>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with reid hoffman, a leading investor in the silicon valley and co-founder and chair of linkedin. >> most silicon valley companies are global in name and think of their customers and members as global in scope, and so the problem is they have to say, okay, how do we protect their interests the right way. they're not saying how do we protect i.s.i.s.'s interest. they're saying how do we protect your everyday citizen. >> rose: we continue with shonda rhimes, one of the most prolific television producers in hollywood. >> we're creating worlds. once i've established the world of "grey's anatomy," it's a living being for me, almost. i don't have to kill myself to figure it out because it exists. i know what's going to happen.

i could tell you what color shoes meredith needs to be wearing because is exist force me. >> rose: we conclude with peggy noonan, columnist for the "wall street journal" and her book is called "the time of our lives." >> the conservative way of looking at entitlement spending is we made a daily with the people. you keep your deals. they have a moral right to expect what they were told from those programs. another conservative thought on entitlement spending is american spending is out of control, our kids will carry the burden of our spending. it is uncompassionate to them to make them carry the load. all these things are going to have to be adjudicated in this election cycle and maybe also in the next election cycle. i'm not sure when it ends. >> rose: reid hoffman, shonda rhimes and peggy noonan, when we continue.

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: reid hoffman is here. he's one of silicon valley's most successful entrepreneurs. in 2002 he co-founded linkedin, the social networking site for career-minded professionals. today it operates the world's largest professional network on the internet with more than 400 million members. also a partner at greylock, backed some of the firm's most businessest hit in years, including facebook, instagram,

airbnb and more. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: great to have you here. how do you spend your day? >> it's varied. depends on the day. almost at the breakfast meeting with someone either external to linkedin or greylock because that's the slot that can do the most range. depending on the day it's either at greylock or linkedin. if it's greylock it's meeting with a bunch of entrepreneurs and linkedin it's meeting with product people. >> rose: to help you make lrvegd a better network? >> not only. we look at linkedin as a bunch of products -- as a good way to have seeking jobs, getting business news and intelligence. there is ways of essentially building a strong connectivity with your network, each a different product team and depending on how we evolve the products better for our members. >> rose: what do you think your core competence is?

>> being able to blend, thinking about human ecosystems with individual humans. it's psychology and sociology and economics and thinking about both the design of the system and for the individual member either as an inventer or investor. >> rose: i could also see you often at conferences which you attend. i assume for perhaps more networking than new information. >> not the new information that usually comes from the stage but frequently from the new information that comes from talking to people. >> rose: because you simply know most of the things that people talk about because you have been involved in and engaged by them and talking to people before everybody else knows about it. >> though one of the thing that's part of being in the network age is rigorously talking to people and asking questions about what they're seeing and learning because knowing what those signals are early is very helpful as an

investor and entrepreneur. so sometimes at those events you sit down one on one and say,, what's the thing you're worried about or piece of new technology you're seeing that might be really big you would be shy saying on the record in front of people. that could give you early signal to navigate better. >> rose: you're probably too young to think you've done the best thing you've come to do. >> i hope not. >> rose: do you think it will be an extension of what you do now? >> parts of it. the vision i have for linkedin is in the first inning in terms of the baseball metaphor. this is is a little bit of a mouthful but how do i improve the design of human ecosystems so we're better off as individuals and a society and i hope there is a lot more to go there. >> rose: when you look at what happen in paris, there is a lot of talk about how they're using

apps to encrypt. explain that to me. >> the challenge is, with encryption, it essentially protects kind of individuals or communication against outside prime. there is good and bad depending on how it's used. in good use, it's individual privacy, it's ability to encrypt financial communications and things. in bad use, it's used for violence and terrorism. the challenge is to say, well, we've got both a good and bad case and what do you do? and in particular, it gets more complicated. the reason why silicon valley technology companies very broadly come out strongly in favor of inscription is at a go, look, we're global and what tends to happen is how do you be right to your individual members and customers and, yes, there is

bad things that happen with terrorists and we need to figure out what that is but we shouldn't break everyone's inscription to solve that. we have other ways to solve that. that's the general silicon valley view. >> rose: what's the difference between what they want you to do and what you're doing? >> the challenge is most of the really interesting silicon valley companies are global in nature and they think of their customers and members as global in scope and, so, the problem is that they've got to say, okay, how do we protect their interests the right way is this they're not saying how do we protect, you know, i.s.i.s.'s interests. we're saying how do we protect your everyday citizen in any particular country, and that tends to lead you to the right way to do that is to do something globally. now, i have been thinking a little bit about this and i said, look, if the governments of the major world countries could get together and say here's what we're all doing collectively.

