>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the political news of the defeat of eric cantor in the republican primary in virginia. he lost to a tea party rival and we talk about it with mark halperin and john heilemann. >> i would say potentially their biggest problem long term is to be a party of middle class opportunity. ironically eric cantor was actually working on that and had done some things to try to reshape the image of the party. i don't think he was an ideal messenger for it. this guy who beat them, this professor brad, amongst the things he seems to speak well about is economic populism. the party is too corporate. too into big business. he's doing the party a favor by showing that's a winning message. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a conversation with tom friedman, the "new york

times" columnist. >> if we don't have more clean air clean power and energy efficiency, we're going to burn up, choke up, heat up the planet faster than al gore predicts. the next global industry has to be clear air, clean water and global efficiency. do you want to leave that industry or not. >>m]and tom friedman when we continue. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. t>> while i will not be on the ballot in november i will be a champion for conservatives across the nation who is dedicated to preserving liberty and providing opportunity. truly what defines republicans pales in comparison to what defines us as conservatives from the left and their democratic party. >> rose: we begin this evening with political news,

house majority leader eric cantor lost the republican primary elections in virginia 7th congressional district. it is considered one of the most surprising primary upsets in history. he was defeated by tea party candidate david brats an economics professor. cantor will resign from his position of majority leader at the end of next month. he had been view of potential successor of john boehner. looking at american politics, mark hall turn and john heilemann managers of bloomberg politics. pleased to have you as i always am. let me begin with you john, what happened to eric cantor. on the one hand he didn't pay attention to his district and didn't see this come, or is it some profound split within the republican party that we had hence of already at large. >> yes and yes. there are a lot of different factors here. this is not a case where it's one factor. there's no doubt that eric

cantor lost touch with his district and spent a lot of time traveling around the country, raising money for republicans, spending time in the hamptons, and playing the role there'spxño doubt about that. he also got attacked on populist grounds by his challenger as being a corporatist. he also got attack as a represent oif of corporate republicanism, a big business and tool of congress. there was a populist element to that too. the tea party did not ply that big a role in this case. >> rose: they were not supportive of him in terms of financial backing. >> he spent hardly money they gave him $200,000.

though the tea party was not a big player, the establishment verses insurgencent populists split was very much on display in the kind of rhetoric that eric cantor's opponent and the winner of this race put out on jthe table to knock him off. >> rose: what does it say what might happen in the upcoming elections? >> well, it says in the short term, in the mississippi senate run off where cochran is an established incumbent. the tea party will be energized. i think for november it says very little because the nature of the midterm electorate is such that although democrats are kind of celebrating today because there's dissension, it shows the republicans are energized. the democrats have a chance to come back with a message and change the contours but this says the special case with eric cantor, democrats still have to find a way to change that. they will have a very bad

midterm. bloomberg polls and other polls show the numbers are down, obamacare is still not popular, the economy is still not chugging along fast enough, it's still shaping up to be a good republican year in the midterm. >> rose: the republicans have a real problem with immigration. >> they have a problem with immigration because until they find a way to convince hispanic americans and other new non-white americans that they're an inclusive party they're not marching toward minority status but extinction. eric cantor is not a moderate. on immigration he's not a moderate. he's one of the most conservative members of congress and the fact that he lost to a guy who outflanked him on the right shows the party has a problem. this is an opportunity for people like john boehner, jeb bush and maybe even rand paul to say we need to draw lines in the sand now and we need to take the party back towards the never not

just on immigration but on a range of issues related to the public image on the party. >> rose: what do you think john boehner will do. >> there will be leadership elections probably this month and i think boehner needs to figure out how he can make this come out where things worked more in a more choice. politics is great and fun. does this mean there's less likely any governance of any significance during the obama term. yes. the question is, is that nine with john boehner. between now and the mid terms i don't think he wants any deals because that's not -- >> rose: they wanb >> they want to run on healthcare and not give the president's any victory's and show's the president's incompetence. what does john boehner want to do in 2015 before the presidential kicks in, are nothing. i think he wants to get some things done but he must play a bigger role now to try to bring the image of the party back toward the center. >> rose: what do we know about the candidate in this run. >> we've seen is remarkable. this is one that's a surprising

