the same people that voted for me before. i have to win new voters. deliberately went out to catholics. the republican party was the anglo saxon party. the first republican president of the country. back then it was the anglo-saxon

party of the north. he is the first republican candidate to receive the endorsement of a major figure in the catholic hierarchy, bishop of st. paul, minnesota. he does so by taking on the most violent anti-catholic group in the country, the apa. charlie: at that time, with the republican party the party of lincoln? karl: yes it was. mckinley was a devout supporter of black voting rights. he enters politics is a 23-year-old veteran -- 24 -year-old veteran to pass a constitutional commitment guaranteeing black voting rights. he's the first candidate of either party to openly appear before like audiences -- before black audiences. charlie: but it was the party of lincoln. is nominated in the south where the voters of the republican party are

substantially black. he has done so because he has been identified racial-- karl: that didn't change until 1930s. charlie: to roosevelt and followed by kennedy. karl: martin luther king's father voted for nixon. he openly supported dwight eisenhower in 1952. charlie: okay, but if you look at the debate within the cycle,ican party in this this lead up to the nomination, if you look at that, does it look like this is a party dedicated to reaching out to the diversity of constituents? karl: i think so. charlie: really? karl: there are exceptions. look at donald trump. charlie: you are worried about donald trump. you think he is eliminating your chance-- karl: no, i don't think he is eliminating. he is entering it. -- hindering it.

we have a new mindset in the republican party as a post 12. nothing like being kicked twice in the head by a neil. -- by a mule. 2012 caused a lot of people to say, we need to do better. we are doing great among whites. charlie: 50%. --58%. karl: but we got to do better, and can do better. we have a governor in texas that got 58% of the latino vote. now running for president. we have a governor in florida gets reelected by getting 2% of the african-american vote. -- 20% of the african-american vote. charlie: when you look at this election, what should the ticket be? karl: somebody from the midwest.

charlie: bush ought to be on the ticket? karl: yeah, exactly. florida, the democrats won by 7/10th of 1%. lose florida, then republicans have got a shot. they have to take virginia and ohio. but if we take florida, it keeps them from winning the white house automatically. we've got to win that one. if we lose it, we are dead, if we when it, we've got a shot. charlie: so you got a shot. so to win, you have to get to virginia. karl: virginia and ohio. virginia we lost over a point, and ohio which was lost over less than 3 points. charlie: virginia has a democratic governor. karl: yeah, but against a not very particularly strong candidate. the state is trending back the other way.

we have ohio, where we have a republican governor. charlie: very popular. karl: then we have colorado and nevada. color -- colorado has moved dramatically in the republican direction. charlie: the book is called "the triumph of william mckinley." karl: let's be clear, the book is not just about the election. for political junkies, it's got sex, backstabbing, twists and turns, and is also got cool nicknames. everybody had cool nicknames. it's the thing we have to bring back more than anything else. charlie: what happens to mckinley? karl: he's assassinated in 1901 by a terrorist. the anarchist movement, which attended to kill the czar of

russia, the prime minister of france, the president of france, of italy, even trying to make an attack on the pope and the people guards. they succeeded in a number of cases. he's killed by a terrorist who is grabbed by the police. he says, i was doing my duty. we forget how popular mckinley was. 500,000 people lined the railroad tracks between afloat, new york -- buffalo, new york, and washington dc. 300 decent -- 300,000 people show up in harrisburg. when the train begins to pull out of the harrisburg station, 30,000 people spontaneously break into singing "god bless america." when he's carried into the vault in canton, ohio, the schoolchildren from nashville, tennessee arranged items strewn on the ground into the cemetery.

people prayed in the cemetery. the entire cabinet-- charlie: you're going to bring tears to my eyes. karl: most of the cabinet openly weeping. theodore roosevelt openly come with emotion, he's ready to become unglued. he himself is dabbing his eyes. he is horrified by this death. mckinley is so popular that in order to calm the country, roosevelt promises that he would keep intact his cabinet and policies. there is a mausoleum in canton, ohio, and unbelievable benefits in which he is buried. -- unbelievable edifice in which she is buried. soldier can of america sent pennies, nickels, and don's. -- and dimes. thanks so much for having me. charlie: karl rove back with us in a moment.

