>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight president obama's choice of the supreme court nominee merrick garland. we talked to adam liptak, jan crawford and jay michaelson. >> in even though, he is moderate tilting slightly left which means in isolation he ought to be not very objectionable to many republicans who would have taken him in heart beat i would say if it was justice ginsberg who left the court rather than justice scalia. here the point is not what he looks like in isolation but how he looks relative to who is left on the court. and who is left on the court are four liberals who more or less join what we know for him almost for certain is that he's substantially to the left of justice kennedy who is currently at the ideological centrum. >> rose: after super tuesday we turn to the political

campaign and where things stand joined by al hunt, susan glars, nick confessore and jon meacham. >> it lives in his arena and town halls. it moves over and around party structures. he does not need them and it's possible other candidates as those trends continue who will not need them as badly. the parties are not what they were. they are now vehicles for fund raising uá voters and forhaving meetings a year. it's not where, the power does not reside in the party anymore. he's showing that. >> we conclude with alex ross talking about the industry of the future. >> i think the code is the significant development in conflict since the weapon of solid material. creating a nuclear arm requires access to the scariest of scarce

scientific talents where the creation of very powerful mal ware, the barrier to entry is low. i have a very dark view of our security on-line. >> rose: supreme court nominee, the political race and industries of the future 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 >> rose: we begin this evening with the supreme court. president obama nominated merrick garland to fill the seat vacated by the late justice ant

meanally awe. he's the judge on the federal court of appeals in the dc circuit. speaking from the rows garden the president demanded a fair hearing. >> to suggest someone is qualified and respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing let alone an up or down vote to join an institution as important as our supreme court. when two thirds of americans believe otherwise. that would be unprecedented. to suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the american people. might be treated as one republican leader stated as a political pinata. that can't be right. tomorrow judge garland will travel to the hill to begin meeting with senators one-on-one. i simply ask republicans in the senate to give him a fair

hearing. and then an up or down vote. if you don't, then it will not only be an abdication of the senate's constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. >> rose: congressional republican leaders reiterated their intention to block the confirmation process or not even begin it. joining me now from washington, adam liptak of the "new york times" here in new york, jay michaelson of the daily beast. he served as a law clerk to judge garland in 1998. i'm pleased to have both of the! on this program. adam i begin with you. talk to me about this nomination what's behind it, obviously a man very qualified and a man who has a powerful personal story. >> so in a way it's a brilliant political strategy but we should start by talking about judge garland. he has impeccable credentials. he's very well regarded by people on all sides.

he's a judge's judge, and in that way, president obama has made life a little harder for republicans. he made have disappointed some of his friends on the left 450 might have liked to see someone less moderate more liberal but it will be hard for republicans many of whom spoken up in the past in favor of judge garland to oppose him now. they have to rely on the abstract argument that no hearing should be held for any nominee ever in the last year of a president's term. it's÷i going to be harder for tm to make a case against this man in take. >> rose: the court of appeals one was mitch mick connell and chuck grassley the chairman of the judicial committee. >> he was hardly confirmed by the unanimous vote but he's been on the court for 20 years and his work is truly highly regarded. that's not just the sort of thing you say about any prominent judge. he's regarded by for instance

many supreme court justices as a truly out standing judge. >> rose: you know him you clerked for him. tell me about him. >> it was moving for me today on the rows garden speech is he really put the human face on this. working for him this is someone of really superior integrity. he's incredibly hard working which was tough as a law clerk. this is back in 1998, i was a young budding lawyer just out of what you school. what an honor to reason through the law withpx someone with a md like judge garland. there were judges on the circuit who i won't name that people felt like well they tell their clerks how they want the case to come out and the clerks fill in the legal details. judge garland wasn't like that. it was working through the law with him stage by stage. i had a dubious honor, i had all the boring regulatory cases from a particular regulatory agency, energy regulations not a sexy topic. and you know the judge spent

time with those cases. >> rose: what are his views. >> you know, if you look at his background which he shared a little bit today in the rose garden coming from humble beginnings to great heights to harvard law school and then serving the justice department. i think it was an interesting, and this was my experience clerking for him. the human side of the cases that he was working on. not everybody who is prosecuting a case for terrorism meets the victor tips' families, tours the sites, gets personally involved in that way.íç that was the case too when i was clerking for him. there were cases that had gone on for years and years and every so often we would get lost in the procedure of it and he would bring us back to these are people on both sides of all these cases. there's that humanism is there that i think will be a potent factor over the next few months. >> rose: adam walk us through where he has in decisions balleted himself on big issues facing the judicial process today. >> we have to bear in mind that

