tv Charlie Rose PBS April 22, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> r >> rose: welcome to. >> jeff: are welcome to the program. i'm jeff glor filling in for charlie rose who is traveling tonight. we begin with the remembrance of artist priscilla felisky who died at the age of 57. i'm joined by barrel mitchell and sasha frere-jones. >> he was the black rocker, he was the funk guy who played and purple rain destroyed, it was a massive movie, a huge album and kind of went through the entire spectrum and gotten bigger. >> jeff: as president obama travels to saudi arabia and great britton we look at the foreign policy. joined by gid million rose, john micklethwait, jane harman and
bret stephens. >> the region is in turmoil from its own internal screw up and we can't fix it from the outsize. obama is trying to cauterize the damage and not let the middle east problem inspect the entire world. >> jeff: remembrance of prince and a look at u.s. foreign policy when we continue >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> jeff: good evening, i'm jeff gloar fill in charlie rose who is traveling this evening.
legendary singer music right and legendary pop icon prince. he forever changed the pleuks landscape. he won seven grammy awards and won five number one songs including little red corvette, 1999 and when disofers cry. he was a wildly prolific songwriter, vert cho so on guitars, keyboards and guitars, funk, rock, rnb and pop. his music defied genres. joining from los angeles to discuss the artist who shaped his career his way our senior editor at billboard magazine gail mitchell and long time music critic sasha frere-jones. welcome to both of you. if i could, let me start with you. you've spoken to prince, you spent time with him, you enterprise him, what did you
learn about him. >> i learned, this is three years ago, 2013, i learned that he was a regular guy, you know. i think he enjoyed hiding a little bit hiding behind the mystique and mysteriousness when you got the chance every time i got to talk to someone who worked with him will he talk, and he would talk his ear off. he certainly did. he talked about music, he talked about business, he talked about things he wanted to do down road. it was a tremendous opportunity. >> jeff: he wanted to talk but he didn't want those interviews roared. >> no. i remember being on the plane and e-mailing his manager at the time saying can i please bring in my tape recorder, i'll stay at paisley park, i've transscribe the interview there, he can burn the interview after i do. no. can i take notes. no. so it was very intimidating to walk in there knowing i'm trying to do an interview, we were
getting ready to honor him at the music billboards award and i'm trying to think how can i get as much information as i possibly can and be able to rely it without take a note or record him. someone said i should have snuck in a phone and i figured it would go off and i would be in trouble. leading me out in the conference room he said let me check one more time did you record this and i could honestly say no. >> jeff: the same prince you met did you find he was the person that we read about him or was he a different person. >> in the beginning i think it was the one we read about and he said before we started the interview he said we have to sit down a few minutes to see whether we can get along before we proceed.
there was that element when we sat down he was passionate about black ownership in different arenas. and he had learned that i was going to write an essay about that, about black radio ownership. and i think that's what tipped the scales in terms of us being able to go in there and interview him. so he talked to me about ownership and taking control of your own destiny. >> jeff: sasha how did prince rogers nelson change music. >> he changed it in so many ways. there are so many angles you can look at this from, if you grow up in new york it would seem like a very free place. he changed the city. we were all worshipping this guy and i'm thinking wait he's from minute -- minneapolis and we're
following him maybe michael who was hip-hop at the time. eventually even braced it. you know, he was the black rocker, he was the funk guy who played stuff no one could figure out what to do with him and purple rain kind of destroyed all of these boundaries. it was a massive movie, it was a huge album, and he kind of went through the entire spectrum and then it gotten bigger. sign of the times i still think is my favorite record. and there's no way to really gauge, you have to pull way back and you have frank oshum right now everyone is waiting for his album and he gets and writes a letter to prince. and you got sinead connor spin off that and he ended up doing her rend -- rendition of the song.
