The Interview - Andrew Schulz, ‘Podcast Bro,’ Might Be America's Foremost Political Journalist

Episode Date: June 21, 2025

The defiantly anti-woke comedian and podcast host reflects on the responsibilities of being appointment listening for millions.

From the New York Times, this is The Interview. I'm David Marchese. This week my subject is the comedian and podcaster Andrew Schultz. He's become an arena headliner on the strength of his very irreverent, defiantly anti-woke standup. He is extremely unshy about leaning into ranch slurs and ethnic jokes. His most recent special though, which is called life and which came out earlier this year, did see him move into more vulnerable territory. It's about his and his wife's experience

with IVF, but it's still pretty not safe for work. Despite all his success with stand up, Schultz has arguably become even better known for his podcasting. His shows, Flakrant with Akash Singh and Brilliant Idiots with Charlamagne the God, are appointment listening for millions. And not just for humor, but for their political discussion as well. That's led to him becoming one of the leading lights of the so-called Manosphere, though I doubt that's a term he'd ever apply to himself.

But whatever you want to call Schultz's platform, it's definitely influential. Donald Trump went on flagrant last fall ahead of the presidential election. And this year, progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have been guests on the show. Which for me begs the question of what it is exactly that Schultz is trying to achieve with flagrant and what, if any, responsibilities he feels he has. Oh, and just a quick note before we start. First, Schultz refers a couple times in our interview to Felice.

Felice is a video producer on the show who was in the room while we spoke. And second, this interview contains language that some people may find defensive. All right, here's my interview with Andrew Schultz. Andrew Schultz Andrew, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. I appreciate it. Absolutely. I'm honored.

Thank you for having me. You know, the people listening or watching won't realize this, but both the camera guys in here have mustaches. Our engineer in the adjacent room, Mustache, our producer, who you were just talking with, Mustache, I didn't get the memo. What happened? I don't know but like I walked in here I told Felice that there's a lot of testosterone. She's safe. There's nothing that could possibly happen Okay, if anybody walks through that door, you've got four mustaches ready to tear their head off and me

I don't know about you. I think you're gonna be with Felice. So that they we're gonna keep you safe as well with Felice and I think we're gonna keep you safe as well, David. Nothing's gonna happen, okay? Okay, so to start, you know, I think it's fair to say that it's probably in the last four or five years that you've really had a blow up in your career. Sure. What do you think has shifted in the culture to enable you to come to prominence the way that you have? I have trouble like figuring out exactly when it happened,

but when I first started posting stuff on the internet, specifically stand-up, things changed for me and my career. So essentially, I was trying to get an HBO special, or back in the day, this is like Netflix is just coming to prominence, or Comedy Central. I was just trying to get on anything. I was trying to get five minutes, and I couldn't get any motion with stand-up. And out of desperation,

I like, I filmed my own special, pitched it to everybody, nobody wanted it. And I was like, I'm going to put this online. I think there is an appetite for comedy online. And at the time, I think that there was like a little bit of a, you know, sensitivity, especially in corporate America about like edginess and jokes, et cetera, which I think is like completely gone the other way now. But at the time, people are really sensitive or concerned. And so my gamble, which was not really, it was just pure desperation,

was maybe if I put this out on YouTube, there will be an audience that likes this type of comedy. And I had confidence in it because I was touring the country, doing comedy clubs every weekend, and like seeing audiences react type of comedy. And I had confidence in it because I was touring the country doing comedy clubs every weekend and like seeing audiences react to the comedy. And like, so I put it out and a weird thing happened. Like I got like some data from talking to people,

not people in the industry, just friends. They'd be like, yeah, I watched like 20 minutes. Like everybody watched only like 20 minutes. I was like, okay, maybe it's too long. Especially for someone you don't know. Like getting an hour out of somebody's day is difficult. Everybody has a minute, everybody has five minutes, everybody has maybe 20.

So I think I put out like a 20 minute version of it. And the next week and I sold out a comedy club. And I was never like a sell out a comedy club guy at that point in my career. And I was like, well, that's kind of cool. And I didn't attribute it to the special. And then the next weekend I sold out another one. I was like, well, that's kind of cool. And I didn't attribute it to the special. And then the next weekend, I saw another one. I was like, what the?

Like, is this from the special? Like, and then I started putting out a new joke every week for a year. 52 weeks of comedy, I think I called it. And tickets kept on selling, and just momentum kept on building. And I was like, whoa, there's really something over here on the internet. And I can be like my authentic self

with comedy, despite like what the cultural sensitivity of the time is, which you can't really control. And, um, it just continued to build. It's interesting because on the one hand, we think of people's attention spans as being extremely limited and you need to chop stuff up. But then on your podcast, you'll go for two hours, and when Rogan will go'll go for two hours.

Or Rogan will go three and a half hours. So if you know that in all likelihood, people are tuning in and out of attention to what you're doing on the podcast, does that change how you think about the material that constitutes the podcast? No. We're still gonna have the same conversation

and endeavor to make you want to tune in the entire time. But like you might be driving, like you don't have to watch every second of it. Whereas like with a stand-up special, you want to watch, you understand like the tension, you want to see the, you know, ideally my face and how I'm reacting to these things and the audience can be an instrument in a way and you're kind of playing with it. It's almost like horror film. That's honestly how I edit comedy specials is like a horror film.

There's this tension release. And it's hard to feel that unless you're watching. You obviously have clear ideas about what you can do that works with audiences, both on like a practical and an emotional level. Does that create a temptation to pander? And then also, how do you make sure you don't pander? Like, if there are levers I can pull

to, like, make something work. There's a way where you could just run it up every episode. But if you actually are trying to, like, create something authentic, you're going to make less money. But the benefit of that in the long run is that you maintain your integrity and you maintain your authenticity, which is, the most important thing for me. Now if I authentically feel a certain way about something and that thing happens to

be popular, I'm not going to change my feeling on it just because it's popular. I am contrarian in some ways, but like I'm not going to say that New York is not the best city in the world just because everybody else let everybody else is saying it they're right You know what I mean? Yeah And oftentimes what happens is like you'll have an opinion that's like maybe a little bit different and You'll be rebuked for that opinion for years and then people will start to come around and then the same people that rebuked you will Start echoing those sentiments with no accountability whatsoever So it's like close that we're, I'm not getting the connection.

This is like a... So we had like Bernie on the pod who I love. And you know, we were just talking about like the way that he had been painted in 2016, that there was a Bernie bros problem that his supporters were racist, sexist, and bigoted. And then I asked him about it, and he was like, yeah, I mean, this is done by the DNC,

and they saw these amazing rallies we were doing with all this diversity, and it was this beautiful thing, and they tried to make us radioactive. I go, that's interesting. During this election, we asked all these Democrats to come onto the podcast, and none of them came on. And Republicans made appearances on the podcast more,

and they called us the, not Bernie bros, the podcast bros, and they said, we're as sexist, bigoted, and racist. Who is they in this example? That's a good question. I should give you like an exact answer. I think there was like- Yeah, I just wonder if this is a straw man that you've- Yeah, that I've created. Or after the fact that I've concocted.