♪

charlie: one of the most influential playwrights. nominated for 2 academy awards. his many plays include "stuff happens," "blue room," and "skylight." he has turned his writer's gaze to his own life. his new memoir called "the blue

touch paper." i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. how does a man decide to write a name or -- a memoir? >> i've written plays about all sorts of subjects that don't belong in the theater, like the chinese revolution, privatization of the railways, middle east politics. i've always tried to expand the subject matter. that is what i got most pleasure from doing. i also wrote a play about my education. asserted telling teenage actors what acting was like, they treated it like it was proust, like it was 200 years ago. i thought it was time someone wrote a memoir about the 1950's and 1960's. the curious thing is that i have the field to myself, considering i'm supposed to be part of a narcissistic generation.

charlie: the field to yourself because? david: the great literary memoirs of the past few years are all by people in their late 70's or 80's. very few people have written about with three memoirs. sports cars have. -- sports stars have. but very few literary memoirs about the 1950's and 1960's. i left a lot out, but i wanted everything in the book to be true. charlie: there are some things that you true that you left out for whatever reason other than a good read? david: the good read was very important.i wanted my story to

be like a novel . i grow up as a person and as a writer. that is why i stopped in 1979, because i finally write a good play in my private life collapses. also margaret thatcher is: -- is elected and changes. almost 3 things happen. because of that, that seemed to end the story. the people that pleased me most are those that, when they read "the blue touch paper" say is not like reading a memoir, it's like reading a novel. that is exactly what i wanted to do. charlie: the interesting thing too is that when you look at this, it also reflects the fact that the david hare i have known, looking at what you said about public events has opinions, has judgments, and desperately wants to share them. david: yeah, but i've always wanted to do that. charlie: that is the definition of a good writer. karl: no, i always assumed that i wrote out of anger.

i quote from abroad when he says the writer has been made angry in order to see. that is probably true, and i thought it was true of myself. world and i go, this is how it seems to me, and on mystified that others don't see it this way. the play is a proposition. usage of the audience -- you say to the audience, does anybody else recognize what i am talking about? when i write a successful play, i noticed that the eyes of the audience go yeah, this guy is expressing exactly what i feel. charlie: you will see it in their eyes because you are telling their story ever than they could. karldavid: yes, not just said bt expressed. i went, think of this i'm not mad. -- thank goodness i'm not mad.

when you write an unsuccessful play, you look at the audience and you konw you are not hitting a charlie: how did you do it -- and mark did you simply write as you have written everything else? david: no. i had never written about myself. it was a strange subject to me. i'd never been in therapy or anything like that. were kindblishers enough to give me a generalist friend who did 17 sessions with me in which i talked about my life. andok the transcript of it i wrote the book. not a word of it -- charlie: she simply had you tell me. david: if they can find a publisher to pay for their therapy it is therapeutic. i really feel that one of the

things i have done -- i have myself a lot happier for writing this book. past,e haunted by the troubled by the past. it becomes more real to you. the things you have not understood come to obsess you. one of the things is you have to sort the things out. youre talk to about friends, about how you seem to them at the time. f understood things about mysel through writing it. i'm delighted if the public reads the book. mental self-help has been done to me by writing it. charlie: i've seen you do a monologue. is this the monologue? david: i don't think so. it is much less of a public performance. this i hope is a piece of literature. charlie: literature. david: we in the performing arts

are not generally taken seriously as writers. there is a thought that in british knob colter at least the novel is the serious form and the people who work -- charlie: you are saying this is your novel. david: it is not fiction. it is completely true. charlie: help us walk through that. you get added so we understand that these are imagined characters, these are things that are made to get to the truth. this is not stuff made up. david: i have sculpted a story out of it and it is a mixture of an artistic story about how i became a playwright, a story about how my family life was so catastrophically affected, and how there was this change in

social history, the feeling of government was that they were contributing to the common good and that would be done through the public services, through the nhs, national health service, social security, public service. consensus ends premarket thatcher arrives. since then we have heading off in the opposite direction to this day. the life of someone in my age divides in the middle. there is a hinge where everything changes. charlie: to your chagrin. david: if you have love my life, and i described a repressed and unhappy childhood in a suburban town in the mid-century in england, i cannot see any social advances in terms of people's sexuality and the right to anything they wish as

but advances. advances in medicine, and cultural areas. everything has come around. immensely and recognizably better in people's lives during my lifetime. has things gotten politically better, i don't think so. i think it is retrograde. charlie: you were also frank about your affair. does everybody know? david: everyone who is involved has read the book. charlie: before hand? explain that to me. you felt the moral thing to do if someone is in it to let them know before the book was published. david: you have to do that. i would have thought that is basic. also because i was concerned that the book be true.

