tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 20, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin with the conflict in syria. mid to high level state officials signed an internal memo protesting u.s. policy in syria. it calls for targeted military strikes against the assad regime. it says that a strategy of diplomacy cannot proceed to secretary john kerry has advocated a more aggressive approach to syria. president obama has resisted wa
ding deeper into the conflict. the underurns from secretary of state lyrical affairs. here it is, the new york times. 51 u.s. diplomats in dissent on assad. on a side -- on is a civic story/♪? nicholas: we wanted our be creative and speak up when they see something they don't like. richard and i worked on this over many decades. but what they are speaking about is the enormous frustration inside the u.s. government. think in many circles, new york, washington, other places, over the president's policy in the middle east. i admire president obama.
he has been entirely risk-averse in the middle east. as i understand, reading the article, these people are not saying we should put a big american land army into syria. that would be catastrophic. i think they are suggesting, and i certainly believe, we ought to play our traditional role, a diplomatic, kohler's role. - charlie: you are arguing, that while president obama has had foreign policy successes, the middle east is a failure. nicholas: it's important for our economic, clerical, military interests in that part of the world. look at the neighbors of syria -- israel, lebanon, turkey, iraq, jordan. this war, that has killed
several hundred thousand people and made 12 million of the 22 million syrians homeless. it has now metastasized in those countries. we vacated our normal diplomatic role and allowed the russians to play the lead role is a big mistake. you used to run this. it was under your jurisdiction. richard: whole idea was to thatrage just that, voices were advocating policies that were not the adopted policy of the administration or the department of the day. it came out of vietnam. it was used a lot in bosnia. it's being used now -- the fact that it is being is now is not surprising. the president has taken foreign policy pretty far in one direction. it has been extremely risk-averse. of the paid the price president did too much informed policy, bush in iraq. the gap between rhetoric and
policy and for what he has done in places like libya. wrong in believing that i heard you say before we have to be very careful about our commitments in the middle east. we have to be very careful. doing manyof risk in of the things that could ask of the syrian policy want us to do. richard: absolutely. one of the lessons as you do not want to go in there with a large military footprint. you don't want to go in there to change the society. our think are policy shouldn't be having their reading the federalist papers. seems to point out, there has to be connected between what you try to do diplomatically and the situation on the ground. and mr. obama has paid a repeated price for this disconnect. so john kerry is running around -- i don't care how many hours he puts in or how many miles he puts in, he cannot succeed if there is a gap between what he
is trying to create through diplomacy and what is happening on the ground. thatie: al -- not richard: iran and the russians have come in and shifted the balance of power on the ground. assad hasrise that stiffened his position. thrust saying that the united states has to be prepared to do more militarily, both directly, with missile strikes, and indirectly, with army people. it seems to me foreign policy 101. we always get into trouble when your ambitions are greater than what you are prepared to do. that is why this administration has gotten into trouble. charlie: what were the said desk
this administration's ambitions in the first place/to get out. richard: it was to get rid of a side. a gap between the americas stated aims and america's preparedness to actually act. inrlie: looking today, 2016, june. what is possible. let's assume that there is a reevaluation for lots of reasons and that this has impact. not talking about 200,000 american forces or anything like that. talking about strikes, it seems to me. what is possible? and can they really achieve anything of significance that will affect the balance by strikes? nicholas: i think john kerry is right that ultimately this huge conflict in syria, where the community has been blown apart, is going to end in the negotiating table. but i don't think it will happen this year. the negotiations have now come to a halt. why?
because the syrian government will not negotiate with the opposition. they want a total victory. in the russians are stringing us along. this summer, the united states is to say we will use our power to get humanitarian quarters, food, medical supplies, into into the agreed cities for thousands, tens of thousands of people who are starting. number two, sometimes you have to threaten. charlie: but if you threaten, you have to be willing to -- nicholas: yes. what we should do is threaten say we are going to establish, we, the united states, turkey, arab countries and the nato countries, safety even on the jordanian-syrian border, to protect refugees. threat -- charlie: and if you do, we are at war?
