The New Yorker Radio Hour - Jerrod Carmichael, and the Truth About Impeachment

Episode Date: May 26, 2017

The comedian Jerrod Carmichael explains why he simply will not give back to the community. And a former lawyer for Bill Clinton explains what it really takes to end a Presidency. New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

You're listening to The New Yorker Radio Hour. And the other day, I was walking into my building, and I walked past my guard, and I had a hoodie on. And he didn't stop me, and I was concerned. Very concerned. Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The comedian Gerard Carmichle is razor sharp when he jokes about the complications of being a young, successful black man in Hollywood. He'll sit down with the New Yorker staff writer. Vincent Cunningham later this hour. But we're going to start off in Washington.

Now, we know that some in the Democratic Party have been talking about impeaching Donald Trump, well, since before he even took office. But since the firing of James Comey in Trump's own self-defeating acts and remarks, the talk of impeachment has grown more intense, more serious. The New Yorkers Evanosnos recently took a look at what impeachment is and how it happens. He talked with a real expert on the subject. Gregory Craig was the special counsel to Bill Clinton when Congress last brought impeachment proceedings almost 20 years ago. Here's Evan. We have about 1,300 days left in the first term of the Trump administration.

You and I are speaking here in the middle of May. And at this moment, the White House is, to put it mildly, besieged. It is under a range of investigations. It is, by most descriptions, it is in a... a state of disarray. There are accusations of potential violations like obstruction of justice. There are lawsuits facing the president in one form or another. A month ago, if somebody had talked about impeachment or removal from office in Washington, D.C., it was a kind of magical thinking. Today, you're seeing it on the front page of the newspaper. And impeachment, after all,

has been part of the Constitution from the very earliest moments of the Constitutional Convention. In fact, they agreed on the details of impeachment before they even agreed on the details of the presidency. But one of the things that they did was they set a standard that can be hard sometimes, I think, for the public to understand, which is that they said a president can be impeached if he or she commits high crimes or misdemeanors. So what does that mean? Well, it means what the House of Representatives decides it means. and ultimately what the Senate, if the president, is tried for, quote, high crimes and misdemeanors. And in arguments, certainly during the Clinton administration, we went to the historical definition of high crimes and misdemeanors to see if there was some reference there that would help us in the defense of President Clinton.

And it really was, there is a list of what back in the 18th century people believed to be high crimes and misdemeanors. but it doesn't give you all that much instruction or advice as to what really is an impeachable offense. It does give you some sense of what is not an impeachable defense. And simply because you may have committed an impeachable offense doesn't necessarily mean that you should be impeached or removed from office. That's the thing that's hard to understand. Well, that seems like a crucial point. How is it that you can have committed an impeachable offense but then not be subject to impeachment? Well, when you are subject to impeachment, it requires a majority of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach you, and it requires two-thirds of the Senate to remove you a vote of two-thirds of the Senate.

And so it's certainly possible that a president could be found technically guilty of some offense or some misdeed that satisfies the 18th century definition of a high crime or a misdemeanor. that doesn't necessarily mean that the people in the House of Representatives or the members of the United States Senate believe he should be removed from office. And so that this does have, because of the use of the words, high crimes and misdemeanors, this process of impeachment wears the garb of a judicial process, but in reality it is fundamentally and profoundly a political process. So high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the House of Representatives ultimately determine. it to mean. But hold on, that's, that's quite an amazing thing to realize that when you're saying that it really is up to what the members of Congress believe it to be, that means that an impeachable crime could be different in 2017 than it was in 1998 or in 1974. Exactly. That's exactly correct. So in the fall and winter of 1998, you were quarterbacking the defense of Bill Clinton

and a member of his defense team when it went to Congress, what did you discover about that process that was the key element, the essential element, to getting the president and the White House through that process? I thought, perhaps naively, that it would be possible to generate a bipartisan defense. But what I found as we went further and further into the process

was that partisan politics really took over. and that even though the president was not very popular with the Democratic Party, particularly in the House of Representatives, and I got an earful. Whenever I went up there and dealt with Democratic members of the House, they had to tell me exactly how much they disagreed with President Clinton, not only his politics, but his personal life. But they were going to support him and defend him because of the way in which the Republicans had gone about the process of impeachment. that was even more dramatic in the Senate. And what happened was it became quite clear to me that as long as that partisan aspect to this process continued and existed, it was unlikely, if not impossible, for the people supporting impeachment to prevail. So out of that, I conclude that maybe one strategy for defending yourself is to keep it a partisan process,

because as long as it's a partisan process, you're not going to succeed in removing him from office. How do you as the president or as the president's defense team keep it as a partisan process? What role does the president play in that and what role does his lawyers play in that? Well, this is worth spending a moment on Evan because I think one of the reasons President Clinton was successful in his defense had nothing to do with the quality of his lawyers, although they were great. Modesty noted. It had to do with his performance as president. those six months from September through February March of 1998, 1999, he was spectacular. His performance as president while he was being impeached was never better.