there are drum machine songs 80's dis grew up doing now it came off of 1989. it's hard to think what he didn't influence. there are people from the last 30 to 40 years had a big moment that was significant now and prince was to everybody. >> jeff: more than ever. >> i can't think of anyone who doesn't like prince, i don't know what i did wrong. but i mean he's everything. i mean it's very hard for me to sort of get my mind around this one. >> jeff: what was it. it was the music, it was the performance. it was the composition. i mean he everything for every album. these days when there are producers involved, there's everyone involved in every aspect of an album, he single handedly created every aspect of nearly every album correct. >> that's correct. he was one of the first people to speak out against the structuring of major labels and major label deals. and that really was way ahead of
its time in the way he dealt with his label at warner brothers in the 90's. might have started in the late 80's and that's come back around when we've seen discussions of streaming which are really discussions about a company like spotify. it's not usually the artist. before his death he was telling people don't sign to a label did it all yourself own all your stuff and that's been right for a long time. and he was one of the first people to fight back against it and it was definitely less commercially popular than warner but i don't think that worried him that much. >> jeff: gail what did you learn about his relationship or his thoughts on those rights holders. >> as was just said he was very diy before it became fashionable, before the real
im imimplosion. he told me he was in difference with lot companies but those agreements being forth to him were the basic kind of agreements he had at warner brothers and he just wanted to control everything. and be the artist, be the businessman and advocate for himself that it was still kind of i think everybody remembers the slave symbol prince had or had on his face. >> jeff: sasha he was so shy in person and when you watch him in televised interviews, yet he was larger than life on stage. >> the amount of energy especially for prince you have to put into a performance like that. that's not something you can create around every day, you'd go crazy. you also fall asleep. i mean when i saw him in las vegas, i don't know how many years ago maybe eight years ago,
seven years ago, you know, he was still at the peak that i had seen him ten years before that and ten years before that, he put everything into the dance saying i knew when to pull back and let his band go. that takes amazing concentration and listening also. he was always controlling the band in a subtle way but he was directing and playing and singing and i think he was multitasking long before there was a computer and a phone and that became a word for something else. i think he was constantly hearing a lot of things at once and he just saved his energy for when he needed it. he knew how to do that very well. >> jeff: sasha he had energy not only in writing these albums, in performing them but in maintaining that output for a long long time, 39 albums in 39 years that's like clock work and
it never tailed off. >> no. i mean there are two things that come to mind. in the 80's, there's a span in there. i've talked with trends about this. you play that goofy game about who is the best, who had the first best album. if you want to look for streak. you know we had the warriors this year breaking lots of records, the golden state warriors that brought to mind prince because i think he mentioned the recently. there's a stretch in the early 80's going through the late 80's he was so prolific he had to write for so many groups, invent groups to play his material and had to invent material called mad house which was mostly him playing jazzes fusion. i don't know that anybody's ever gone on the street like that and have so much of it be so good. he kept performing and create all true to the end and some of his best songs come toward the end of his career. >> jeff: is that why he gave so much music away to others
because he had too much of it. >> i assume. i mean he didn't give away nothing compares to you which went to the family. she took it to herself which was like aretha taking it back from otis and never getting it back and changing the name forever. we all know it evolved with oodles and oodles of videos and al bums and who knows what's in there and it's gone forever. i hope we get to hear what's in there. >> jeff: gail, do you know how much is left that we haven't heard that we anyway in the future. >> i was just going to bring up too about the vault when i was there and came back. one of my good friends who used to work for prince she said did he take you down to the vault. i said the vault, i had no idea. i have no idea vouch is in there. i know i used to do jam sessions
there at paisley park there that are tremendous that are on tape. he owned his studio up to lots of different acts to come there and record and do different things. i would love to be one of the ones to go in there and just see exactly what's in there. probably lose myself. >> jeff: sasha can i ask you about the famous super bowl halfway show it came in this dreary game, it was raining. the bears and colts and i think some had lost interest in the actual game itself and then prince comes out and lights things up. and i think a lot of people thought changed the super bowl half time forever and what it can be and what it can do. in this awful weather environment, never mind. what did you make of that and what difference did you think it made? >> i think it made a huge
difference, incredibly uncanny move on his part because you know as much as anyone in the world would wanted to see him live up until the end i was one of those people. he wasn't a chatter presence and did a bunch of things all at once during the performance. he did the kitchy routine with the guitar and that moment which was goofy and funny. but he also went through his catalog and reminded everybody who he was and what he could do. and i think it was sort of a reset for everybody who was maybe dialing in a little bit like here's a guy whose got probably 10 or 20 years on you, maybe 30 years on you at that point and he comes out and he just rips it and he reminds what he's written he reminds you how he can play he reminds you how he can sing and that i think made everyone raise their game. but it was also an elder at that point of the community saying like in some ways remember me but also like come on, you know.