like we all agree on kind of a global treaty, then it's easier for the tech companies to do that because they're not playing one country against another or one set s citizenry against another and collective citizens could say this is what we want and don't want in inscription. >> rose: the citizens choose the level of inscription? >> yes. the issue is you might have one answer in the u.s., one in france, one in germany, one in australia, one in india, all these different kind of things, and say, you know, if there is a global standard in the major countries -- has to include china, russia -- that buy into this, then it's something that's easy to build into. >> rose: is it a rule of thumb for you that whatever companies can do to try to encrypt, there is always someone out there who can leap ahead of them and gain access? >> that's more or less true,

though you can make it so difficult that it takes a long time and is hideously expensive. always breakable but at what expense and time frame? >> rose: what's likely to happen because of paris? >> well, you know, maybe a utopia-dystopia. a utopia a collective agreement between various companies about what is the way we share our signal intelligence in order to prevent acts of terror and is some of the world coming together to stop basically evil violence against civilians, or, you know, kind of dystopia, where you essentially try to break -- well, the reason i'm pausing is there is so many things that could go wrong. for example, you say, well, we think inscription is bad everywhere. i would say that the key thing -- there is a lot of

different ways of getting signal intelligence for what may be going on in an act of terror. should you say -- should we generally have private communications between citizens, something we generally value in the west and they think is a right. >> rose: and that became more significant and was discussed much more after edward snowden? >> yes, exactly. so i think that's a good virtue. that being said, there are interesting startups, things like palenteer and other places that here's how to share signal intelligence between multiple of sources without massiv mass mass of society and how countries share signal intelligence and do so in a fashion that meets privacy norms but prevents

horrific -- >> rose: is silicon valley and the f.b.i. now at loggerheads over there? or is one giving up in order to recognize they're needing other interests. >> both silicon valley and f.b.i. want to secure rights of individual members and va global customer base. i think the only thing that brings them back collaboratively to the table is an agreement to say we will not have backdoor -- backdoor -- e.g., elicit spying. silicon valley is clearly an interesting place. we have a company called

unicorn, billion-dollar validations. >> rose: that have never gone public. >> and some that have. >> rose: call them unicorns? because they started thinking they're unique beasts. then i wrote this piece, when you have a herd of unicorns are they still unicorns because there is a whole group. the question is what's the secret of silicon valley? there is only 4 million people. how is it we create so many of these companies? and the usual answer you get is startups, right? so you get -- oh, we have entrepreneurial talents, immigration, tech companies and universities, throw them in a pot with venture capital, mix it up and here you go. startups are a necessary component but actually the visible secret very few people talk about in silicon valley is that there's a whole skill set and talent network for how do you hit global scale fast, how do you build up the organization. >> rose: a global scale. the global scale, is you know, facebook, linkedin,

et cetera. >> rose: that's a pretty high mark. >> yes, but more of the countries -- >> rose: have global markets not facebook or linkedin. >> yeah, but you get there faster and more aggressively. for example uber is not fundamentally a spread virally property but they said, look, this is really important globally and we master launching cities aggressively and fast and do it around the world. that kind of playbook is the kind silicon valley has learned. >> rose: scaling. scaling. and i terme coined a term for i. i was hesitant about the militaristic and nazi germany parallels but a blitzkrieg is very similar to it. before blitzkrieg, used to be armies would only advance as fast as their supply chain so they'd stop then. the germans said if you pack light and move fast, your big

choice is the halfway turnaround point where you turn back or go in. if you go in you lose business big or win big. >> rose: momentum and other things,y. >> eblitblitz scaling is the sae thing for businesses and growth. >> rose: valuation is pretty attractive and the market is more appreciative of it, witness what they've done in the last 18 months, making sure that -- help me out on this -- making sure that advertising on mobile worked and they showed it could really work. >> yes. >> rose: i assume linkedin could show that, too. >> we're obviously a much smaller property than facebook and have a particular focus of how to increase every individual member's productivity. but part of the whole question is -- and this may be a little geeky -- but it's networks and platforms. so -- but the part of the thing that interested me about this