He was making peace in the Middle East right at the height of the impeachment. And his employment numbers were very, very high. The economic growth numbers were unbelievably positive. his capacity to compartmentalize was amazing. And every day he was as good a president as he was ever in his entire term of office. So in a major way, I think he himself and his performance and his approval rating that resulted from this was responsible for the inability of those who opposed him to remove him from office. One of the really interesting points that you made at the time was that you didn't, you didn't, say this man is innocent of all accusations. What you said was that the real question is whether

the conduct, however blameworthy it might be, rises to the level of an impeachable offense. And you focused attention on that question, which is the impeachable standard. So if we take the current moment for a second, at what point do you begin to say to yourself, okay, now we've enter territory where we can begin to reasonably talk about an impeachment process. What is the thing that you're thinking about or looking for on the horizon that is meaningful? With President Clinton, I remember that quote that you gave to me, and I think it was also accompanied by a comment about the abuse of power, that the real question here is whether however blameworthy his conduct was, did it represent an abuse of his presidential power, of his official duties? Was he,

somehow as president using the authority that he had in an abusive way that nobody intended him for him to use either to enrich himself or to strike out at enemies. And there go to war on behalf of friends. There's all sorts of ways in which an abuse of power can occur. In my arguments back in 1998 and 1999, there was no abuse of power at all. And I think at the end of the day, the American people saw it that way. We're already into the world of abuse of power with Trump very early on in this process because it looks as though as president he fired the director of the FBI who was conducting an investigation of him or his associates.

So that could fall into the category of an abuse of power. So even though I think it's premature, we're closer to what I believe is a, a legitimate discussion of impeachable offenses than we ever were with Clinton. In 1998, when you embarked on this process of helping to defend President Clinton from impeachment, to what degree were there lessons that you could take from Richard Nixon's experience? What was there that was useful for you from that? Well, that's a good question. One of the lessons that we took from that, I'm not sure, was the proper lesson,

I'm not sure it was a successful way of managing this or handling it. But the truth of the matter was that President Clinton felt deeply regretful and unhappy at his own conduct. And it was important for us somehow and in some way to communicate that regret and that, Self-judgment. I mean, he was judging himself as harshly as anybody else was. And that was different from Nixon. And we thought had Nixon shown acknowledged mistakes and shown a little regret or an apology to the nation for the way he conducted himself, it might have ameliorated the anger. But he was feisty. He was he was partisan all the way. to the end. And so we tried to make sure that President Clinton's true feelings about his own conduct were communicated to the country. So if you have a president as we do today, who is very comfortable in front of the camera, he conducts in many ways his own, he conducts all of his thinking in public, he does it on Twitter, he does it in front of the press. How much does that

make your life easier or harder as the lawyer who's trying to defend him? Oh, if he doesn't, I will tell you right now that it is very important for you to be working from a plan that you can sit down with your client, who is the president, and say, here's our strategy. This is what we're saying to the world. This is how we're presenting your case. Please don't say anything that's inconsistent because the president has to speak to the public all the time about. about a wide variety of issues. And we made it quite clear that he was not going to be talking about the impeachment on every occasion. He spoke about the impeachment. I mean, in my experience, there may be three times in the course of the fall. And each time it was carefully thought

through as to what he was going to say consistent with what our strategy was in the House and the Senate. As we're trying to understand the comparison between the Richard Nixon near impeachment, the Bill Clinton impeachment and now the challenges that Donald Trump is facing. In Nixon's case, you had what's known as the smoking gun tape, literally an audio tape in which you heard the president talking about using the powers of the office to try to squelch an investigation. In Bill Clinton's case, famously, you had even a dress that was evidence of a romantic relationship with an intern and then there was evidence of him trying to cover it up. In this case, the accusations are fuzzier. They are harder for people to grasp. They're still hair-raising in many cases. They represent major constitutional issues, but they are not as concrete and as easy for the public, perhaps, to grasp as an audio tape or a blue dress.