like come on. you can do better. and i they people then have done better. i think that beyonce's show was startling. >> jeff: what do you think about it when he threw down the gauntlet. >> he stepped up, everybody likes a challenge and that's basically what prince was doing you know. it's time to stop as was just set dialing in and do you and that's exactly in everything he did whether he was a chart presence or not a chart presence whatever, i think the whole of his career he can, you know, he can say that he does him. he knew his lane and he knew what he wanted to do in terms of exploring and being adventuresome and fearless and he was going to keep doing that. another aspect people don't look at a lot too he was a mentor to a lot of different artists up
and coming artist. there's a new girl on atlantic rorltdz she was able to talk with him. what a thrill that was, she just wanted to lick the spit off the microphone she wanted to use so he could imbibe some of his talent. he just wanted everybody i think people have gotten lazy, a lot of times in the music industry it's very assembly line. let's find the next one and the next one. individualism to me is what stands out and that's what stands out with prince with michael with stevey wonder, with any, a frank oshum, with drake doing you and doing the best you can do. >> jeff: sasha can i ask you
about michael jackson because it occurred to me prince and michael jackson came up concurrently. they sort of burst under the same so low in the late 70's. >> michael was considerably earlier. >> jeff: with the group. >> his solo careers were pretty close together. >> jeff: did they play together-learn from each other. >> there was a clip not only michael jackson and proins were on stage but james brown was on stage and it's a pretty great clip. they're at their i most is giving and happy and you know they know who they are and they know what they can do. they were definitely competitive evidence of that but it was a pretty fruitful as gail said like you know, having to step up your game is a good thing, competition is a really good thing when you're a creative force and you need to push up against. there's that band pushing you, you know.
and prince definitely made everyone step their game up but of course nobody did that more than michael and they were definitely thinking about each other. and the music that they made concurrently was pretty amazing especially looking back now you wish that there were two forces going the it like that with that kind of you know real competitive but sort of affectionate power because you know they respected each other, there's no way they didn't. >> jeff: are there. >> no. well, i can think about it but it might be. i would have to think about it really hard. there are some minor rap beats but it's not the same. >> jeff: sasha, you said remember the times do you have a favor song. >> we were making our first record and we were in the studio just gotten the time of the
signs and we sat down and listened to the record. the balance you had of dorothy parker really gripped me. it turned out it sounds so unusual because only half of the board is plugged in. susan rogers long time engineer was installing a new mixing board and he got up like he does at 2:00 a.m. i have a new idea and she said wait i'm not powered up so he just started. so it's a weird low vibe quality to it and it's got this dreamily unbelievable sound. it's got one of those prince narratives that only prince could make up. like he wants to keep his pants on when he takes a bath and he breaks into a joany song and wo would put these elements together. it would sound like a minor song but every time i hear it i think there's only one person in the world who could make that song.
then if you ask me in a second i would say i don't know, how come you been don't call me anymore is one that kills me. >> jeff: gail, same jeff to you. >> he just stole me. i do love how come you don't call me anymore. that's all right. i think it's on planet of the times. house quake, if i ever heard on it at a party i was often off and rung. in my experiment every time i saw it he might play a snippet he never played that song all the way through and i don't know why. diamonds and pearls, the ballads and how he could you know just go from something like a house quake 1999 and tone it all the way down and be just as forceful. those are the two i care to like. >> jeff: it was that unpredictability though. there was no standing still.
