[BEEPING]
Hello.
Welcome to this live
recording of "The Axe Files"
with Jon Stewart.
I have the privilege of
introducing this event to you
today, a task which necessarily
entails introducing you
to someone you already know.
You know Jon Stuart.
You know that as a political
satirist and comedian Stewart
has affected macro level shifts
in our political culture.
One example being the explosion
of satirical programming
from Daily Show alumni.
You know that Jon Stewart's
precision and focus produce
more discreet changes like
getting "Crossfire" off the air
and passing the Zadroga bill.
You also know, I'm
sure, of some really,
really microscopic permutations
in our shared world
that Jon Stewart has affected.
One such microscopic change
is that Jon Stewart got me
into UChicago.
I wrote my application
essay comparing
Jon to Shakespearean
fool in both ability
to speak truth to
power and position
as interpreter and voice
of reason for the audience.
That comparison might
not make much sense
to anybody who didn't spend
every summer at Shakespeare
camp, thanks mom and
dad, but I think we all
know how Jon Stewart
made us feel when
we watched him skewer the news.
We felt smart when
we got the jokes.
We felt understood when Jon
articulated the things we
had been thinking.
We felt catharsis.
That's why it's strange
for me to stand here
today and introduce
Jon Stewart to you.
You know him.
He's been an integral part of
not just our internal lives
but the way our entire media
sphere has grown and changed
over the past decade.
I can tell you unequivocally
I wouldn't be where
I am today without Jon Stewart.
You know him.
And guess what.
You're about to meet him.
Without further ado, let me
introduce Institute of Politics
founder and "Axe Files" host
David Axelrod in conversation
with the man who did not need
this introduction, Jon Stewart.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
And now from the University of
Chicago Institute of Politics
and CNN, the Axe Files with
your host David Axelrod.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Now you can say--
This is how Jews
meet all the time.
When people aren't
paying attention,
we sneak into churches
and just chat.
That theme song by the way was
actually the original John D.
Rockefeller theme music.
So--
Yeah, you've got to
be a rich old fart
to have your own theme--
So, Jon, I have to ask
you where you've been man?
Me?
Yes.
There's a lot going on out here.
I've been in line.
I got in line out front.
Do you ever and say
to yourself that this
was some kind of big
celestial joke on you
that you announce your
retirement from The Daily Show
and I see when you did you said
it didn't appear that there was
going to be anything wildly
different about this election
year.
You had done four others.
How's that working for you now?
I mean, I think we talk
about it as though it's
something incredibly different.
But in truth, how
different is it really?
I mean the media is, as usual,
focused on the wrong things
and abdicating responsibility
for the general filtration
of toxicity.
You have enormous
amounts of money
flowing into crazy
people who are channeling
populace of years past.
So I don't-- you know.
If you took Sarah Palin's
head and jammed it
onto Donald Trump's body
would it make any more sense?
Probably not.
Look a little weird
though I think.
I don't know that it
would look any weirder.
Yeah, on that
point you once said
I assume there are
bad actors in society.
It's inherent in politicians
to be disingenuous.
I assume monkeys are
going to throw shit.
I get angrier at people who
don't go, bad monkey, or--
Wait, I said that?
--who create a
distraction that allows
it to be continued unabated.
How responsible is the
media for Donald Trump?
Oh, listen.
I don't necessarily
believe that a full court
press on his-- on truthedness
would necessarily change it.
I mean, he's not--
he was voted for.
But I do think he is generally
the conclusion to years of-- he
makes sense if you view it
through the prism of talk
radio.
I like to drive.
And so I listen to talk radio.
And it is 24/7 of your country
is being taken away from you.
As far as I can tell,
the conservative side
or on the right side they feel
in ownership over America.
They are the
stewards of America.
They are it's forebears.
[INAUDIBLE]
Exactly.
Republicans, conservatives
love America.
They just hate like 50% of
the people living in it.
So in general--
Isn't part of their concern that
that 50% percent is becoming,
or whatever percent, is becoming
a greater-- we're becoming
a much more diverse country?
Sure.
So, yeah, no nativism.
Look this is not as though
this is inherent only
to this country as well.
Globalization has created
this strange push back
throughout the entire world.
You see a lot of countries
retreating into nativism
into that type of really--
In fact there are Trump-like
characters all over Europe
and different countries.
Yes.
Yes.
He is.
It's very similar
to, I don't know
if you ever saw "Invasion
of the Body Snatchers".
It's very similar.
But no, it's in some ways it's
a natural reaction to fear.
Now if you have that fear
stoked on a daily basis
at an incredibly high pitch,
and this is not we really
need to do something
about this country
we are facing some
difficult problems.
This is you are run by a tyrant.
He is going to take
away your rights.
We are falling.
There are rapists and
murderers at the border
coming to kill you.
If that's what you've
been fed and that's
what you're buying
into, Donald Trump
makes more sense than
anybody else out there
because he's going
great let's build--
the Visigoths are at the gate.
Let's build a fucking wall and
not let-- it makes total sense.
What wouldn't make sense are the
general Republican leadership
going there are
Visigoths at the wall.
They are here to kill you.
Let's try and not pass
a new budget resolution.
That's-- their rhetoric has
never matched their action.
Donald Trump is saying,
oh, that's your rhetoric?
Then, yeah, let's build a wall.
There's a weird paradox
in both his message
and their attacks which
is on the one hand
they say well the dictator is
encroaching and threatening.
On the other hand their
critique of the president
is that he's feckless.
And it's hard to be
a feckless dictator--
Are you suggesting--
--unless you are Groucho
Marx in Duck Soup.
Are you you're suggesting,
sir, that there may
be slight cognitive dissonance?
Is that what you're suggesting
because I will not sit here.
Some--
And be told.
Look, I don't even
know that Donald Trump
is eligible to be president.
And that's not a birther thing.
That-- I don't know.
Look, I'm not a
constitutional scholar,
so I can't necessarily say
that-- are you eligible to run
if you are a man baby?
Or a baby man?
See, I don't know.
I don't know, and
again I'm not here
to be politically
incorrect, if they're
referred to as man
baby Americans--
but he is a man baby.
He has the physical
countenance of a man
and a baby's
temperament and hands.
So to have that together,
I mean for God's sakes.
I should be--
So I do have a
history with the man.
And so in an effort of full
disclosure, we made fun of him.
And I think we referred to
him as a boiled ham in a wig
or something.
Who knows.
And so he tweeted at me because,
as you know, great leaders--
Tweet.
--tweet late at night.
In fact I remember
Lincoln's Gettysburg
tweets going after
he delivered--
That's why the
address was so short.