How important is that kind of, call it the theater of the court, the concrete element. How crucial is that in order to be able to build an impeachment case? I think it's critical. But I may disagree with you about one. aspect of what's happened recently. It's fair to raise the question as to whether or not the Nixon resignation would have occurred but for them getting access to that tape. It's fair to raise the question of whether President Clinton ever would have acknowledged the relationship that he actually had with Monica Lewinsky but for the dress. But we already have a very difficult

and sort of highly dramatic situation in the Comey versus Trump. Trump question about what happened in that conversation. And there's some drama to that. And if I were the President of the United States and my office depended upon the country believing me over former director Jim Comey, I would not sleep well at night. Because if his future, if the president's future boils down to that question of he said versus he said, and the American people end up believing that Comey is correct and Trump is not telling the truth, that could have devastating consequences for the president. I think we're not

there yet, but two or three other events of that nature, which are highly dramatic and his own credibility are at issue, or his own performance or his own competence are at issue. We could be there. One question, which is, this is the question, frankly, that everybody is talking about around their dinner tables, which is, what do you think the chances are that he doesn't serve four years in office? I think the odds are that he will serve four years. But I have no special insight as to what went on in the campaign vis-a-vis the Russians or what has gone on with his own personal and business relations with the Russians in the past. I just, I don't know of any existing evidence other than his personality and other than the way he's handled the first 100 years of his presidency with one misrepresentation after another.

That is, that is poison if the president loses his credibility. And if the president almost systematically alienates really important components of the constituency that he needs to govern. He's now added the FBI as an institution to the list of institutions that really are working for his demise now, including the intelligence community, including the media, including almost all Democrats. And you can't carry on successfully governing this country by adding to that list of adversaries. They're very powerful adversaries, and they have ways. of pursuing their agendas at your expense, and I think it's a mistake for him to think that he's invulnerable. Greg Craig, thank you very much for coming in today.

You're welcome. Gregory Craig, one of the key lawyers for Bill Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998. He's an attorney now with the firm Skadn-Arps, and he spoke with the New Yorkers Evan Osnos. You can find Evans' article about presidents and how they can be removed from office at New Yorker Radio. It's the New Yorker Radio Hour. More to come. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick.

We often talk about how divided the country is. We think it's worse than it's ever been before. The coasts and the heartland, echo chambers of opinion. You know the argument. But of course, it's been much worse in the past, and for all we know, it could get a lot worse in the future. In the year 2075, parts of the South have once again seceded, and America is in a full-blown civil war.

That's the premise of a new novel titled American War. And while it's said in the future, American War is not science fiction, what it describes is all too recognizable and realistic. The author is Omar Ellicott, a journalist formerly from Canada's Globe and Mail. In Ellicott's novel, the moment that finally leads to secession is a new environmental regulation passed by the federal government. Is the question of climate change in your mind the central ideological rift in this country, or was it a stand-in for any number of divisions that we all disagree about?

No, it was in stand-in in my mind for stubbornness and for pride and for the often sort of ruinous power of tradition. In the novel, climate change has effectively, ravage the world, especially the United States. The coasts are gone. The coastal cities are gone. The capital has had to be moved inland from Washington, D.C. to Columbus, Ohio. Florida is gone. In other words, the damage is already done. And long after it would do any good at all, the federal government decides to prohibit the use of fossil fuels. The point being that they're going to do something about it finally.

And yet, even though most of the world has moved on, most of the world uses cleaner, more efficient, more sustainable forms of energy, the South still decides to secede rather than go along with what is basically a symbolic move at this point. So to me, almost everything in the book lives as a sort of analogy, and climate change for me had to do with that idea of we do these things because we've always done these things and that must mean they're right. Now, as a journalist, had you spent much time in the South? You grew up in Egypt and Qatar and then came to Canada. Most of your reporting has been abroad. Have you spent much time in the South? Yeah, for the last four years, I worked as the de facto sort of U.S. correspondent for my Canadian newspaper. And I did a lot of reporting from the South.

In fact, for a while, I didn't know where I was going to set the story. I didn't know where my main characters lived until I went down to southernmost Louisiana to do a story about land loss there. Southern Louisiana is one of the most beautiful places on Earth, just stunning, stunning place, and is also losing the equivalent of about a football field worth of land every hour, probably the worst climate disaster in the U.S. and very rarely talked about. And so once I landed there and I sort of saw the effects of that, I knew where my novel had to be set. Did your reporting suggest to you that it's too late?