Maybe the question I would ask is, do you think that that was an unfair representation? That like there are certain media figures labeling the Manosphere and the Podcast Bros that way? I think that's right, yeah. So you have heard that. Yeah. So who would they be for you? The media. That's what I just said.

No, you said they. I said something specific. You think that yours is more specific? Yeah, journalists, just said. No, you said they. I said something specific. You think that yours is more specific? Yeah, journalists, commentators. Yeah, I fear if I said the media, you would have been who specifically. You would have said the same thing. I feel like your answer is just as vague.

And I'm not trying to bully you into position. What I'm trying to expose is that I don't think that I was like a pinpointed enough on my accusation. It is a kind of big accusation, but I'm glad that you agree. Yeah. I guess what I'm- No, it's just as interesting when people have a perception that somehow they're being sort of attacked or labeled. You just, the inclination for me is to wonder like,

well, is that happening? And I think in your case, it's true. I don't think it's nefarious intent, by the way. I think that like, when you talk for two or three hours on a podcast every week, you can take excerpts from it and make me look ridiculous. You can make me look however you want. You can make me look like the sweetest, kindest, loving dad. You can make me look like an absolute tyrant.

We talk for six hours total a week on a podcast. A 30-second excerpt, you can do whatever you want. And that's the cost that we have to take on for putting out content. We can't complain about that. It's more just like, oftentimes getting labeled a certain thing and then everybody kind of, not everybody, but seeming like culture may be catching up or coming around to it.

And there doesn't seem to be much accountability of maybe we shouldn't have said those things about those guys for calling Biden old now that we're all saying that we covered up the fact that maybe wasn't actually the president so then I'm in this situation where I'm like I Shouldn't make a big deal about this because that's selfish What I should do is just be like hey It's cool that we're all agreeing on something and I shouldn't punish you for agreeing

You know that would be like the mature thing you know you know it's what I have this long list of questions that I have structured in such a way as to try and like get to the more provocative material in like a incremental way, but I feel like we could just get into things with you and I wouldn't have to do that kind of work. You don't have to do whatever. Also, I love when you're self-reflective in your interviews.

So yes, you like ruminating on what you're feeling in the moment is good. All right, thank you. Feelings are hard for me, man. You just know what you're feeling every second of the day. Yeah, pretty much. Why are they hard for you? You don't seem like someone for whom feelings are hard.

No, I'm very sensitive, but... Articulating them in the moment? No, no, no. It's like understanding the type of feeling I have. This is something I learned with like therapy and shit, where it's like, I'm very used to be like, you did this thing to me, and it doesn't matter. That doesn't matter what what you did because it might not even be your attention to

do that thing but if I say I feel rejected by you saying that now you're like oh shit I didn't want to make you feel rejected but I have to understand the feeling of rejection more than the feeling of justice I'm justice oriented like if I see somebody cut Felice in line, and I don't even know Felice, I'll tap them on the shoulder like, no, the line's back here. I'm crazy like that.

Like, justice is important. Even if it has nothing to do with me, you know what I mean? I do. So, uh... All right, good, good, go, go, go. Go, go, go. Just ask.

No prep, nothing. Let's go. So, you said you asked Democrats to be on the podcast. Presumably we're talking about like last fall in the run up to the election. So who did you ask before that? Who did you ask? Who did you ask? Waltz, Kamala.

I mean we had Mark Cuban, who was a surrogate for the Dems, on. And then we asked Mark, we're like, dude, we're really trying to like balance it. We like to hear from all voices. Like the podcast is all voices. Like that's the idea of like the ethos is our friend group we have all these different perspectives, but we're still friends and we still argue about these things and These whatever doesn't matter And yeah, just none of them and more I'm sure but Kamala for sure and then her team just lies

Just blatantly lies about what about us reaching out. They say they didn't? Yeah. And it's just wild. It's wild to blatantly lie when not only did I reach out, Charmé, who's like working with them, reached out. Mark Cuban, who's a surrogate, reached out on our behalf. And we reached out. And they just blatantly lie. And then when people will write articles about it, they will lie by telling the truth. Meaning, they'll say like, Flagerant or Andrew says he reached out to Kamala, but we reached out to the Kamala people and they said that that never happened.

So what is the reader supposed to interpret that as? It's an evasion. And I think it's an indictment on me, because it's almost like calling me a liar. Yes, this is the justice oriented I am so yeah right now, but so you had this interest in having Bernie as well Obama as well Clintons we got close I want to build on and having Democrats on and it didn't happen in the fall of

2024 this year in the past couple of months you've had Bernie, you've had Buttigieg. And so the lag between actually having Democrats on in this space of all voices and wanting to have them on, you're saying is solely because the Democrats wouldn't come on. Yeah. And so why are they doing it now? Why do you think? I want to hear you say it. Well, what is your feeling? Well, because they decided it's advantageous for them.

And then before they probably thought that they didn't need it. Also, I wouldn't say that they holistically decided that it was advantageous to them because I think the party is quite fractured. There's the Bernie side of the party, and then there's probably the front runner now being like Buttigieg side of the party.

And I think Buttigieg comes on and has his biggest interview of his career, and then all of a sudden the Bernie side is like, yeah, we'd love to come on. I also think like having Buttigieg comes on and has his bigger interview of his career, and then all of a sudden, the Bernie side is like, yeah, we'd love to come on. I also think like having Buttigieg come on like made it maybe feel safe, you know? For others, for other Democrats. We're not a gotcha pod. If we're asking you to come on,

it's because we're interested in you. We're interested in like the decisions you wanna make and how it's gonna affect, you know, Americans. That's like really important to me. So I was awesome having Pete on. I thought he was great, like smart guy, like doesn't like talk down on her finger wag. You know, it's a very rare thing now in politics. But he'll meet you where you are. And then after meeting you where you are and disarming you and making you not feel like you're stupid for disagreeing,

then he'll try to show you his side. And you're so much more willing to indulge in it. And so I think the way you just put it was that you think it's important for Americans to have politicians on and to, or you want to meet them as they are. For us too, I want to. Yeah. So let's take the example of your interview with Donald Trump. I know that you're not a journalist. Correct.

But am I not? I might be the foremost political journalist in my time. You know it's possible. It's possible. Like what makes somebody that? It's such a... I don't know that it's your job in the way that it would be a journalist job to ask particular questions of political figures.

But in your interview with Donald Trump, do you feel like you did the necessary work of asking him difficult questions? Do you think that's necessary? Yes. I will answer in a second, but like, why is it? Oh, well, that's assuming that I didn't ask the difficult questions. So I don't know, like what you think the goal of journalism is specifically. Is it to ask the things you're curious about? Do you have a responsibility for your audience within the New York Times? Do you have a

responsibility for the New York Times audience? Do you have responsibility for casual people that sometimes, like how many people are you responsible for? Are you responsible for people in Dubai, China, Japan? They might have certain curiosities that you didn't address. At one point you're going to let somebody down. So what I'd like to see more is people asking the questions that they are curious about themselves instead of trying to pander to what their audience is curious about. And for me, with the Trump interview, I had three things I wanted to ask him about.