the d.c. circuit is very prestigious court but its docket is idiosyncratic with many industry law questions and doesn't get the controversial issues. there's not that much to look at on his record that's very interesting. his opponents have pointed to almost nothing except a vote to rehear his second amendment case asking that might tip you off. and something to bear in mind and particularly with judge garland it's an inferior court that has to follow supreme court precedent which he really has done faithfully. [5but that also means we don'tke would be like were he to join the supreme court where justices have much more room to maneuver than circuit court judges do. >> rose: having said that, he was in the justice department for a number of years, clinton appointee, i think. and while there, he did some remarkable investigations. but often people in the justice department come down with a

sense of understanding of the criminal process and support of it. >> i think that's true in this case. so if there's an area in which he might be a little more center-right than center left, it would be in criminal cases. he's open to prosecutors' arguments. i was just reading a dissent of his in a case which the majority had thought a prosecutor committed misconduct in the way he offered his closing arguments. and judge garland was quite sympathetic to that prosecutor. so that's an area where he might be a little bit more conservative. in general, though, he is moderate tilting slightly left which means in isolation, he ought to be not very objectionable to many republicans who would have taken him in a heart beat i'd say if it was justice ginsberg who left the court rather than justice scalia. but here the point is not what

he looks like in isolation but how he looks relative to who is left on the court and who is left on the court are four liberals who we more or less join what we know for him almost for certain is that he's substantially to the left of justice kennedy who is currently the ideological center. >> rose: could he be a swing judge? >> i don't know that he&9çó woud swing but he would be in the arned through the day aboutme the dynamics of this nomination so effectively laid out by the president and by the nominee himself? >> obviously as the president made clear he's presenting this as a compromise meaning it's above politics in an effort to essentially send a message to republicans that look this is as good you're going to get from a democratic president and if you wanted to rom the dice and think you're -- roll the dice and think you're going to get somebody better if hillary clinton wins the whitehouse or

bernie sanders, you're mistaken. what we've seen today are republicans on the hill saying they are united there will not be a hearing. we saw mitch mick connell saying sorry no go no way. but you're starting to see a couple republicans say yes, they're going to meet with him even though they're not going to control how this process unfolds. so i expectd what we'll see now as judge garland comes on to the capitol hill and starts meeting with some of those democratic leaders and senators. the bottom line is, unless it looks like hillary clinton or bernie sanders are going to win in november, i think a hearing is very unlikely. i think this could on potentially at least until october and then if we see a democrat up by 10 or 15 points well then republicans night start thinking we should go ahead and confirm him because hillary clinton might put someone on much younger and to adam's point a lot more liberal. >> rose: so in terms of the republicans and being able to see him, i mean are you saying that only a few of them will see

him. >> several including some of the leadership has said we don't even want to waste your time. we'll talk with you on the phone but no we don't even really want to have a meeting much less a@=s from some of those loose states saying okay, may be up for re-election they're going to sit down to him and be polite to him. why waste this fine and respected judge's time by coming up here for no reason. that's the line that they're putting out this afternoon. >> rose: have you looked through his record? surprises. >> no. he's a jurist . he hasn't caused problems in the past. you don't get a lot of abortion cases in the district of columbia or death penalty cases obviously a liberal area so they don't get challenges on those kind of cases. his record reflects what

everyone believes him to be which is unassailable qualification, high e respected by people on both sides of the aisle not someone who is going to swing for the fences but still would be and this is the republican's bottom line still would be a solid liberal vote which would turn the supreme0b court for a generation of they believe to the left. and that's why they are not going to budge even if merrick garland in any other year would be the best nominee a republican senate could hope for from a democratic president. >> rose: we talked about a family man and being in the justice department. what else defines him and distinguishes him? >> well i think what's going to come out in these next few months precisely because of what's been said so far this is a nomination unlikely to succeed in the conventional way. i think we're going to get to see him as a deliberate figure and as a human being. that's actually really compelling particularly for some of the senators who are in close re-election match ups like senator grassley now who hasn't anticipated it.

it's not just the principle. it is also the person and there's a human being who is being really jerked around by this system. and i think that's actually really compelling. there are a couple areas of his jurors jurist prudence which are the cases the d.c. gets a lot of. in thosek cases judge garland because of his background from the justice side would be on the government side but is on the claimant's side more. we're having a conversation what it's like to be a centrist jurist in contemporary america and judge garland epitomizes that and it's unfortunate we're not able to have that conversation. >> rose: jan do you believe the republican's resistance will hold. >> i think it will hold until it looks like the republican nominee charlie whoever that may be may not win the whitehouse in november. i think that mains that this may drag on for quite a while and you're going to see republicans pretty united certainly among the leadership that's making these decisions.