He had to do it in 240 words.
Well, after the Gettysburg
Address he tweeted out,
emancipate this motherfucker.
So Donald Trump
tweeted Jon Liebowitz.
He thought he's going
to use my birth name.
It's your name.
My birth name is Liebowitz.
Jon Stuart Liebowitz,
Jonathan Stuart Liebowitz
is my full name.
He was going to
tweet that and then
he tweeted out, be
proud of your heritage.
Don't run away from who you are.
By the way, he's overrated.
Or something along those lines.
Incisive.
It was very incisive.
And so we thought, well, jeez.
Let's answer.
So we tweeted back to him
Donald Trump's real name,
which I don't know if you
even know this is FuckFace Von
Clownstick.
And--
The research you guys must do
on that show is unbelievable.
Yeah.
We have people.
LexisNexis will tell you that.
And so we wanted to know why he
was running away from the Von
Clownstick heritage.
And we got into this huge fight.
And this--
Did he sue you?
He tends to sue for people
for things like that.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know if
the man baby can be president.
Character is destiny.
And he is the most thin
skinned individual.
And look, you've been
around politicians.
You know they're thin skinned.
You know President Obama
for all his qualities
that you love gets angry.
And certainly I've borne--
--irritated I would say.
I've borne the brunt
of that at times.
Yes.
I've heard.
Yes.
But I don't know
that he has, and they
keep saying, which I think
is a most wonderful thing,
don't worry.
When he becomes president he's
going to be totally mature.
Well, he says being
presidential is easy.
And he'll do it at
the appropriate.
But what does that say
about your constituency
if what you're saying
to them is look,
the only way that I can
win this part of the race
is by being an unrepentant
narcissistic asshole
because that's what
my voters like.
But once I have to appeal
to everybody I'll be cool.
Yeah.
But the fact is that you
look at all these exit
polls from primary after
primary and the big number
that he commands is he
tells it like it is.
He says stuff other politicians
aren't willing to say.
And you spoke earlier about
people who are frightened
because of these changes in
the economy that have left them
without the kind of future that
they thought they would have.
And they are eating that up.
Right, but that, again--
and this gets to the point.
Authenticity is what they say.
This gets to the point though of
the press versus the campaign.
And what we see in the press is
they're covering the campaign
but they're not
covering veracity
or-- so the exit polls say
this is what people think?
So someone in the press has
to come out and go, wow.
People must be assholes.
Because that's not OK to think.
You know, it's not OK to having
nostalgia for the Mad Men
society and think that
that ignorance is virtue.
And they have twisted
this around so
that his ignorant
pronouncements are somehow
a sign of great character.
It's like where I grew up
when people go like, hey, look
no disrespect.
I'm not saying your mother's
a whore, I'm saying--
and you're like, I think
that's what you're saying.
The difference is he would
just say your mother's a whore.
Right.
But when he says
people are so nervous.
See, here what's so
amazing about this.
So the whole idea of
political correctness
is everybody is so sensitive.
Just get over it.
Why should African Americans
be so sensitive about police
shootings?
Why do they have to be
so sensitive about years
of systemic racism creating
economic disparity?
Come on.
I'm not a slave owner.
Donald Trump couldn't handle
us making a joke about him.
Vanity Fair, Graydon
Carter did a joke
about Donald Trump's
hands 25 years ago.
He's still not fucking over it.
And his hands aren't any bigger.
So Muslims-- not
true by the way.
He actually did a peel--
Finger extensions?
Trump International.
And if you see them now they
say Trump in gold letters.
But the idea being that
Muslims-- hey, man,
all he's saying is
they're evil and shouldn't
be allowed in this country.
He's just telling it like it is.
But God forbid you say
happy holidays in December,
it's fucking war.
So who is it who's
exactly sensitive here?
We're only talking about
what are the trigger points.
And the trigger
points to me seem
to be on one side grounded
in a certain reality of life
that only those
with no experience
or empathy towards what those
individuals are going through
are having.
And the other seems to be a
clinging to a societal paradigm
that just doesn't exist
anymore and probably never did.
When was America great?
What is this time
that he speaks of?
'81 to '82?
Like what are we talking about?
And who took your
country away from you?
Yeah.
Whose country?
Whose is it?
Yeah.
Take up the argument
with the founders.
Take it up with
the Age of Reason.
That's the, you know, all
men are created equal.
That fucked the whole thing up.
Yeah.
The other thing
that they, I think,
the people who are
rallying to him
would say-- I mean some
of it is just, I think,
grounded in pure racism and
nativism and all of that.
But there also is of the
fact that the economy, you
mentioned, globalism, technology
has made a lot of jobs
obsolete that you didn't
need a college education.
Because these kids
are going to do great.
No.
I don't know about that.
Well, there are--
I'm not that
impressed with them.
There are three or four who
are not going to do great
and you know who you are.
They might do great
or they might not.
But--
But I mean my point is this, we
haven't paid enough attention
as a country to how we
shepherd this change
and make opportunity
more broadly available.
I think education
is a piece of it.
He's not speaking to that.
But that's really
the debate we should
be having in this
country is what are we
going to do with this big
revolutionary change that has
left a lot of people behind.
Right, but you have a situation
in government that makes that
very difficult.
If government is--
the fallacy of this whole
thing, and maybe it's
a leftover from the Marshall
Plan and everything else
and the nostalgia for
the World War II era,
is that America can
actually control things
in a matter that is tidy.
This idea somehow that
we can control-- we
live in a post-colonial world.
We no longer have
a Western frontier.
Like that's just reality.
And globalization is not a
question of-- American policy
cannot-- that box
has been opened.
And the problem
with globalization
is not the America
hasn't handled it.
It's that corporate America
would prefer-- money travels,
people don't.
So if they can send
money to places
where they can hire 100 people
that'll work 12 hours a day
for $2 versus 10 people that
only work eight hours a day
for $15 an hour, what
are they going to do?
So this has nothing to do--
Kind of the argument
that Trump's been making.
But here's the real
political incorrectness
if they really want
to be truthful.
The problems in
this country are not
because of Mexicans and Muslims.
And if they want to
in any way confront
what's really going on, the
problems in this country
is you have one party in
America whose sole purpose
is to freeze the government and
to not fix any of the problems
that are associated with it.
They have a great
game going which
is government sucks and
can't get the job done.
And then they can
sit as an impediment
to that government and
point to their destruction
as evidence of their thesis.
It's a great tautology.
And its, for what everyone to
say about the Democrats maybe
they're feckless, maybe
they focus too much
on identity politics, or they're
not fiscally responsible,
at least their fucking trying.