nicholas: no, i think the russians will respect it. we haven't actually exercise that kind of leverage. the reason i would start their before a strikes is that, of the 12 million syrian homeless, 7 million are homeless inside syria. profound,most damaging humanitarian conflict in the world today. and we have been silent on this and we have taken in 2300 syrian refugees. historically, every republican, democratic administration has taken at least half of global refugees since 1945. richard: two different directions. one is to protect innocent people. cover for. air and you need ground forces. that does not change the -- charlie: the peshmerga concert only be there.
richard: the peshmerga have other goals. but that is secondary. what you are going to do to change the military balance -- you want to combine three things. you want to combine targeted strikes on syrian military forces. you want to send more amerco special forces to assist local arabs. we have been unwilling to provide them with air defense weapons. so if the russians or anyone else was to go over that air, like in afghanistan, they will have to take extraordinary risk. only if we do that do have a in improving negotiations. but if it turns at that syria and russia do not want to negotiate, we will improve the situation on the ground. the united states has to be prepared to help others with more, to do more itself. it are you get a better negotiating outcome, but if not, you get a better situation on the ground. to me, that is couple of entry to greater efforts to create zones.rt of humanitarian this isn't a solution.
there may not be a solution to the syria. but it does stabilize the situation. charlie: what is the strategy? is it to take assad out militarily? is it to have some leverage to negotiate with him that he doesn't have now? in the last 10 days, he said i want to regain all of syria. nicholas: i don't think we can be kingmakers in syria. but i think what we can do, as richard suggests -- this was possible in 2013 and 2014 -- you can come back to it -- reduce assad's ability to use his air force. that was the purpose as i understood it of the redline in 2012 and 2013. that is what we should have done . not going after assad and try to take them down, because then you have some responsibility to the chaos that ensues. but weaken him -- bu
him. then we can build up diplomacy. charlie: let me ask this question. .his is the state department these are seasoned diplomats who feel the u.s. is not using diplomacy like it has in its history. fair enough? and using it to gain leverage. where is the military in this? is their opinion the same as these diplomats? richard: the most important thing to say about diplomacy in this administration is that it is white house centric. the state department, i think, has lost a lot of the strength of its voice. the military is professional. the will be what they are asked. they will send special forces, do more training, do air attacks. charlie: but do they have the opinion, if they are asked to do a lot more, they will do a lot more and not necessarily sending in 200,000 troops. richard: that is the thing.
they will do more. they tend to get uneasy when you asked them to do a lot more for local reasons rather than military reasons. they get much more nervous when thisy you want them to do to influence people's decision-making. so the military likes to have understandably clearcut missions . if you tell us to take out 25% of mr. assad's air force, i will do it. we can do that. here's the cost and so for. this is the sort of thing that i .elieve that we should be doing again, it seems to me that it stabilizes the situation on the ground. it may tee up diplomacy. to movesk damascus against a side at some point. what you want to do is change the political cap relations of some people in damascus where they see assad as a liability. putine: purtin expert --
let's assume you get rid of assad. what you have there and what are the possibilities? and do we see isis roaring down the main street of damascus? nicholas: that was the argument in favor of the russian intervention. iraq,rned the hard way in libya and other places, that you need a day after plan. the we had lots of time and we have lots of time. aside is not going to disappear sad is not going to disappear in an afternoon. what you are talking about is creating a diplomatic dynamic, a post-assad alawite committee. you are looking at a syria that is not a national country in any's -- any real sense of the world for decades to come. other -- what you are looking at is a syria of hearts.