>> no. yes. he didn't want to be when i asked him, i asked him a comment about getting the icon and i said do you know what i don't look back there's no value in my looking back, he says i'm looking forward. he says i can't answer that question for you. so i think that says it all about prince. >> jeff: helping us look back legion drea career tonight. sasha frere-jones and gail mitchell, thank you very much. ♪ you can always see the sun ♪ ♪
good evening i'm ian bremmer of the eurasia group filling in for charlie rose who is off today. president obama was in saudi arabia today when he met with the leaders of six persian gulf nations. his visit comes at a moment of heightened tensions in u.s. saudi relations. tomorrow's degz nation is saudi arabia. here is the broader i plications for the u.s. foreign policy is a top panel of experts. we have gideon rose editor of foreign affairs. putin russia down but not yet out. john mick wait is the he had if you are in chief of bloomberg news and bret stephens foreign awares columnist and deputy editorial page editor at the "wall street journal." and jane harman former ranking member of the house intelligences committee and currently president of the woodrow wilson center. welcome all. so obama in saudi arabia can't
have been the easiest trip of this administration, not a lot of specifics that have come out but one thing i've seen already, ben rhodes said that this was an opportunity to clear the air. what do you usually say about one of your more important allies. bret i'll start with you. how truly damaged is this saudi relationship and what can he do at this point. >> the president dug a hole for himself in a number of ways. he didn't support modern syrian opposition. they were distressed by the iran deal and those were judgments by the president you can agree or disagree with. i think gratuitously the president send to go out of his
way to dis the saudis. they were free writers. there was a quote exchange that the president had with the prime minister suggesting they are not really allies of the united states. he's made it very clear he doesn't see the u.s. saudi alliance that his red sessions from the days of franklin roosevelt. usually with op eds de nouncing the presidents policy. the president has to ask himself what is the damage to this relationship and what are the saudi options to decide if they no longer need the u.s. in their corner as their ally and protector. >> is this a mystery by obama on the fundamental importance of saudi arabia or is it he's being more in politics than he should given the countries are becoming
much more distant in some of their international interests. >> i think at that time a problem with this administration which i support is that there's no overarching narrative for what they're trying to do in the middle east. and there is no obvious answer to that question. i was just going to add to some of the things that bret said and not just relating to this administration but are disastrous adventure in iraq. our deal with iran has got them reeling. i supported the deal so there's that. there are the comments about saudi. there's also the oil prices. let's understand that to the extent that historically saudi arabia was an ally because they had all the oil. now that there are low oil prices and plentiful oil that argument for a close relationship isn't there. i still think we need strong
friendships in the gulf. obama went and he met with the uae leadership which is important because i think they play a more supportive role than saudi does. >> every time he goes people are saying we're happy he's over there and yet we still see continual complaints that the relationship has deteriorated. >> i think the tension relationship is being greatly overblown. yes there are real tensions but there are strong bonds of interest, national interests on both sides keeping the united states and saudi arabia together in a marriage of convenience. it's not a love match. there are great differences on principle and politics and a variety of things. there are great differences on the priorities of different interests whether it's opposes iran more, back the opposition isis more. try to topple them more. there are tensions but the
saudis don't have options in terms of security. the u.s. doesn't have another option to help stabilize the global oil market we don't depend on the saudis for our oil we want to save oil markets in general. this is a rocky patch. obama's problem was he talked about that and it was kind of tacky. >> does that solidify the relationship as well. >> yes except the israel u.s. relationship used to be moreover a love match and it's possible the love may be draining out of that on both sides. as israel itself changes a little bit. and there are interests keeping it together but it's becoming more of a regular alliance than a pure love match in the way it used to. >> jane is shaking her head. >> i don't think there's a love match with netanyahu but both
parties in israel are rock solid. that doesn't mean israel does in israel's interest or ours but it does mean that's on a very different level, i think from saudi arabia. >> how much is this saudi arabia just feeling isolated. >> i just came back from saudi arabia and the crown prince is trying to reform saudi arabia in a way which i think is very difficult to grasp the full extent that he wants to move saudi arabia away from an oil economy. he wants to open up the aftermath of the economy, he wants to change things he's getting rid of subsidies many things which will be announced next week. what's interesting to me is he's actually trying to do these reforms and in the back of his brain it's obviously there's this thing how much can they rely on america. gideon's right in the end for the ease -- saudis is a i thin.