Yeah, well I'm not going
to debate you on that.
You know what?
You are not the same
without the mustache.
I know.
But thank god you took up the
facial hair so we can still
carry the torch out there.
I appreciate it.
I want to talk a little
bit about Hillary Clinton.
Who?
Before we do,
before we do, you're
obviously-- you
haven't lost your edge.
You haven't lost your passion.
Have you been restless watching
this whole thing not having
the platform that you had?
Obviously you can
create a new one
and I want to ask
about whether you're
about to create a new one.
No, I'm not.
I'm not restless
because what I gained
from leaving the show in
perspective of when you are
in that soup it is
very hard not to begin
to think that the world
functions on that currency.
There's only two cities that I
know of that are that arrogant.
And that's DC and Los Angeles
where they truly believe--
and we saw it again
with Larry Wilmore--
At the White House
Correspondents' dinner--
--at the White House
Correspondents' dinner--
I want to ask you
about your reaction.
Larry Wilmore did the White
House Correspondents' Dinner
and everybody went nuts.
My god, he's done.
With what?
He's finished.
He's not running for anything.
He's not finished.
He'll never get asked back.
I don't think he gives a shit.
Right.
You know.
And when you watch
the post show analysis
it was all based on whether
or not he had helped himself.
How some of the room had
read it and not in any way--
A little narcissistic there.
--but not only
narcissistic but in no way
an examination of the
foundation of what
he was saying which is
you are an incredibly
corrupt and blinded
symbiotic terrarium.
Yeah, I don't understand
why that message
wasn't well received.
Here's the thing.
Not well received, not received.
Yes.
Not noticed.
They did not notice it.
What they noticed was, well he
didn't get that many laughs.
He really bombed.
Yeah, well that's the weird
thing about the White House
correspondent's
dinner because there
is this sort of strange
symbiosis between Hollywood
and Washington.
And their similar communities.
So the actors come to
Washington and love
to mix with the politicians.
The politicians love
to mix with the actors.
And there is a narcissism
about those two communities
that is very much the same.
You did the dinner once, right?
In '97?
I did it right after Imus.
And Imus famously
made a joke I guess
about Clinton's proclivities.
And again they said--
For diplomacy?
Yes.
For reading mostly.
I have to watch-- obviously
we're in a church.
There's only so far I can go.
Or actually, you know what,
I'm out of his jurisdiction
so I can pretty much
say whatever I want.
He'd be ready to strike
me down with lighting
and be like that's
not his house anyway.
I think that the problem is
the system is incentivized
in all the wrong directions.
And right now the system
is incentivized in the way
that a crack dealer
is incentivized which
is it can do tremendous damage.
But as long as people are
buying crack everything's
good on his block.
And and I truly believe it's
that corrosive and corrupt.
When you have the presidents
of networks saying Trump
is good for business.
When you have the lead
anchor of Fox News having
to go to Trump's hotel to make
him stop being mean to her
and now he says she's terrific
because they've had a detente.
That's fucked.
I don't know how
you describe-- there
are heads of networks who
have said Donald Trump is
great for business.
Well, why would
you kill the thing
that's great for business?
Why would you even
say what it was?
I asked you at
the beginning, you
were so dismissive about what
the role of the media has been.
But what you're
suggesting is that there
is-- that they have a pecuniary
interest in the Trump story.
Correct.
I think what I was responding
to about the role the media is
can they solve it on their own.
But look, television
journalism was ahead
of the game at the
Nixon-Kennedy debate.
You know, that's when
the television medium--
That was a while ago.
--came in.
Right.
I was there.
You were there.
We were pages.
--came into effect.
Basically, Kennedy understood a
little bit rudimentary thought
I should probably wear makeup.
And Nixon was
like, I look great.
So he went out
there and everybody
thought he had
hepatitis and that
was the end of his campaign.
Since then, an entire
industry has risen up
as to how to manipulate
and skew that medium
to the advantage of the
politicians and the powerful.
And the industry,
rather than in some ways
creating a counterweight to
that, have been subsumed by it.
And so now it's a symbiosis.
The media is no longer
predator and prey,
which I think should be the
relationship, but a remora
that's just attached
underneath hoping for crumbs
that fall off of the shark.
Though they do-- I
mean, I watched Trump
with George Stephanopoulos
yesterday who tried to probe.
I don't know if
you saw the show,
but he was probing him
on his various proposals.
And Trump said-- he said
you know your tax plan would
be a windfall for the wealthy.
And Trump said, well, it is now.
But once we negotiate
it won't be anymore.
And just basically shedding
all of his position.
So but he isn't
challenged he's just--
No.
But you're talking about
singular anecdotal moments.
You're talking about
floating logs in a torrent.
You know, the
relentless of the cycle
requires an equal counterweight.
A counterweight does not
mean that occasionally you
push back to a small
extent as the waters rush
by you everywhere else.
That's I think we're
Fox has an advantage is.
That they understood that
to take over the cycle
you need to be relentless.
You need to be perpetuating
your point of view
and your propaganda
in the same way
that people consume
it which is constantly
and self reinforcingly and
over and over and over again.
Which seems to be--
Unless you have
something pushing back
with that same force, you're
not going to have any balance.
Well the interesting thing
about this election though,
you said it's not
much different.
Trump has basically
embraced that tactic.
I mean, he is relentless.
He is ubiquitous.
He is out there all the time.
He's just learned how to-- he's
just doing Judo against them.
What works for 24 hour networks?
What is it incentivized for?
It is incentivized
for-- here's what
you would want it to be
incentivized for: clarity.
It is incentivized for what?
Conflict.
The voices that
are amplified are
the ones that are
the most conflict
oriented, the most extreme.
Those are the guys
that get the air time.
So if they're
incentivized for conflict,
Trump is not playing
this like everybody
keeps talking
about he's amazing.
He's not.
This is the first
season of Survivor.
This is Reality Show 101.
I'm going to be an enormous dick
at the beginning of the show
to get all this attention.
And then once I make
it to final council,
then I'm going to reveal.
He's what's the guy's name?
Johnny Fairplay.
He's Johnny Fairplay.
He's the guy who said,
oh, my grandmother died.
And don't vote me out.
And then finally when he got
to the final tribal council--
that's what he's playing.
What-- talk to me about Hillary
Clinton as an opponent to him
and what--
I've never run against her, so--
What would you be
saying about her
if you were doing
your show right now?
What I think about
Hillary Clinton
is I imagine to be
a very bright woman
without the courage
of her convictions
because I'm not even
sure what they are.