And I asked him those things. And that's what I felt was responsible. And for people who didn't see it, what were those three things? Protecting IVF. My wife and I had a baby through IVF and it was really important to me that he would do something to make sure that that was protected, especially with the abortion bans. And he specifically said that he would and the federal government would make sure that it was protected.

Let's see if that actually happens, if there's federal support for people that are going through it. Like that was crucial for me. For me, it was empathy for illegals that are here, that are not breaking the law, that have been working here in a pathway to citizenship, which it doesn't look like has been happening.

This is very disheartening for me. And to the foreign wars. I think it's really hard for Americans, specifically, to be struggling so much. And then the perception of all this money leaving the country to go fight these wars in places that we'll never go visit. I think that's hard for Americans, like really difficult.

And you start to feel like you're left out. So yeah, those are the three things that I really wanted to talk to him about. And I did. But what's interesting about that interview is that the second it came out, the Kamala campaign and the Trump campaign were posting the same clips of the interview.

It was lauded by both parties. It was really interesting. It really just exposes it like, you know, life's a Rorschach test. You had these three things you wanted to ask Donald Trump, and that also means you didn't ask about, you didn't really ask that much about economic policy, right? For a like a Bernie supporter, I thought like, oh, that's weird that I think you told Bernie it broke your heart when Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016. I thought, oh, it's strange that he's not asking Donald Trump about more pointed questions about economics.

What did I ask Bernie about economics? Well, you guys talked a lot about economic inequality. But what about policy? It's an issue that matters to you. What would you like me to ask? I don't know the specific question. The question is about- Specifics are important.

The question is about the- You're making an accusation that I didn't ask something, but you don't have the thing that you would have liked me to ask. So here's a good moment for accountability. Do you think it was fair to present that economic policy question to me about Trump not really knowing what you're talking about? Yes. I asked you a question. That's where it feels gotcha to me. It doesn't feel gotcha.

Oh, I'm sorry. I can't tell you how you feel. No, this is good. We're both, oh, this is good. Therapy is good. This is good. Okay. This is, this is, I love, that was awesome. But that's where I felt like it was gotcha. I don't know if that's your intent right there at all. I can't put anything on intent, but I felt gotcha because I asked you, what would you have liked me,

and you didn't have an example, and then you brought up the Bernie as a thing to, I felt, add more weight to your thing, and then there wasn't any combo about that. In that moment, what I felt like is, oh, he's trying to point me out as doing something inadequate in this interview. But the only goal of his question was to expose inadequacy, not to actually learn something.

So to me, that's like, that felt like gotcha. Actually, gotcha is not a feeling. Gotcha is not a feeling. It puts the blame on you. So I get, that's what I was talking about feelings. I got to get better at. I felt, um, I don't's why I was talking about feelings. I got to get better at... I felt... I don't know. I'll figure it out.

I'll talk to my therapist about it. I'm working on it, David. Wait, let me try and come up with a different one. That... So you and your wife, you went through the IVF process to have your child. And that's why IVF was an important subject for you to break up with Donald Trump.

And then when you're having that conversation with him, you know, you said, I'm paraphrasing, I'm not gonna get excited, but something like, I think it's important for women moderates to hear that. I don't recall saying that. Oh, was I saying, like, women who might be on the fence about who you are as, like, a person and, like, how much you care about their

Bodies and their ability to make choices with their bodies, right? But then this is not how they make you how to make you feel Do you think it was like trying to like promote him or something like that to them? It made me feel confused. Yeah, because there was then also no mention or suggestion of the fact that Donald Trump was credibly accused of groping a bunch of women or that he was found liable in a civil suit for sexual abuse. Why was like one thing important to hear and not another?

That's an example where I thought like, oh, this something about the balance or frame here feels to you strange to me. Well I think it's a fair question. The reaction I would have is like, what is less known? I don't think that there's a person on the planet that doesn't know that Donald Trump was like, you could grab him by the pussy. I don't think there's a person on the planet doesn't know about the civil suit. People have done a pretty good job of getting that information out there. What people might not know is that he really wants to fight to protect IVF. And that might be really important for a woman who goes, yeah, I know all this horrible stuff that this guy has been accused of or convicted of doing,

but the most important decision for me right now is I wanna have a family and I want assistance in that and I want support in that. And unfortunately in elections, we look past certain like transgressions because there are certain things that are more important to us. So if you're a trans person, I totally understand.

If you're like, I can't vote for that guy. It doesn't look like he's gonna allow me to live the life that I wanna live and live that life freely. They, she or he has to go to the other option because that's the one thing that's most important to their life. So I think by your standard, you wish that I brought up the things that he had done

in referencing that. To make the conversation feel more balanced. To make it feel more balanced. Yeah, I don't think that that's unfair. I guess what I would say is that like, as an interviewer, I would be like, am I bringing that up for the person that hates Trump so that they're disarmed? And then am I doing that up for the person that hates Trump so that they're disarmed?

And then am I doing this interview for the audience, not for what I authentically want to ask them? Like, there's even a part of me that wonders as you ask me these questions, like, do you feel like you have to put some pressure on me with the Trump thing because your audience might be like, why didn't you ask him about having Trump on? Or do you genuinely want to do it? I think in this instance, it's both. Yeah, and that's an honest, fair question.

And I go through that too, where I'm like, what do I really wanna know? What do I really wanna ask this person? And what do I feel like I should or else I'll be criticized for not, when I had Bernie on, should I have asked him about taking the private jets? Should I have asked him about having three houses? Like, I saw that. And I'm not equating this to like Donald Trump

being like convicted of things. But still like, I could have brought those things up and appease certain people that are definitely in my audience. But the cost of that is, am I doing it just to appease them, one? And does it make him clam up and then not open up about these other things that I really want to know?

Do I lose my authenticity to things that I'm really curious about and building that rapport so we can have this honest, open conversation to appease what somebody who already fucking hates Bernie and what he stands for. And that's the thing that you just got to decide as an interviewer. When you're thinking about what is or isn't authentic for you, do you find that you have

moments during interviews or when you're on other people's podcasts where you're consciously in the moment choosing to say or not say something based on whether it would be authentic for you to say? I don't think I need to think on it. I don't think I'm going, is this authentic? I think I'm going, is this not? Because my knee-jerk feeling about the world, I'll just say, I can kind of like, I have opinions about whatever.

You ask me and I can give it to you. But if I chew on it a little bit, I might actually disagree with that knee jerk thing that I felt. But I think what I've noticed through standup and I've noticed through podcasting is that like if you say the thing that you're feeling in the moment,

or if you ask the question you're curious about, it always goes well. It might be the most absurd thing. If somebody's missing an arm in the front row and you're just like, where'd it go? You know? Like everybody else that's seeing it is also thinking that same thing and there's this beautiful catharsis. And that's I guess what I mean about authenticity. It doesn't mean it's right. My authentic feeling isn't necessarily like the right thing in a moment,

but it is true. And I can live with criticism for the thing that I believe in and the thing that I feel like is true to me. Being criticized for the thing that is fraudulent to you is like a double whammy. It's the worst. You were fake and you were rejected. Reject me for who I am. That's fine.