>> and starting this conversation. >> yes, you can argue that definitely. but it's a bigger attempt on you. >> i think to borrow lbj's phrase we want the saudis inside the tent doing something out rather than the other way. look unlike the israelis we don't share values with the saudis, there are no women's rights or no gay gay rights. they are starting too see the foreign policy in yemen which we intent entirely like and in the region. a kingdom that feels afraid feels it might go down is likely to be a dangerous thing. we also have an interest in making sure saudi arabia doesn't
become the next syria. it has a large shi'ite population, it's fractious at the top as well as the bottom for having all these princes and sort of religious prince within it. do we want to see saudi arabia implode that's not out of the yes. >> let me ask a question for a second. what a judge obama's foreign policy over seven years one way to say it is to the extent the relationship better or worse than when he started. it's clearly it's a much more difficult environment, the relationship seems more frail is the middle east. what i want to ask you is how much of that can can you honestly put on one person on the [ obama administration and how much is structural at this point. >> well it's complicated. he went to cairo, gave a major speech at the start of his administration which some didn't like. i land to like it. he talked about a way forward for the middle east. there didn't seem to be much follow through. again, i don't think there's an over arching narrative for the middle east.
most of what we do is tactical. country a is in trouble we do this little move here. part of it is retrenching from bush's adventure deposit don't do stupid stuff. convey to people our values and our interests are wide across the middle east. i was going to say something else and it relates mostly to saudi arabia. we haven't talked about wahabism, we haven't talked about their invention of an extreme form of islam which is exported around and is the intellectual basis of these centers and intellectual basis. they need to get the caliph
through the middle east. that's something we can't control just like we can't control the arab spring. >> it's a period of day turmoil but it's not clear that the united states could or should have reacted dramatically differently whether it would have been deeply successful. you got a bunch of sclerotic tyrannies not providing any good for their citizens and ultimately you had revolutions in these places. they haven't done particularly well, a lot of turmoil someone wrote a book about the j curve on you things often go down before they come back up. youity a lot of turmoil there and ones like saudi arabia that didn't have the turmoil have stayed sclerotic tyrannies and reforming which they aren't going to be anything they can do. so u.s. has tried whether invading and occupying whether inviting or not occupying or giving aid, they have the same outcome which is turmoil and
chaos on the ground. the obama administration is saying basically we don't know how to deal with this and we'll wash our hands a little bit. >> nothing like the explosion of isis and other jihadists groups the collapse of four not five arab states. this is something really new. i mean we've always had turmoil in the middle east but we also had a system of alliances of balancing interests of being a bonder between different groups like bonding the saudis to us, bonding the israelis to others. it simply has clawmsed in the last four or five years and the president has to be held to account historically for that. >> to square the circle is that gideon points out yes as their problems in terms of how much america wants to do but you also have the reality that the economic's not what it used to be for these countries and the ability of the populations to actually make a mess is very significant. so i guess i wonder, given those things how much of this do you
really put on obama honestly. if you had to put on a percentage if you could pick one big thing it would be what. >> in september of 2013 or august 2013 in the face of chemical weapons, all of us would agree he retreated from the red line from visible consequences for the sense in saudi arabia and elsewhere that the united states was a reliable ally that the president would do what he said he would do and i think that failure was pivotal not only in terms of our perceptions but israeli perceptions about how good the united states was as an ally. you can point to other things but this was the essential. >> he definitely had to talk to others. you can definitely book him on the syria thing as i said earlier security's binary and if you didn't have america or somebody to come in and help you that makes a difference. in general when you look at what
obama did it's a difficult hand you can pair it with obvious comparison with george bush and the owned of the cold war, you have to navigate through it. the reality whether you can blame so much for obama and the realities and all the different players in that region do not detect kind of america -- >> the timing of a pivot to asia certainly makes problematic suddenly throwing that under the bus and signify -- >> good money after bad. we broke assad, assad broke syria. the region is in turmoil from its own internal screw ups. we can't fix it up side. i don't know is trying to bank the -- obama is trying to bank the problem -- >> i don't think caught caught