So I would suggest that when
I watch her campaign-- when
I watch her campaign
it reminds me of,
and again I'm throwing
out references
that mean absolutely
nothing to anybody,
so I will continue to do that.
She reminds me of Magic
Johnson's talk show.
And I won't say anything else.
You had that thought, too, huh?
If you ever watch
Magic Johnson's talk,
Magic Johnson was a
charming individual.
But he wasn't a talk show host.
And when you watched
his show, you
could almost see
Arsenio's advice to him
in real time rendering.
So he would sit and he we go,
my first guest tonight, oh,
Arsenio said enthusiasm
is something that sells.
My first guest tonight
is Cher everybody.
But it never seemed authentic
and real to his personality.
It seemed like he was
wearing an outfit designed
by someone else for someone
else to be someone else.
And that is not to say that
she is not preferable to Donald
Trump because at this
point I would vote
for Mr. T over Donald Trump.
But I think she will
be in big trouble
if she can't find a way.
And maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe a real person doesn't
exist underneath there.
I don't know.
Did you-- you worked-- you
dabbled on the government side
when you were advocating for the
Zadroga Act for 9/11 survivors.
Did you work with
her when she was
senator of New York on that?
No.
So you never--
I worked with
Kirsten Gillibrand.
I see.
So she was out of
the Senate by then.
She's terrific.
Kirsten Gillibrand is terrific.
So Hilary was out of
the Senate by then.
You must have had
her on your show.
Yes.
And what was that like?
Really cool.
Look.
There are politicians
who are either
rendering their inauthenticity
in real enough time
to appear authentic.
And then there are politicians
who render their inauthenticity
through-- it's like when your
computer you want to play--
if you have a Mac and you
want to play a Microsoft game
on it--
Yes.
--and there's that weird lag.
Yes.
That's Hilary Clinton.
That's a big problem.
There's like a
seven second delay.
And all the words come out
in a perfectly politically
calibrated sentence.
Right.
Now what gives me
hope in that is
that there's a delay
which means she's somehow
fighting something.
I've seen politicians
who don't have that delay
and render their
inauthenticity in real time.
And that's when you
go, that's a sociopath.
That's a uplifting
message there.
By the way, as far as
uplifting messages,
I have never in my life
experienced what I experienced
in my one day of lobbying
down in Washington, D.C.
And let me just say like
for however I painted it
on the show, it's so much
worse than you could possibly
imagine.
It is a cesspool.
There are some
good people trying
to survive within the lava.
But it's a fucking horror show.
No disrespect.
No.
There is--
Just the fact that you're
at the Institute of Politics
where we're trying to
encourage young people to get
into the public--
Can I say this?
Get into it and
don't get it on you.
I've never--
I was down there
with firefighters
who had spent a year on the
smoldering remains of the World
Trade Center.
The guy that I was
with, Ray Pfeifer,
had a titanium rod
in his leg that
was breaking because of the
metastasized cancer that
was roiling through it that
he got from being on the pile.
We had the scientific
evidence with us.
You cannot imagine
the disrespect,
the lack of compassion that
was exhibited towards this man
and this cause by
individuals in higher office.
It was-- I will never
recover from it.
So here's my theory
because I can't
sit in front of 1,000 young
people and not say this.
You have to-- if you turn
away and you walk away
from this and you just seed
all of that to the people
you're talking about, you're
going to get what you get.
And it seems to me that there's
some obligation to go in there
and try and change it.
So you say go in there
and don't get it on you--
Yes.
--but we need that.
We need that.
This is the most
public spirited group.
When I say don't get it on
you, I don't mean don't engage.
I mean take appropriate
precautions.
Wear a hazmat suit.
Bring your ideals.
Whenever I speak to-- and
we used to do this thing
every year where we bring
the press secretaries for all
the Senate and all the House
people that wanted to come in.
And they would
say to me, so what
can my candidate do to have
a successful appearance
on your show?
And I would say, he
could or she could
say what she thinks about the
issues concerning America.
And they say is there
any other way to do it?
But they would say, but
what should I tell them?
What works best?
When people say
what they believe.
What's that?
And honestly like
I know you think
that I'm being
hyperbolic, I recognize
that you don't understand this.
I am not.
They are as unaware of
their own machinations
as you could possibly imagine.
And I'm not even saying
it's malevolence.
It's the way the game is played.
I assume that it's survival.
It's a cult.
But you must have met people
over the course of from '99
to last year doing the show.
You must have run
across people who did,
who were disarming and--
Sure.
No, I must have.
Do you want a few seconds
to think about that?
Yeah, hold on.
There are people
that were what I
would get there is the same
thing I would get in the news
industry which is people
would pull you aside
and they would say, yeah, man.
Sucks.
You're absolutely right.
It's terrible down here.
Yeah, you would just go, hmm.
But you know again I
don't want to sit here
as a sort of defender of a
system that is badly broken.
Right.
But there are people who
do make a difference.
Every day.
You mentioned
Kirsten Gillibrand.
And there are others who
actually go there and try.
The amount of energy
that you have to expend.
I'll just go along
with the 9/11 bill.
This is as no-brainer
as you can possibly get.
This is a horde of zombies
would stop their brain eating
rampage to go, yeah, those guys
should get some health care.
That makes sense.
So run out and find
a horde of zombies.
So these guys for nine
years had to travel
with cancer with mesothelioma
with the low lung
function with heart failure.
Nine years of incessant
lobbying to move this body.
And it only through
their lobbying efforts
and some measure
of public shaming
they relented in the most
condescending of ways
to finally give into it.
If it takes to that effort
to do something that easy, it
is a system that
must be-- it is self
perpetuating in a way that
is that it's dangerous now
at this point.
You know.
But I saw, you know I
saw, and you were there
doing your thing,
I saw people cast
votes for the Affordable Care
Act who lost their positions.
People who voted
for a cap in trade
to try and do
something about climate
change who lost their positions.
And we should-- and there are
some who didn't-- but we should
at least acknowledge that
there are those people who are
willing to do that.
I always say Profiles in Courage
was a thin volume for a reason.
It's not the norm.
But it's something
that we should--
I guess my point is why in God's
name should that be courage?
In what world is taking
a political stand
and trying to affect
legislation that should be--
and by the way, what's incumbent
on those who believe government
can make a difference
in people's lives
is to try and make
it more efficient.
And I think that's
where the Democrats fail
in an enormous ways.
In their world, if give
you believe that government
can make a difference
in people's lives,
well then make the bureaucracy
work more efficiently.
Make the regulations that are
strangling, small businesses,
don't just open the Fed
window at 0% corporations.