-- of parts. for me, that is a realistic goal. charlie: my simpson is the not be necessary -- my a assumption is the russians would not necessarily be against that. nicholas: this is going to end at the negotiating table. the russians i do not think would be adverse to this kind of solution if their own interests could be protected. you want a foothold in syria and so you have to get them in there. that is what diplomacy is all about. the way to do it is to have some weight on your side and to be physically present. that's one. fighting an air campaign against the islamic state in syria and iraq. the islamic state is a pernicious group you i support the air campaign. we are doing nothing against another actor, the syrian government, that has been at and ins distractive, cases like aleppo, more destructive.
at au're try to arrive positive conclusion in syria through airpower against islamic state, but you -- but you refuse to act against an equally powerful and pernicious actor, he doesn't make any sense. that is where the said mistress and are the next has to go. thisie: -- this is where administration or the asked to go. brought syriaas for interest in this program. there are tremendous consequences if it continues to go the wrong way. pageyou are on the front of "the new york times" and you remind people how, in this particular case, we are feeling and our effort, it does concentrate the minds of all of us to find another way to be successful. richard: the obama administration has another seven months ago. you cannot run out the clock. there is still time to have
policy change through don't leave a total mess. charlie: is he motivated to do that at all? richard: based on what i've seen in terms of his actions and his conversations, no. what he basically wants to do is put this in the box on his desk that is too hard and leave it for his successor. what i like about this dissent cable is it puts pressure on him . people in washington will be talking about it. it forces him and the staff to confront this issue. it is not going to go away, even if they don't want to turn to it. ♪
charlie: we turn now to britain, brexit and the death of a member of -- a permit. cox was shot and stabbed yesterday. the 41 euro m p was considered a rising star in the -- the p was considered a rising star. occurred one week before a referendum on whether britain should leave the european union. police are investigating whether the suspect shouted "britain first." britain first is a far right click party that favors leaving
the eu. both the lead and remain sides stopped campaigning out of respect for cox. we are joined now by john mikel weight. he is now the current editor-in-chief of "bloomberg news." where was this heading for this terrible murder took place? john: it seemed heading increasingly for leave. were that most of us were still betting on remain but even that morning, one of the best professor polling in britain found that morning -- he prettyt announced that likely remain would win. chairman seemed to be unable to in all thediscussion attempts, with a call project fear, to say, look, if we leave,
it will be a disaster. british people seem to be sent, honestly, we've been through the sort of stuff. it's going to be ok. and now this has changed it area charlie: i want to leah -- changed it. charlie: i want to lay out where we were. people who supported remain were primarily of what demographic? john: very interesting. the demographic is interesting. the old overwhelmingly support leaving. and the young support staying. so the big question going to the vote is everyone knows the old will come out and vote. they always do. always young, there is of the things going on, and people were increasingly worried about whether the young would come out. and in the background -- you do have another thing in favor of remain, which is why people like me generally thought remain would do well. you had 10% of people who are undecided.
normally, if you are undecided in a vote like this, you in the and go for the status quo. i'm not eating convinced i want to change and take this step into the dark. cardat was still the best the remain people had. but they were slipping behind in the polls. about 3%,people had 4%, 5% lead. charlie: what we call here in america momentum. john: you had the conservatives split with probably a majority of them saying they want to leave. the labour party, which is traditionally mostly remain led veryremy corbyn, it is a far left later, the farthest left leader they've had in a long time. weird bit ofthat the labour party which is against the european union. he's never been a great supporter. he might be described as a tepid supporter. so for the remain campaign to
work, they wanted all the labor voters to come out and the young. he tended toes, say that the european union is a disastrous place, badly run, and dastardly people trying to inflict capitalism on you. but i will probably still stay with it. that strangely probably wasn't the best selling line. charlie: there's lots of people who made powerful arguments, including you, that this would have a terrible impact on the british economy, on the european economy, on the global economy. john: very much so. and i think the argan venture there. for people saying watch outcome i think some people exaggerated what the possibility's were. but because you never quite know what they are going to be, you are caught it away. it is entirely possible that britain does vote to leave, which is still a distinct