whole what is now the web movement is how do you get everybody's identity for the network and platforms by which they navigate their life. part of the reason facebook and others actually in fact are justifiably super interesting companies, super interesting features in front of them is they are platforms for multiple applications to help you navigate your life er? can it be as simple as you have a platform with a billion-three users, you have market power? >> yes, and especially the platform that extends the way that you navigate your life, right. so it can be like, all right, well, this one is, look, i can stay in touch with my friends in terms of their pictures, but, oh, look, now i can also be a global communications network. those kind of things. each of those things are a different app. that's why facebook broke up facebook messengerrer because they said this is a distinctive

app that can be its own platform and we can run it separately. >> rose: did you see the future of social because you watched facebook's success? or did the idea come from some other place for you? >> for me? it's when other people, the few folks in the first round of facebook -- >> rose: that's why i'm asking. >> yes. i just saw it early because a little bit like my earlier answer, how do we make our human ecosystems better? like how do we all have our identities and situations in a way to nav date our lives better for us individually and a group? so as soon as i saw the internet, i knew patterns like this would be completely -- >> rose: when did you see the internet? >> well, i saw the internet as an undergraduate at stanford and didn't realize it would be commercialized. i saw the internet being commercialized when i was at apple computer working on eworld. >> rose: when was that?

1994. >> rose: a lot of stuff began around '94 and '95, a lot. >> yes, and it started earlier, by the time it starts launching, it had been going for years. >> rose: he looked how fast the internet was growing and that said everything to him -- i can do something and sell things on the internet in it's growing that fast. >> yes. >> rose: a fundamental assessment. >> yes, a pattern of entrepreneurial investment to say what are the markets or changes that are opened up from a massive change in technology, whether a shift to mobile, big data. >> rose: apps, whatever. exactly. and what now becomes possible because of that. the entrepreneurs jump at it and the investors try to pick the right ones. >> rose: where is it going, facebook, linkedin, everybody else in the social media world? >> well, i think we're just at the very beginning of what kinds of apps can be built on it. >> rose: that's stunning. yeah.

>> rose: because if you look at the change in apps in the last four or five years, the acceleration, the velocity, it's just extraordinary. >> yes. >> rose: it's almost like somebody says, i have a problem here and then the next thought is i can fix that problem with an app. >> yes. now, not all problems are fixable with apps. the problem being in the network age is if you get something right, you can go super large very fast. >> rose: meaning if you get something right, everybody will benefit from it and therefore will join? >> yes. >> rose: and your job is to what? >> well, so my job at linkedin is to create that within the professional sphere and my job at greylock is to find the key ones and invest in them and help them grow. >> rose: the process is? the way i look at a high-quality investor is someone to help you grow this company and product to blitz scale, massive scale. >> rose: just by money or by

also judgment? >> judgment is more important than money. money is relatively easy to come by, especially now, that people are aware of this sort of thing. >> rose: and interest rates are at zero. >> yes. so at greylock, we tend to look at this as we have backgrounds operators, founders, entrepreneurs, so we've run the race. you say how do you hire well for a high-scale company? we've done it. we don't just preach it but look for different techniques. you're looking for essentially a partner. the partner isn't exercising a judgment as a manager of you by a co-founder and that's what extends your capability for building great companies. >> rose: how did you define this role that you have now as sort of -- you're like a public intellectual out there. you're like a guru of the village. it's true. >> well, part of it is, when it

was an undergraduate, my aspiration was to essentially become a public intellectual, and it's because how do we get better as individuals? how do we share great ideas and talk about it? i still have that aspiration. i try to participate. i talk with, you know, great folks like you. that's also the way that i operate as an entrepreneur and investor. so fundamentally, it's how do we share learning, and that helps you build really good relationships. >> rose: here's something i think you have in a huge degree, and i have ability to do this because of what i do, to read people, to understand how to maximize their ability to make a contribution, and i can understand if something is not going well, how to shift to somewhere else. i can read all that stuff. and i can read ambition and motives and things like that. peter teal said about you, one oone -- he said you have the canny ability to understand what

drives individual founders and entrepreneurs. what do you understand? >> well, i mean, part of the question about being a great partner when you're helping build something is you understand that this person will actually have the drive and has the learning curve to go the distance and you know how to have partner with them. because not everyone is partnered with the same way. what happens is you say you're a good product designer. my talking about product design is a waste of your time and irritating to you. >> rose: right. on the other hand, this part of organizational building or creation of company culture or this particular thinking about a tactic and strategy is something i know and can be helpful to you and i can communicate with you to form a good partnership and we can be allies in how we do about this. >> rose: heat great to have you. >> great to be here. >> rose: harry reid. back in a moment. stay with us.