Force them at some level to at
least give a percentage of that
to small business loans.
I mean, and I understand
that they are trying,
but-- and you and
your boss and I
had a big argument
about this, but the VA.
If you can do an executive order
to kill an American citizen
from above with a
missile, how can you
not do an executive order to
reevaluate the DOD and the VA
system so that you don't
spend a billion dollars trying
to get two computer programs
to talk to each other
when probably three of these
idiots could do it for $500?
It doesn't wash.
And at some level and
I'll lay the blame then
with the Democrats, the
door is open to an asshole
like Donald Trump.
Because the Democrats
haven't done
enough to show to people
that government that
can be effective for people
can be efficient for people.
And if you can't do
that, then you've
lost the right to make that
change and someone's going
to come in and demagogue you.
Yeah.
And that's what happens.
I don't know, John, that the
people who are following Trump
are following him
because of efficiency.
I think there are
other elements.
There are others.
I don't disagree with you.
I've always said this.
That we'll be committed
to ends and not means.
And if the means don't work,
then change them, you know.
I think that
challenging government
is something that
Democrats should do.
But on the other hand--
Let me ask you a question.
Is government too big to manage?
That's a very good question.
And I think that
what I think happens
is we've got a
country of 330 million
so government's
going to be large.
What I think happens
is bureaucracy builds
on bureaucracy and it gets
encrusted on top of itself.
And especially in an
age of technology,
there is an opportunity
to do things
better and more creatively.
And I think that
government should--
Can you though--
But let me say this.
Let me say a word on this
because I think before we're
too cynical about this.
This is not cynicism.
Don't mistake--
No, but let me--
Don't mistake this for cynicism.
If you talk to one of
the 20 million people who
have health care today who
didn't have health care,
they have a pretty positive
view of government.
You know, if you talk to
people have a Pell Grant
or if you talk to
people who are finally
after all these centuries
enjoying their full rights,
gay and lesbians
Americans and so on,
they feel positively
that government
has been on their side
at least in recent years.
So I think that it is a
little bit too broad brush
to say there's nothing,
no progress has been made.
No.
Nobody had--
I would definitely agree with
you if that's what I had said.
But that's not what I said.
OK.
What I said was-- to throw
it back the other way,
let me say this.
Can you imagine
how disconcerting
it is for someone who's
talking about the efficiency
of government to talk to
the man who basically helped
Barack Obama got elected and
you're a powerful guy who has
basically been part of the
group that's been in charge
of government for eight years to
say, yeah, you know bureaucracy
is bureaucracy.
What are you going to do?
And you're like, I don't know.
Here's the thing, John.
Government--
Yeah.
The system we have, and you
wrote the definitive book
on the US Constitution,
so I know you know this.
The government we
have is hard to move.
We moved a lot in the first two
years when Obama was president.
2010 came along and there
was a huge tidal wave.
And we've had a
situation where you
have a gridlock-- not a gridlock
but a very divided Congress.
And the system is
devised in such a way
that it makes it very difficult
to get things done under that.
No question.
So that's, you
know, I would have
liked if we had come
to office and we
didn't have massive
economic crisis and some
of the other things,
I would've liked
to have concentrated
on this project which
is how do you
rationalize government
for the 21st century.
There are these projects
going on within government,
but it's very hard
to turn it around.
Right.
But all I'm saying is if
people can see your reelection
effort be incredibly agile
and I mean I honestly
I'm still getting emails from
the real like Barack Obama
sometimes through
the television.
I don't know how you
guys figured it out.
But if you're--
Your laggard in your
donations by the way.
If you're that agile
for campaigning,
why are we so good at campaigns
and so bad at governance?
Because campaigns--
because campaigns
are not as complicated and not
as challenging as government
because you have full
control over your campaigns.
Let me tell you
something, when we
made a decision
in our campaign, I
don't have to go and
have Congress affirm it.
OK.
We could just move.
And so campaigns
are not government.
You can't do in the way that
you use executive action,
you can't use that
against the bureaucracy.
No, you can.
And it has been done.
And there's been in a
series of different ways.
Are you happy with the
amount that you guys did
in that regard?
I am convinced
that had there not
been the resistance
we had in Congress,
we could have done more.
There's no question about that.
Am I happy about--
So we agree?
Yes.
We agree except for this
one point which is--
Yeah.
By the way, this is
how Jews make love.
This is, just so you
know, like he and I
when we're done with this,
this is like eating latkes
on top of a dreidel with like--
We're missing-- where's
the corned beef?
The only thing that's
missing is an uncle
who's to the right
of Genghis Khan who
could just walk
in and go, Israel
has a right to defend itself!
so I'm just pointing
it out for those of you
who are getting nervous.
This is how we communicate.
We had a guy like that standing
right here a few months ago.
But no I have to say--
I don't go to school here so
I don't know what that means.
No, no.
It's too facile to compare
campaigns to government.
The reason why I don't
think it's facile is this--
and again I think
it's a part of it's
very easy to say well it's
two different systems.
Well, we're at the
point in our government
where if you can take
extraordinary measures to fix
a crisis like the
bank bailout then you
can take extraordinary
measures to fix
a crisis like crumbling
infrastructure,
and bureaucratic nightmares.
John, you can't
buy executive order
fix crumbling infrastructure.
You need money to fix
crumbling infrastructure.
Right, but you can fix--
You need a Congress that's
willing to work with you to fix
crumbling infrastructure.
You can fix some of the
problems in contracting.
You can fix that.
Yes, you can do that.
And some of that's been done.
And that's my point.
But the point is you can't
fix through contracting
massive underfunding
of infrastructure.
No, understand.
Which is a battle that's
been going on for years.
But listen we've just got
a couple minutes left.
I just want to ask,
I know you hate--
Sagittarius.
You deflect-- no, this was
the if you were a tree thing.
Yeah.
You deflect questions
about yourself.
I have two.
And one is when you were
growing up in Jersey
you could not have imagined--
Wait, wait.
Hold on a second.
Thank you for that.
That was the appropriate amount
of applause for New Jersey.
Wait, when you said when
you're growing up in New Jersey
and literally I just heard this.
Like in the way you would
if at the master's somebody
sunk a putt.
But you could not have imagined
that you would be opining
and you'd have the world
hanging onto your words
on politics on the social scene.
I mean this wasn't-- you
couldn't-- this was not
your life goal.
This is important because
I think kids, some kids,
are taught to believe that
they need to have a life plan.
You didn't have a life plan
to become what you are now.
I did.
Well you took kind of a
circuitous route to get there.
I was raised in a laboratory,
a comedic laboratory.