outcome not just in the primary election but any election any of us has ever seen. it's on no one's radar. the polling showed cantor with a wide lead. no one was paying attention. >> rose: cantor was ill served by his staff and advisors. >> and himself. >> true he was in washington d.c. on election day at a fund raiser not back in his district on election day which tells you out of touch he was with the jeopardy of faith. i think there's a, i lost your original question. >> rose: my question was cantor. >> what do we know about --otlie new republican nominee is that he is a plain spoken, he's a college professor. he's not an overly academic hoity, he's not super polished

doesn't look like washington d.c. but is not a bad kind of man of the people kind of candidate. from the little bit most of us have seen of him which honestly no one again for people who has been studying tapes of him all day long have been cramming to figure out who this person is. very few political reporters i know could have picked him out of a line up before last night. >> as many problems as the republican party has right now including on immigration, i would say potentially their biggest problem long term is to be a party of middle class opportunity. ironically eric cantor was actually working on that and had done some things to try to reshape the image of the pier. i don't think he's an ideal messenger for it. this guy who beat him, this professor brat, amongst the things he seems to speak well about is economic populism. the party is too corpus, too into big business. he's doing the party a favor. >> rose: if you're a leaving breathing politician in 2014, wouldn't you make the keystone of your campaign opportunity to be part of the middle class?

>> you would. but the republican party has had trouble since george bush left the stage having leaders who enunciate that effectively. stylistically, and programmatically. besides cutting taxes, the republican party has come forward with very few things. there are some recent efforts by intellectuals but eric contore, john boehner and mitch mcconnell they have not broken through making people feel like they're fighting for the middle class. >> if you think of one of the fundamental problems of the american economists, taking income equity off the table. talking about the stagnant wages over the course of the last 30 years of american society, what is the republican idea to fix that problem. >> rose: i don't know but obama's numbers are at 40%. he's very much in favor of doing things for theg(3 middle class. >> we have a complicated electorate. obama's numbers rarely have been above 45 but they really drop

below 40. we have a very polarized electorate but he still has the support come rain or come shine of 40% of americans which is better than the republican congressional party has. the republican congressional party is not at 40 in the country right now. >> rose: does any particular picking up on the question who might benefit with rand paul, if there is something here beyond a one election and one congressional district, does any republican presidential take more from this gain. >> in the short term, the talkers on talk radio and the tea party most closely, people in congress most closely identify with the tea party, they have a moment here to say we're back to being. i think long term somebody figures out how to speak to the aspirations of the people in the tea party but prove they govern. if they want to get elected, have the ability to get the donor)÷lpñ class to bet on them.

>> who is most likely to do that. >> the republican party doesn't have anybody right now. even jeb bush who has been seen as by me and others as the strongest. they don't have anybody right now because it's hard to take on talk radio and fox news and the wild fire that burned in virginia last month. >> really quickly. here's a conundrum. business go around the terms civil war all the time and they don't really mean it. the republican party is actually having a civil war right now. that is what is going on here. if you look beyond mark i think he's right republicans are still likely to have a strong 2014. but for 2015 and 2016 that civil war is central to whether republicans can possibly win. and jeb bush is a veryfr÷exampl. the establishment candidate right now is jeb bush and yet his poll numbers are terrible in the republican party. he's not a terribly popular figure in his party.

and there's obvious there isn't as great a gap where the establishment thinks is mow electable and who we might agree is electable and might make a good president but the republican electorate right now not rallying around jeb bush at all. >> rose: because. >> i think part of it goes to some of this. >> well i think for most they don't know who he is and they just know his name is bush. >> rose: y identify him that way. >> and that says among other things establishment which is not where a big part of the republican party reflected in this race is not loving the establishment of the republican party. >> rose: mitch mcconnell won his primary and lindsay graham won his primary. >> lindsay graham did a lot of work to try to deestablishment defy himself and make him something. he was the opposite of eric cantor. he saw the problem coming and he worked like health for two years to make sure that he could survive that primary challenge. >> rose: when you look at the

republican party today, beyond the two as i said and what they're going through right now, is it like bill clinton in 92 and he was able to -- >> that's, you know you think about bill clinton in 90 and 91, right. he was for the death penalty, right to work, free trade, talked about restrictions on abortion head of the dlc. he had issue positions that were so much more out of step with the democratic party that no one could imagine that he could be nominated. >> rose: what did he do that might be instructive for the republicans -- >> he found a way to convince most of the people in the base of his party that he was one of them and he cared about their values but that winning elections mattered and he had! o find a way to speak to a wider electorate and the courage to take people on. the problem with the party today and the congressional and the republican party would be presidential candidates is they are afraid to take the party on. and bill clinton did it.