>> rose: shonda rhimes is here. she is the most powerful show running today, "grey's anatomy," and "scandal" and producer of "how to get away with murder" starring viola davis. she controls all abc's thursday night prime time programming. shows known for twisting plots, steamy relationships and diversity of the cast. "i am making television look like the world looks," she said, everybody gets a seat at shond's table. here's a look. >> stop talking about your duty to god and country and admit you want to do this. >> i do. of course, i do. yes. >> you somehow thaw that would help me but it only made me angrier! >> he's lying on a table in there and my best friend's hands

are inside his chest. you don't get to cry about that. >> run because mark my words grant is not going to make it to the end of his term. >> are you going to stand here and suggest that divorcing your wife and seeing me in the white house is not a problem. >> tiny bit of a problem. clearly. good morning. i am the professor and this is criminal law 100 -- or as i prefer to call it, how to get away with murder. >> rose: her new book "year of yes" documents her rise to the very top of hollywood. her struggle with crippling anxiety. the year she decided to stop saying no and said yes to everything. i'm pleased to have shonda rhimes at this table for the first time. we just talked about controlling abc's thursday night. >> yes. >> rose: i said to you, what's the magic, and you said so me -- >> i love my job.

you have to love what you do. >> rose: to be a good writer is one thing. to create a television program, write a book or do anything that involves more than simply being able to put one sentence after the other with a command of language. >> i love it in way that i feel like has been intrinsic for me. i actually say in the book that for me it's like somebody who feels like they have a piano talent, a talent for playing the piano. i've always been able to play and write. it's a thing i love doing. it's natural. >> rose: are you a great story teller? >> i hope so. >> rose: you have to be, to have the success you have. >> yeah. >> rose: what does it start with? >> usually, for me, it starts with either an image or sometimes it starts with a little piece of dialogue. sometimes it starts with sort of a sense or an idea, the idea of, you know, grey's started with this idea of really competitive people and what that felt like

to be in that environment and to really think you were going to kill somebody observ on a bad d. >> rose: is that an environment you knew? >> no, not in any way, shape or form, really. i'm terrible at science. that was never going to be a thing for me. but the idea of being a very competitive person, i'm absolutely terribly, terribly competitive, and, so, i knew that world and knew those kinds of women and i thought that would be interesting to watch. >> rose: was this your first job in television? >> "grey's anatomy" was my first job in tv, yes. >> rose: where did you come from? >> i had been writing movies. i had gotten out of college, gone to film school, gotten out of film school, struggled as an assistant, wrote a couple of movies and i thought i would try to write a tv show and turned out to be "grey's anatomy." >> rose: you wrote it and the network said this is terrific, we'll take it, go to work? , i think less exciting than that. grey's came out the year

"desperate housewives" and "lost" came out, and it was a big year for abc and they came out before grey's. they remembethey were number one immediately. a huge phenomenon. we were the little engine that could. nobody was paying attention to us. when we came out, there was surprise. >> rose: then "scandal." yes. >> rose: how did you come up with that? >> my partner introduced me to good smith who is a real white house fixer and she worked with monica lewinsky and had done a lot of other things and we talked for what i thought would be 15 minutes and four and a half hours later we looked up and we were starving and i had ideas for 100 episodes in my head, already. >> rose: just talking about her and her job and her experiences and how she viewed the world? >> how her job worked, how she handled crises and fixed

people's problems was fascinating. the idea she enters somebody's life on their worst day and becomes very intimate with them because she's talking with them about their most personal problems. >> rose: what does she offer? i think she offers the ability to reorganize their lives. >> rose: instantly. instantly and puts order to whatever chaos has happened to them. >> rosethem. >> rose: olivia pope is her. olivia pope is inspired by her. i had to give her a completely different life. >> rose: which brings me to carrie washington. seems like perfect casting. >> it does. in hindsight it feels simple. i walked right up to here and picked her and moved on. >> rose: but you didn't. no. it was the first african-american role as a leading lady in 37 years or something like that, and i felt a real responsibility to let

ri-- let every actress in the age range in town audition. we had every body try the shoe on. >> rose: it fit with her. it was perfect. she embodied the role in a beautiful way. >> rose: did abc stay instantly yes? was the audition so great everybody said yes? >> it was very clear. it was clear immediately she was the right person. >> rose: how do you -- what's amazing to me is one show is a pretty big job. >> it is. >> rose: how many do you run? i only run two. >> rose: but you're creating all the time. you're not just writing shows, you're creating new shows. >> i'm thinking about new shows. i'm executive producing new shows. i'm helping other writers create their shows and have the space to create their shows. >> rose: shond you write?