I'm not sure that anything I've ever reported on, and certainly I've reported on things that are far more dire than anything that's going on in the United States. I'm not sure I've ever had the sensation that it's too late. But you have a character that says at one point, even back then you could see it coming before the first bombs fell. Everyone knew this country was getting ready to terror.

itself to shreds. You get the sense that you read a sentence like that, you read a quotation like that from one of your characters, and you sense a hopelessness. You sense either that or a warning that we're getting from a novel. Yeah, and there's another line in the book that sort of makes the claim that hopelessness is no impediment to hope. And I think it has to do with the idea that if you exist on the unprivileged side of a whole manner of spectrums, that optimism for you is not optional, that it's a matter of survival. To abandon the idea of hope, the idea that we could turn this around or that we could make this better, is to sort of be okay with the idea that you may live in a world whose power structures would rather you not exist. And this relates to race and religion

and sexual orientation, a whole manner of ideas on which to be on the non-privileged side means to have to deal with that. As a reporter and as a novelist, do you feel like an outsider in this country? When you're moving around the country, is it in your head that you're relating to most vividly to the outsiders who live here? I feel like an outsider in almost every country I've ever lived in. The difference is in the United States I've always felt that you can exist as an outsider, that one of the central privileges of living in this country is the right to be left alone.

You know, I'm Muslim, but I'm not particularly devout. And by old country standards, I'm probably lapsed. You know, I'm brown, but I don't know what that means. I never really felt brown until I came to this part of the world. So, yeah, of course I feel like an outsider, but I don't think that. it's impossible to live in this country. And in fact, I think it might be the most possible in this country to live as an outsider and then still not to have to sort of deal with what that means

beyond what you wanted to mean. This book was completed before Donald Trump even announced for the presidency, and yet it's being read, I think it's fair to say, and probably a lot of the questions you get at bookstores or appearances that you have or interviews like this, have a lot to do with the political conditions of now. How do you view that? How do you view your novel in real time and real political time? You know, it's strange to me because I never intended to write a book about America.

I wanted to write a book about the sort of universal language of suffering and the universal language of revenge. Like I said, almost everything in the book lives is a sort of analogy. and I mean, the timing of when it has come out has led to this very strange situation where, you know, people who have said nice things about it have often used the word timely and people have said not so nice things tend to use the word opportunistic as though I wrote it on November 9th. But I certainly never set out to write a book about America. And I didn't set out to write a book about the future either. I mean, almost everything in this book happened to somebody. This is true. It's a book set in 2075, and yet there are drones, suicide bombers, detention centers, refugee camps, things that are extremely familiar to our ear and historical experience.

Yeah, I mean, the sort of central trick in this book was to take these things, you know, the conflicts that have defined the world in my lifetime and recast them. as being something very close to home, something from which it's difficult to look away. I mean, none of this stuff is, you know, the reason I reject the label of science fiction is not because I despise science fiction. I love science fiction. I don't feel talented enough to write it, but it's because this stuff has happened. Are you through with journalism? Are you through with war, reporting in dangerous places? You've just had a baby just a month ago, a few weeks ago. I got my first sort of foreign assignment that could be called war reporting, I guess, when I was fairly young. I was still in my early 20s. And I went into it thinking that this is the greatest thing any journalist could do. I had that sort of Hemmingway early 20s cockiness about it. And of course I got there and I despised it. For one thing, the stereotype of the sort of swashbuckling war reports. is just a fantasy.

In reality, it's a number of fixers doing most of the work and not getting any recognition for it. I hope to continue doing journalism in the same vein of being able to tell stories that had I not told them would otherwise not get told. But the idea of deliberately seeking out war reporting, I think pretty well died with my early 20s. Omar, you're coming of age both as a man and journalistically is the period of time is almost completely defined by the so-called war on terror.

And now you're an American. You're here. You're one of us. And how does that make you feel? What is your relationship to Americanness at this point? I think there's a sensation that, or the sense here, certainly that people who grew up in my part, of the world who grew up in North Africa or the Middle East have come to despise the United States.

And I don't think that's true. I think they've come to despise U.S. foreign policy. But I think if you went to any one of the major Middle Eastern capitals on any given day and started handing out green cards, you would get lineups for miles. And it has to do with this idea that the United States, for all its faults, and there are many, is still a place where you can come and think what you like and say what you like and do what you like, which is the exact opposite of what life in much of the Middle East is like.

So, you know, I realize that I'm a brown guy who wrote a novel about Americans killing each other, and I realize what that's going to mean. But I'm not sure for all its faults that America is ever going to lose that sort of fundamental luster for me as being a place where you can just show up and be who you want to be. Omar, thank you so much. Thank you.

