tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 21, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪ from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. charlie is traveling and i'm of the goldberg atlantic. president trump's's approval numbers continue to drift downward even among the previous loyal base that won him the election. only 36% of americans support his performance so far. the trump administration continues to endure heightened scrutiny over ties with russia as robert mueller's investigation begins to ramp up. voters have gone to the polls today in georgia's nationally watched special election in the house seat.
joining me now from washington shannon pettypiece, a white house correspondent for bloomberg news. welcome. can we turn right away to one of the president's most recent tweets? it refers to the north korea crisis. " while i greatly appreciate the efforts of china to help with north korea, it has not worked out. at least i know china tried!" is there any reaction to this extraordinary tweet? as a foreign-policy person, i have to say, you very rarely see a president writing off the most important diplomatic intervention we could possibly imagine, china getting north korea under control, and saying, oh well, that is all she wrote, moving on? right.:
taking to twitter, more evidence that world war iii will be announced on twitter with this president communicating with other countries on twitter as a main means of contact at this point, i think a few things stood out from the tweet. number one, who could have guessed that in a few months, china will be on able -- unable. and this opens up the door, your whole north korea strategy was about convincing china to be able to intervene here and strong-arm north korea into doing something and now you are essentially writing that off the table with this tweet. now what is your north korea strategy? that is your big question now. it is a thing people will focus on. if you're saying china hasn't been working, what comes next? is it military intervention? it is obviously the big concern
in a lot of people's minds. jeffrey: we hope that in the white house there are a lot of discussions about ok, where do we go on north korea policy? what we know about the white house is there is a lot of discussion, particularly at the topmost level of polls and poll numbers. how are people in the white house and in particular the president dealing with some of the low poll numbers we are seeing? shannon: well, they like to cherry pick the polls that make them look good. they are always looking for a poll that makes them look better. among those who have been with the president for a long time, they have told me in the past that they are not really concerned about the poll numbers. president gotthe elected with low approval ratings and very high unfavorable approval ratings, and still became president despite the numbers that they see now and despite what may happen in 2018. they are still confident if the election were held today, even with the bad numbers, he would
still get elected because hey, he got elected as a very unfavorable candidate. jeffrey: right. go to spicer and his future. is he going to be moved off of the podium permanently? and the larger question for any white house correspondent is, does it even matter anymore? we don't have a great deal of communication between this white house and the press corps anymore. will be i think he moved off the podium when they can find someone to replace him. they have been trying to find someone to replace him for quite a while now. that has been out there. but you cannot replace your spokesperson unless you have someone else to take the job. i do not think he is leaving the white house. close to theeople president that the president has a lot of respect for him and loyalty because he knows that sean spicer has taken big arrows for him and is out there defending him. i don't think he will leave the white house. he willing, i think
take on a behind-the-scenes committee k strategy role. that could potentially be even more influential than the spokesperson role. as far as whether or not it matters, i suppose that depends on who replaces him. never white house, it is a completely transparent and friendly and jovial relationship between the press and the spokesperson. whoever replaces him, i think there will continue to be tension. thisey: thank you for update. i appreciate it. boughton is here, a national correspondent for "the atlantic," a magazine i know something about. he wrote the article called "how to deal with north korea." he is an author for the 1999 down" and hisawk turningent book is " a point for america in vietnam.
-- for the american war in vietnam." the challenge that america poses for u.s. -- u.s. policymakers, we learned about the u.s. student imprisoned on false and ridiculous charges, however you and it -- wasit, somehow catastrophically injured and we do not understand how, in his north korean prison, and died yesterday here and i want about talk for one minute what you think might have happened, why this happened, and what it could mean. mark: they are really petty. the real outrage, i do not know exactly what happened to the kid but he apparently was taking a poster off a wall. jeffrey: if that is even true. mark: even if that is true, he
got 20 years of hard labor or something. obviously something awful happened to him and we do not know what it was. there is a good reason why the state department advises americans not to travel to north korea. there is not much we can do. so i guessge people the ban would be a symbolic gesture. thing that kind of happens between nations, it prompts diplomatic protests and i guess at its height, foreign officers from another country. since we don't have any diplomatic relations with north korea, there is not much we can do other than express our outrage. jeffrey: it strikes me that you are not surprised by what has happened in this instance.