if we get to october and it looks like the republicans have lost, then you may have a hearing that could change. you could say something perhaps even in november. and then the other political calculations charlie. that's say republicans actually lose the senate. well a democratic55 senate in january could confirm judge garland. so all of these things mean this is not necessarily a non-starter. it is climate and who knows we've seen in the campaign anything can happen. october, september could be a pieftal -- pivotal time of the year for judge garland. >> rose: when you see other choices there are things you might have heard that the president wanted to but in terms of the political dementia of this he -- >> he has usual senses of

demographic diversity and the president here gave up maybe 15 years on the supreme court. judge garland is 63 that's quite old by historic standards for supreme court nominees. they come in their early 50's. so i think he made some calculations, some compromises to come up with somebody who is very hard to oppose on the conventional way tpu oppose people. they're in some sense unqualified that they don't have the right temperament, that their credentials are inadequate, that they are too far out of the judicial mainstream. those knocks are not going to work and now we'll see whether the republicans are prepared o and how much of a political price as jan was suggesting they may have to pay to dig in their heels and not merrick garland a heeling. >> rose: that sums up where we are. thank you jan thank you adam thank you jay. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: we turn now to the

political campaign. donald trump and hillary clinton were the big winners in the two primaries. clinton beat sanders in four states widening her lead in delegates. on the republican side trump came away with three wins. >> i just want to say we're going to go forward and we're going to win but more importantly we're going to win for the country. >> rose: marcosuspended his car losing his home state of florida. >> while it is not god's plan that i be president in 2016 or maybe ever and while today my campaign is suspended, the fact that i've even come this far is evidence of how professional america truly is. >> rose: john kasich delivered his first primary win in ohio his home state taking all of the state's delegates. >> this is all i got, okay. this is all i got. and all i can say is thank you from the bottom of my heart. but i want you to know asking. we're going to go, we are going to go all the way to cleveland

and secure the republican nomination. >> rose: from washington is al hunt he's a columnist of the bloomberg view and a good friend of this program and susan glasser she's the editor of politico and will be joining us soon. from national jon meacham he's a presidential historian and the author of destiny and power the american odyssey of george herbert walker bush. here in new york nick confessore. he's a political reporter for the "new york times." let me begin with al hunt in washington. tell me where we are, al, after the second super tuesday and what happened in florida and especially what happened in ohio. >> charlie, somewhat more settled and not totally yet on the democratic side it's almost impossible to envision bernie sanders beating hillary clinton at this stage but he's going to give her some heart burn over the next month. a bunch of small caucuses, wisconsin he could win and he's a cause candidate. he's not going to go away but she's certainly barring from class clizzal will be the

nominee. ual had -- trump had a great day. he had an impressive win in four out of five states. it may be a reach for him to getthose 1,03e time he gets to cleveland. if he comes in a hundred short, the people in the parties, not just the establishment, the movement conservatives are meeting tomorrow to talk about a third party candidate elective politicians. the resistance of donald trump despite his victories is as great as ever and i don't think it's by any means it's a foregone conclusion he's the nominee. >> rose: susan, what do you think. >> a couple thoughts. on the democratic side i do agree with al that it's more or less all over. i do think what you're seeing right now is the sanders campaign sort of huddling and regrouping trying to figure out how long they can fight on. what you see from hillary clinton even in her speech last night and i think you'll see increasingly in the coming days is an effort by clinton and her supporters to sort of try to gently delicately signal to

sanders that the time has come to mobilize around the greater threat against trump. of course her speech last night was not so much a victory speech asou it was the beginning of her general election rallying cries. if sanders fights on to what extent is he really sort of living on the afterlife and the fumes of his candidacy or not. but clinton is trying to pivot to the general election. as far as the republicans go it seems donald trump is on the trajectory. there's no path for cruz okay sick to come to the republican convention for a majority of the delegates. he has to win 500 but that's not going to happen. just how wounded and sort of self inflicted will the republican party wounds will be going into convention in cleveland.