rise is a good strategy in a government where jobs are completely different and oil is no longer the gold standard for the region is something we have to invest in. why? because we have in there not just protecting our interests and we have been a target and is going to be the next target. the pivot to asia were not his words it was rebalance. it looked like moving off the middle east which is maybe what gideon's recommending, i'm not and on to asia. but i to i think making an investment, an economic investment in asia which is what tpp is supposed to be about is absolutely the right move and i'm very worried that this presidential campaign that we never end in our natural lifetime is creating this huge block of americans who don't
understand what the values of trade are. >> since you brought up tpp let me raise the economic populism to you which we've seen now not only bernie sanders or donald trump even hillary clinton has come out against tpp. and there's obviously a very strong populist opposition to the supposed benefits of the globalization in u.s. led trade. i'm wondering to what extent you think this is a matter of proper messaging that is scaled on the part of the u.s. president. to what extent, it is actually a reality that the americans are not going to be able to cheer load on the free trade agreements going forward. >> i'm going to shock you and say something nice about obama, i didn't expect him to be such on champion of the tpp. i'm delighted the administration has done it. maybe a little belatedly but i think they are doing, they are saying compactly the right -- exactly the right thing. it's not a matter of prosperity
but strategic interests. i think they have to tell the american that there are going to be rules in terms of global trade. the question is do we want to be the rule setters or allow the chinese to be the rule setters. when you hear someone like donald trump oppose tpp, hillary clinton that is feeding the field to beijing which is eager to have a co-prosperity fear to borrow an old term. >> coming from an economists we've been spending years trying to spoars free trade on the word. that's a highly successful part. free trade is always push through on a popular level because you can always identify losers very clearly and the winners are hard. if obama comes through which he has done recently but all behind the scene stuff is obama good at it going around and persuading
other people to do that little bit here or there. >> in the polls just in the last few days the u.s. has support for the transatlantic is a lot lower than it's been in the past years of the administration. do you think that assuming you get the tpp done, is this the last big u.s. multilateral deal we're going to see in a long time. >> what's interesting is the transatlantic one in different parts of the world different people object to it the hole wholly different contra particularly reasons and you find people against it for multiple reasons and it's hard to build one for it. >> trade does dislocate people let's face it and in the political party it's folks who are left out because manufacturing jobs is close the down whether because they moved offshore or because they're robots in all kinds of modern techniques that have made them irrelevant. the nature of work is change in this country and we have to address it and the trade
adjustment systems doesn't work and anybody who wants a better future better address this issue. or else this younger generation who loves bernie sanders and loves donald trump is not going to join with the owe called establishment. >> bret is going to say something positive i'll say something negative. i think that withdrawing or pulling back a little bit or trenching from some misguided as ventions in the global periphery -- adventures in the global previously, but i criticize the administration for not having matched that with what i believe it actually thinks which is that they're doing that not to run away from the world but in order to say the core of the system and strengthen that as well. and i think that things like tpp, things like the transatlantic relationship, things like great power peace and the protection of our major
allies. these are all things that can go ahead and can prosper and thrive and the importance of doing that, the importance of the united states as a global leader. even as it falls back from some silly things it shouldn't have been doing in the first place and the over extension. you can be doing it at the same time. the administration is not clear or demonstrate strayive about the order as it has been about giving the sense they want to pull back. >> there's a pedagoggal challenge and jane put her finger on it. free trade is advantageable and free trade is invisible until you pump out the samsung from your pocket and say oh this happens because we have free trade with korea we get these fran tas particular -- fantastic products from abroad and costs us very little. >> your argument of the protection forces in the u.s.