you know, it's always looking at bill clinton because he knows the way to win. the problem is you have to have something like his skills. >> because it's a high wire act to take on your c party but thefiercity and thes you have to take risks. when chris christie wants to do it, they not afraid. >> rose: they want to do it. they don't disqualify you from being president -- >> within hillary clinton or whatever will win by acclimation. >> rose: i'm surprised when you say they don't want to do. >>just to go back to bill clint. the way bill clinton took on the institutional african american establishment class. >> rose: one night. >> he took on a series of the institutional parts of the democratic base and in various ways even when there was only one night, they had big huge

resonance and the media elevated them and he was able to kind of distance themselves. who among republicans in the last eight years, six years excuse me has done that. and what appetite. i believe what mark says is right. i think jeb bush in his heart may want to do that. and as chris christie has the ability to do that but they haven't shown much appetite for doing that. not in any time recent here that i can recall. >> rose: i suggest you don't have the appetite you will not be president. >> i agree. the other thing was reform, the orthodox of the party. you think about a republican taking on five or six of those big things. there's just nobody like him. >> rose: lost in prison. >> but he won and he built a pretty good coalition as a candidate and as a president. >> rose: also the week has spent much attention on hillary clinton and her book and very good interview by diane sawyer on abc. where is she and what does this book do if anything other than

make a lot of money. >> to me it has been amazing. i don't think she's handled things well at all this week. >> rose: is she a rusty politician. >> she's very very rusty. mark used a praise earlier this week he thought the book was tone deaf. >> the book was mush and the interview was tone deaf and i think pretty true. i'm not through the whole book yet but i think those are both accurate. and frankly they did a very nice job you could imagine asking me some very very tough follow up questions. i don't know what hillary clinton would have said if she was asked detailed questions about how many houses do you have, did you have and if you were so broke why exactly did you buy a house just across the street from the british embassy and one in westchester county. you could have imagined a series of again not being critical of diane, but giving away hillary clinton handled the -- >> rose: opened for other questions. >> my god and in that moment hit with the hardest questions you

can imagine with bulldog set of questions i don't know what she would have done. >> rose: was the hardest questions how many houses does she own. >> there was a series of follow ups you could imagine given she set herself up that day she opened the door to it. >> rose: let me ask you this. based on what happened this week, does it make you suggest to you she's going to have a harder road to the presidency if she chooses to run. >> there's two things happens that makes me think she'll have a harder road although again she's formidable and there's no one close being likely to be the next president she is. one is she was rusty. to handle the wealth question the way she did i thought did not show a lot of depthness or finesse. i don't understand writing a book of that length without a message. if she wants to win and govern, it seemed to me that was one of the biggest opportunities she will have between now and facing the voters to say here's what america's about right now and

here's what i think and here's what i fight for. >> rose: why do you think -- >> and to go to the narrative question, she, you know, people have been saying for several months have been saying what's hillary clinton's message. every time i answer she's not a candidate for anything yet. she doesn't need to have a message and she fought for things over her year and she needs a message. here's a book hundreds of pages long. there was an opportunity for heç to say here's what my life in public service adds up to and here's how that history leads to make me the right woman to lead america at this moment, its challenges what i've learned, how my governing philosophy applies to this moment in american history it does none of those things and that's the story you need to tell. >> you remember back in the spring of 2008 when she became a really good candidate. when race -- in 2008 when the race was effectively lost. i remember harold dicky said it

reminded him of ted kennedy in 1980 that ted kennedy was a terrible candidate until the race was over and when he knew carter was going to win kennedy was unshackled and he became the kennedy became the person people wanted him to be. once the door was closed and math was such she could not win she suddenly became free and became a good candidate when the race was mathematically over. and somehow that's, but somehow that's been at least at this moment looking at it, that unshackledness is not in this book and presentation. we see the excessive caution, the calculation the kind of timidity, the walking on egg shells. for her to win,ly cannot forget the lessons of the spring of 2008. >> i'll say another thing i don't think was in evidence this week which is we all know