Omar Elakad, the author of American War. Next week on the show, fiction editor Deborah Treasman talks with Paul Theroux. Threw's written some of the great travel books of our time, but his new novel is a homecoming. It's set in the town where he grew up in a family very much like his own. And if you think your family is dysfunctional, his is his real. really something. That's next week. Now, summer is just about here. And if you can't wait to get the kids out of the house and off to camp or something, and out of your hair finally for just a while, you're in very good company. Joining us now is Parker Posey, who has a few words for us about

Elliot. Dear camp counselor, hello, I'm Ellie's mother. Elliot's father and I are thrilled that he will be spending a summer with you at Camp Chautauqua. As this is L.A.'s first time at sleepaway camp, I wanted to let you know a few things about him so that you will be prepared to look after him properly. For starters, Elliot does not like to be called L or Ellie. He prefers Elliot. He may insist that you refer to him as clawed death or the night crawler. Don't. That conversation won't end well. Elliot loves the outdoors and animals. Feel free to let him near any animal that is larger than his mouth. Generally, it is best to avoid making eye contact with Elliot.

If you look directly at him, he will take it as a sign of aggression and charge at you. It is best not to let Elliot smell you. Elliot does not like to be surprised. Do not surprise him under any circumstances. If you do, he will be sure to surprise you later when you're sleeping. You don't want that. Trust me. I know Elliot will really love him.

being a camper. Having said that, you should know that it has a pretty severe aversion to team sports, hiking, arts, crafts, and other children. On the other hand, he loves chanting. Once he starts, he can't seem to stop. Elliot may bite you, but probably not. But he might. If he does happen to bite you, do not be alarmed. Just ignore him. Let your body go limp and wait it out. Whatever you do, not resist. If you resist, he will bite down harder and start shaking his he from side to side in order rip off as much flesh as possible, but probably not. But he might. If Elliot wants a hug, give it to him, but end it before he can really start grinding on you. Morning is a particularly difficult time for Elliot. He tends to wake up at dawn, whereupon he usually launches directly

into his morning rampage. Not my term, doctor's term. That is why we always tie Elliot down at night. Finally, Elliot does not know that we are leaving him here today. When you are finished reading this note, please let me know that you understand by nodding to me. Great. Once I get your signal, I will nod slightly and then slowly start to back away. At that point, I want you to reach into the bag and pull out the candy bar that is inside it.

Show the candy bar to Elliot. Wave it around. While he is distracted by the candy bar, I am going to make a run for it. If Elliot starts to run for me, I'll need you to tackle him so I can have a chance to get to my car. Okay? Great. We are very excited for Elliot and Camp Chautauqua. Well, he can be a handful.

He's a sweet kid. We know you'll really like him once you get to know him. Sincerely, Grace Eldridge. P.S., if you have any problems, please do not hesitate to contact the local police. That usually scares him pretty good. A few words about Elliot. That's a story that was published. in The New Yorker by the comedian and writer

Dimitri Martin, and it was performed for the radio hour by Parker Posey. When we return, it's heart-to-heart conversation with comedian Gerard Carmichael. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. Stick around. Welcome back to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick.

And I'm Vincent Cunningham, a staff writer at The New Yorker. I've been following this comedian, Gerard Carmichael for quite a while. He was in a movie that I liked, Neighbors, and then I saw a stand-up. special of his. It's called Love at the Store. And that was back in 2014. And just this year in March, he released a new one. It's called Eight. He's also just starting the third season of his NBC sitcom The Carmichael show, which is loosely based on his stand-up and also points to what is so great

about his work to me. It is a guy swimming through issues of race. politics, the social world with perfect ambivalence. Comedians these days, I find, tend to be very opinionated. They're almost sort of organs of social critique. And they feed really on strong opinion. This guy has no strong opinions, and that's what's so funny about them. It strikes me like everybody who does the stuff that you do, right, this film and TV or stand-up specials, all this, these markers of success have these stories, right? how they go from where they started to where they are.

But it seems to me that you, this is part of your act. Am I going to forget where I came from? Of course I am. Like almost immediately. Like I don't even like the term give back to the community because it implies the community gave me shit in the first place. Which they didn't. Community gave me shit.

The community stole my bike. That's what the community did. Fuck the community. I don't know if you guys ever watch. When you go back home after all this success, right? You're going into the third season of a sitcom. Oh, yeah. You had to do HBO special.

I felt watching you sometimes that you have this, like, conflicted, almost like, is there a guilt that you feel about the change, this crazy change in your circumstances? Or even the guilt in the acceptance of the change of circumstance. Like how, it's like immediately accepted and liked, you know, like, like, like, for. from being poor to not being poor or whatever, and then you feel guilty for how much you enjoy it. You know what I mean? So it's like that conflict is interesting.