my sister said i don't know if it is true. it is the story i have told myself about those years but it is so long ago and our parents are dead, how will we know if this is true? charlie: talking about your father. david: and also my private life and how my first marriage ended the because i was having a relationship with someone else. charlie: there was no consideration of courtesy that i don't want to hurt this person mayn and telling my story lead to pain. that is courtesy not that checking. -- my i go out of my way publisher said to me this is the only the ethical memoir i've ever read that doesn't settle any scores. i don't want to write to settle scores. i'm not writing to set the record straight.

i don't want to hurt anybody in who was involved in my life. about is thatng it was tough for me to become a playwright, the controversies my plays caused, the fights that i had with critics, with the audience, sometimes with theaters was so punishing that they made me into quite a difficult person. you say i am hard on myself. seen to be to get my work at the level of accomplishment that i wanted to get to. a lot of people got hurt and that is what i write about. charlie: getting seen on stage. 1970's, people say is in a marvelous this young person is writing a play and they were encouraging things. in those days a wanted to kill us at birth. critics were trying to strangle us and throw us off the stage. these young men and women are

dragging politics in the theater and we don't want politics in the theater. they were vicious. we had to fight to become the writers we wanted to become. charlie: you and panter and others. david: yes. i started noticing how difficult they were. it could be a very rough evening. williamsg of tennessee would be an evening of remorse, shame, anger. that business of exposing yourself to 600 people and night is done at a certain expense. charlie: but that is your definition of what theater ought to be. david: to me it is no good if it is not in good faith. it is no good unless you are saying things that you believe and you want people to hear. the most exciting nights i've had have involved that.

charlie: does your theater have to have some commentary? it can be about relationships. it can be about relationships and the politics of the day. and how relationships are affected by politics. how politics are affected by relationships. david: a lot of the antagonism is the same as the antagonism you get as a novelist. people say of jonathan, he wants the novel to be this. jonathan friends at no point says he wants all novels to be like this. he says within the novel i would like it be possible to do this kind of book as well as others. i never said i wanted the whole theater to be like that. i just want my kind of theater to be allowed among others. hamilton.ou loved because? everybody does too but i'm interested in your take based on

this conversation. david: i am jealous. i am jealous of the americans for having a founding myth which regenerates itself. we have no such myth. winston churchill? how would we write something that was about how a country was founded, permanently inspiring myth which new generations and people from different backgrounds can come along and reanimate and that myth will be powerful. charlie: because the people who created the founding fathers were flawed or it is a myth because they were not what they said they were? because they were complicated and came from all kinds of backgrounds and yet somehow created an idealism in society that is still running. charlie: is hamilton at that idea? david: absolutely. the highest compliment i can play hamilton is that it is as

good as a playing. -- a play. wantually would say if you an advertising slogan, here is one from me they can use. a musical for people who loathe musicals. [laughter] charlie: i will tell them. the blue touch paper memoir by david hare. great to see you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

an american in paris opened in 1931. it 16 oscars including best picture. it left big dancing shoes to fill. those shoes is robert fairchild and leanne coke. an american in paris is an old fashioned spare no expense broadway romance. here is a look at the most awarded new musical of 2015. ♪

♪ charlie: let's go tonight. [applause] [laughter] i am pleased to have them at the table for the first time. this is a musical. ballet? asical, a hybrid. >> yeah. jazz >> jazz, ballet.

>> it follows the formula of a traditional musical but it has three ballets throughout. they were used decades ago but never has there been an opening huge --n aids in this and culminates into this. it has tremendous dancing. charlie: whose idea was it to bring it to broadway? >> a combination. it was an iconic film. es.re was nervous you gave us great starting place i think. we actually went to paris for two months last year. we were doing our out-of-town tryouts. it was great research.

charlie: you didn't see the film. >> i have not. still haven't. >> i have. fell in love with it. it was everything i wanted in a musical. great songs, great story, great characters and a ballet. it was everything i wanted to see. charlie: is it a challenge to make sure you are not mimicking anything you have seen? >> there is no harm in borrowing. everyone has studied the old films. i think each of us have drawn from different if not from the films but maybe things that are from the same time. >> if it is an existing piece like this i like to watch it after i have done it. it is interesting to see if there are similarities. i love to steal things as well.