Here's something I am, uh... This falls under the category of things I am legitimately curious about. Yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure, sure. So in your... Yeah, like stuff, no curiosities. Yeah. So in your stand-up and on the podcast,

or appearances on other podcasts, there are some, you'd call them slurs, that you use. Uh... Sure, sure. And I'm thinking of one in particular, you'd call them slurs that you use. Sure, sure. And I'm thinking of one in particular, you know, starts with R, commonly used to describe the intellectually disabled people. So you use that, I think, in the first minute of infamous,

you use a derogatory term for Mexicans. Which ones? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But to the Mexican. Right, yeah, yeah. But there's, yeah, yeah, yeah. But to the Mexican. Right, yeah, yeah. But there's another one. There are other ones you use. But then there are other ones.

It's in a compliment. I think it's important to like contextualize. Oh, yes. I'd also like to say the thing that is, I think, important to note with your stuff is that it does never feel mean-spirited. But then there are other derogatory terms that you don't go near.

Like which? Like, you know, I've never heard you use other derogatory terms that you don't go near. Like which? Like, you know, I've never heard you use a derogatory word for a Jewish person. Really? I blame Jews for homosexuality in the latest special. No, no, no, homophobia. But you don't use the derogatory word. Which one are you talking about, the K1? Yeah, that would be the one. But how do you decide which ones feel okay and which ones don't?

We'll call them, them like the small hats. Where's the line? Where are your lines for language? Yeah, the N-word I don't do. Yeah, the K-word I don't really do. Why certain ones and why not other ones? That's a good question. If we accept they're all derogatory.

I don't accept that. This is the thing, I think in in reality people are trying to protect people. And the protection of people I think is like a beautiful benevolent thing. And I think it's a great thing to endeavor to do. But sometimes it goes to the point where we're making words harmful that aren't harmful. So for example, like Latinx, which I'm sure you've heard of this term, latinx, are you familiar with that? Yeah. OK, what do you think of that term?

What do I think of it? Yeah. That's a hard question. What do I think of the term? To me, it feels like... Have you heard of a fire retardant? Yeah. How do you feel about that word?

The fire retardant. Retardant in that context means to slow something down. Yeah. And should we make a different word for that? But a fire retardant is not a human being. No, but the root word has a scientific definition. That we have then labeled an emotional, painful pejorative that we could also remove that label.

I think that it's mainly labeled by people who are not dealing with mental illness. I think it's people who want to, often like parents, who want to protect people who have these mental disabilities. So we're doing this thing, which is beautiful at its core, which is to protect the people who may not be able to protect themselves, but we don't truly know if they are hurt by that.

Now, if a parent ever said, hey, that word hurts me and I want you to say, I'm never gonna say it in front of them. I don't wanna hurt you. That's not my goal. But if they're like, and I don't want you to ever say it again in your life, then I'm like, that's not gonna happen.

I'll never say it around you because I just don't wanna hurt you. I wanna have fun. I want you to enjoy. But you can't dictate what I do or don't say. But the reality is like, there's always gonna be somebody offended by a word or opinion or whatever you say.

So at a certain point in time, like what do you do? You just curtail how you speak completely so that you don't offend people or do you just have your constitution and understand who you are as a person and you go on living life and accept the blowback that comes with that? You know, just straight about that word in particular where I saw Joe Rogan said something like the lack of inhibition about using that word is somehow a cultural victory? That's the context of that conversation.

What I would presume, it's this idea that we're no longer going to be policing language as strictly as we had maybe in like the last five or six years, and that we're gonna understand intention a little bit more, and we're not gonna... I think there are people that have great intentions and they're really trying to protect communities. And I think there are people that also have bad intentions and they're just trying to bludgeon people with criticism.

And it's a power move. And I've seen it happen. This person said this on a podcast. We are going to email every one of their sponsors and ask those sponsors to drop them. Now, that's interesting. That seems like that person is trying to exert an immense amount of power from a position that maybe they don't normally have that in their life. And I think that's a little bit gross.

So, just thinking about Joe Rogan is now making me think of this idea that there's like a Manosphere podcast world that appeals to young men in particular. And it has a lot to do with ideas of masculinity. Even though none of these shows, and when I say these shows, I'm thinking of Flagerant or Theophon or Joe Rogan's show where these shows are certainly not seen as progressive. Why do you think that there is some idea of masculinity that progressives or the left has not been able to talk to? Why do you think? You know, Andrew, it's very hard for me to come up with answers to questions like that.

It's a tough question. I think you have a thoughtful answer. I think there are less complicated ideas of masculinity that are often put forward on those kinds of shows that are more approachable and maybe more familiar to a lot of men. And so it's an easier thing to latch onto. They're like, oh, yeah, I like saying off-color shit with my buddies, you know?

Or like... Do you like saying off-color shit with your buddies? Yeah. You do. It was fun. And it doesn't define you as a person. And you feel comfortable saying it with your buddies because they know who you are. I got away from my question. Why do you think the left has had a hard time as a person, and you feel comfortable saying it with your buddies because they know who you are. I got away from my question.

Why do you think the left has had a hard time reaching? I don't think it's that. I think it's the nature of media a little bit. When Joe is bringing somebody on, he's only bringing them on to ask him things that he's curious about. He's not going, I have to ask him these questions to make sure the interview is balanced so that my audience doesn't think that I was doing a puff peat, whatever.

So what I think is people prefer in general, more genuine conversations, which is more curiosity based conversations, instead of I already know how I feel about you and I'm going to prove to my audience that I'm right the way I feel about you. And I think what happens to that is, yeah, your audience that agrees with you will like it, but you can't bring everybody in. And so I think this is one part of it. I also think that the ability to kind of like speak freely how you said before, what was it, when you're with your friends, you just kind of busting balls, whatever the term is,

which we all do, and saying maybe some of those no-no words that we don't say here and we say we shouldn't say, but once we're with our friends, all of a sudden they're fine to say. So once you see those conversations on a podcast that way more similarly reflect your life, they're not trying to push a specific agenda now that you could make the argument that agendas

are being pushed, by the way. So I would even like caveat that thing. But yeah, to me, it's not surprising. And it happens on girl podcasts. They go fucking crazy, these girl podcasts as well. So it's not just, oh, Manosphere. There is immense curiosity in like authentic, genuine things.

The New York Times is never gonna do a get ready with me video. I'm sure someone in this building has put thought into it. They pitched it, but you guys are probably like, that's beneath us. We don't get ready. I don't know. It's like, well, you better fucking get ready. You know? Because these girls are doing on TikTok and they're getting the kinds of people to watch.

So I think there's just been a shift towards more relatability. And I think that guys are definitely feeling more relatability on the guy pods. Yeah. And then I think the girls are feeling more relatability on the girl pods. So to me, it's just corporate media needs to, and I feel like it's already happening. Like this conversation is like a version of that where it's like,

they just need to make the adjustment to the new marketplace. And before, when it's, you know, the Times is competing with who else, your CBS or the Post or these types of things, like you're all competing within the same rules. And then podcasts came in and threw out the rules. Say whatever curse words you want, whatever no-no words you want,

like actually talk like you're with your friends. Well, yeah, that sounds way better. But you know, it's actually interesting to hear you put it like that, where you're sort of, we're all working under the same rules because it actually, for me, makes a conversation like this more difficult, because there are rules and expectations that... Yeah. What are some that I'd love to know?