i wonder if that comes from your knowledge of this regime? mark: i think it does. north korea has been a dangerous player for a long time. a south korean ship a few years ago killed seven or more of the killers on board. island, theyn practically leveled it and killed a lot of people. have never a knowledge or don't believe that the korean war has ended. they view the united states and south korea as active competence in a contempt -- continuing war. i think people get lulled by time into thinking these hostilities do not still exist. barack obama told donald trump that this is your most in solvable -- unsolvable conflict.
do you agree? mark: it is deftly the most dangerous place in the world. jeffrey: talk to me about this, as you pointed out, we have been in crisis with north korea is going back to the early 1950's. why is it more dangerous today? two reasons. the north koreans are getting ever closer to holding what they would need in order to deliver a weapon to the united states mainland. they are presumed to have already built nuclear weapons to ride on a missile. exists as a kind of threshold for the threat they pose to the united states. frankly the second factor is heald trump, the fact that is basically adopting a contrary position to just about everything president obama did, and i think obama's policy of
strategic patience in dealing with north korea does not sit well and does not seem to in his tweets, and i think he is playing with fire. jeffrey: twitter is not known as a platform for strategic patience. mark: how can you justify saying he seems to be a parent of the long history of the standoff with north korea, and what i can definitely say is there is no evidence of any real understanding of what is going on there and anyone who deliberately is inflaming the situation, it seems to me, is working directly counter to a sane policy. jeffrey: so in reading this piece, which i think is the definitive piece, and i am biased, on the current crisis, you come to the conclusion that there are no good options, but you do delineate four options. could you very briefly take us through what we are facing? jeffrey: the most -- is wethe most obvious one
have nuclear capability to completely destroy north korea's economy. what that out and take the threat away. another possibility is ramp up the pressure on them and target things like a nuclear test site and nuclear reactors, the nuclear missile launchers. and really make damaging blows to their infrastructure, which presumably, you could ramp that up and hopefully get them to back down from the pursuit of these weapons. these are all bad options. will obviously interpret any attack that the united states makes probably in the worst possible light. it is very hard to launch a limited attack which does not look to them like a full on attack. jeffrey: how do you calibrate that when you're doing with a paranoid regime? mark: they have been participating in -- for the past
60 or 70 years. and the third option is decapitation or that appeals in a hollywood way, where you go in and take out the leadership of north korea. virtually impossible to do just because of the nature of that took terrell -- totalitarian state because of the degree of and peopleound kim around him. it would require someone or in his circle -- someone in his circle to betray him. you would get something better but you might not and you might also trigger the exact thing you're trying to avoid because obviously he is the linchpin of their whole state. him, you could very well kickoff the war you are trying to avoid. option, also undesirable, is to realize, i think it is inevitable that they will build nuclear tipped icbm sometime in the next four or five years. essentially hoping that by
continuing to apply diplomatic pressure, and to make it clear that any attack by north korea not just on the united states, but on our allies, would prompt a massive and immediate response, it would essentially put kim jong-il and in the position of committing suicide if he were to attempt that. jeffrey: the homicide of los angeles or honolulu or took ill. mark: sure. it is not a michael -- unlike -- they are all terrible. i have been talking to people who have an studying this for years. jeffrey: you know it is not tenable to have an unstable and hostile, bellicose anti-american , with the capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon to los angeles or san francisco or any other american city to how could any american president go to the american people and say we will just live with these crazy
people and yes they can kill us that after, we will kill all of like it does not seem is politically viable. mark: it is not something any american president will ever say . i do not think there are other alternatives. other alternatives is to get china and russia to apply enough pressure on north korea appeared up till today, they have been reluctant to do. 21968y: let's pivot south and we are pivoting back in time. i wonder if this book, in researching the book, it helped you understand the limitations of american power, the limits that we have been trying to persuade regimes we don't like from behaving in ways we do not want to see them behave? the nominee is the classic example of limitations on military power. we were superior in the -- a military force and yet, we were
not able to use the force to accomplish the goal we set for ourselves. the goal was to protect and build a democratic society in south vietnam. and again, the united states tries to use in military force took comp which sweeping goals afghanistan and iraq. number one, it came at a time, i do not know if it would be the same today, when racism and arrogance led us to deeply underestimate the capability of the viet cong. nowhere is that more evident than in this battle, which took united states command completely by surprise. jeffrey: the united states won the battle but the moment where you and walter cronkite thought that we lost the war, give us one minute if you could boil down 600 pages 21 minute, give