I mean, I think I
understand your point
about protecting their
innocence and their enthusiasm.
Please don't misunderstand.
Criticism is out of
love and desperation.
No, I totally get that.
It's not cynicism and defeatism.
In fact, I'm not
pessimistic in any way
because this country
has proven resilient
based on the fact that its
foundation is the Age of Reason
and the Age of Enlightenment.
And that is going to be
what carries us through.
We've faced darker
times than these.
No, we have.
Much darker.
And they have.
These guys are going
to make a difference.
I think one of the things
that's changing in this country
is that young people are more
tolerant, they're more aware,
they feel more rooted
in the world and not
just in their own lives.
I think that these guys
are going to change things.
But you're deflecting
again because you
don't talk about yourself.
So I'm going to give up.
I'm not going to give
up the whole Jon Stewart
story because we don't
have time for it.
But it'll be in a--
You are missing out.
But it will be in a
bookstore near you.
But I have to ask you
about moving forward.
Yes.
Because there have
been HBO suggested.
Maybe you would be
engaged in this election.
I'm not going to be
on television anymore.
The whole point of growing old--
Are going to engage at all
in this next six months?
Are we going to see Jon
Stewart in a more visible way?
I feel like I am engaged now.
I mean, the one thing I also
want make clear to people
is when you're not on
television, you're still alive.
And you're still
engaged in the world.
And I feel maybe more engaged
with the world in a real way
now than I ever did sitting
on television interviewing
politicians and convincing them.
Do you have any creative
projects planned between now
and November that have
to do with the election
whether it's on the internet?
I mean we're working on
technology in animation
to try and do sort of
interesting little small bits
and if we can figure out--
It'll go viral.
I don't-- again, like do
what you think is good.
And if you get 50 likes great.
If you get 500 likes-- your life
exists outside of television
and likes and Instagram.
Engage the world.
The reason why I was
talking about bureaucracy
is-- so my wife who's so much
nicer than me, you'd love her.
She is-- we're starting this
sanctuary for farm animals.
So we had to go before a local
Monmouth County agriculture
board.
The epitome of real America
civic engagement, civic
society.
The work that these individuals,
they were all farmers,
the board is 10 farmers,
the work that they
put into preserving and
keeping the farm life
and what they do, their way
of life going was inspiring.
If you want to talk
about inspiration,
we can put it right on them.
There are stories like
that all over the country.
The questions that they raised
with us were thought provoking.
They helped shape
this project in a way
that improved it massively.
And they dealt with a
tremendous amount of paperwork
that made no sense to anybody.
And they did it with humor and
with a certain resignation.
But they did it.
This must have
confounded your lobbyist.
Yes.
Yes.
But the point is
between now and November
do you expect to
surface some projects
relative to the election?
Oh, it may.
I wish I had a better answer.
I just don't know.
We're working on it.
I'd love to have it ready
by September or something
like that.
But not necessarily
for the election
as though that's the D-day.
Like, again--
But it's an important
time for the country.
I mean--
As I said, like I'll
still-- I mean I'll vote.
I don't-- in other words, you
know-- let me put it this way.
The October surprise
in this election
is not a two minute cartoon
that I'm going to release.
The powers that be are
working very diligently.
Television has never been more
ripe with beautiful satire.
There are people
from John Oliver
to Sam Bee to Stephen Colbert
to Seth Meyers to Trevor
to Larry to-- I am so
impressed and amazed
at the level of insight
and wit that is displayed
on television every day.
There is no dearth.
They're all great.
They're all great.
But I will say, and
we'll wrap it up here,
there's also one Jon Stewart.
And if you move around people
are asking why isn't he here
commenting on this.
But we're so lucky that
you're here to share some--
I'm delighted.
I've always wanted
to be confirmed.
And this counts right?
Yes.
As soon as you put something
in the collection plate.
All right.
I'll do that.
All right.
We're going to take some--
Yeah, let's take some questions.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Thank you for listening to
the Axe Files, part of the CNN
Podcast Network.
For more episodes
of the Axe Files,
visit CNN.com/podcast and
subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher,
or your favorite app.
And for more programming
from the University
of Chicago Institute
of Politics,
visit politics.UChicago.Edu.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
That's that
Rockefeller song again.
OK.
We're going to take
some questions.
I'm glad you came to ask.
I thought everybody was leaving.
I was like, hey, what?
Thank you so much for coming--
I don't think the mic is--
Yeah.
Oh, I see.
Thank you so much.
There we go.
You're coming next.
I'm sorry.
Thank you for being here.
Thinking about this
election cycle and the rise
of Trump or Sarah Palin's
condemnation of Paul Ryan
or whatever it is, are there
limits to comedy, the effect
that it can have,
and are there certain
topics that are off limits
to political satire?
To the first one-- no
topic is off limits
unless you've got
one that you'd like
to toss out there because no
topics are off limits to life.
And I'm still
waiting for someone
to ask that question to a
politician instead of a comic.
Because all I ever hear
is people always say,
where's the line?
And they always ask comedians.
Where's the line?
But very rarely do they say
to presidents and senators,
where's the line?
Which bomb would be the line?
So it's always interesting
to me that people
think comedians somehow
are the ones that
push human nature too far.
But the actions
of our government
are somehow we all
just kind of accept it.
And I would say this, as far
as the efficacy of satire,
I am of the school of Peter
Cook, who was a great comedian.
Dudley Moore and Peter
Cook were a great team
and he was a British comedian.
And he was asked once,
what is the greatest satire
in your mind?
Who had the greatest satire?
And Peter Cook, as
normal comedians
would when asked that question
would go, I don't know.
And so the interviewer
said, well I
believe it was the follies of
Berlin in Munich and Berlin
in 1938, the rise of the Nazis.
And Peter Cook said, yeah,
they really showed Hitler.
And that's how I
feel about satire.
Hi.
Thank you so much for coming.
My name is Baxter Stein.
I'm a second year
here in the college
and my question is
about policy and comedy.
Yeah.
And so one of your
intellectual successors
John Oliver does a
lot of work every week
advocating for policy change.
Yeah.
And so I just want to hear
more about your philosophy
and what the biggest
areas of policy
are where you think comedy
can have a big impact.
I'll give you a minute.
Here's the only
thing I would say.
Shame can be a
final gust of wind.
Comedy can't have
an impact on policy.
People can have an
impact on policy.
Grassroots lobbying,
foundational lobbying
can have an influence.
In terms of 9/11 and Zadroga
as an example, nine years
they worked
tirelessly down there.
At the right moment,
it's sort of-- you
know what it reminds me of?
Back to the Future.