Like, what is, what do you feel... Well, there's the most obvious one would be like language rules, you know, certain words. And I don't just mean like derogatory words. Or there's even just sort of like an implicit style of conversation that I feel like I'm supposed to have that is actually like inhibiting a little bit in a conversation with you, and I'm feeling that in this conversation because it's like,

oh, there's ways to talk with you that I think are actually made more difficult because it's like I know there's sort of a little voice on my shoulder. But, uh... First of all, this is another example of one of the things you do. Don't say it again, don't say it again. Do you not like compliments? It just feels like- Uncomfortable for you?

I don't like it. Why? You're so in touch with your feelings, I'm like so envious. It's, I think, a unique thing that like, it makes me want to listen to your content more. It's like, you're reacting in real time to, you hate compliments. What is that about?

But the thing I wanted to say was, you know, it's interesting this idea of shift rightward for conservative young men and somehow like the manospheres driving that. I wouldn't agree shift rightward. What I would say that this is a lot more of, and you asked specifically why maybe men are kind of drawn in this direction and keep in, like all of us, I can't, I don't know about Theo, but like Joe's Democrat his whole life, my Democrat my whole life, like registered Democrat.

Yeah. So you voted for Trump. I voted for Trump. Yeah. Yeah. But to be honest, my vote was more like I voted against a democratic institution. And I feel like it was like stripping the democratic process from its constituents. Like I didn't like the way things were going. I thought people were hurting. They didn't like the way things were going. And Kamlo was literally just going, yeah, we're going to keep doing that.

You can't be surprised if you go, yeah, I thought Joe did a great job and we're going to keep on doing that. If people are upset and they decide to vote in a different direction. So I think that like the first reaction is, okay, we didn't do anything wrong. It was just podcast bros. That's what switched the election. And now I think they're starting to realize, oh, wow, maybe there's some policy things that people weren't happy with and we have to change that. And I think like the most glaring example is that there were unions that

did not endorse Kamala. They had not endorsed the Democratic Party. And then there were some unions that endorsed Trump. If Democrats cannot win the votes of union workers, who are they for? To me, that says everything. You worry about podcasts. The unions are going, we're going to go with the Republican guys who are trying to break up unions I think what what happened is the Democrats I think were and I hate to make this so like Democrat Republic

because it's not all Democrats by the way I think that there some Democrats are quite critical of this you see and obviously Bernie you see AOC like there's but I think what happens is the Democrats are like tied to the same corporations that are funny Republicans And they can't actually push back against those corporations because they get so much funding from them and In order to really make it a class war which you should because that's honestly the thing that's going to resonate with the most people They can't do it because they're in the pockets of you know, pharmaceutical companies They're part of the medical industrial complex just like republicans are as well

So what they have to do is they made it an identity politics issue. And I think that that was unrelatable probably and made people sway. And I would say that is part of it. And I would say the other part is, and I think that it's important to say this for progressives in general,

it is a harder job to be a progressive publicly than it is to be a conservative. Progressives are trying to push progress forward. How can we get more equity, more equality for our marginalized people? It is much harder to just fuck around with your boy on a podcast and say whatever words as we normally would when part of your identity and your agenda is to

seemingly push these things forward because it can be immediately used against you. Whereas a conservative can say whatever they want as long as they're not talking about the gun lobby or, you know, Christians and kind of say whatever because they're not exactly trying to push everything. It's not their identity to put, if anything, it's make America great again. It's like, let's roll it back a little bit. So I think it is a harder thing for them to do. I think that's why they avoided the podcast.

You're talking so intelligently about the Democratic challenge right now. But I was watching your appearance on the Trigonometry podcast, and you know the quote I'm gonna bring up, right? This is so disingenuous. But go on. This is so, like... You'll tell me why it's disingenuous, but for people who do... You go. It's like, this is the exact example

of the Rorschach test, but go on, go on. Yeah, you were talking about politics, you were talking about how you were a Democrat and they sort of lost you and... No, no, I'll give it to you if you want. Yeah, do it, yeah. Okay, so the context of the conversation was about like, did people change or have parties changed? And I'm pretty sure.

And then like, and I'm like, well, parties have changed their priorities. And then people haven't really changed theirs. Just parties have shifted in certain directions. So when I was younger, Democrats were cool as hell. You know, Bill Clinton is playing the sax on Arsenio. He's smoking weed. You're like, oh, these guys are cool. Like they embraced homosexual.

I grew up in New York City. Like I understand like the importance of the gay community and like making this an awesome place. You know, like they embrace what I thought were minorities. I'm like, yo, this is awesome. And the perspective when you're just a kid, you're not out there, you're like, oh yeah, Republicans are just like some Southern racists. That's kind of what I thought were minorities. I'm like, yo, this is awesome. And the perspective, when you're just a kid, you're not out there, you're like, oh yeah, Republicans are just like some southern racists.

That's kind of what you thought. And then Republicans at the time were like, don't say bad words. Hip hop is bad. Rock and roll music is dangerous. They're like finger wagging, right? They're telling you what to do. And they're the ones that are like kind of inhibiting

free speech. And Democrats were perception wise, pushing it forward and protecting the free speech. And then I just create this juxtaposition. I go, now Trump's got three baby mamas. And I go, and the Democrats are saying what words we can't say, you can't say retard, you can't say this, like you're policing speech and the Republicans are like, yo, say whatever you want, you got to do it.

I'm like, wow, look at this shift in terms of the parties. Did the people move at all or have the parties move? And I say this thing, I'm being purposely reductive because I'm a comedian talking to comedians. And I'm like, I'm like, uh, yeah, so I'm going to vote the guy who gets three baby moms, so I'm voting for the guy with more, who's getting more pussy or something like that. I get how anybody who saw it out of the context of the conversation was like, this guy is an idiot.

You voted for somebody because they get laid, but at the same time it's like, do you really think that that was, like at a certain point in time, can we afford even like a modicum of intelligence to the person saying something? Like, do you think that's the point I was actually trying to demonstrate

that all Democrats need to do is get laid and then yeah, we'll vote for them? Ridiculous. But the point was, or a point was that if Democrats exhibited more comfort with like a kind of libertinism, then that would be part of well, I think that is- Appealing to someone.

I think it's a good extrapolation for it, but the point was actually that the people haven't shifted. We have these conversations all the time. Like you were saying earlier, like white males went to the right. And it's like, I think a better way to look at it is have parties shifted. Like we have no problem saying that Trump completely changed the Republican party.

Like it looks nothing like the party of 10 years ago, right? Like he completely transformed it. You could make the argument that like Bernie is transforming the democratic party, so we transforming the Democratic Party. So we know that parties change. And I think people kind of stay in their areas and parties shift. And sometimes they can shift and grab more people. So that was the conversation I was trying to say.