i like it it's the only way i know how to do it. >> rose: what's the skill? understanding dialogue and character? being able to find the perfect words to put in the right mouth? >> i think you have to know where you're going. you have to understand the long game of your story. you can't just tell a story because it's witty or funny or that moment will be great in this episode. you have to really understand the journey you're taking your character on and you have to be able to tell the story visually in an interesting way. television might be television but people want cinematic television now. >> rose: right. it's a larger thing. >> rose: and then comes along how to get away with murder. speaking of perfect casting, this may be the perfect casting. >> viola davis is incredible and having her at the helm of that show which is up with of those rollercoaster rides of a show is fantastic. you can watch that when we read the phonebook and it will always be good. >> rose: did you come along at

the right time in her life where she was prepared to try something new? >> i think it was fortuitous in that way. we reached the point where she thought maybe i'll think about television. i don't know how many scripts she had been presented with. we presented her with the right one which we were lucky to do. >> rose: define the character for me. >> emily is a defense attorney. she is volatile. when you first meet her in the pilot, she's clearly -- there is clearly been a murder that's happened and they're not sure who. you come to find out she murdered her husband. you find out the "most upstanding woman if h the world" also might be a murderer. she has a group of students she's teaching, very charismatic and it's a really powerful role. >> rose: what's the best description of you? you are such a phenomenon.

what resonated with you? >> i don't know. i think it's very interesting because there is a lot of grandiose descriptions that i find kind of hilarious. >> rose: that's the point, really. you see these grandiose descriptions of you -- >> i don't think they have anything to do with me. >> rose: -- power, talent. i'm a writer. that's the best description of me. i'm a writer, a storyteller. >> rose: the amazing thing is you spread across so many. it's not -- i mean, as i said, to have one television show in prime time is a demanding task. it's not easy. >> no. >> rose: you have a stable of writers. >> yeah. >> rose: and still not easy. no, it's absolutely not easy, but i do think -- we're creating worlds here, so, to me, once i've established the world of grey's gayof"grey's anatomy" ans and stands on its own two feet,

it's a living being. i know what's going to happen. i can tell you what color shoes meredith needs to be wearing because it exist pores me. >> rose: what does that mean? it's almost like it's a fantasy land for me that lives and abbreviates. >> rose: it's almost like you own it. a fantasy land you own. >> it's just inherent in my knowledge of what's going to happen. >> rose: you would know everything about the character. you would know what they would read, eat, wear. >> yeah. >> rose: instinctively. instinctively. >> rose: what kind of person they would want to have a relationship with. >> once you've gotten to know the characters that well, i think, you do. for me, we're 250 or something episodes in, i really know them and at a certain point it becomes easier to say i can go and create something else because i know this so well that i'm not leaving it at a vulnerable time to go do something snells why did you

write this? >> you know, i wrote that completely not planning to write this book. it was almost an accident. i had been having this year that had been started by my sister who, i'm the youngest of six, and my oldest sister said to me one day, you never say yes to anything, you never go anywhere, you never do anything, you never take any of these great invitations you get, you have this fancy hollywood life that's not fancy at all and you never say yes to anything. i thought, she's right. i never do anything. i'm a workaholic. i'm not happy and i'm not living. and i thought i'm going to say yes to all the things that scare me. i had been very introverted. i had panic attacks at interviews. i couldn't give a speech without stage fright. i thought, i'm going to say yes to things that scare me and see what happens. i did and sort of a year into it

one of my agents said you should probably write a book about that. and i thought, i don't know, but i'm saying yes to everything, so, yes. >> rose: were you not saying yes because you were worried about losing it, all that you had? or were you supremely confident in knowing you had the code? >> i think it was partly that. one step at a time. you start to lose these things one step at a time. first you start saying no because you're working really hard and you want to do well. i was very aware of the stakes. very aware of the stakes of what i was doing. you know, if i failed, when was there going to be another television show with a black woman in the leading role. >> rose: right, you thought that a heavy burden. >> it was very clear. i felt that urgency whenever i spoke to anybody. then i started saying no because i had been saying no so much that it felt easier than saying yes. after a while, you sort of forget what it was like to be the person who says yes.