e republican side inmodern histd of uncharted territory. the reagan/ford battle in 1976 was between two figures who were incredibly well-known as political entities. an incumbent president of the united states, a two-term governor of california who already made a brief run for president in 1968. and he felt like an insurgencent but if ronald reagan was an insurgencent it's hard to imagine what donald trump would be described as. and i think to me the real question for the future health of the republican party is going to be to what extent are they willing to abide by the primary voters decisions even if he doesn't get to the majority of the dell gets and goes into a dell get hunting situation if they take that away from him is that something that splits the party. >> rose: nick. >> i think this campaign is less

now about who leads each party than who each party is. the nominees are likely to be hillary clinton and donald trump. in the democratic party bernie sanders is going to be the first insurgencent candidate who can keep raising money for as long÷. he is in a hunted to change his own party to achieve a policy position in the party to reshape it from the inside. donald trump is trying to reshape it from the outside. he is taking over the modern gop and there's a real potential he can change it and reform it into something new and more awe thentdally populist. the rest of the party is not wanting to do that. >> rose: steve schmidt said there's no modern election where the top two candidates in the nomination are as divisive and weak. there's no precedent and then you have michael writing in the "new york times" donald trump and hillary clinton's resounding

trump on tuesday mask a historic and unusual reality. most americans still don't like him or her. both major parties must now confront thez depth of skepticm one that would shape an election showdown between mr. trump and ms. clinton. jon meacham what do you think of that. >> well, i think that it is, there is no analogy really. usually when you have a figure like trump, it's someone in the wallace mode, george and henry going back to 38 or the strong thurman mold in the establishment party moves how the and runs as a third party. this is the first recorded cases of a hijacking of the plane being supported by the passengers in many senses. so that's going on the republican side. senator clinton is i think to her credit i think in the past ten days or so has started

talking about the fact that she's not a natural candidate and i think that's going to in an interesting way go a long way toward helping her. the electorate is as unhappy as it has been and even more so since 1992 which we forget but which was a rough year. buchanan challenging george bush, perot19% and clunltd elected with 43 percent of the vote which is what richard nixon got in 1978. when you have a president coming in the winner of a general election at a 43% number then it's a sign of a deeply unhappy republic and i think we are deeply unhappy right now. >> rose: the implication of that for general election al. >> that it's going to be a race to the bottom. it's going to be a very very

negative campaign. the nbc "wall street journal" poll of last week had donald trump at 25% poddive, 59% negative. you have to go back to richard nixon impeachment days to find that kind of 34 pointedg gap. i think there's a difference between unpopularity of the two candidates. trump is even more popular with the public. clinton is unpopular with a lot of voters she just doesn't inspire them. the party, they wish she was a better candidate but they can basically live with her. that's different than the republican party. i would just make one other point. i think susan's right in all likelihood trump will be the nominee. i think it's still a close call. if it should go to a convention, john mentioned reagan/ford. one of the few advantages of old age charlie is you've had experiences. i covered that 76 convention. and it was far different than today. these were both broadly acceptable candidates but the interesting thing, when you get to a convention that is open or is unsettled going in contested,

it's a universe in itself. you don't know what's going to happen. rule books get thrown out. it's about rules and i remember being in the convention floor but reagan came awfully close, he really did to top the incumbent president and it was just remarkable the dynamic to take place. so if trump should come in say a hundred delegates shy but still the front runner, i think we're going to see things like we've never seen before. >> rose: let's assume that happens, al. donald trump let's assume he loses and somehow the candidate becomes some consensus candidate, paul ryan for example or someone else. what does that do to donald trump and what would he do and what impact might that have on a general election. >> it would split the party which may happen anyway. these guys have been through this for a year, year and-a-half to walk in cleveland and say some guy who hasn't involved we're going to hand it to him, that would go over very very poorly. meone that hasn't been in, itr could be paul ryan i can't think

of aeione else but the chances of that happening are very very slim. in all probability the nominee will be either trump or potentially cruz if he should have a win where he can beat him in a number of contests. but i think if they go in without it settled, it's still contested, boy it's going to be something like as i say we've never seen charles. >> rose: so sadjadpour somebody suggested clinton was moved from a clinton democrat to a sanders democrat. >> well maybe we're just shifting the definition of what a clinton democrat is. certainly the issues were different than 1992 when her husband first won election look at her pivot on free trade. arguably by the way that was a pivot that helped save her candidacy in these mid western states after being upset in michigan she came away with victories in ohio and other states last night on tuesday that really would have killed her in many ways or really would have lead to a very bloody long

term divisivea[ fight. you could argue that was because she moved away from her long held pro free trade positions and that very much is not being a clinton democrat of the sort we associate with nafta and her husband's policy. just a quick note on the contested convention scenario. paul ryan's name already keeps coming up, sort of young speaker of the house. you had john boehner coming out today and saying he must have some ill will against paul ryan saying he's my candidate to be the nominee at a contested convention. we had an interview with ryan. he's saying i promise i don't want to do this, i will not be the nominee. and i do think these something deeply engrained, even if trump is a few votes short, you know, where he's overwhelming leader in delegates going into that convention can be very very hard to overturn it no matter what the mash nations and the rules. the guy with the most votes is probably going to win.