That's why I talk about it and write about it because it's a lot. So when I go home, when I go home, I actually, I'm my happiest because I'm just around my family. I don't really do anything other than go eat with my family. Like when I go home, I'm usually just in. I see friends and that's it. Does it, is it weird? Like, is their relationship to you different?

Does it strain those relationships? Uh, I get away with a little bit more. Okay. You know, I get away, you know, a little bit more. As it turns out, if you redo your mom's kitchen, she'll cook whatever you want in it. Fair enough. Yeah. So that type of stuff.

But they still also treat me the same. You know, my brother's, you know, I mean, I love him so much. He's a big champion of my. career. My sister's the most honest person in my life. You know, my dad is always cautious of everything. You know, any little thing. A friend of mine, a comedian friend bought me a watch once and he was just like, what did he want for? It was like that up night. Right. He's not trying to like get me into a gang. Yeah. Yeah. In a gang. I didn't, it was just, it was a nice gesture. Right. But he's very, I'm glad he is. You got to be. You need that person. Yeah. So what was it like growing up in Winston, Salem?

I'm sure it's incredibly different from your life now in LA. What was it like? I mean, growing up in Winston-Salem was, I had a really fun. I was just telling someone how, like, my existence was all black until high school. It was like, I really think that my elementary school was like this mission by the NAACPA. You know, like I learned the Negro National Anthem before the National Anthem. Black History Month was just this year-long thing. But really, and then high school, I went to like.

like this integrated high school and it was like you kind of learn oh man culture like just like a different side of things and it was very interesting so like i kind of use that curiosity to propel me into los angeles and into you know what the world is my life is like this field trip right you know and uh but Winston salem just like these strong very uh you know Christian loving loyal people that I grew up around. That was, you know, it was a beautiful childhood. Is it kind of tight-knit in terms of neighbors or you know everybody in the street kind of thing? Yeah, yeah, we all like, you know, I'm from the hood, so a lot of my social interactions are rooted in that. That's why Hollywood is so fun because nobody fights you.

You're like, in my mind, everything's going to lead to an actual fight. But people just, you get like a sassy email. This stuff reminds me of another aspect. of your new special, where you talk about this feeling of wanting to be a good black person. It's hard. It's hard. Being a great black person, it's a lot of work. It's like being, it's exhausting being black.

It is. You know. Yeah. Right? It's a lot of work, right? Every fucking day. every fucking day you wake up and it's an added

fucking element. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. I mean, sure, it looks fun. I thought that was so funny just because for me, right, I work for the New Yorker and I feel there's a part of my brain that's tuned to this like is what I'm doing a credit to my race. Is it contributing?

This whole thing, right? Yeah. And I struggle with that. I just wonder how that when you talk about that, does that show up in, not just in terms of success, but does that show up in your work? Like, do you, does that constrain the way you write jokes or does it determine the kinds of jokes you write that sense? My obligation is always to truth first, right?

So that's the biggest contribution we can give, you know, especially in the creative industry, because a lot of times, you know, a black person tends to write aspirationally, you know, and write what we think the picture should look like as opposed to the picture itself. The reason hip hop, you know, at his best, resonates with so many people because it's the rawest truth of both poverty and the celebration of wealth. And it's where we are in this moment and it's honest. You know, I try to just stay in that pocket of truth and then I think I really am contributing. But it is a conscious thing. You are aware of it because, I mean, especially when you see, you know, things that seem to play people that look like you.

Right. You know, and you share these fears and you share these concerns. You know, I'm just, I'm as susceptible to being shot by the cops as, you know, my brother in North Carolina, as my cousins, as my friends, you know. It's like you don't forget what you look like and who you are and your place in America, but also don't forget to be a human being first. Right. Yeah.

It seems like you're comfortable being in that place. I heard a story, I think you told it, about Love at the Store, where Spike Lee was, like, pissed off about one of your jokes. Oh, yeah. I don't even know. Who was directing him? I'm not even sure if we're talking to each other right now. Because of that? Oh, he got bad at a few things.

And I'm sure you would tell you, he disagreed with a lot of the material. It was very strong. This was a Trayvon Martin joke in specific. Oh, yeah, because, well, he didn't understand the perspective that I was taking on it. And the other day I was walking into my building, and I walked past my guard, and I had a hoodie on. And he didn't stop me, and I was concerned. Very concerned. And I turned around, I talked to him, and I said, Joe, his name is Joe.