>> rose: and you said you hugged the walls at social events? >> absolutely. >> rose: and so what makes it so satisfying that you began to say yes? just the newness of experience? >> you know, what was interesting is it turned out to be an incredibly transforming experience. i would start to say yes and do something terrifying and in the doing of the terrifying thing, giving a commencement speech at dartmouth or speaking at something else, i would stop being afraid of things i had been afraid of. it felt i had discovered a superpower. >> rose: confidence if yourself is the superpower. >> i suppose so. >> rose: outside your realm. you knew you had confidence as a writer and could create characters. you had done that on a big arena. >> my goal is to be like toni

morrison. >> rose: people are now saying i would like to be shonda rhimes. >> i would say, you don't want to do that, i already have my job and i'm not leaving it. >> rose: exactly. you tell them what? >> be yourself. basically, i took every opportunity presented me, whether or not i thought it was the opportunity i thought i wanted to get to where i was going and went for it, going to film school happened because i read it was harder to get into film school than harvard law school and i was bored in my advertising job i had right out of college so i applied to go and discovered how much i loved writing tv and film. >> rose: why did they accept you is the question? >> well, i was a good writer. >> rose: yeah, right. literally, i'm noting if not a very good student of anything. i got there thinking film school might be interesting and at least i could teach writing. i got there and discovered this is where my writing really settles in and feels good.

writing scripts makes sense for me more so than my struggles writing a novel. >> rose: what else did you say yes to? >> guest starring on the mindy project. >> rose: wonderful? yeah, it was wonderful. it was a lot of small things at first, things like that. i went on jimmy kimmel live. i did public things. then it got serious. i started saying yes to saying no to people who were being fairly manipulative. i got rid of some very toxic people in my life. as a weird by-product, i lost 117 pounds. i said i shed a boyfriend, a fianceé. there were a lot of things, i decided i didn't want to get married, and it transformed me in knowing who i was that existed outside of work. >> rose: when did this happen in. >> in the past two years. i would say it started thanksgiving 2013 and i finished the book in august of this year. >> rose: soon enough they will have a reality show about you.

>> no, they won't. (laughter) >> rose: it's a great honor to meet you. >> wonderful to meet you. >> rose: shonda rhimes "year of yes." how to dance and stand in the sun and be your own person. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: peggy noonan is here, a columnist for the "wall street journal" and the author of nine books on american politics and american culture. her new book is called "the time of our lives: collected writings." it chronicles her years in journalism and the white house where she was the president's primary speech writer. pleased to welcome my colleague at cbs, peggy noonan back to this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: so what do we have here? the time. "the time of our lives." why that title? >> but a it is derived from an observation we have to remember each day we're living not our

own lives but the life of our times. you're part of something big. you have to be part of it. >> rose: how do you put something together like this? do you look for themes? do you look to divide it chronologically? >> we thought of all different ways. this is what i decided to do -- i wanted to collect the things i had written over 30 years. there is some old cbs stuff in there. >> rose: used to write radio scripts for dan rather. >> and radio choose for charley osgood and doug edwards, so i had all my work in big white boxes in the backs of closets and in warehouses. i surrounded myself by this work in my house and i had gone through everything i had written. it divided itself into themes and topics. i love this, don't know about this and i hate this. >> rose: if you're writing for

ronald reagan, you're writing for his voice, osgood, you're writing for his voice and when you're writing for your own column. >> it's what writers do. it comes out of your head, your heart, your whole self. you sound like yourself because you are yourself. you don't have to channel anybody else -- >> rose: but finding your voice is a crucial iningredient of great writing. >> a wonderful columnist told me that some time back. he said to me, did you have trouble finding your voice? i said, no. i worried after working for reagan, such a vivid presence and such a vivid-sounding human that i would have trouble getting back to my own sound, but then i wrote my first book immediately after working for ronald reagan and i had no problem at all sounding like maybe because i am me. i innes scapably sound like me,

so to the extent i have a voice, it's just my voice. >> rose: who et ceter -- who ed? james toronto, also a writer. >> rose: what does he add? he looks with a gimlet eye at what i've written and say, peggy, i'm not sure. >> rose: content and style? primarily factual content. james is very much the person who'll say that didn't happen in the winter of 2012, it happened in the early spring of 2012. but he also, i think, just sort of looks out for me. you can make mistakes of judgment that to you seem just an honest point of view that is just correct and james will sometimes say, really? okay. are you sure? and just james saying are you sure will make me think, okay, am i sure? >> rose: i've never seen