>> if that happens the republican party becomeso:çó the whigs because the establishment is basically what holly barber and three or four other guys it looks as though the party has simply totally rejected the primary system and the primary voters. and if people are mad now mad enough now to vote for a political novice, a communications wizard, a market ising genius that we haven't seen since pt barnum and he makes ph barnum look like a hacker what are we doing with those voters anger and status quo of a vested interest in they get him close to the 1237 and then the convention which is by definition kind of establishment device takes it away. it becomesñpolitical event it s. >> rose: al, is he right.

>> yes, he is. i'm not sure there's a good out come for the republican party here. and if trump comes in close i totally agree. on the other hand if he were to come in 150 votes shy or something and cruz were close to him. let's not forget, cruz would have won both missouri and north carolina last night if rubio hadn't been in. rubio is now out. so i think john's absolutely right. suddenly this guy looks like he's within a couple votes or a couple dozen votes of the nomination and they try to take it away from him, there will be blood in the streets. on the other hand, cruz is within striking distance who knows. and it's not just the establishment. that's haley barber, we can probably add a few others, jon but it's also the conservative movement. a bunch of conservatives are meeting in washington tomorrow to talk about third party candidate i don't think it's anyone very serious but two or three percent could matter, ask

al gore. it'swho really believe that trup doesn't have the skills to be a foreign policy president. it's not just what we consider the establishment. the concern, far beyond a republican party is really quite broad. >> rose: notwithstanding what everybody has said, can you make a case that some possibling that showed if the equal of 4% arise of the republican share of the general election could allow trump to win eight states obama won in 2012 and gave him a majority in the college. so that would possibly do it. and the reason it would happen is that he is turning out those working class whites in greater number. he's trading enthusiasm for them. the question always is, is there

an equal. the reaction to that trend. if he's having these!+ riots and these rallies and making people angry on the left, turning out young liberals people of color, latinos and immigrants, then there could be an equal reaction and more turnout on the left and help hillary clinton. i think there's a case, some of those states need industrial west some of these dying states, where jobs have died out factories have gone away mills have gone away he's popular in those places. he has a last ditch effort forces against them and conspired against them. i could see that -- >> rose: that's america he would say. >> absolutely in places like ohio and indiana i can see him being very strong there. >> rose: let's assume donald trump is a nominee and hillary clinton is a nominee which is a right good assumption. has this election season changed politics and presidential politics? jon. >> i think unquestionably. i think the best piece written about this i think besides

anything written by nick, alr$ñd susan, of course, i'm trying, you never know. i mean david von draly did a piece two months ago on trump about the disintermediatations and the strength of it was he connected the cultural and political. we in a dis intermediate created age, they communicate and live in a much more improv cisional way enter an improvisational candidate. i think there's a lot to be said for that. it's hard for me to see, but you know, history is full of surprises is, and you can check me on this, carter was the first

one who understand thew0 caucus strategy, george bush picked it up in 1980. that created a certain primary system nominating system that came out of that was different from what we've seen before, where you surprise early you get momentum and get people like us talking about you and good things happen. it's hard for me to see how that model reasserts itself next time. it seems to me that the means to the nomination, i think trump has shown something here that there are unconventional paths to power. >> i think trump is the first candidate to fully seize the possibilities of what's happening in politics right now. the trump party doesn't need chambers of commerce, endorsements from senators, the county commissioner to endorse him. the trump party lives on tv, on twitter, among his million of

twitter followers, lives in his arenas, his town halls. the power moves over and around party structures. he does not need them and it's possible that there are other candidates as those trends continue who will not need them as badly either. the parties are not what they were. they are now vehicles for fund raising and list of voters and for having meetings four times a year. they are not where the, the power does not reside in the parties anymore. he's shown that. >> rose: al, how do you explain, this is a huge question but i know you can come to it in an easy paragraph. >> i'm ready. >> rose: how do you explain trump's huge success this political year? it's got to be more than voters who are angry and voters who are hungry for change and voters had a plague on all your houses and voters against the establishment. a lot of people have understood that narrativeg@ but trump somew early on in who he aligned himself with was able to get