It's not people running away. It's parties running away. But who gets laid more, bro? It's just so... Like I saw it starting to go viral. I'm like, do I have to fucking address it? Like, oh, God. It was like every pundit did something about it. Like, just, but whatever.

I'm responsible. I shouldn't have said it like that. I should have found a way to make the point that wasn't so easily refutable. So that's on me. When you said a second ago, you know, you're a comedian, you're on a podcast with other comedians. Do you think there's something just like slightly disingenuous about that?

Because it's like in the same... I know the argument you're going to make where it's just like we're using that as like a get out of jail free card. It's also it's like really is when is somebody supposed to who's watching and are listening, they're supposed to minute to minute the conversation be like, oh, now he's in comedian mode. Now he's in public commentator mode. Like, how? Always treat me as a comedian.

Always treat you as a comedian. Yeah, because I've never asked you to treat me any other way. But you're talking seriously now. You are making me serious. But I'm a comedian. To me, I'm always a comedian. You guys are deciding that I'm not. But do I have to be funny every second to be a comedian?

When you're funny, do you stop being a journalist? No. So then why is it when I'm asking a serious question, I stop being a comedian? Right, but when you say the serious thing, yeah, go, go, go. When you say the serious thing, does that then mean the reaction to the serious thing

can always be defended just by saying, no, no, I was a comedian. When have I done that? I've heard this criticism about podcasters, but when have I gotten upset at the reaction of, like... No, but when you're saying that, uh, no, no, I'm not saying I'm a political spondent. I'm just a comedian.

That is your version of saying, it's not up to me to answer these questions about things I've said. That's not true. What question have I avoided? I just feel like I think you understand the point I'm trying to make, and my semantics are not working. No, it's not the semantics.

I think that you have an opinion about me, and you're not willing to wiggle away from it. But you don't realize that I'm agreeing with you. So what I just did before when you brought up the baby mamas and both were Democrats, I think is the last thing I said was, I have to be better at what I communicate because I ultimately bear the consequences

of that communication, whether I'm joking or not. I go, I would love if I was afforded like a modicum of intelligence in the way that people interpret it, but that might not be happening. I'm saying, yeah, I'm a comedian, I'm busting balls with my friends, but I take on the responsibility of the reaction to that

if these people don't wanna see me as a comedian. But what I would love is what you have, which is you get to be a journalist, but then when you make a joke, we don't go, hey, you pretended to be a comedian there, and that joke that you did wasn't funny enough, so right now you never get to make jokes again. Because that joke you tried to make was not funny.

What I'm saying is that there is not an exact even exchange in the mirror between us. But I will take it on. I am, if I say something out loud, I bear the responsibility of it. That's the cost of this business. We get to talk shit for a living with our friends and interview fucking presidents and like thoughtful like historians and just somebody who thinks the pyramids were built by aliens like this is awesome. The experience you just had of trying to explain something to me and needing to do it like five times before I got it.

Now you know what it's like to be my wife. I did not understand what I'm saying. Listen there, I did that bro. I just did a joke. I did a joke. See? See? And if it wasn't funny enough, I want you to let him know, okay? He's a journalist.

Shouldn't be doing this comedy stuff. Yeah. This may be the last question for now, because we're talking again next week, but you mentioned just in passing being in therapy. What are you working on now? Just, you know, having like, just relationship. Like having a kid, it just throws everything

for such a loop and you just gotta stay on it. So anyway, I can like improve in certain ways and... So what are the things that you need to improve on? Like not saying what the person is doing, but like saying what I'm feeling in a moment. You know, like not trying to like win the interaction, but just like understanding how something affected me. Yeah.

And also this is a good one too. Like being calm doesn't mean that you can't prick somebody else. Like just, just being calm and reactive to something doesn't mean that can also not be like frustrating to the person you're talking to, but you think you have maybe some like high ground in the argument just simply because you're like calm. I'm not mad. Exactly. Yeah, I'm not mad.

And you're, and you're, you seem really frustrated. So I must be the reasonable one here. That's not necessarily the case. Yeah. So just like learning about that kind of stuff and, uh, shit, I wish I could do therapy every day. I'll be honest. I think it's like just understanding like why I react to certain things.

Why does, why is justice important to me? Why am I sensitive? Why do I care what people think? Why do I not care sometimes what people think? When are the times that you care what people think? So for example, that bummed me out when people like took what I said at face value. It was fair with the trigger and armature thing. It's totally fair.

I said it, you're allowed to react to it, whoever you want, your entire reaction. But that bummed me out a little bit. I was like, oh man, it's so easy to discredit me as just some dumb bro if you just look at that. So that bummed me out, but then you just kind of, you keep on trucking, man. You know? After the break, I talk to Andrew again, and he tells me what he's been thinking about from our first conversation. You had a good question during the pod

that I was like, I thought about all week. We had several good questions, but you're like, you don't say the N-word or the K-word, but you'll say other words. And I was like, I don't say the N word or the K word, but you'll say other words. And I was like, I don't think that that's true. Like, I didn't know what to think of it in the moment. Andrew, thank you for taking the time to talk with me again. Of course. So, you know, I was, I mean, I was thinking a lot about a lot of things from the conversation so far.

Yeah. But the first thing is, you described yourself as a sensitive person. Yeah. Who also cares about what people think about you. And part of your job involves poking at sensitivities, which means that some people are going to think negative things about you. I thought, that's an interesting psychological juxtaposition. So how might your own insecurities play into the work that you do?

I would say like the most specific or like nuanced version of what we were talking about in the earlier part of the pod is like I'm specifically sensitive about people believing I am somebody that I don't believe I am. Right. So if you feel like you're being criticized for what feel like the right reasons or fair reasons, then you're able to deal with it. Yeah. You had a good question during the pod that I was like, I thought about like all

week, we had several good questions, but like you're like, you don't say the N word or the K word, but you'll say other words. And I was like, I don't think that that's true. Like I didn't know what to think of it in the moment. And then you were even brought up like the R word, like how I feel comfortable saying that one. And I really thought about it. And like, again, this is me like trying to like retrofit

my knee jerk feelings on it. Does that make sense? Like, and I think that like, what makes us learn bad is like, it's a descriptor plus organized violence and perceived organized violence. And I think that like as humans, if we feel like there was organized violence along with a descriptor. We're like, ooh, that's bad. And if we don't remember or can't or aren't taught

or it's like too far in the past that organized violence, we start to feel like it's not as heavy. And I think like that's why our reaction is different, you know, when it comes to maybe Latino slurs or when it comes to even Asian slurs, it's like, where's the organized violence? It's very hard to talk in absolutes about these kinds of things, because when I heard you just give that definition in my mind immediately thought, well, I don't know if it's organized violence, but there definitely was a spike in violence against Asian Americans post-pandemic. And like, does that count as organized violence? And then does that have some bearing on using slurs for Asian Americans?

Because I feel like we can get stuck litigating word by word, you know, and I don't want to do that. I agree with you. I think we're beyond like the word police. Like, I think if we get caught in, like you don't want to be word police, David. I don't think, I think that's like maybe five, 10 years ago. I think we've moved on beyond word police.