one minute on why this was pivotal beyond the military meaning of what happened? mark: in large part because in the united states, president johnson had been selling this war to the american public of something that could be easily one. westmoreland came back to washington at the end of 1967 and gave a speech at the national press come -- press club where he said the war is a most over and we are moving into the final phase and we began to bring american troops home. next year. not more than two months after he gave the speech, 10,000 north vietnamese and viet cong take over the third-largest city in south vietnam and launch simultaneous attacks in 100 cities. jeffrey: they knew but they weren't listened to. mark: that is right. in the case of hue, the city was taken, very minor resistance. westmoreland denied it
being taken even though he had a report that told him it had been. jeffrey: ultimately, the united states won the battle but it convinced the american people there was no winning the war. mark: not just the american people but the south vietnamese people. all through the vietnam war, or what they call the american work, they were trying to align themselves with the victor. they do not want to be on the wrong side when the power game is over, and so the attacks on south vietnam, the taking of hue , i think you murdered a great deal of the confidence the south vietnamese people had in the government. jeffrey: the book is "hue 1968." the magazine is "the atlantic." i recommend people read both. mark bowden, pleasure to have you. mark: thank you. ♪
jeffrey: we continue now with foreign policy. for the first time in quite a while, our country and leaders are questioning assumptions that government policy at the end of world war ii, especially as they are concerned with what america's role should be. here to discuss these challenges are, from washington, the president of the center for new american security. here in new york is the editor
of foreign affairs magazine, and david is here, president of the international rescue committee, just returned from visiting south sudan and uganda. i am pleased to welcome them all to the program. thank you for being here. there is the whole world to period ofhe next time. i want to come to what we are honoring or celebrating today, marking he is a diplomat and knows the diplomatic words. i want to come to the question of north korea. barack obama told donald trump, as i mentioned to mark bowden, that this is the biggest problem in american president will face in this time. do you agree and where is this going? >> it is the greatest danger but i do not think we should ignore what is going on. there are plenty of other places , there is plenty of scope.
i think the four options that mark bowden sets out, he rightly says none of them are tractive. i think donald trump did stumble on something important when he said he was willing to talk to the north koreans. the tragedy is we're now in a situation -- jeffrey: invite him to the white house. a what we now confront is situation where he cannot be rewarded, the north koreans cannot be rewarded for the kinds of behaviors, and the appalling death of the most troubling thing is not that the chinese won't talk to the north koreans. if the north koreans feel strong enough, they do not want to talk to the chinese. that's space to a sense of isolation and rationality. people say don't dismiss the regime as necessarily irrational. there may be irrationality there. if they are not able to -- willing to talk to the chinese, you can doubt your own view of irrationality. jeffrey: the death yesterday of this young american student.
does this horrific incident push us closer to confrontation? >> it is one more sign of brutality at home and what it is willing to do for foreigners willing to visit the country and for americans. i don't think it changes the geopolitical calculus all that much. the north koreans obviously pose a danger with the nuclear missile programs and there remain no good military options as discussed before. willnk of anything, it stiffen the spines of those in washington looking for what else there is to do about the problem of north korea, namely sanctions things likece and that. jeffrey: in washington, on the circles in which you travel, are any people saying, yes, we need to go for a preemptive strike and do something dramatic right now? not even right now but in the window between now and when they might able to deliver a nuclear
weapon to america? is no,: the short answer no one is talking about, really, the possibility of a strike, unless there was an imminent thing we could detect. and the artoximity -- artillery and chemical weapons, and the human scale of conflict in the south, there simply is no good military option. i do think the president already tweeted today that he thinks he is given up on the notion of china solving that crisis before us. that is the refreshing corrective that will get us to a better policy going forward. jeffrey: you are a living personification of the establishment, is there a broad consensus that the paradigms out here,bowden lays
that there really is nothing to do except wait, contain, and hope for the best? >> yes. jeffrey: thank you very much. >> they tend to be two kinds of problems. one is the problem that everybody knows what to do about them but they cannot do it because of politics getting in the way. classic example is the peace process. you could design a peace process that would ultimately work. so could you or i, but we just can't. the other type of problem is no one knows anything about how to deal with it. pakistan and north korea, permit examples. no one has a north korean policy. that no oneoblems really knows what to do it all the options are terrible and the best you can hope for is jolly the situation down the road a little bit without blowing it up and trying to make it better as and lay thecan groundwork for more stuff down the road. you will never get a solution. maybe you could possibly get