because we've had the privilege of getting to spend some time with her over the years she is very likeable. she's in private like mitt romney and al gore had a problem with public persona. i don't think she was unlikeable this week but i feel a lot of moments that would lead people to thinkh is a person i want in my living room clearly i want her back because she's great. i think again she's rusty but it's somewhat a product of cautious. she doesn't want to make mistakes. she doesn't want to send thingse doesn't let all things hang out. >> fully trusts her political instincts. >> rose: the interesting thing about politics is first of all people want straight shoot, they want condor they want a strong sense you know who you are and when you get there what you do.

>> calculating and cautious. >> hold are her finger to the wind. >> the clintons had both images and she's never going to be as skilled as her husband like the republicans. they're all human species. she's going to have to run as herself but she's not right now all that practiced. she is talking about doing a fair amount of campaigning in the mid terms and i think we'll see more there about a speech and talking about her vision of the country and that's not so far away. we'll see it in a couple months we'll see her out doing that. >> rose: the country, they're waiting for somebody to tie it altogether, an explanation of where we are. somebody looks at all these things and offers viewers a sense of this is what it's going to take in order to put this country together and maximize its potential. >> again you know i go back to that spring of 2008 period -- said what we discovered about her and the fact she could be a

great candidate when she was freed was that she was not quite her husband, she was left of her husband on economics and she was right of her husband on foreign policy. that's not a bad, a place to be if she can get the candidate skills where she wants them to be. to be a little to the right where bill clinton was on foreign policy and more progressive and to the left where he was on economics is not a bad place to be in 2016 in america. that's a pretty electable place. you can imagine how that comes together but it's going to take some work. >> rose: one last quick question. mitt romney. is there a 5% chance he might look at the field and say mitt romney once again. >> there has to be an establishment candidate. if there's no jeb bush or chris christie or paul ryan and no other governor or former governor, i think not only should he look at it from the party's point of view but i think he will because on paper he's very strong. he would be an open seat and i just get the sense he does all

these public interviews he's very concerned about the future of the party and just i think if hillary clinton doesn't run al gore or john kerry will run i think mitt romney will run if there's no other substantive candidate. >> rose: if hillary clinton clinton doesn't run -- >> i think kerry or gore will run. people will say they had chance they're done. the thing about mitt romney in double down he didn't really want to run. the main thing that drove him to the race besides his wife urging him to do it he said i looked at the field and i didn't say anybody else who could win. if there's no chris christie or jeb bush nobody has as good a chance to win this for my party. >> i'll tell you a little secret that people don't know. i think that we didn't really know for a long time for a long time the presumption has been that one of the reasons he would not consider running was that ann was four square against it she wouldn't let him run.

i think she's kind of in favor of him doing it. >> rose: this is reason to go back and double down again. >> you can never find too many reasons for that charlie. >> rose: thank you. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: tom friedman is here he's a columnist for the "new york times" you knew that. he's also a correspondent on a new show time project it is called years of living dangerously. it is a documentary series about the human impact of climate change. the guardian calls it quote perhaps the most important climate change multimedia communication endeavor in history. here's a look. >> ice melt, rising sea left. >> all year round. >> what do you think republicans have gotten in distrusting the scientists coming out all over the country. that's a big deal. >> when does this become the priority.

>> i think it's a big mistake. >> this is 100% mistake. >> i teamed up with the legendary -- >> ice is melting. >> this is a lake. >> yes. the world is changing and it's all because of global warming i think. >> jerry and i are putting together the ultimate task. you see these stars like you've never seen them before. they're going to be the correspondence. the people are affected by this. >> these are the stories of people whose lives have been transformed by climate change. >> we used to have [indiscernible] >> did you ever run out of water?