He built the car.
He spent his whole
life building that car.
And all the one guy
had to do was just
make the clock hand
go to that one thing.
That's comedy.
You're just-- when the
lightning if there's
one moment that could help the
guy that has made his life's
work something this
profound, if you can somehow
focus some energy on that
in that moment at just
the right time, it
can be catalyzing.
But it in no way can be
mistaken for activism.
Comedy and satire
are an expression.
They are an artistic idea.
They are not activism.
It is not anything other than
a painting, a song, a joke.
None of those can
change anything.
They can occasionally
focus a conversation
at a crucial moment
and help the good work
of all the individuals
that have put in that time.
And I never forget that.
Nothing that we ever
did meant anything
compared to the people on
the ground in grass roots
who worked tirelessly in
anonymity against all odds
to do what's right and have
to do that facing headwinds
that shouldn't be there
in the first place that
are artificial.
John, when you started
the Daily Show, when
you went to the Daily Show,
it was a much different show
that you inherited then.
It was more celebrity
oriented show.
Sure.
Did you make a decision
right from the beginning
that we're going to
do political satire
and we're going to
use the platform where
we can be that final ingredient
or did this all evolve over
time?
No.
None of it is explicit
and conscious.
What I made a decision
about on The Daily Show
when I took it is I'm
not interested in this.
I'm interested in this.
And if I'm going to spend
every day here, 12 hours a day,
I want to work on something
I'm interested in.
And I'm not interested in that.
But at no moment was
there ever the explicit,
we are going to turn
this ship to focus here
to enact change there.
It was, that seems boring,
that seems interesting,
let's do that.
Hi.
I'm Brock Huebner.
I'm a fourth year student here.
Brock, I know who you are.
Everybody knows the Huebner.
Yeah, baby.
You knocked the question
right out of him.
There's been so much talent that
has come out of The Daily Show
with your correspondence
and I'm wondering
what about the Daily Show
environment in general
or your leadership
in particular do
you think led to the
growth and development
of such talented actors
and talk show hosts?
Brock, when you are a
facilitator of men, if I may--
I mean some of it
honestly is happenstance.
We were fortunate to be able to
identify really talented people
and have the pleasure and
honor of having them come in
and work with us.
And hopefully the
environment was
stimulating enough for them
and collaborative enough
for them that they were
able to express themselves
to their best ability.
And I think my feeling
about those environments
is simply have a
clarity of vision
but a flexibility of process.
So the idea being
know your intention.
The only thing that you can
ever control is intention.
You can't control
people's perception of it.
You can't control
what they make of it.
But you can control through your
own sense of moral foundation
or barometer or whatever
it is that makes you
tick what your intention is.
And then you try and execute
that intention to its best
avatar, to its best self.
And that's what we were
trying to do on the show.
And we were fortunate to have
access to the kind of talent
that we did.
So I don't know that
there is anything inherent
in the atmosphere as much as
in the same way that I felt
like talking about
issues in politics
would make it more
interesting, we
were able to find performers
that also felt that way.
And together that
created, I think,
a certain energy for
part of the process.
Cameraman has a question?
Oh, no that was just--
Hi.
I just wanted to
go back to earlier
you were talking about the
media and how they kind of have
twisted incentives.
Yeah.
And I was wondering
how we could really
go about changing those
incentives to focus on clarity
over a conflict like you said?
Kind of stray away from
the Fox Business model.
Well, it's not-- the
one thing I would
say is it's not just
the Fox Business model.
I think it's the business model.
Fox has found a way
to work their ideology
into the business model which
I think is having your cake
and eating it too.
CNN doesn't have an ideology
other than narrating the news
as it happens outside
without knowing why.
MSNBC would like to have the
clarity of their ideology mesh
with making money but so far
that hasn't just worked out.
But I think again news isn't
just another-- in the same way
that I view healthcare-- it's
just not another commodity that
is placed on your cable box.
And I think the
concerted effort has
to be is to remove
it from that system,
to not necessarily to try
and create a 24 hour news
network that can be a
powerful counterweight, a Fox
News of veracity
where it's not so
reliant on the daily
exigencies of ratings and such
but is still good television.
And it's still interesting.
And I think it can be done.
When you and I were kids
there were three networks,
three major networks.
Everybody watched sort of
the same news and so on.
Now that the media environment
completely balkanized
and people tend to seek out the
media that affirm their views
rather than necessarily
inform their views.
Is that unhealthy?
I mean how do you get people
to listen to each other?
Well, I think people
in general-- yeah,
I mean I don't
know of people that
don't live that way normally.
I don't think that's a
common modern phenomenon
that people tend to congregate
with like minded people.
I don't know if you ate
lunch in high school, right?
It's not like in high
school you sought out
like, today I'm going to
sit with the stoner kids.
Find out what they
think about Pink Floyd.
People tend to go with people
that they're like minded.
What I would say
about media today
is that maybe
you're in a bubble.
But generally little bits
of other people's bubbles
find their way into yours.
And that's, as far as I'm
concerned, that's good.
But you need a bubble
making machine.
You need a machine
that makes good bubbles
and is constantly
putting them out there
and popping other
people's shitty bubbles.
But I would suggest
that while there
is this sort of
epistemic closure
that you talk about because of
the volume of material being
generated and the tenacity
of material being generated,
there's a lot of
cross pollination.
And so people are
much more aware
of-- that's part of what
globalization is about.
And that's part of what fuels
the anger of globalization
is there's a lot of people and a
lot of places who go-- who just
found out, oh,
we're getting fucked
and we didn't even know that.
And now we do.
So again every technology
has the ability to elevate
and the ability to denigrate.
And I'm saying that
when it comes to news,
and again this is an exercise
of editorial authority.
This is subjective.
There is no objectivity here.
It is subjective.
But you know the
internet has the ability
to elevate discussion.
It also has the
ability to just-- look,
I read the comments sections
just like everybody else.
I just found out just
because I have a gray beard
that I have cancer or AIDS.
Like that's the
comments section.
What happened to Jon Stewart?
He has cancer or AIDS.
He has CAIDS, cancer AIDS.
I don't know.
Like that's just what it is.
That being said,
that's not unusual.
Like what is the biggest
thing on the internet?
It's porn.
The internet can illuminate or
you can just jerk off to it.
Like that's just--
Alexander Graham
Bell he invented the telephone.
Watson, come quickly
and bring a towel.
Like that's what it is.
Everything that a man makes,
everything that we have
can be used for good or evil.
Atomic energy, you can cut it
one way and light the world.
You can cut it another
way and blow the world up.
That's the dilemma we face.