possibility. if britain boats to leave next week am i think the united could work this out. the scots will most certainly vote to stay in. it's quite likely the english will vote to go out. so than that schism reemerges. what else is sitting there in a big way, inside the european union, if britain goes, i think you set off earthquakes. you look at the germans. you look at the attitude they have. on the one hand, they are saying please stay to the british because they are deeply worried that the european union does not include another reforming access.within its you're already talking about the french talking about a referendum. if the british lead and the european -- there i go, i'm scaremongering again. difficulty of
what happens to be the fear factor. i've always thought that was legitimate. if you are the people arguing let's keep it like it is, it is reasonable to point out the other side is taking a huge step into the unknown. in the market shows this. sign, theghtest markets you very frightened. charlie: and now you have the murder of jo cox. john: completely unforeseen. throughout this entire campaign, we had mentioned, if there was something that very ugly happened, it might be something involving muslim extremism, something like that, it would probably help the leave people. case, because the person who killed her seems to be someone on the other side, like britain first, the conventional wisdom is that probably will help the remain side. the british have this long
record of not liking extremism. they don't like things -- if you look at it, things like fascism, they never really -- it's quite interesting the people in front of the leave campaign, the more it looks really nasty and fundamentalist, them are probably the british people will go against it. that at least is the wisdom. and you can see that in the market. the betting markets and the financial markets have both assertive rallied a bit him a -- a bit. this, completely tragic, politicians of both sides have suspended campaigning. charlie: for how long? john: i think people will start again on the talk shows tomorrow. charlie: so people look at this and say this is horrible. this mp killed in broad
daylight, stabbed and shot. and everybody says, wait a minute, this is horrible. everything has to stop. .ohn: one, it is very shocking british people are not used to this stylish shootings and stuff. it feels odd. in this case, it was a bizarre, kind of homemade gun. the second site is i think it did hit all politicians. out amongsed to going their constituencies. redick -- a rhetoric that had gotten extremely severe. the leave sides said we are getting flooded by migrants. sidetateside -- the stay ratcheted up.
we may have to raise your taxes immediately after the vote. we may need emergency budgets. so again, the fear factor. both sides were squabbling. suddenly, this thing happen and a burst of civilization came through. charlie: you get the impression she was a well-liked member parliament. john: exactly. she was a passionate pro-european. it is one of those horrible things. i think karen's reactions have been completely genuine. him and jeremy corbyn have gone to pay to together. -- paid tribute together. i think people are united in the way that politicians sometimes are when something that could happen to any of them happens to one of them. but underneath, there is no doubt that the serious money, the serious people who either wanted to leave this project, they spent years campaigning to leave the european union.
now everything has been thrown up by this one incident came so there is an element, whereby the whole thing is stopping, we haven't seen any polls yet to take account of this, but my guess is that it will probably pull it back. charlie: putback sufficiently to -- john: yes. it is kind of like the rise of donald trump. in every single way, people have found this difficult. i saw tony blair on bloomberg last week. you saw a man who was fantastically good at winning elections. he won three elections in landslides. his ability to talk to cosmopolitans slightly left of center, pro-european, progressive britain, that's been upset by this. the sort of people who are voting leave are not just -- it's not just a small group of men in blazers did it is a lot of people who are fed up with all of this. i fed up with migration. fed up with england
globalization with you tried to sell me. charlie: why do they think that is only a european union problem? think the european union crystallizes a lot of these problems in the same way as here in america. people -- trump supporters will .ook at issues migration is an issue and a cipher for lots of other things. the european union is a direct tie to migration because the european union will allowed cheaper workers from eastern europe to come. they also have this image of muslim migration and the terrorist instances on mainland europe will come across. but above everything else is the project run by elites -- in quite a decent way. one of the reasons why the european union was set up, it was set up a by elites who are terrified by the problems of the 1930's. charlie: how is the difference between the way britain treats guns and the united states
treats guns? john: in or miss. if you own a gun in britain, you register with the police every two or three years. it is a complicated procedure. they check if your same. if i need a character reference, i could use you. [laughter] it might help. and then you have to use a repeated -- do it repeatedly. assault weapons, guns are designed to kill people are much less popular. the police do not carry guns. it is one of the oldest argument's. what is interesting in europe is that the orlando shooting seems to set that off again. it is another thing that is strange about america to date. charlie: thank you so much, john. ♪
atrlie: law professor harvard from 2009 to 2012. he worked for the obama administration as head of the office of information and regulatory affairs. he is also a prolific writer. he has authored more than 40 books and columns for bloomberg view. is a new yorkk times bestseller. it is called "the world according to star wars, star ars, a movie."