>> it's not a political issue it's a moral issue. >> it doesn't matter, it's happening. >> this is the biggest story of our time and this is the time to tell it. >> nothing could have prepared us for this. >> rose: i'm pleased to have pulitzer prize winning journalist and author tom friedman back at this table. welcome. >> good to be here charlie. >> rose: tell me what this is. it has a lot of production values and people and you. >> there are many hollywood stars people like harrison forward, matt dayman, arnold schwarznegger and lesley stahl and chris haze. put it altogether and tell the whole climate change story from the ground up through the voices and eyes of real people around the world.

the project is a brain child of two ex cbs david gelbar and joel balk. they left their jobs and went out and raised the money to make it happen. i can tell you charlie it's been one of the saddest thing i've been involved with. it's just been fantastic journalism and the "new york times" has really allowed me to partner with them so i write columns with it. >> rose: yes it so exciting for you. >> for me, i did the middle east side of the story. i did climate impacts, environmental stresses in the middle east. >> rose: relationship between drought and arab spring. >> exactly. and what was so much fun for me is i spent roughly two months on and off in the middle east talking only to arab environmentalists. that's a community i had not been exposed to before. by the way, amazing dynamic and totally committed group of people, completely off the radar screen. and when i -ágot done with this,you talk tn

places like egypt. i'm sure you even heard this charlie. we've tried everything. we tried socialism, communism, liberalism, you know, islamism, we tried everything and nothing work. one thing i started saying i said there's one ism you haven't tried and that's environmentalism. there's no shiite here or sunni. unless they bring environmental thinking starting with the commons that unites them there's really no where for them. >> rose: tell me about the drought in syria. >> we went to northern syria to a province which is ground zero in many ways for is what was a four year drought the worst drought experienced in modern history as a state. and it basically sent about a million syrians, farmers and herders off the land into the

cities. and the government did nothing for them. this was from 2006 to 2010. so right leading up to the war or the revolution. it did not cause the revolution but it was one of the stresses that when the revolution came as one of the people we interviewed said with the first call of revolution these farmers and herders said we are joining this thing. so what the drought did was turn some really conservative people farmers and herders. not your natural revolutionary types into vicious opponents of the regime. >> rose: here's a conversation with a farm are. take a look at this. >> when they write the history of this revolution, how important will the drought be?

>> rose: some say this was the most am -- am burb i segmet of the entire series. >> it was fascinating and exciting and shout out to the whole production team that made it happen getting the right fixer and great person to guide us. and to the brave syrians who agreed to sit down and talk to

us. the islamic sort of al-qaeda version, they were right down the road. and the guys came to us as soon as they were wrapping up and saying their story might be a good time to get back. >> rose: know what is going on. >> yes. and so it was very exciting. >> rose: in column you wrote that a researcher for showed time discovered there was a wiki leaks. >> it's quite interesting charlie. i forgot which year it was 2008 it was, the u.s. embassy saw all this coming and they saul all thissal something came out in the wiki leaks. they were talking to syrian officials basically saying if we don't get more aid to these farmers this place is going to blow. and they reported this. they were on the case to their credit. i think it was someone else. they saw it coming, they could feel it, they were talking to syrian officials and it did blow. >> rose: a point with respect

to particular storms. everybody's looking first thing you see one of these massive storms having an impact or drought or fires or whatever, you'll always say just because of climate change and global warming. experts are quick to point out we can't say there's any one particular instance that is responsible as a consequence. what we can tell you what the overall impact is. explain that. >> basically climate has always been changing. climate is on its own. it's going through a warming period. what people don't under is that does not mean that we can't add to the changing patterns, that we can't be forcing it or as one of the people we interviewed said that we aren't loading the dice for certain outcomes. when you do more and more carbon and you do put a tighter blanket around the warming trends what you basically do is make the hot hotter, make the wet wetter and

make the most disruptive storms worse. that's what climate scientists believe and that's what they tell us. any particular storm you can't say. but we do know that the warmer waters to pick up more energy going north. not a lot of hurricanes hit delaware and the jersey shore, you know. >> rose: when it and ... >> and the point is the thing about climate change is you'll only know for sure when it's way too late. >> rose: let's a great line in your piece where the guy says we're the last generation. >> we're the first generation to truly feel the effects of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. that's the governor of washington state. >> rose: that's a powerful statement. >> my approach to it all charlie i'm not a climate scientist so i just go with what the experts tell me. but the argument i tried to make from the very beginning, and it gets to the epa rules that the