But I appreciate that you brought up that you had been doing some reflecting on parts of the conversation that we've had up till now. Oh, yeah. And I was wondering if you think there are ways in which your own sensitivities or maybe even insecurities might have shown up in our conversation? Sure. To say no would be ridiculous. I think that the world is constantly rebounding off of your insecurities or sensitivities and at least me. And I'm just trying to manage what those reactions are. And sometimes I feel confident in those reactions. And sometimes I reflect and go, Oh, wow, maybe that was, yeah. But I mean, I feel like you know the answer to

that question. Do you think you were insecure at all in our conversation? If I go, no, I'm a psychopath. Of course. Yeah. I'm a fucking regular human being David. Yeah You know one thing that you said that Stuck out for me that perhaps relates is you said you can feel a need to win the interaction I said that that was the thing that I am working on I was wondering if And also Andrew I want to be clear right now in no question I ask am I trying to trap you into anything? It's all coming from a place of curiosity and trying to understand. Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense. I don't know if I believe that you believe it, but I think it makes sense. I think you would like to believe that of yourself, but I do think that you have like a line of thinking that you're getting towards and you're using questioning to get me to that. And so I'm hesitant to simply just accept every single thing as a yes or no, because that might be another rung of the ladder to get to this point where I might have to go, hold on, there's more nuance to what I just said. You know, I did wonder if the way you so often turned the question I was asking you back around on me, was that a way of trying to like wrong foot me or undercut the question or invalidate the questions?

How so? Well, because, you know, there were times where I would ask you a question and you'd say, what do you think about that? And you know, I didn't have answers or I didn't have good answers. But I thought it was interesting in retrospect because my ability to express an opinion or give an answer to the question I'm asking, especially questions that have some political content, it's supposed to be somewhat irrelevant.

And I'm sure I'm guilty of hypocrisy in this sometimes, or I don't always ride the line as cleanly as I could. Like it's the thing that I think I'm trying to do is giving people a chance to hear from subjects without my own political or ideological opinions filtering in. And that's kind of a big difference between what my job is and what your job is. And I think because of that difference, the question flipping, it was something I really struggled with. Why do you think you struggle with it? Well, two things. One, and you're just flipping it again.

But... I'm just a curious guy. Like, I'm... Yeah. Well, with the content that does have a political edge to it, I'm really not supposed to betray my own thinking and feeling. Who's supposed to according my own thinking and feeling.

Who's supposed to according to whom? Well, there is an idea of news journalism as impartial and objective. I'm not supposed to be putting my thumb on the scale. You know what I mean. Well, maybe I was asking you to reflect on it because I thought you might be putting your thumb on the scale. And by reflecting on it and you sharing your opinion, it could inform the people listening why you're asking me such specific questions. And that way the listener goes, Oh, I see why this line of questioning is happening because he has this perspective about this situation and he's trying to get to this outcome.

Me for example, I just have a rule. I'm not going to ask anybody a question that I haven't thought of myself. Like I just I find that not to be insulting to you. But like if I haven't taken the time to like reflect on my thoughts on a question, like I wouldn't even feel comfortable asking somebody like on camera recorded how they feel about it. If you're asking me a question about what I've done in a situation or why I did something in a situation and you haven't reflected on what you would have done in that situation, what are you really seeking in my answer? Like, you know what I did in the situation. I think the thing I'm seeking is the thinking underneath it. What is the opinion of you that you seem to think I hold or I'm pushing you towards or trying to frame you in a particular

way? I think I hold or I'm pushing you towards or trying to frame you in a particular way. I don't know. That's why I ask. I'm not sure how much like you feel like you want to get across. I'm not sure how, how much you feel like a responsibility to your audience to ask certain questions. Like I don't like sometimes there's moments where I'm like, oh, David really wants to know about this. And sometimes there's moments where I'm like, I think David feels like if he doesn't ask this that he'll be criticized like I'm trying to gauge like what you really want yeah you know after our first conversation when we were down in the lobby and you were leaving we were we continued the conversation yeah yeah we all stop talking David maybe we should but but

you know we were sort of talking about the idea that there has been sort of a growing distrust or dissatisfaction with legacy media. And in response to that, I think a lot of listeners have turned to podcasts and other voices that they see as more authentic or uncompromised voices like yourself or Joe Rogan. So my question about that is like, if you have a kind of authority, whether you ask for it or not,

or whether you think it's correct or not, what are the possible ripple effects of that authority? And also then what responsibility might come with it? Yeah, I think a bunch of things happen at the same time. I think that the internet decentralized information decentralized information i think with the internet. Can you saw this even like early small little versions were like conspiracy stuff start to pop out right like conspiracy stuff is very exciting because it's like it makes dumb people feel smart. Right it's just like oh i know something nobody else knows i'm smart now. It's just like, oh, I know something nobody else knows.

I'm smart now. And the truth of the matter is the truth is boring. What, whenever we get to like the actual truth, truth of it, almost always it is boring, but when the information decentralized and then we're just podcasts or talking to shit with our friends. And I know that seems like a convenient excuse, but you have to understand like in its inception, that's what it was. And this thing gets so. Fuckin popular and i think that there's a couple issues right i think it's like.

Media for example maybe traditional media has like echoed certain sentiments that weren't exactly truthful maybe they're not blatant lies but there might be like certain things that they. Maybe they're not blatant lies, but there might be certain things that they, let's say, push that we all kind of accepted and then have recently become outed, if you will. So now all of a sudden there's this undercurrent of, oh, I guess we can't trust those institutions. Now the reality is, you guys could get 90% right. When you get one thing wrong, it's like, they're a propaganda tool, you know, it's like, you could do almost perfect reporting, but if you get one thing wrong, we can write the entire thing off. Right? So I think one also people were like moving away from like a, was it print media a lot of times. And I think that, uh, there's multiple

reasons for that. One, like I can listen to a podcast while I do my job I can't read the times while I'm driving to work and then we build up like probably like a parasocial relationship with these people where you like really get connected and I think what happened is more people started listening to us and this is obviously spearheaded by the goat Joe Rogan and then more people started listening to podcasting in general and Because more people started listening to podcasting in general. And because more people are listening, popular figures are now going on these platforms to have conversations like presidents and other figures. And now all of a sudden, like, everybody's consuming their information about these very serious things on these platforms that were not designed to do this in the first place.

And then when we go, hey, we're just asking questions and making fun of our friends. There is a very reasonable criticism, which is, yes, that's what you started out as. But now that everybody is watching you, do you now have a new responsibility? Yeah. And what's the answer to that? First of all, I just want to say, I think that that's fair. I think that that's fair. I think that that is fair. I don't think that we have to take

a specific journalistic approach, meaning I don't think we have to remove our own desires and the questions that we want to ask. But just for me personally, I think it's important to reflect multiple viewpoints on the pod. And we desperately tried to do that in the last election. The Democrats that we asked were not willing to come on. Now they are starting to come on and I think it makes for much better podcasting.