agreement, but essentially, north korea, there is no solid answer. any kind of solution would be a disaster and incredibly risky. no one wants that but no one has a good answer about what to do. jeffrey: place this in the context of a trump foreign-policy doctrine, and then i will pivot to the question of, is there a discernible trump foreign-policy doctrine? this is a strange time in history to not only are books going to be written about it, but it is just very odd to live through. right now, america does not seem to have an arc acuity and coherent foreign policy and strategic doctor to the trump administration running the country and running american saidgn-policy, has not anything and the policies are some things that are radically different from the past, something's are the same and they have foot flopped on
something things and no one knows what is going on. there are actions but no necessarily coherent articulation into a strategy. at the same time, the government is going on. there are very few appointments that have been made for this -- from this administration. you think they are not even staffing the government, so how could they possibly run things? the jobs are being filled. people are in place doing the various assistant secretary jobs at the state department or the deputies job, but they are , soer career bureaucrats what that means is everything is going on autopilot and everything is basically rolling forward without anything changing. so you have no foreign policy but the same foreign policy continuing until further guidance. jeffrey: richard, why don't they fill these jobs? a late start got because so much of the transition work had not been done or was discarded after the victory in the election. unlike the clinton campaign, they had not done extensive planning that they might have
done. is then, the pentagon rolling out jobs, the state department is doing a massive reorganization and we look at its bureaucracy and postponing things, and then you have the , that a largesue number of those who would be and more appointees mainstream republican administrations from the foreign-policy rank-and-file, came out in opposition to the trump campaign last year. and so are ineligible to go in. they need to find individuals -- jeffrey: ineligible or unwilling even if someone wanted them question mark richard: -- them? richard: both but in eligible. you will do the letters, i don't believe a single one has entered the trump administration. you never say never but being one of the signatories, i'm not standing --
it would all depend on circumstances. i think there is a compulsion to serve the country if you think you can do something good but the circumstances would have to be you have to be in the service of a policy you feel comfortable pushing. known for some time that the administration is skeptical of multilateral engagement. one other thing -- >> you still need people to engage in bilateral engagement. ambassadors. >> we do, but we know there is skepticism. it is not just that there is -- i think something is has become clear in the last couple of weeks that is significant. that is about the value the president places on military action in its foreign-policy tools p release see that with respect to afghanistan and in a range of areas. -- warned of this and said
military action without an endgame, all the world posse trouble spots, we know that unless you have a vision of the credible sharing of power, as the endgame to which politics is driving, you are not going to win. the announcement over the last week that effectively all power has been transferred to the pentagon. it is something the pentagon has never wanted. it has always argued -- jeffrey: does that make you feel better or worse? given the specific circumstances of the trump foreign-policy? news is the general's led by the secretary know the costs of war and the dangers of war. the bad news is they don't have the tools come later in foreign-policy or in the development side or in the humanitarian side, at their disposal. they will get a huge increase in the budget at the state department is not just understaffed but unstaffed. seeing a budget threatened with
the cut. jeffrey: is this the least idealistic administration when it comes to foreign policy that you have seen? >> you have to go back to see the lack of that content. the president comes in with an intuitive sense of the element of the national order. be bolstered by u.s. power and it made america a victim rather than a great beneficiary so that alliances do not necessarily crude oil interests but countries get rich on the back of our protection. the system creates jobs overseas errand at home, a fools
at home, not necessarily part of what the united states should do. the difference is not everyone in the administration believes in those principles and they are really inconsistently manifested in the policy. jeffrey: nikki haley speaks in different ways than donald trump speaks in a number of different ways. go to the question of idealism. far, as ateraction so worldwide leader in the cause of solving refugee crises, what are you seeing that is different? >> the obama administration was not overly idealistic. >> the sense of victimhood about the united states that the projects.tion it is a sense the u.s. is a victim of national order, other crises, economic weakness. that stands in a stark contradiction to uganda and south sudan last year, a painful
and pitiable sense among some of the poorest people in the world, they were saying we must go back until mr. trump that we have got a million refugees who are arriving and we really need america to sort out the civil war. what i sense around the administration is they have awed into an argument that america is a victim of economic and medical -- jeffrey: everyone is trying to game us. trying butjust everyone has an you no longer have the tools and the ability and the willingness to go out and sort other people's problems. that comes to me very strongly and this is slightly over the top that it is almost a sense of projecting national humiliation. those of us were not americans see thatve the country whatever the difficulties the country has been in, the idea that you have been humiliated by the rest of the world, which sees the u.s. and anchor of the global system, just feels out of kilter. is really strange because it is a must as if the president does not see himself