anybody who can't use a good editor. >> if you don't have a good editor you're going to get in trouble and you won't have as much fun. editors become friends. >> rose: the great bill sapphire, columnist for the "new york times" and before that a white house employee himself for richard nixon. >> a speech writer for richard nixon. >> rose: what did you learn from him? >> when i went in washington in 1984 from cbs i knew nobody. he took me under his arm and was an advice person. he took me under his shoulder. >> rose: bob bartley, "wall street journal"? >> called me up one day, after i worked at the reagan white house he had me write op-ed pieces for the "wall street journal." one day in 2000, he picked up the phone, called me up, in a light hearted way, he said, there is this new thing called the internet and the journal is

going to have an internet editorial page and columnist and will you be one? i said, light heartedly, yes, not knowing it would become a large part of my life. he offered me x dollars and i said can i have 10% more so i can feel like i drove a hard bargain? he said, yes. >> rose: should have said 50%. you're right. i should have had you there. >> rose: no... and who is jane jane? >> jane jane is my great aunt jane jane, my maternal grandfather's sister who had a great impact on me when i was a child. i spent a great deal of time with her in the summers at a very quiet and lonely little home out in long island and learned much about life from her. >> rose: if i would read all your columns, what would i know about peggy noonan? >> ooh... >> rose: i know she's a good writer. i know she's passionate about

politics and -- >> i love politics. i had never told people before putting together this book i love politics, but i saw my on love for the greatness game over 30 years time, the excitement of it. i think you probably know i am a christian of the catholic variety. you would probably know i'm a woman living in new york. there is a lot of walking the streets of manhattan and brooklyn there. you would know i am a conservative. i sort of hide -- >> rose: what kind of conservative are you? >> well, oh, that is the subject of a column coming up at some point. >> rose: it is also an emerging question in this political debate that the republicans are having. >> yes. look, let me jump... i think something huge and fundamental is aping this year on the republican side in

politics. in 197 1976 ronald reagan went p against gerald ford to decide one question, will the republican party be conservative? will it be moderate, liberal or conservative? 1980 landslide, 1984 reagan landslide answered the question, the modern republican party will be conservative. this year going into 2016, i think we are answering the question, what does conservatism mean? what does conservative mean in the 21st century? and the entire republican party is having a brawl about it. conservatives have been having brawls about it for a while as you know. >> rose: do you see it as part of your responsibility to help the republicans define what it means to be conservative in 2015-16? >> no. i think it is, in part, my responsibility or my joy to share my thoughts about this, about where conservatism should

be going and where the party should be going, but i don't feel any pressure of being a guide or guru. >> rose: because of barry goldwater and then ronald reagan, first bill buckley, then ronald reagan, reagan was what was called a movement conservative. does that still exist? >> it does but even that is a bit fractured. i mean, they're one of the unlucky, lucky things about the old conservatism in america is there were so few of them that they could agree on three or four essential items. government spending should be lower not higher, taxes lower not higher, regulation lower not higher. >> rose: spending lower. yeah, you got it. it became complicated in the george w. bush when things started to fall apart. why did they start to fall

apart? because there was great argument within the party about the wars that he felt it necessary. >> rose: he came to power saying he wanted to be a compassionate conservative. is conservatism compassionate? >> that's a wonderful question. it should be. it can be. it does not always look that way. conservatives can be pretty crabby folk, especially when they debate what conservatism is. look, we've got a party now that can say the conservative way to look at entitlement spending is we made a deal with the people, and you keep your deals. they have a moral right to everything they were ever told to expect from those programs. another conservative thought on entitlement spending would be american spending is out of control, our kids will carry the burden of our spending, its

uncompassionate to them to make them carry the load. all these things are going to have to be ajude dated catted in this election psych -- adjudicated in this election cycle and maybe the next one. i'm not sure where it ends. immigration is a huge issue that just isn't going away. >> rose: may sound like a stupid question but i ask it anyway -- do you move your writing, including your writing but just writing, the idea of being able to, i guess in the famous words of john kennedy about winston churchill, you know, he made -- i'm paraphrasing loosely -- you know, he took the english language and took it to war. >> yeah, to fight for us. >> rose: the idea of how words and ideas have such power enhanced if they are said in such an inspiring and precise way so that they touch the