traction from early on and watch it grow. >> well charlie, i've been very consistent about trump, consistently wrong. so when i disagree with nick that he would be a viable general election candidate, that probably would be welcome by donald trump. a couple things. first of all i think to some extent the republican party created this. the last several elections they said if you elect republicans, you send us to washington we'll repeal obamacare, we'll cut taxes we'll end government regulation and be strong again in the world. people elected republicans sent them to washington and guess what nothing changed. i think trump has played on that perfectly as has cruz to some extent too. i think secondly john said earlier that he is a pt barnum. hehe really is able to, he has a great sense for that marketing technique he uses so effectively. thirdly some is the media. there was a report that we've given him more of what they call free media which is us charlie.

we've given him more free media than john mccain spent in his entire campaign in 20078 and he's played it brilliantly. he goes on sunday shows and does telephone calls that's a lot easier. you put those three together with the mood of alienation and anger it's just been for him, you know, the perform law. >> rose: donald trump, is he a man of personality but not conviction. >> well he seems to almost court that impression right. didn't he just say himself the other day well of course he doesn't really mean it wink nod, nod when he negotiates he says what he needs to say. so he himself has cultivated the image of being somebody whose convictions are flexible to say the least. on al's point, i think very much it's important to look back in order to understand trump. he didn't create the crisesthe e certainly the beneficiary of it, he's certainly the guy who saw the whole. but he has understood both the crises the party was already in

which is to say it was seeking to destroy the very institutions it hopes to lead and that's not a sustainable platform for any group. he's also using the same mix of issues that people like ted cruz have been talking about for a number of years. his innovation is not to change the political conversation so much or introduce radical new ideas into the republican party. it's to take?xxa those to magny those, to understand which buttons to press at this time. >> rose: yes but i think he took them to a different extent. if you take every issue from torture to the idea of the way he expressed deportation, all of that he seems to have taken it by the use of language to build himself up as some different kind of;3 character who would do anything, go anywhere, accepted any policy that would achieve his objective. >> i would say there actually is a policy content to trump

subpoena. overarching all of it is a perception of strength and plus ter. i'll doing what i want to do. his issues are i'm going to stop immigrations. i'll keep it out of the stupid foreign wars where your sons and brothers are getting killed in afghanistan and iraq. i'm going to save social security i'm not going to cut it i'm going to expand it and i'm going to stop these trade deals that are making it impossible for you to find a job. those for his four issues that consistently been his speech. he talks about trade all the time. and guess what. those are the four issues with the republican elite is really at odds with those working class white voters who have no problem for entitlements for the middle class who think the trade deals are a bad deal for them. immigration is both r!g issue of fairness and an economic issue. >> i think if you walk through donald trump's deepest policy thoughts you wouldn't get your

ankles wet. i think this is all headline. he does it brilliantly but nick mentioned he's not going to cut entitlements he's going to give the biggest tax cut we've ever had. none of it adds up it's very appealing to some voters but at some point we're talking about electing a president and nothing he says suggests he is prepared for 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >> that's true. that's where his wink and nod comes in saying this is my campaign trail once you put me in the whitehouse i'll sit down and roll up my sleeves and i'll talk about what can work and what kind of deal we can negotiate. i think that's a pretty cynical patch with the voters here more or less i'll tell you what i think you want to hear and gee look you're rewarding me for that but maybe that's what i really think and maybe it's not. >> rose: thank you al, thank youthank you. back in a moment stay with us. >> rose: alex ross is here. he is a distinguished visiting

fellow at johns hannah johns hs university. undersecretary clinton he traveled around the world to explore advances in technology and the web. he's written a book about the changes to come items called the industry of the future. the future's already hitting us and ross shows us how it can be exciting rather than frightening. i'm pleased to have alex ross at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: you say here you wish your father and grandfather could have seen the impact of globalization. the impact that globalization would bring around the world. how would it have affected them. >> i tell you what, growing up in west virginia when i did was to live in a world of sort of constant economic decline. i thought that's what was happening around the world that everybody had to hold on as tight asqwhen i was putting mysn college i worked on a beer truck

and midnight janitor to sort of help make it through. i think that if they had understood let's say digitization and globalization over the last 20 years. somebody lit a little path for them then they could have understood where the areas of growth are going to come from. that's why i wrote the industries of the future was thinking about people who like me had to work as janitors in college saying here's what's coming next. >> rose: three things. one is first of all the changing dynamic of what sectors are most interesting today. i mean we've seen the impact of computer science clearly and we have seen each evolution from computers to the internet to applications to mobile technology, to the cloud and all of that evolution which is seen every day in the future of our lives in a significant way. there's also the rise of bioscience. there's a rise of understanding the impacts of genetics.