as the head of the government or the united states as the head of a global order. the international order and international system not in the way previous madeleine have like albright's indispensable nation rhetoric. donald trump does not care about running the world. he does not care much about running the american government or when he talks about rod rosenstein and other officials, he talks about it as it is something other than him and you say, wait a second, you signed off. he seems to talk about the international oil -- order in the same way, as if it of something the united states impose on it rather than something that we created to get the most out of cooperative relationships with allies. it is very odd. >> our friend famously referred to the foreign policy establishment as the blob and there are so many a stamp it -- so many figures. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. ♪
it has earned a peabody and an emmy award and here is a look. >> that is really good. aziz: i told you. aren't you glad you expended: her horizons beyond italian? >> yes, you're right. aziz: indian food? >> i don't really like it. but: i was kidding earlier crazed curry people, definitely races. i am not a curry person to time not defined by the flavors my people enjoy. what do you call chinese people, soy sauce people? pleased to have aziz ansari back on the program. things are going well for you. aziz: i think so. charlie: a second season suggests things are going well. when you pitched this, what did
you tell the people at netflix? doz: we just said we want to a show about me based on my observations from stand up, and we did not really tell them too much. the show evolved because we had a long break between the time we pitched the show and the time we did it. in that time, we got another season of "parks and recreation." we got a half order of 13 episodes and that was unexpected. we had that time to marinade on what the show is. we went through some versions that were probably little more standard versions of the show and we kind of pushed ourselves to come up with stuff a little more ambitious. is it easier because you are drawing from your own life experiences to write it? aziz: it is but at a certain point, what i hit now is i'm kind of tapped.
a single guy living in new york. there is only so much i can write about that. thingsason, we did some that were interesting where there was an f -- an episode called thanksgiving where it was a lot about one of the other actors who plays one of my friends, denise, and it was about her experience dealing with her sexuality and coming out to her mother and it was do someone else besides myself. another episode where i am not really in it and one person is a taxi driver and one person is a deaf woman who is a cashier and the third person is a doorman. we spent a long time interviewing people in these professions and interviewing deaf people and learning about the experiences. it was a fun challenge to try to do what we do with me with other people. its point thethat success of the show? that you try to learn what it
was like with the spirit of other people? core i think that is a element of the show, a genuine chorion -- curiosity we have the first season has an episode about our parents and that one took off. it came from a real place of alan and i being curious about the struggles of our parents and their journey here. season one, what did you want to accomplish other than to establish character? just i think we wanted to make a show that we thought was good and met our own standards and what it ended up doing went far beyond expectations. you know, the show got a lot of press and stuff. just the idea of someone that looks like me being a romantic lead in all this stuff, it was not stuff we thought about at all. people are like the show is so diverse and me and alan are like, when we have lunch, that is diverse. we don't think about that.
we have a guy playing a version doing this we are together, to us, it is not diverse. that is just our lives. think aboutn you sexually explicit stuff, do you stay away from that? as much is that as you can? aziz: we write whatever is interesting to us. in the first season, there were scenes that were a little more sexually explicit. we had all thing, we did the episode called mornings about a long-term relationship and you and youerent mornings saw how the sex became boring for this couple and how something like, when they would have sex on the chair at something at first, it was very exciting amended came routine. it was fun to write it and then we filmed it and i was like, what have i written? -- noeason, kind of notes sexily explicit stuff. the main romantic arc my character meets this woman, it
is kind of more internal and emotional and was kind of really inspired a lot why -- a lot by these films i was on and kind of trying to show an internal drama. the second half of the second to my, when it gets character, it is kind of about him exploring this relationship. in the beginning, he is trying to find that connection and doing that episode about being on a dating app, but really, i think it is just about this guy you know, trying to do what i think me and alan are trying to do, trying to find a connection to someone and he finds it and it is a woman and he does not know what to do. are fascinated by a driven by the idea of, can i find a connection that somehow broadens my network of people and broadens my sense of
belonging? wherever it is, people are looking to belong and have some way of feeling that they are not alone. think alan and i were talking about this recently. as we get even in our 30's, we just feel it, ok, how many more times will i feel that really strong connection with someone? even with all the dating apps and stuff, you just feel like, how many times am i going to feel that magic? charlie: it does not slow down. aziz: at a certain point, i have met all my friends of friends of friends, where my going to find this thing? that idea was powerful to us, to make it like, ok, he finds this connection but it is with someone really unavailable and what do you do if you finally find this and you are so excited by it? charlie: you spent a month alone in italy? aziz: about two months. i did with the character did and i went to a small town where we ended up filming. i did not know anybody.