I said, Joe, I just walked by you with a hoodie on. You didn't notice anything suspicious about that? And he said, no Gerard, you live in the building. And I said, I know. I know. And I pay a lot of money. Like a lot of money. So that niggas like me and hoodies can't just waltz by you.

So you know what I told them? I said, next time, stand your ground. That's what I told him. I told him to stand his ground. Don't groan. You have nothing to worry about. I gave him my gun. You have nothing to worry about. You guys felt, you guys went, oh. Oh, really? Because that Trayvon shit is really affecting your day to day?

Your day to day. You wake up. You wake up. You have your cup of coffee. You do this to a picture of Trayvon. You start today? Is that what you do? Because you don't. Because you don't. Can I tell you the harsh reality?

It was a challenge to others of how much they cared. You know, and I get it. A lot of people hear, a lot of times, especially with my comedy, people hear certain words, and they don't really listen. Yeah. They hear the buzzword, and they go, like, oh, I can't believe. And they, you know, they immediately take to Twitter because that's, the new soapbox.

You got to, you take the Twitter and you disagree, and you vehemently disagree with a thing that I said, without really listening or understanding the place that this person is in when they're saying these things, you know, and Spike just had this immediate knee-jerk reaction to, not only that, but, you know, all these things that he was just like, no. And he got first cut, and it was a completely different special than what you saw. Oh, wow, yeah.

He took that stuff out. Yeah, stuff out. Basically, he just took stuff out. So then you had to have an argument. No, I mean, you know, ultimately I, you know, got final cut and I just made the special that I wanted. But, you know, his version would have been completely different. I respect that. I really respect that.

I respect the argument. And we had a couple great phone conversations. I went to Brooklyn, went to 40 acres. And we talked things out and some texts that are funny and, you know, funny in hindsight. Yeah. Yeah. I've read, I think, that you went to church as a kid. You grew up and going to church, like choirs and all that kind of stuff.

Yeah, my first interactions with microphones. Like my mom, she was like an usher at the church. And when it was over, I used to stay and she would like hold me up to like microphones because I wanted to speak into it. I wanted to hear my voice, you know, echoing off the wall. It was, I'm infatuated. That's all I asked for for Christmas. Before I knew I wanted to be a comedian, I knew I wanted to do something with microphones. That guy has one.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. But I kind of thinking about church and kind of, I think of you as a sort of agnostic comedian, right? Like you just can't commit yourself in the same way that someone like wants to believe in God and can kind of almost intellectualize themselves in it but can't cross the line. I wonder like what's your thing about religion now? Do you have, do you still go to church? I don't really go to church, but I consider myself a Christian. I'm stronger spiritual beliefs than societal. Right. Like a very strong, clear understanding of myself as a spiritual being and an acceptance of that as truth. And, you know, that's much clearer than rather than not I should recycle. That's, you know, that's muddier to me than my relationship with God.

So, yeah, that I'm the least agnostic when it comes to where people are usually the most. Right. Yeah. Huh. That's interesting. In L.A. is a funny. Yeah, it's funny because, you know, no. Nobody believes in God in all life.

Not nobody. It's a few of this. Yeah. But does that come up when you're thinking about your comedy? Do you ever, do you think of it as an expression of some of the things you believe that aren't societal, the way you do your work? Do you view religion? Yeah, yeah. Does that show up in your work at all?

Or is it drive? I like to believe so. I mean, it's, you know, I probably use language that my mom would disagree with, you know, but I like to believe that it's a part. I like to believe that it's a part of everything. I believe it's kind of, you know, in the, in the, my, my fingerprint at this point. Right. She gets mad, yes. She doesn't get mad.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. About you. Oh, yeah, she can't stand it. And she, you know, respectfully says that I wish you wouldn't use these words and sometimes not respectfully. And she yells at me. And then I say, you know, come on, let's not be children about this. I'm sure that goes over great. Oh, yeah.

And then we get an argument and the whole thing. I saved this for last because I hate the Donald Trump overcast of everything But I feel like even in love at the store There's it's pretty dark in its way I think you've got this sort of bleak sensibility in your work You know it's funny I realized that through like Reviews more than like because my attention I'm like I thought we were having fun

We were just expressing thoughts I say a thing I express it but and it'd be like man that was dark I was like oh was it yeah I don't feel dark going into But, you know, obviously the material is very, you know, provocative in that sense. But, yeah. What's important for me to say to you guys is that Trump's victory is in no way indicative of a loss for women. It's not. It's not a loss for women.