currently number one on "the washington post" bestseller list. begin withing to this page. he says," cane," be divided into three kinds of people. those who love star wars. those who like star wars. and those who neither like nor love star wars." i have read parts of this book to my wife, emphasizing those that seem to me especially fun. one night, she finally responded with some coronation of giddy and exasperation. i just don't like star wars. i knew that, i guess, but somehow i forgot. there you go. what is it about star wars? which is what this book is about. cash: that is what i spent many months all. what i think the movies got at is that there are these myths and religions in multiple
coulters that spring out of people's minds as well as traditions. and george lucas and the saga gets at them and gives them an all-american twist. charlie: right. cash: all about freedom of choice. so he makes kind of modern and something that really resonates in america, but elsewhere. that is what it is about star wars. charlie: help me understand this. have you been in love with star wars since you saw your very first frame, your very first movie? or did you come to this at some later point in life? cash: i think i was in infatuation with star wars from the first two minutes. and then a kind of fell to intense liking. the love started really within the last year. charlie: so how did the love start? little boy. a he was five years old at the time. that's declan. at the age of five, he was a baseball-assessed little kid, and taken by star wars.
so i thought, what is it about these movies? why have they become the saga of our time? and how did this genius, george lucas of -- charlie: and why has it built such a wide spectrum of age groups? cass: exactly. for the force awakens, you see people who are four and five and six. and you see some of the awe in-old crying from their eyes and you can connect generations as well as tiny ones -- charlie: why is it magical to kids? ofs: i think it is stuff dreams and nightmares. every little kid is kind of scared of a darth vader. the image of someone who is big and frightening and potentially cruel. and every kid also has a dream, , who a woman like leah will take care of you. also, if you are a child, the idea of a gentle, the
all-powerful mentor like obi-wan kenobi, that is the stuff of childhood. charlie: but there is also a dark side. cash: absolutely. every kid is scared of grown up anger and power. but also, every kid is scared even more of his or her home -- his or her own anger and power. that temptation each of us has, even at a very early age, to do bad things because it is what we want to do. that's something that is attractive, but also terrifying to a child. and to see it. is cathartic in the old sense on the screen. charlie: you say fathers, freedom, detachment, retention are at the core of the saga. cash: those are the four feet -- four deepest feelings. to speak of freedom, what the movies say and even assist the
evildoers in the saga, respect, is the path you go is up to you. if you want to be a good person tomorrow or if you want to go back and save your buddy who is at risk, even though you are a robe and a smuggler, you can choose to do that. charlie: but that's biblical. a biblical idea. i think the way it resonates in star wars is a theme that is modern and has to do with our specific culture. and the freedom idea is closely connected with redemption. even if you are the worst person in the galaxy, as darth vader almost was, you can either wander down to the force or save your soul. i think that belongs to all of even ifg -- all of us, we've done something terrible, we can choose to make amends with someone. will betweention
-- charlie: can i understand this without knowing that lucas had a tumultuous relationship with his father? cash: i think you can. lucas, you mean? charlie: yes. seen they who have toies know very little nothing lucas's struggle with his own father. it is not necessary to know the biographical background. but i think it does enrich our understanding of how the tail became possible th --e tale -- the tale became possible. charlie: you say much is destined and prophesied. there is also the power of agency. cash: the movies touch on
an old theme, destiny. and that the universe is in control. and that some of the most powerful and wise figures speak for destiny and privacy -- and prophecy. but the movie rejects that. you know says difficult to see the future is. and with his cadence. [laughter] there is the sense that the individual agent is ultimately in charge, not the prophecy. charlie: you also suggest that there are certain prisms you can look through, terrorism, technology. cash: all of them are there. charlie: and more. cash: absolutely. capitalism is there. freud is him is there. mother,walker loses his he falls in love with someone who is much older. there is clearly echoes of the
christ tale, both for anakin and for luke. i think there is a political fame about republicanism. of course, the warriors republic , about the need for vigilance the word isority -- republic, about the need for vigilance against authority. they are also in genius. to often lends itself multiple interpretations. somehow, this cartoonish saga is able to have sufficient richness that, like shakespeare or james joyce, you can go to a lot of places with it. charlie: have you talked to jj abram to about this? cash: i put him on notice that there is a book coming. but i think the last thing he needs is to be questioned by a law professor about what his intentions were. charlie: and what about george? cash: i have talked with him about american foreign-policy.