spirit and the mind? >> i never considered being anything but a writer. there were times -- you know, there is a while when i wanted to be an actress but it would be an actress writer. then i wanted to be a nun and i was going to be a nun writer. reporter writer is what i was. i enjoyed writing as a kid. i enjoyed reading which is sort of how you come to love writing. you love reading and you think, wow! does a person do this? who's that person? so it's just part of my image of myself. it's like being irish catholic. >> rose: did mitt romney disappoint you greatly? because you were -- you know, you were there for him in a lot of what you wrote. >> i was trying to be supportive of the conservative candidate, which i do sometimes. i can't say he disappointed me because he never struck me as a great political talent, i have

to tell you. part or me thought -- i never wrote this -- but part of me thought when he sadly lost in 2012, as i said to friends, we dodged a bullet. on the republican side, we need some kind of politicalgenous going on to succeed and that was not a politicalgenous. that was a man great at life, not at politics. >> rose: and with a great family and the right values. >> yeah, good man! >> rose: so do you see politicalgenius -- we when you think of political genius you think of ronald reagan, bill clinton. who has it in the field on the republican side? >> when asked that question my answer is large gifts are best seen in retrospect. >> rose: you don't see emerging tall snnlts they're being tested in debates and other ways. >> you want to see emerging

talent and sheer political talent? >> rose: yes. marco rubio has sheer political talent. ted cruz has a different kind of political talent. >> rose: how is it different? marco puts himself forward as someone who cares very much about ideas, programs, policies. with ted, you get the sneaking suspicion that ted carries very much about ted, programs and policies. it's kind about ted and his own drama and forays into actions. >> rose: would it be unfair to say it looks like he's trying to define himself as a man of the future and the other is defining himself as a man who somehow wants to go back to certain principles and ideas he believes in? >> maybe. we'll see. i need to watch a little bit more. you know, i love john kasich. >> rose: that's what we

dedepend on you for, to watch for us! >> i'm doing the best i can. i'm dancing as fast as i can (laughter) >> rose: so size up the field so far. did the debate change anything or is the conventional wisdom right which is everything pretty much came out of there in place. >> i think so. i think the field's got to get a little bit narrower for all of us to have a scheuer sense of what we think. i'm a little disappointed that john kasich just doesn't seem to get beyond his wobbly beginning. this is a real political talent. we don't elect resumes in american politics nor should we but he is one of the greatest resumes to run for president. he's a serious guy. >> rose: bush 41 had a great resume. ambassador to china -- >> absolutely but a lot of those posts were appointed.

kasich's been elected to a lot. >> rose: you like kasich? i'm big on edmond burke. the meaning of his work is respect reality. see it and respect it, don't be a jerk. don't be going off on a long term -- >> rose: what did you think of desreli? >> one of the great political maneuverers, survivors and putter-offers of his opposition. i mean, gladstone was a gifted man and desrali danced open his head. i think of him somewhat. >> rose: american culture, are we debasing it? >> we've made it bizarre and

gross and it worries me not for the adults. nothing you see or watch on the tv or computer or see or hear will hurt you, you are you. but for kids from families that don't cohere, kids who are the object of a certain amount of negligence and inattention to be brought up in this culture is to me a scary thing. i worry about it a lot. i say in my essay in the book, when we were children, my parents -- nothing was ever heaven. our parents were not ward cleaver and mrs. cleaver. they were people who would look at you at 8:00 in the morning after breakfast and say, okay, go play and would like if you came home about 6:00 p.m. but you could go play in america and people don't feel they can anymore and it's hurt us in ways people can't articulate, i think. >> rose: you said what was once said is we need more

heart-wise historians. and from matt drudge, another philosopher, her words and essays have swept through decades capturing events and moments with grace and optimism. she confids in the reader as a dear friend. henry kissinger, peggy noonan's columns and essays exquisitely written, per spent septemberive, illuminate and provide a vision for our future. thfuture. thfuture. "the time of our lives." peggy noonan. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com.

woman: it kind was, like, the bang that set off the night. man: that is the funkiest restaurant. man 2: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. woman 2: more tortillas, please. man 3: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should've been, like, quadropus because it was really small. sbrocco: and, you know, when you split something, all the calories evaporate and then there's none. man: that's right. yeah.