every day we see a new story about how genetics is helping us understand not only the individualized personalized profile of ourselves but ways to attack cancer. >> that's right. >> i think the world's last trillion dollar industry was created out of computer code and the world's next trillion dollar industry is going to be created out of genetic code. i have children nine, 11 and 13 years old and i think that the advances in personalized medicine leveraging genomics are going to make the kind of medicine and healthcare that i and my wife are involved in now look primitive by comparison. >> rose: tell me more about what kinds of medicine we're going to see. >> i think we'reyññi going to se two things. first in diagnostics. one of the things i've learned working at johns hopkins i've learned about a thing called liquid biopsy where the short version of it you can detect cancer cells at one/100th the size you can see with an mri. you can find cancers very early

in stage one as opposed to the stage three and four they are routinely found in. >> rose: liquid biomes are being used at johns hopkins. >> no. the ones that can get it are the wealthy. insurance are not going to pay for it. the people i know who get liquid biopsis don't blank adding $4,000 up to their check up. the question is when does that $4,000 become $400 and at what point does insurance company pay for it as part of the annual check up. >> rose: what's the answer. >> the answer is it will happen within ten years. what we'll see with advances in the biosciences is i think it's going to add years of life expectancy tobut it's going to e wealthy and then trickle down. it will trickle down over a period of ten years. so it will make all of our lives longer on a per capita basis over a certain period of time but it's undeniable that this

will benefit the wealthy and the western first. >> rose: when you think of jobs of the future, what will be the impact of not only genetics and understanding the human genome but also artificial intelligence and robotics. >> i think the robots of cartoons and movies from the 1970's will be the reality of the 2020's for two reasons. first mapping belief space. there have been break throughs in mathematic that allow robots to basically go from working two dimensionally to three dimensionally. and then secondly cloud robotics. if c3po walked up to this desk right now and interrupted us anl said i'm sorry mr. ross and toddled off and excused himself. there would be e noarmtsly powerful hardware and software in that gold gleaming body. in reality cp3o is going to be a cloud connected device. if he wandered in here he would

ping the cloud. the cloud would say you just interrupted charlie rose, excuse yourself. excuse yourself in english and get out of there. the implication on jobs is this. what this mean is we don't have to build million dollar robots that are complex and cognitive. they can be lower cost. and we're going to see robots going from work doing manuel and routine to cognitive and non-routine. so instead of just replacing the jobs with men with stronger shoulders and support factories and mills we will see a displacement what i call low level white collar jobs. it's going to stress the job market. >> rose: i think there was a published statistic that said that 65% of today's preschools will enter the work force into jobs that do not exist. >> i think about this as a father of a nine year old 11 year old and 13 year old. if you aren't preparing your

children for specific jobs, what do you do. so the conclusion of my book is called the most important job you'll ever have. the most important job you'll ever have is being a parent. so i try to focus not pretending to be a parenting guru myself but in talking to the people who have been successful in business and government and academia saying what are the skills and attributes that kids entering a world where we don't even know what 65% of the jobs are, what are the skill and attributes they're going to need. >> rose: let me talk about things like big coin. what is your take in terms of how prevalent it might be. >> i think that a bitcoin like the search+m engines from the 1990's, a info seek web crawler. they all died out but the category of search grew quite powerful. these a thing called google. with bitcoin, i don't see bitcoin becoming a competitor to

the yuan or euro or the dollar. there's a science notion called the block change. the computer science break through is basically going to allow for highly trusted transactions. and so what that means is that right now instead of having to do the work my father has done for 45 years which is create a stack of paper this tall that you sign 30 times when you're buying or selling a home. that's a lot of friction. it's a lot of cost. it's a lot of signed pieces of paper. block chain technology will enable things like the buying and selling of a house to go from having a $10,000 closing cost to9d a $20 closing cost and go from being a six week process to a six minute process. so there are, there's a specific innovation with bitcoin is very important. >> rose: explain what bitcoin is. >> the idea it would be a stateless entirely electronic currency. it was born in the fall of 2008