turning out for bernie and donald trump they have misunderstood. it hasn't been explained properly to them. >> that's partly true. you talk to people who drive a honda have a samsung phone, this beneficiaries of this world they go to mexico or cancun on vacation they don't know mexico has a peso because they're operating through seamless trans action. that is huge benefit of a free trading system. you know 22 years ago al gore and ross perot had that famous debate on the larry king show and al gore won the intellectian debate i think in part because americans remember and saying what the holly -- i'm not sure we've done a good job in supposedly the post soviet cant es era of the 1990's and the subsequent decades of explaining why that works, why that's good
for average people. >> we've done a bad job of explaining it we is not just obama we is including me i voted for almost all of the trade agreements and i don't think i explained it. and some people are worst off. forget the honda and samsung some people are seeing their own lives and kids lives as worse. that narrative never existed in the united states before and we, we meaning people who understand values of protecting the global legal order have to do a better job of selling it and that includes obama but not limited to him. >> talking about the middle east there are challenges about how much the u.s. wants to do as global police policemen and gll train and champion of the global free market but now let's talk about the most important alliances americans have had which are the europe means because obama is on his way to the uk. and britain, special relationship we don't hear it described as special relationship by the united
states or britain anyone. i want to ask you from the british perspective what extent can obama make a difference and how trickly is it easiest to for the pride to tell the britts which way they should be voting. >> many people see obama going there is one of the better cards because it's a reminder from the american pointed of view it's basically much better for britain to save the european union. that's where america as a whole there might be individual disagreements but on the whole that's where they want britain to be. showing unusual canniness jumped ahead and didn't wait for obama to came in who is the main politician on the exit side. he came out quite strongly saying this is fine obama, massively hypocritical america anywhere has always been the place that stresses the importance of individual sovereignty. this is all about sovereignty. by doing that actually strangely i think he actually managed to
sort of fire something into obama before he arrives. the obama effect would be less and i never pre-predicted before but it will be less than previously. this is always a place which makes the most of the individual sovereignty britain has a chance to do the same. i don't agree with him but he's done it very well. >> broadly speaking how do you think [indiscernible]'s doing on europe and the transatlantic relationship and how concern are you specifically about the special relationship. >> i'm not concerned about the special relationship either because again i don't think europe and britain in particular has any place else to go. and so that doesn't man -- mean you take them for granted. it's not like there's an oligarchy. europe itself is however obviously the second area of the world in crises after the middle east. it's ironic to say that. and partly in connection to that not entirely but that's
certainly helped screw it up. unfortunately again it's not entirely clear what the united states can do to help europe solve its own problem. europe the eu needs to get a new ase on live and a new sense of vision. talk about leaders who haven't sold their peoples on the benefits of greater integration and greater, you know, ideas beyond the nation. it would be in europe rather than anywhere else and that project now is sort of in one of its rockyesest periods. >> it's much easier to absorb obama on the european question. not intervening in syria definitely affected people in alstonia and places like that. >> obama could not have -- >> europe has dug its own problems. >> do you accept that. >> yes, but the structural problems. the government has an adequate financing mechanism across or calling nations into account when they don't meet their
obligations. and it doesn't have obviously good mechanism to deal with migration and refugees ands we're seeing, it's falling apart. but there's also a leadership crises. i think angela merkel has been spectacular until there was this huge are push back against refugees. >> you said very articulately in the middle east obama sort of absent leadership should have done more gave some examples. in europe merkel clearly looking for leadership she's looking to take the refugees and obama says that's not our problem. is that good leadership not to step up and do more. >> the first bush administration failed when it did nothing about the balkans and led it bleed. unfortunately there was a problem solved by people like president clinton and richard holbrook. we should have shown the same leadership in syria. i think that failure to do so
which is the collective europe pain failure is not what's so damaging to europe. getting to merkel, if i was a britain voting, i would vote. but the campaign is not a disrep annual campaign because they're asking hard questions about europe. if britain votes to lead, i think one of the authors of that get is going to be angela merkel. because what you called a moral policy and it is a humanitarian policy is also a policy that is in many respects changing the nature of europe, changing the politics of europe, allowing very ugly political forces to rise particularly on the far right and causing brits to ask themselves maybe we do want that channel after all. we don't want to be so connected to this continent that seems so troubled and going down that.