i took like three weeks of italian classes with the teacher in new york before i went. but i was not very good p when you learn in those kind situations, you speak very formal and people make fun of you as soon as you get there. p ii did not know anybody had a couple friends of friends. i worked in the past a shop that you see in the opening -- pasta shop that you see in the opening of the show and the restaurant in the episode. of learned how to make pasta and speak italian better. also, i really did it in the beginning for research for the show but it ended up in something really valuable for me , the real person, as well, just to live somewhere else besides new york nla for a little while and be out of that environment. i just realized how much time i spent in new york and l.a., two very crazy places. it was nice to live somewhere small where no one knew who i was. charlie: the same cast of
characters you can always find an playoff of. aziz: there, i did not know anybody and when we do the episodes there, we did not use any of the characters from the first season. in the first episode, it was a bit of a challenge. it was like, we are not bringing back any of the characters. it is in italy, mostly italian, and i feel like we pulled it off. the second one, my best friend of the show, arnold, comes and visits me. the real -- in real life, the guy who plays arnold is one of my best friends and he came and visited me. when he came, i was like, come and visit me for a week and i am sure something will happen that we could put in the show. sure enough, we went to sicily together and we're driving around and we saw a very small alley and the gps is like, turn in this alley and i was like, i don't think we can do this. a truck went through and i was like, all right, we will be fine
and sure enough, we got stuck. charlie: how do you pull off doing this and stand up at the same time? aziz: i don't whatever i am doing the show, i don't do stand up. hostedy standup i did, i saturday night live so i did a month of standup before that. i knew the monologue was going to be heavily watched. s&l's really big right now. it was going to be the day after the inauguration of trump and i knew it was going to be a big show. i had no material. the other material i had put in the special. i really have to to start from scratch and start figuring out what the set was. i started going to comedy clubs as much as i can. just trying to write and figure out what my take is on it. it is hard to write about it as everyone is talking about it and you want a unique take. it was very high pressure. i did not go anywhere for christmas holiday or anything. i just ate in new york and i would do seven or eight cents a
night, trying to keep working and get in shape. charlie: you do that in a month. time yes but it is a long and actually not that long. i don't know. it was hard. but i worked really hard and got in shape. charlie: doing standup is too hard on its own and doing a series is too hard on its own, and the two might get in the way of each other. aziz: the series is all-consuming p ryan pretty much in every scene of the show except for the episode i am not in. i get there in the morning and i , i get there at 7:00 and i leave until 8:00 or 9:00. to do that and then say i would hit the clubs for the rest of the night, i would go nuts. when i do stand up, i cannot kind of do it. i have to get upset. charlie: all the people i know who are up -- successful are obsessed. aziz: anyone who is good at anything is obsessed. ok, itandup, there is no,
will do one set. let's say i dished "master of 6:00 and then went out at 7:30? i would want to do it again and say, is that going to work again , do i fix the other thing, and i would keep going until late in the night and i would not sleep well and i would do a horrible the nextaster of none" day. i keep them separate. charlie: what role has chris rock played to you? aziz: he is like a mentor/wise uncle/hero. many roles. he is one of the smartest people i have ever met. are few creative people i have met in my life, and i am lucky to have met a lot that i look up to a lot, and he is one of the people i really trust and listen to and i think is smarter than a lot of people. charlie: what kind of advice would you give you? he knows the world that you are trying to be the best at. aziz: he told me a great thing
when i was getting ready for s&l. he texted me -- snl. he texted me and i would send him audio files of sets and one thing he told me early on is, you know, this will be the biggest standup set you ever do. the thing he said was be big and seize the moment. is what he told full sure about your set -- success. he has great taste or that is an overlooked part of being an artist. -- charlie: do you agree with that? aziz: i do. i thought that was smart and i read the piece. it is me and alan's taste. we pick the font.