i haven't talked to him about this book. charlie: how can you resist? cash: he goes about his life and a lot of people as kim -- what did you mean -- ask him, what did you mean? i told him i was writing a book on star wars. that did not make them extremely excited to talk to me. but i worked on the obama administration and some of the surveillance issues and he wanted to talk about that here he is a person of great focus and kind of presence. that probably helped him produce these amazing movies, but also keeps in a very curious person. charlie: he is a great friend of mine in and he is and leslie fascinating. isloves formed -- and he endlessly fascinating. he loves formula one racing.
he's one of the most fascinating people. and when you walk around any city, any country, they bring these pictures out. some of them, they are going to sell because he is such a huge figure. cash: i went to taiwan in 2015 to meet with a constitutional court and the then president, this was a policy and law. but everyone wanted to talk about star wars. this is taiwan. a big bookstore in taiwan, the first thing i saw was star wars characters. so the global reach of the saga attends to the power of the tale .
culture often produces scripts that create kind of background music for behavior. so if we have a culture that has of heroism of a particular kind or heroism of particular kinds, our behavior will be responsive to those scripts. what we we determine do. the scripts are our own. but the tale of the american revolution is obviously important factor in the behavior so many americans of multiple different kinds. martin luther king, much more, has the background for many of the things that happened in the united states even in the last 10 years. does the nation need myths? cash: it's only does it in needs stories, something iconic to
organize aspects of reality that are otherwise potentially chaotic. so you need something that makes that disorder recognizable. and whether it is a myth or a historic fact or religious conviction or a novel or a set of movies, cultures greatly benefit from those. there is always a degree of interpretation. as with the star wars movies, which are subject to maybe five reasonable interpretations and five zillion unreasonable ones, so how exactly we understand the american revolution or what we think the cold war was really about, how to understand mccarthy's and even, where we have a pretty good consensus on that being a dark tale. but there are multiple, different renditions. so facts can be turned into two or three or a dozen narratives. charlie: how did george lucas
change as he went along writing "star wars"? think he changed most interestingly in the prequels, which i think are underrated. he got, it seems, more in history's arc and the individual character tales remained important to him. but the prequel's have a lot to say about how democracies fall into authoritarian systems. and while that is in the original stories, that kind of global, political tale is something that lucas seemed to be seized by. i think they are an interesting and in some ways very shrewd though cartoonish picture of what sometimes has happened. charlie: there is a lot of christianity here. cash: no doubt about it. the beautiful scene at the end of "return of the jedi" is a --ne of resumption
redemption. i think it had some biblical resonance. says, "i willke leave you father. i have to save you." and anakin says, "you already have." see his ghostou in the star wars equivalent of heaven. he gets there. the movies are intriguing about that. there is a theme that the wisest the film is that the fear of loss is the past of the dark side. if you are afraid of loss, then you are going to be full of hate eventually, and then you will go to the dark side. and i think that has psychological truth, both for individuals and for tyrants,
that fear of loss is often a source -- charlie: also loss of power. cash: or loss of someone you love or loss of status. all of these are in the saga. but what is actually the creative star wars is the opposite of that. that the fear of loss is part of what it means to be a fully human being. and if you fear loss because you care about a friend or a sibling or, in the end, a family member, that is the way to the light side. so in the end, the saga is deeply non-stoic. it says the depth of attachment is the thing that is going to make you do things that will get you to the right place. charlie: we talked about mccarthyism. could we look at the prequels and could we see strings in america that would impact -- would in fact give the