as a response to the financial crises. it's proven to be neither a store of value nor a medium of exchange which is what a current see is. it proved to be much more of speculateddive which went way up and way down and way up and way down. that's far less important and this piece of technology within it, this block chain technology that we actually see the big banks, goldman sachs just filed a patent that i read in december that pulls out this piece of technology from bitcoin, this block chain technology and thee figured out, goldman sachs figured out how to move money around theefficiently using this technology and they're pretty smart about making money. >> rose: tell us about hacking and what's the future. are we all vulnerable. >> i think the weaponnization of code is the most significant development in conflict since the weaponnization of sisal material. the difference being though creating a nuclear arm requires access to the scariest of scarce

scientific talents and transuranium talent. i have a very dark view of our security on-line. >> rose: what do we need to do. >> first of all, there's a couple things. first what we need to do is elevate it so it's on the agenda of every fortune 500 board of directors. 15 years ago, it became a form if you didn't have somebody on your board of directors who was an audit expert and you really got those balance she's cleaned up then it was bad governance. i think that within the fortune 500 if you don't have somebody on your board of directors who is a cyber security expert and you can help oversee a process making sure your networks are secure it's your failure in governance. i do think this is one of the cases where the administration both the congress and the executive branch i think are making some positive progress because there's nothing implicitly partisan about it. so i do think they're making a little bit of progress making

sure we have the regulatory and statutory things in place so we can begin to invest in our network. >> rose: assuming what we already know about senator clinton's private e-mail server and assuming that there was a private server in her house. isn't it almost obvious that anybody who wanted to hack into that server could have done it. >> well i don't know that it's obvious. i don't know, i'm not, i wasn't sort of the i.t. guy obviously who set it up so i don't knowp how it was configured. what i will say is that having actually read the e-mails and i get the glory and honor of reading them every month just to see what e-mails there were between us. i don't know that there's any actionable intelligence -- >> rose: my point is not that. my point is not whether there was intelligence that might have whether it was hackable. >> rose: yes. >> no. >> rose: somebody, knowing what we know about code and what we know about software, knowing

what you know about the ability and the intelligence of the people who do it sometimes for fun sometimes for money and sometimes for national security. it is i would assume not that they're going to find national security but if they really wanted to hack into that server they could have. >> that is a probability. but it's also the case that the state department official e-mail is also hackable. and i don't know if it was any less hackable. >> rose: they can do thexr state department or the c.i.a. or other organizations. >> john brennan got his e-mail hacked. >> rose: that's my point. do games in terms of code in terms of applications in terms of how we can do things with the internet go hand in hand with promoting revolution and social change. >> that's a great question. i think it does three things. i think the internet accelerates

movement making. it makes thing that would have once taken years now can take place in days or weeks. the second thing it does is it enriches information environment. so it makes it very difficult to keep information from people and that in turn has an impact on geo political power. and the third thing and i think this is both good and bad is that it facilitates leaderlessness it facilitates leaderless movement. >> rose: that's actually a problem because what happened -- >> i was÷good. the one thing i think is good is that it makes things less rooted d if we look at the middlet's east. >> rose: the best example is egypt. that was a revolution row moted by people who are technologically savvy. and yet there was nore. leader d therefore once there was revolution and once there was an overthrow of government and

mubarak had to leave power -- >> there's no face you'll put on a t shirt from any propelled movements. if you contrast that with say the transition from communism and eastern europe, there were figures around whom they would be unifying transitional figures. think about south africa with nelson mandela. so the problem is that there ark neither institutions nor leaders who can bring the country together in a transition phase. in south africa, you had nelson mandala, you had the a and c. , in poland you had weck and that movement. what we have are vacuums and we've seen how vacuum get filled. >> rose: this book is called the industries of the future alex ross who lives in baltimore which shows he's an intelligent young man. i assume he's there because of johns hopkins but it's great to see you and see you're part of

america. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you. visit us on pbs.org and charlierose.com. ÷

captioning sponsored by rose communi captioning sponsored by rose communications access.wgbh.orgoup at wgbh >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. on the next pbs newshour college basketball kicks off its annual tournament,

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> the magic number is two. the federal reserve slashes its rate hike forecast implying just two raises this year as its view of the global economy darkens. happy holidays. yep. you heard right. fedex had a jolly season and shareholders may be starting to reap the benefits. strange success. the entrepreneur who saw the profit potential in a rundown abandoned prison. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for wednesday marc >> good evening, everyone, and welcome. the federal reserve is in no rush to raise interest rates. the central bank held rates steady for the second straight meeting and said it would increases them more gradually