we are very hands-on with the music and the wardrobe and everything. when you are overseeing a show like this, i mean, i guessed some people are not as particular on everything, but alan and i are hands-on. the people we hired we really trust and we try to make sure everything is done for a reason and we are pretty specific. charlie: do you get back to south carolina? aziz: not really. my parents now live in north carolina. they live outside of charlotte. i go back and see them every now and then. are they surprised by this at all? not that you are successful but that it is comedy? i mean, would they have looked at you as a kid when you are growing up and said, he is the funniest kid on the block? he is the funniest kid now? iiz: i think they would say
liked making people laugh and i was a was always comfortable public speaking. anda being five or six making speeches. and not being scared of it. that it's a pretty crazy thing to think about when you hear about how in general people are very terrified of public speaking. imagine being a little kid and not having that fear at all, it is very weird, i think. i think a career in entertainment is so unexpected matter who you are. there are some people who are like him when they are four, they are four, they're like, i want to be an actor. when you grow up in south carolina, your dreams are much more muted. charlie: this refers to something you said earlier. there is unlikely to be a third series here. aziz: i don't know. as soon as i started to doing interviews for the second season, people are like, when is the third season? i'm like, hey, man, i just finished this. leave me alone. i do not want to say it is unlikely there will be a third season. i just think right now i need a
break and i would love to just have some experiences. you know, i only want to do that i am inspired and feel at my notebook is full of ideas p or when a started doing the show, i had so many ideas and a used a lot of them in the series. i would not want to do a third season unless i felt it was as inspired as what we have done. we joke around and we are like, we would love to do a "master of when we are 70 years old, that would be great, or a few years from now, when we are married and have kids, and observations about that. it is tough for me right now to think of 10 episodes to have the depth that we have done about a single guy trying to find a connection while he is eating around town p or i'm kind of tapped at the moment. charlie: i hear you. many comedians have come here and talked about it and said, why did you stop at three or four or five or whatever the number might be, and they always say because i was repeating
myself, because i did not have anything new to say. the best will come and say that and they will take a time off to do a movie or something else and then come back or continue to make movies or some other aspect of the entertainment world. aziz: yes. "master of none" is the most fun job i ever had or ever will have, maybe. i am proud of my best friends and my entire immediate family. my brother works with me every day and my family comes and i get to sit there and laugh with my dad. it is such a unique experience. charlie: what does he think of it question mark aziz: -- it? aziz: he loves acting. i never knew that until recently, that he tried to start a trauma program in his cool in india when he was in high school and stuff and they did productions and stuff. but he is a very funny guy and loves making people laugh. he loves acting on the show and stuff. when we have moments like
winning the enemy or things like that, obviously, your parents are proud. to be integral to the success of it, it is a unique thing. youlie: how comfortable do feel speaking out on political issues? not a need or not a need or an obligation, but how much a sense that it is something you feel you have to do? i kind of just, i feel it when i feel it. i wrote an op-ed for the new york times at one point about islamophobia, and i did that because i knew if i did that, a lot of people would get hold of it. thing i have done in my career that people have come up to me wasn't anything, an op-ed for "the new york times," a comedian, it is unique that hit so hard to did not know how much it would resonate. i thought maybe it would get spread around among people who look like me.
but people from all walks of life come up to me and say i read that and it was really cool you wrote that. in that moment, it felt like i needed to do that and i'm glad i did. andar as "master of none" in my standup, i think it has to come from a genuine place. when i did the bit about islamophobia in the monologue for snl, i thought that was a funny bit and i thought it made a good point and i thought i should do it. but i would never want to do something if i did not have like a real inspiration behind it, you know, i mean, the new york times op-ed was coming from a real place because all right, ins is my parents, and i'm this unique position and it felt like the right thing to do. but i never just right political material because i feel like i have to. i feel like i write it when i am inspired to. thanks so much for having me. charlie: thanks for joining us. see you next time. ♪