president just announced, on power plants is that let's think about what's happening in the world. we think climate change is happening over here. the world's getting hot, hotter. some people believe it some don't. you don't believe it that's between you and your beach house. this is what you better believe because this is a math problem. the world is getting flatter and more and more people see how we live and as payer how we live. drive american homes driving american size cars and eating american size big macs. all over the world, brazil, china and india and just more people. there's two billion more people between now and 2020. what happens when flat metal that. when more and more people join middle class. >> rose: between 2020 and 2050. >> 2050. when you get more people and more in the middle class living like us there's one thing for sure if we don't have more clean

air and energy efficiency we're going to burn up choke up heat up the planet faster than al gore predicts. what does that tell you that the next great global industry has to be clean air clean water clean power and energy efficiency. now the only question we have in america do you want to leave that industry or not. that's going to be the next great global industry if it isn't we're a bad biological experiment. >> rose: with all its problems is china prepared to lead that. >> they would like to but we have such an edge in technology charlie. that's why what the president did here last week with these new epathink may turn out to bee most significant act of his presidency. >> rose: what were those rules. >> basically on the existing power plants requiring really significant reductions in emissions, all right, over the coming years. what that's going to do. you can do it any way you want.

you can become more energy efficient. you can use renewable power. you can do carbon sequestration. what it basically said is invent away. it basically said you now have a huge incentive to invent away on efficiency, clean power, renewable energy, nuclear, whatever you want. i think what it's going to do is stimulate a huge amount of innovation with companies also moving rapidly down the cost curve because they're going to have a big market for this. then our companies are going to be in a position to take these technologies around the world. i think it's huge. >> rose: here's an interview you did with the president. i'll come back to the president and more. here it is. >> june 26 the speech on climate

you concluded by saying our children's children will look us in the eye and say did we did all we could and i want to say yes we did. how are you doing with your girls. >> every day i think about what i'm leaving behind for them. the truth is we're not yet doing all that we need to do. now the good news is that america actually has made significant process over the last five years. the price of wind power and solar power drop significantly. the rules we put forward in terms of fuel efficiency on cars are going to take huge amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as well as saving american taxpayers about $1.3 trillion what otherwise they would spend on gas. >> rose: so there's the president. everybody talks about a carbon tax. what do you say. >> the president also basically says the easiest way to do this would be to put a price on carbon, a tax. there are a lot of ways to get it. and i certainly would favor that. i would favor a one penny a ton

carbon tax. if we did just that, the signal to all of the industry, a lot of the executives who times come around -- >> rose: a ton. >> a ton of carbon emissions. some of these executives around the table all of them the next morning will get on the phone and say all right this is coming. get me an energy efficiency person and they would do so much more than actually would be required. and just because the signal is there. and so i think anything we do to stimulate innovation around this, what's going to happen charlie in the short run there will be a price rise in your bill. but it's going to drive efficiency so much i believe which is the history of this is that the unit cost of your electricity will go up but your bill will go down because you are so much more efficient. >> rose: we talk board of director this you and me for a long time. we watched silicon valley early on trying to say this is coming,

we'll try to create a company that will speak to it. it seems that it still needs some spark. what is that? what is the straw that break the camel's back in a positive way. >> i actually think it's what the president just did because first of all the timing. this is coming at a moment when clean energy is getting really efficient and cost effective. basically to have the energy efficient home. apple announced this week they're going to be doing the same thing. when you get industry doing in this on their own for their own profit reason you get this government standard which isu= going to get utilities to buy these things. these things are going to meet right at the same time. i think it's enormously important. and i've always believed charlie change america change the world. i never believe in any of these global climate conferences. i've been to one actually. what i believe in is america. when we change the world

changes. a lot of people hiding like china right now. why should we do it, you're not doing it. you don't want to do it, no problem. i'm going to eat your lunch in the clean power industry. take your time. that's my message to china. take your time. because i'm going to eat your lunch on cars, home heating, energy efficiency. >> rose: all right. let me turn to the president who you spoke to in this interview. he went to west point to make a speech about his foreign policy. what was your assessment of that because your newspaper's editorial had some problems with it. >> i saw more of it than my newspaper. as a general rule, i didn't have to cover speeches. i mean i tend to speaking personally, i like to watch what people do, not what they say. in fairness. and what my -- >> rose: i think when people craft a speech and they signal that it's an important speech,