It is, however, just another victory for men. Congratulations, guys. We did it again. We did it again. We still got it. We still got it. It's still crazy after all these years, you guys. Look at us.

Come on. That's amazing, right? We've been dominating for how long now? Forever? There's a sort of, I just think, this is my, whatever, two cents, but it seems like there's always this question behind all of it. And I think that's the dark part that's like, what is any of this anyway?

That's like the thing that nobody, you know, we all kind of think about, but you kind of like. A natural skeptic. Yeah, a little bit. But has Donald Trump, you taped it after the election? Yes. That was the thing I waited for. Uh-huh.

I felt like, I was like, you want to see how the world is going to change. So I still wanted to wait and see what happened. Yeah. What I really think Donald Trump is, is, you know, like in spy movies, you know, where, you know, they are surrounded by the infrared beams or whatever. And they have, like, this mist that they spray and it lets you know where. where all of the wires and the beams are. That's what Donald Trump is to think American society. I think he let us know where boundaries are,

where we stand as Americans. And so, you know, if there's any good that comes from it, it's that, you know, that we do, we are very aware boundaries and limits and as awake now as we've ever been. Gerard Carmichael. He has a sitcom on NBC called The Carmichael Show, and that's going into its third season.

And he talked with the New Yorkers, Vincent Cunningham. We're going to wrap up today with a little trip outside. The air is clear and it's just before dawn, and a writer named Ellen Bass, who's published a number of poems in The New Yorker, is taking her daily walk along the ocean near her home in Santa Cruz, California. Cliff Drive is a strange intersection of nature and city.

So we have on the one side, the whole of the Pacific, We've got beautiful cypress trees, and on the other side, we have just a regular road that people are driving up and down and houses right up against it. We've still got some rosy-fingered dawn and a beautiful shining half-moon. Oh, there's four seagulls just flying right across here. There's a surfer in the water and the whole of the Pacific. I've been walking here almost every day for about 30 years. And every day is a different day.

The ocean is really wild sometimes where it comes up over Westcliff Drive so you can be walking along and have the spray hit you. Today it's pretty calm with just real nice, slow, perfect rollers crashing in. Oh, that surfer almost just got one here. The cliff here changes so fast even in terms of erosion. It's mudstone, which is layered, and as storms come, as the ocean keeps pounding into it. Even just in the 30 years that I've been here,

I've seen enormous change. They've had to actually move where the road is further in because where the road was is now in the ocean. And that's so thrilling, really, to be able to live in geologic time. And right now, the sun is just peeking up above the hills down toward Monterey. We see it just coming up over the ridge. I was thinking that most people love or say they love variety and new things and I think our culture does act like that. We always

want something new and different and better, but my family and close friends teased me a lot about how much I love repetition and how much I love to just do the same thing over and over and over in a kind of mule-like way. And the first thing I thought about was this walk that I take every day on Westcliff Drive. And so I wrote this poem, Ode to Repetition. I like to take the same walk down the wide expanse of Woodrow to the ocean.

And most days I turn left toward the lighthouse. The sea is always different. Some days dreamy, Waves, hardly waves, just a broad undulation in no hurry to arrive. Other days, the surfs drunk, crashing into the cliffs like a car wreck. And when I get home, I like the same dishes, stacked in the same cupboards, and then unstacked, and then stacked again. And the rhododendron spring after spring, blossoming its pink ceremony. I could dwell in the kingdom of Coltrane, those rivers of breath through his horn,

as he forms each phrase of lush life over and over until I die. Once I was afraid of this, opening the curtains every morning, only to close them again each night. You could despair in the fixed town of your own life. But when I wake up to pee, I'm grateful the toilets in its usual place, the sink with its gift of water. I look out at the street, the halos of lampposts in the fog, where the moon rinsing the parked cars. When I get back in bed, I find the woman who's been sleeping there each night for 30 years, only she's not the same. her body more naked in its aging, its disorder, though I still come to her like a beggar.

One morning, one of us will rise bewildered without the other and open the curtains. There will be the same shaggy redwood in the neighbor's yard and the faultless stars going out one by one into the day. The poet Ellen Bass on Westcliff Drive in Santa Cruz, California, She read her poem Ode to Repetition, which appears in her collection like a beggar. That's it for today, and thanks for listening. If you want to have the radio hour delivered to your inbox every week,

sign up for our newsletter at, listen carefully, new yorker.com slash radio newsletter. And with that, you'll get more political coverage, our fiction podcasts, all kinds of good stuff. I'm David Remnick. See you next week. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WN. IC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards with additional music by Alexis Quadrado.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.