>> the far right of general extremes you can talk about the far left too. what we're seeing in the united states. the americans aren't experiencing the same problems as the europe means and yet we see this all happening. why do you think the threat is back. >> i would argue that america's always been able to absorb that. we're a country of even grunts. i don't know if any of you is a native american but i'm not and my parents came from somewhere and so did yours. and it hasn't been without its bumps especially absorbing as we're now seeing the african american, especially exslaves have been a hard go but we're making it and we don't have isolated communities. europe does and britain does. britain has a huge number of pakistanis. a lot of them well healed but they have over time before this refugee crises said some of the challenges of britain. i would argue the far right governments are not related to disaffected minorities. i think there's a latent
anti-semitism sadly coming back up in europe and europe wasn't prepared for it. but the eu extraryment which was an idealistic experiment was not built on a solid foundation of mechanisms to resolve problems, financial problems to control refugees flows. the shengan system with open borders is a beautiful thing except when it isn't. >> i'm obviously responsible for many places but to me i think the one selection of things which are pretty much the same on both sides of the atlantic and that is the general sense of frustration particularly with the people who jane was talking about earlier, the same people in the uk, britain in japan and france and it tends to be people who feel they are being left behind by the world. they are not key on the human global world which is sad thing and they think pole after mole and children are not going to have as good life. they worried about jobs and there's an element of
anti-globalization. there's a strong element on both sides of the atlantic. any leader you talk to about is the economy and second issue is the idea that one group of people got away with it. one group of people being the winners and an entire globalization in one way fairly by definition with the global market you could end up with people making more money than otherwise. unfairly tends to pick on people whether it's jews in one case, bankers or whatever. there's an element looking for scapegoats, immigrants to some extent. those things are common. that's on both sides. you can look at the polls and everything. then there are bits that are completely different and europe happened that thing being run. there's always place that was tear niaid -- terrified by the
populism. it led to all the problems. >> do you think it's the same trouble. >> you see the same thing, same gruence of people and they're not all rapidly intolerant. the europe pain unions i would agree with but with sovereignty and they believe europe is heading in the wrong direction and they want to take back control of their lives again. >> kind of this rise of populism, in some ways frighteningly similar to what happened in the 1920's and 30's when i think there was a hughey long experience obviously in the united states in a smaller scale but in a big way in europe people became sick of the mechanisms of the liberal democracy of parliamentary politics the process of mediocre politicians and they were looking for more charismatic leaders, more estatic visions of politics in a way is part of the
bernie movement, the donald movement and the new government in poland. all of this is happening in tolstoy all the famously are unhappy in happy ways. that's a reference point we need to take into account. >> if in just two short months weed up seeing -- we end up seeing the britt moves and all de.obama's speeches, is this the most specific hit of the influence over the obama administration. >> well i don't think about it in terms of obama, i think of that in terms of britain. i think it would be catastrophic move for britain to do to itself and up end all the trading contracts it has and basically isolate itself. yes, if obama, let's see what he does tomorrow if he weighs in strongly in favor of no, then he
would be embased. i don't see obama as the center of the world in that sense but what i do see and it relates to all this is globalization. and the fact that a hundred years ago there wasn't globalization. currency didn't move the way it did, does, terrorism didn't move the way it does. there wasn't there kind, there was terrorism but not this way, not metastasize global terrorism. there weren't the lethal weapons of war there are and this is the challenged obama and if this doesn't get pushed back some, he will be judged quite harshly. >> one thing when it comes to free trade and globalization we are almost without exception the people who support it most fervently with problems on immigration. anything to do with free trade the british vote for enormously. he think it's the center and brings people in. strangely i think you're right. if britain voted to come out. it's at least philosophically it's a blow to that but i've been thinking about this the
last few days. if britain, i think it is american foreign policy in a whole series of way because that element of having somebody inside europe that goes. you have all the consequences for the european union in terms of greater french, german problems. you are a better chance of europe peep union coming apart. >> a lot on the table a lot on obama's trip talking about it and digesting it as he makes his way across the state. i thank you for joining me today. gideon, john, bret, jane, thank you. >>
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. tech tankers. two of the biggest technology names turn in disappointing results and investors react sharply. we have the details on two stocks that are probably in your portfolio or mutual funds. rental return. why the rental counter is no longer the top choice of business travellers. state of pain. how low oil prices are hurting many local economies and how they're fighting pack. tonight we take you to one of the biggest oil states of them all, alaska. all that and more tonight on nig"nightly business " for thursday, good evening and welcome. two of the most widely held, if not the most widely held, stocks -- microsoft and