Also, the numbers when they come on are incredible. Clearly there's a real thirst from our audience about that, but also the world over. Like, and to me, what that indicates about our audience is it's not this extreme one direction. We are interested in all these different things. So now that we have access to these people, I think it makes for like a really fruitful conversation and then we would hope that people have the agency to make their own ideas. And the amount of political influence podcasters have had or have is highly debatable. But there is of course the old idea that politics is downstream of culture. Yeah. So if we take

that as true, what influence might popular podcasters be having on politicians and political discourse? I think that's a great point. I think that you're 100% right about politics being downstream from culture. What I would also say is that I think podcasts are downstream from culture too. Oh yeah, explain that. I think podcasts are before politicians, but I think culture starts, then podcasts is like something over here and then politicians. And I think that the ones that offer societal utility in that moment tend to be the most prolific in that moment.

Same thing with comedians. Like comedians are downstream from culture. And if you're a comedian and you got a lot of like women are annoying jokes, if we're going through, you know, the rise and fourth wave feminism and you have all these slogans like the future is female and all men are suck or something like that, that comedian is going to probably do really well during that time period because there's a societal utility. You know, on the idea that the culture was hungry for comedians and podcasters who were doing what you were doing, do you have any hunches about what the audience needs are that like are currently not being served and like sort of what a new wave of voices might step in to offer?

I think you'll see a lot of voices on the left. They're like really disciplined, great arguments, like well thought out, like brilliant left-wing pundits will rise during this time right now, because you always want something to like offset the balance of power and the rights in charge, you want great arguments from the left. And I'm not talking about like the septum piercing, like, you know, like purple fucking hair, like not those great arguments I'm talking about, like disciplined laser focus research, understand legislation.

I think they'll be quite prominent. What about in comedy? I think people tend to, during a Trump administration, to get a little exhausted. And I think now that you can kind of say, in comedy, there's like different cycles, right? So it's like when things are super censored, you have the, I think maybe the more prolific comedians

start to sprout out from that, where the George Carlins, the Richard Pryors, the Chris Rocks, they come from these times of like sensoriousness. It's like you can't say these words and they're going to use humor to say these things and to have these ideas. Then the pendulum swings to where we are right now where you can say anything. There's nobody's really upset with anything anymore. During this time, comedy tends to get quite absurdist. So when there's nothing to push back on, you

just float. And this is where like the Zach Galifianakis is tend to thrive. The Stephen Wrights tend to thrive. There's nothing to push back against. So they're almost pushing back against reality itself. So I would think like people in that realm, but that's that's just my personal take on kind of like what happens in comedy. And eventually we'll get more censored and then you'll have the voices that push back against that and the cycle repeats forever. You mentioned Trump, so I want to ask you said you voted for him basically as a protest vote against the Democrats, but how do you think of the job President Trump's been doing so far?

I think that that's unfair for me to say. I don't think it was simply protest. I think the reason why I entertained the Republican Party for the first time in my life was because the Democrats, I didn't like what was happening and they had said very clearly that that was just going to continue in terms of IVF, I think that like he's, he's taken action and protecting it and potentially like in increasing people's ability to access it, who knows if that legislation will actually like get put through, but that would be awesome. And in terms of, uh, immigration, like I want more, like if you broke the law,

you fucked up, you already here illegally. So you already broke the law and you're breaking the law. You gotta go. If you've been working your ass off for 10 years here, you've got a family. There's gotta be a system where we can just give these people a pathway to citizenship or a green card or something. There has to be a better way than simply just, hey, you go. And that's what I was pleading with him for on the pod, which is maybe pleading is

a strong word, but I was asking him to show empathy for these people that he's also employed. I was like, listen, you've had hotels, you know, these people, you know that they're going to bust their ass, they're going to work hard and they want a better life. It's like why my mom came here. So your parents or maybe his great grandparents or some shit came here. So it's like, I would like there to be much more empathy in that department. I don't think that that's happening and What would a Democrat have to do to win your vote back? He would just have to be named Bernie Sanders and I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. No I think what the Democrats need to do number one is just like allow a democratic process

The primary will tell you everything about what the party wants. It really will it's like trust the democratic process just Get some primaries going and you're gonna see which part of the party people support I think that they've become quite disillusioned with like the typical Institutional elites as Bernie Sanders calls them. And I think they're probably leaning towards, you know, maybe Bernie's, what does he call them? Like democratic socialism faction of the party. And you could force feed people one thing that they don't want and they will reject you.

And I think that's kind of what happened. Or you could embrace the changing of the party. And then if that change in the party ends up failing those people, they will eventually reject it. But a democracy allows people to make the decisions that they feel like they want for better or for worse. We have to at least be willing to entertain for worse. How can we learn as a people if we don't entertain for worse?

Andrew, can you end with a family friendly joke? Yeah. Um, a family friendly joke. Okay, here's a joke. This is a joke that I think it was a Louie joke that then Seinfeld told the joke to Louie when they were doing this conversation. It was like four of them. Do you remember that thing they did with Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock,

Louis CK and the comedians on comedians. And so Seinfeld tells a Seinfeldian version of this Louie joke. But the joke itself is something like, you know, like going on vacation with the family. You know, I put the kids in the car seats. I put my wife in the car, so you put the coffees in the coffee colder. I put the bags in the back. I give the snack seat to the kids. I put the last bag in the back.

I go, I close the trunk. I closed my wife's door, close the kids door. And when I'm walking from my wife's door to my door, that's my vacation. I know exactly the joke you're talking about. I think about this joke. And it's like, at its core, you could say quite mean, like the idea that like, like that's the beauty of a joke and why, how we can't like, what it does is allows us

to freely access these like maybe darker thoughts and emotions that we have. It's like, he loves his family, they all love their family, but in that little moment they're like, oh, they're safe and I don't have to fucking deal with them. And we all have that feeling for a little moment. And then we come back to reality. And maybe that's what would be awesome if people get about jokes,

is like, these things that we're saying, it's just what we feel oftentimes in that little moment. And then we step back. Thanks for taking all the time to talk with me, Andrew. I appreciate it. You're great, David, I know you hate me saying that, but I love this with me, Andrew. I appreciate it. You're great, David. I know you hate me saying that, but I love this format about coming back. I love it.

Zip it, zip it. I don't know. Bye, bye, bye, bye. All right. Take it easy. That's Andrew Schultz. His most recent comedy special, Life, is streaming on Netflix. This conversation was produced by Seth Kelly. It was edited by Allison Benedict, mixing by Sonia Herrero.

Original music by Dan Powell, Elisha Be'etoop, Sophia Landman, and Marion Lozano. Photography by Devin Yalkin. Our senior booker is Priya Mathew, and Wyatt Orm is our producer. Our executive producer is Alison Benedict. Special thanks to Rory Walsh, Renan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Matty Masiello, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schuman, and Sam Dolnick.

If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to The Interview wherever you get your podcasts. To read or listen to any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes.com slash the interview. Also, we have a new YouTube channel where you can watch this interview and many others. Subscribe at youtube.com slash at the interview podcast. I'm David Marchese and this is the interview from the New York Times.