you and me may not differ because -- when man craft a speech when you listen to the words and especially this president they mean something. his struggle to define and somebody once said i don't know what i think until i see what i write. that writing was a process. >> i have more sympathy with the president on this for a very simple reason and i've been saying this since before he was president. i think this is a terrible time to be doing foreign policy. why? because for so many years our t1ñ-djut) policy was about meet. in this case another super power called soviet union. so much of foreign policy today charlie is about dealing with other people's weakness. that is just much harder. and dealing in the middle east not just with weakness but collapsing states. where the only solution is nation building in communities and states where the building

blocks of democracy just aren't there. so to me there's something inherently unsatisfying about this moment. you can't succeed without rebuilding these societies. and it's such huge project and it's come after we tried and largely failed in two of them. and so i think there's a lot of -- >> rose: iraq -- >> iraq and afghanistan. there's a lot of people throwing spit balls at the president on this out of just a discomfort with the challenge because it's not very satisfying. i would like to do big things in the world. >> rose: you basically say it's hard to be an integrator when everything around is disintegrating. do you accept the argument the signals that he is weak and from putin to the middle east, either want to take advantage of it or are worried by it. >> yes.

>> rose: he had to go reassure the middle east. >> who said we're weak in the middle east? the saudis said we're weak. we've upset the saudis. they want us to go bomb iran for them. i don't really want to bomb iran for them. i would like to see if i can negotiate them into a appropriate and i think what the president did was get a lot of leverage in terms of sanctions on iran and he's gotten them to the table. it's not as satisfying as bombing run until after the morning after the bombing run you missed the target and then everyone starts to wonder why did wepeople had such short mem. he took it down. people said you don't have to havecslook what's happening to a today. >> rose: they have boots on the ground in iraq. they'd boots on the ground in afghanistan. >> and by the way which are the two air you been -- arab sprins

doing the best. the two countries that had nothing to do with it basically in their current evolutionary form. so when people want it -- >> rose: in fact they have islamist democracy. >> they have a balance, surely. when people take ownership and they find what is the key to all of these arab springs, no victor no vanquish. a lot of trouble saying no, i'm going to have it all. islamists and islamists. they say let's share, you get a little i'll get a little. that's what's missing. look at egypt. first the islamists have it

all -- great. when people are determined to be pig headed like that, there's nothing we can do. it's very unsatisfying. >> rose: there's nothing we can do. >> we can, we can go sit on them for 30 years, you know. >> rose: are you saying we should retreat. in other words you're saying that we have to say look we try. if you're going to change, you have to change. >> i think it's obviously a balance it depends where because not every country is the same. did we really retreat in ukraine. yes we were not going to go to war for crimea. george w. bush wasn't going to go to war for georgia, the republic of georgia. what did obama do? he organized sanctions that the deputy prime minister of russia to tell the st. petersburg economic forum this is a problem. just because he woke up and said

i guess not. or i mean the fact that $60 billion left his country because of these sanctions for three months. by the way we're here in new york down in wall street. you can bet there are probably 12 guys down there with russian head funds. they're calling around now saying would you like to join this and not only is nobody returning their calls but most of the customers are saying now when can i redeem my fund, when can i get the hell out. i wanted my money back. you're going to see the impact of that not now, not tomorrow but next year. and that's why the world bank thinks they're going to go into recession. >> rose: it's interestx]n$ about syria. goldberg was talking to benjamin netanyahu saying that was a great[netanyahu whoreaction wasi arabia think this is the worst thing ever to happen because

they didn't bomb us. >> okay. we didn't bomb them. we just got most of his poison gas out making them a much less dangerous tyrant. he's doing bad stuff. i'm not against arming rebels if they are share values. there's not a military solution. sunni's are not going to defeat the shiites. >> rose: can you define what the president's foreign policy is? >> well. >> rose: there is a doctrine. >> he defines it as don't do stupid. >> rose: doing stupid things has gotten us into a lottrouble. >> and he spent a lot of time unraveling it. i don't think there is a particular obama doctrine. i think -- >> rose: it has certain

multilateralism too. >> right. he said our interests are directly threatand can respond . >> rose: i thought what was interesting about the speech is how he categorized what he thought the biggest threats were and especially terrorism. >> right. where i would be critical, where i think you can be critical is you know on places like iraq or afghanistan, it's arguable rather than saying i just want to get out and get out, that taking a more proactive you, saying maybe we can build something here. if we stayed just a little bit longer. i think there's an argument you could make had we stayed in iraq longer -- >> rose: that was his call. >> that was on his watch. but the iraqi parliament wouldn't go for it. it's complicated.