if something is working you can borrow it. why wouldn't you? i do both. charlie: what was the biggest challenge? >> you had people from the ballet world opening their mouths for the first time on stage. singing and speaking. charlie: and people from the singing world dancing. >> everybody had to learn something. >> we were each pushed out of our conference own which helped us rely on each other. >> everyone was scared and that makes it easier. i had to step in to tap shoes. who was there -- it was his first time directing. everyone in the room -- it takes some pressure off. we were scared together. charlie: there is a kind of

chemistry between you and leeann . >> i think. [laughter] we ran a lucky situation that we came from similar backgrounds and we were thrown into this situation together. time from the ballet world, i always felt more comfort knowing that we were in the same situation. but i think there is a lot of chemistry in the whole cast. everyone gets on well on and off the stage. that is what makes our show special. we do really like each other. charlie: this is the american in paris ballet from the film made in 1951. ucky, we stoode very close to that fountain they were dancing in. charlie: take a look. ♪

charlie: what, what? >> i am amazed seeing them dance. shoes? step into the they have. they have made the roles their own. but my breath is taken away every time i see them dance on stage, in her her soul. it is incredible. charlie: where do those steps come from? >> christopher's brain. say you are doing gene kelly steps. it is actually no, we are doing

new choreography inspired by the film but there are moments where you get to do a little nod here and there. just to bring everybody who has seen the film those little moments to go wow. charlie: will this change are performing lives? a lifetimeone of opportunity? could you go on now and pick up more roles? >> i would love the opportunity. where i have been in my life, how is want to find opportunities that challenge me and pushed me. whether it is opening my mouth for the first time on stage or what. i love the forward motion, the progression. i love pushing myself. charlie: other than having speaking roles how does this compare with ballet? >> that are some things you cannot say. you cannot sing. it is just movement to

communicate words that you cannot express. and there is something so different when you are speaking the words on stage. it is so -- it has to come from an authentic place. i have loved what happens now in my dancing because of the dissecting of storytelling i have had to do through speaking. now when i move my body i feel like i am speaking more clearly. if that makes any sense. charlie: sure it does. is it easier when you think someone who sings to learn to dance or someone who dances to learn to sing? >> that is tough. i consider myself a singer who moves ok. [laughter] >> i think she is more than ok. is a newet that he

york city ballet dancer. be dancingd love to with him and i adored him through this. i forget that you are not from this world. you are an alien. sometimes ballet dancers feel like aliens. the ballet world is very insular . you go to work at 10:30 in the morning. you don't finish before 10:30 at night. balletfeel insular and is at times not relatable because it is so closed off. it is a great opportunity for the world of ballet to be exposed to broadway which is so much more mainstream than anything i have been a part of. charlie: more mainstream. what about you? >> in regards to -- well, i do think it helps.

some people are born with a voice. he was born with a voice. it has gotten very strong. [laughter] some people no matter what, you cannot teach them musicality or rhythm. i think i have that. i was able to pick up some of the dance steps. there is no way i will ever do what they do. there is no way that they will do what people at the opera istan all-pr doing. but there is enough for musical theater on broadway. you hope people are going to sing well and dance well but they are beyond what you expect. charlie: we talk about christopher wheeldon a lot. here is him backstage with the cast. ♪

>> be brave. step outside of your comfort zone. this experience has taught me that. >> i cannot stand christopher wilden. [laughter] young,o talented and so he just wants to try it like this, he jumps out of his chair and does the move and kicks his leg, and does it in a wave with this incredible technique and musicality. how dare you.

yellingt some old guy the dance moves. he can still do it. it is wild to see that. most directors cannot do that. [laughter] charlie: what does that mean? >> he will show you a little leg. a little oh darling. everything hends is doing. he has the youth and strength and agility to do what we are doing. charlie: congratulations. >> thank you. charlie: for the awards you have one, for the attention you are getting and the pleasure of being there. an american in paris is at the palace. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

emily: he is the owner of the world's very first model s, and an early backer of elon musk's tesla and spacex. a fast talker with an unconventional investing philosophy who once shadowed steve jobs. he has amassed one of the biggest private space collections in the world, and has spent his days pondering the future of artificial intelligence, genomics, and self-driving cars. joining me today on "studio 1.0," steve jurvetson. steve, thank you for being here. it is great to have you. steve: thank you.