nomination to someone unlikely? thinking of donald trump. cash: i think we have some great things in our culture that are tremendous safeguards against authoritarianism. one, we have a constitutional , which has proved robust across multiple challenges of individual persons and global. so we have a framework, which is very tough on would be authoritarians. we also have a deep cultural commitment to individual liberty on the one hand and to self-government on the other hand. and to overcome these is really hard. say that, is fair to whether you are hopeful about mr. trump or very skeptical about mr. trump, he does pose a challenge to long-standing traditions. charlie: so he may appeal to
some straining you, but at the same time challenge some values in your. cash: in terms of american come toas we have understand them, and this is pretty universal now in our country, some of the things mr. say, has said are, let's somewhere between fatal inconsistency and severe tension with those values. i think that is not unfair to him. charlie: where's the tension? cash: the idea in our culture that you do not discriminate people based on their religious convictions, that is kind of bedrock now. of course, national security is also bedrock. but we typically resolve that tension a way that is respectful of religious pluralism, even when it comes to control of our borders. and we respect our legal system. the fact that someone had a parent who came from another country, that's not in our
culture indicative of bias or prejudice. you have someone who has banned political reporters from "the washington post" from his rally. cash: it is not normal. it is fair to say that this is challenging some of our commitments. yoda,e: you quote "difficult to see. always in motion is the future." cache: ain't it the truth? both for our individual lives as well as for the country. charlie: it is the biggest adventure you can have making up your own life. and it is true for everybody. it is infinite. possibilities. cass: kasdan was the co-author of several of the star wars movies. and his emphasis on infinite possibility and choice on the planningthe absence of is at the heart of the tale that
lucas and kasdan tell. charlie: here's the contents, the table of contents. episode one, i am your father, the hero journey of george lucas. number two, -- episode two, the movie no one likes and expect to flop becomes a diet -- the defined work of our time. episode three, was star wars awesome or just are looking? episode 4, 13 ways of looking at star wars good we talked about politics, religion. policy of sons, you can reform if your kid really likes you. policy of choice, it is not about destiny. it's about agency.
why rebels failed. why resistant fighters rise. constitutional episodes, free speech, sex equality, and same-sex marriage. the monolith of god and humanity. episode 10, our myth ourselves. why star wars gets to it. there it is. that's the book right there. what is it that makes you tick? well, -- charlie: is it the law? ilife like thinking about how her legal system can be improved and how it got to the majestic place it now is. is it up there because of the genius of james madison and alexander hamilton? did he get there because of the constant work of we the people? that helps make
me take at least. howke thinking a lot about our government can be made to work better within our constitutional framework. how can we make our institutions thrive. charlie: i want to show a couple of clips here. one is george lucas, twice it is my friend here. i want to look at clip 2. this is george lucas on this show talk about religious beliefs in the story of star wars. here it is. george: the whole thing and star wars was to take, again, ideas, psychological ideas, from social issues, political issues, spiritual issues, and condense an easy to tell story of those stories. ,he force basically came from you know, distilling all of the
religious beliefs, spiritual beliefs all around the world, all through time, finding their similarities, and then creating an easy to deal with metaphor for what religion is. charlie: smart man. cast: he put a lot of that material in a form that could be accessible and be appealing to people who have very different convictions about religion and the human spirit. charlie: as of early 2016, the star wars franchise had earned about $30.2 billion. $2.56 billion came from box books. $2 billion from the book is called "the world
>> donald trump used his signature line you are fired today. >> a message for his campaign manager, you're fired. >> you're fired. >> and you are fired. >> you are fired. >> go home. >> go home. >> there is no place like home. there is no place like home. donald trump will continue down the yellow brick road to cleveland. without a campaign manager. we have known about conflicts between him and the man behi