it's messy. this is a world where the president is at a disintegration not a recreation. and let's not forget. i mean we have huge problems at home. the american people, our military you know charlie because you reported this, they are tired. we've ground these guys to a nub. we have been at afghanistan for years. you just got to remember we don't know what we're doing half the time. now when you get the iowa national guard and you put them in -- the chances of them getting it right the first time are very low. and people just forget them. there's just this assumption that if we only went in and used force, everything else would flow. do people forget what happened. and we also forget that these people over there, they also have agency. why is ukraine in trouble, charlie? ukraine's in trouble because they're elite and lwindustrial y

for 20 years. >> rose: even the people who created the revolution. >> there's wholesale looting so please raise your hand if you want your fax dollars to go -- tax dollars to go for that bailout. i think people are well intentioned but this isn't the cold war. >> rose: quickly vietnam what did you learn there. >> it was interesting to go from kiev to hanoi going from a russian bear to a country with a chinese tiger. it's just like and the perils are fascinating. here we fought a war with these people now 40 years ago roughly. and 40 years later, our values are trying. there are extraordinary number of evaluate know means on facebook today. there's extraordinary number of their students studying america and applying to study america.

>> rose: americans are going there as tourists. >> they could not be happier. so there's a message in that bottle, you know what i mean. what do we do? we stomped in there, we made them allies with a country that occupied them for a thousand years called china, okay. because we didn't really understand the internal dynamics. a country they hate. where i went in vietnam, the first question was always what do you think of what china is doing to this and so it's like being in kurdistan. you see how hungry people are for our values and how hungry they are for america as a models much more than a military. >> rose: and the world really doesn't want us to leave. let me finally close with this because you've been talking about in your column to me. this idea of where your kid's going to get a job. a big question you have and a

paramount question for america today. >> i'm doing a conference on this next week june 12th in san francisco for the "new york times." i think when i go around the country, charlie when i go around the world if there's a single foreign policy question is how are kids going to get a job. >> rose: regardless of what country. >> truly regardless of what country. and what is striking, what's striking me is we are in the middle of a really big disruption here. i love to use the word and i love to talk to the uber drivers of the taxi service. i ask them do you like this uber thing. they love it. i drive on my own. when i don't want to drive on my own to my own clients i just go on-line. i make myself hot uber and i got their clientele and i go where i wanted. what is uber. it's on demand taxi service basically. it's on demand work. i was talking to sebastian

thurman. he's very smart about this and his argument is we're not just going to have on demand taxi's we're going to a world of on demand workers. i go for charlie rose i pay him a lot for that. in a world where there's on demand taxi and on demand labor you're going to need on demand education. you're going to need to be able to be constantly upgrading your skills all the time. from mckenzie has a way of talking about this. the notion how far a job i worked at the "new york times" for 33 years the chance of my girls working at the same organization for 33 years pretty much zero. you won't have a job. you'll be an income entrepreneur. you'll do a little of this, a little of that. that's really the direction things are going and the challenge is to get an education system that parallel that because the education system we have now is for the industrial age. you know. you go, you learn everything once and you're set for life.

well that's not possible anymore. you need to be constantly learning because jobs will be constantly changing. >> rose: thank you, pleasure to have you here. we talked about years of living dangerously. thank you for joining us. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> what if i told you that you could change your life in just 10 days? the 10-day detox is the fast track plan that will help you not only shed pounds, but put an end to chronic health problems. i want to teach you how to remove all that cleverly concocted junk that's sabotaging your metabolism and brain chemistry. i want to help you lose weight and i want to help you get healthy once and for all. just give me 10 days and your life will never be the same. [cheers and applause] >> dr. mark hyman is a family physician, best-selling author and internationally recognized leader in functional medicine. in this program, dr. hyman will show you how to use food as powerful medicine to reset your