So use your energy
towards as much
as you can towards the positive.
Hi.
I'm Melissa.
I'm a second year
in the college.
So I know you spoke a little bit
before about how comedy is just
comedy.
It's just satire.
But if you--
I don't-- I should probably--
I don't mean it's just satire
like it's a trifle.
I'm really proud of it.
I think it's an amazing
way to express yourself.
I meant that it cannot
take the place of activism.
So I don't mean it as a sense
of it's just jokes folks.
It's not.
Satire is an expression
of my true beliefs put
through the prism--
the reason why it's not
news is the tools of satire
are hyperbole and pun and
denigration, shit you can't
get away with with news,
but the expression of it may
have a similar foundation.
So I apologize for that.
Well, on that note, there were
a few criticisms and articles
about John Oliver and
Trevor Noah's work
in doing satire and talking
about how they're basically
doing the work of
journalists in order
to illuminate different issues.
Do you see the world of comedy
skewing more towards a comedy
journalism hybrid in any way?
I see the world of journalism
skewing more towards comedy
unfortunately.
I feel like they're
moving towards our box.
No, I mean I think
part of-- there
is a certain form of-- what
we did on the Daily Show was
we took a sort of
short form content
and we tried to create a
more essayistic version
of that utilizing principles
of argument and logic
with the comedy.
What that requires at
times is a certain balance
of foundational
material, background.
And without that
background it wouldn't
make-- an essay doesn't make
much sense without its premise
statements and things.
So that's where that comes from.
But I don't think people will
get tired-- art is always
evolving into a lot
of different ways,
but that particular
form-- comedy generally
requires a shared set of
knowledge with its audience.
So in the days of
great scandal that's
sweeping through the
country, those jokes
are easy because--
when Dick Cheney shot
a guy in the face
that was an easy show
to write because everybody
knew Dick Cheney had
shot a guy in the face.
So you didn't really have to go
through a whole thing of like,
in 1972 Congress passed the
don't shoot your friends act.
Here's where-- it was kind
of like it was right there.
So it was comedy
tries to require
the least amount of
distance between your brain
and your gut.
So when you have
to fill that in,
it can tend to detract from it.
So it makes it
difficult. So to be
able to do that, like
with guys like Oliver
I really admire their
ability to do that.
But I don't think
that's the new thing.
Thank you so much
for being here.
My name is Mary
McNicholas and I grew up
watching your show nightly.
But wait.
You're a full grown person.
That would make me 80.
I actually had to
watch taped shows
to see your first
couple years on air.
When-- I'm so sorry.
I didn't come here
to insult you.
I promise.
No.
That doesn't at all.
I know I'm old.
But you focused a lot
more on pop culture then.
My question is just
when did that shift
happen and was it a shift
because you saw the need
to shift to cover
politics or was
it more natural because
you thought, hey,
that's interesting.
In the early years
of the show it
was more that it was a
struggle with the editorial
with the network.
They were, I think, more
of the mindset that people
liked the pop culture.
And I was more the
mindset that we
could create something slightly
different that would still
bring in viewership.
I think they were feeling
like we would be narrowing
our focus economically.
And so those shifts
generally take time.
But it wasn't.
That's all it was.
That fight had to be fought.
Can I follow up?
Are you glad that
you won that fight?
Are you glad that this has
been your role that you've
become a political commentator?
I'm glad that I did
because I've been fired
a lot from a lot of places.
And if I didn't-- if the ratings
didn't go up I would have been
fired.
So I am glad.
Thank you.
Hi.
I'm Sarah.
I'm a first year in the college.
And we're pretty
similar in the fact
that we're both Jews from
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
Are you really
from Lawrenceville?
Yeah.
Hey, what are you doing there?
I don't know.
There's a little
plaque in the hallway
outside the auditorium
in the high school
that says Jon Leibowitz on it.
Yeah, yeah.
What's that for?
Smoking pot?
What did I get it for?
It says media on it
along with the people
that were famous for nothing.
I have a plaque at
Lawrence High School.
Yeah.
Is it still kind of a shit hole?
Yeah.
Very nice, very nice.
Very nice place.
Related to that, because you're
like the one famous person
from our town, how do you
think that the shit show that
is New Jersey politics
and just the state
itself has affected your work?
Interesting.
Surely New Jersey having a
comic level of corruption in it
has brought to bear.
But to be truthful I was not--
Welcome to Illinois by the way.
Well yeah, exactly.
Well, in Illinois I
think you have a better
chance of going to prison--
if you drop out of high school
you have less of a
chance of going to prison
than if you become governor.
All right.
I think honestly
Watergate and Vietnam
were the crucibles by
which my mindset was shaped
much more than New
Jersey which is
a whole other set of problems.
Hi.
So my name is Mark.
I'm a big fan of the
show and I'm actually
very lucky because I'll be
interning at the Daily Show
the summer.
Hey, congratulations.
Thank you.
That'll be nice.
So this is more
of a work advice--
You know what?
Can I say this?
Yeah.
Practice washing fruit.
I'll do my best.
I just want to make
sure you know the gig.
So my question is how
do you keep your sanity
amid the onslaught of 24 hour
news networks for your job?
Well, I think-- were
you here the whole time?
You don't.
It's a lot like-- you remember
the movie the Green Mile?
Where you like--
people get lost in it.
And I think you begin to
think that it's real life.
And you have to understand
that when you watch it
it's designed for a reason.
And the reason is to
heighten urgency and anxiety
so that you won't turn away.
And you can begin to
think that that's real.
But it's not.
So just keep that in mind.
And Xanax.
Go ahead.
[INAUDIBLE]
So Senate Republicans have
done a pretty effective job
in not confirming Merrick
Garland for the Supreme Court.
And now that the media has
shifted their attention
to November do you
think that the let's
wait until the next president
chooses the Justice-- do
you think that argument
is valid now that there's
six months until the election?
And what's your prediction on
who's going to fill the seat?
First of all, don't threaten
me with those boxing
gloves on your arm.
I know what's going on.
I swear to God I got hit
by a truck on Friday.
So I'm thankful to be--
Wait.
You got hit by a truck.
Yes.
Let me just say this.
The Merritt Garland
question is interesting,
but the truck story
is fucking phenomenal.
How did you get hit by a truck?
Let's just say that Hyde Park
had some reckless drivers.
Oh, right.
It was the driver.
In Hyde Park.
And in no way you stoned
and on a unicycle.
All right.
Here's the question.
So I have no idea.
And as far as I'm concerned,
they're fucking themselves.
Because the vote
that's not there
is one of the only reliably
conservative votes.
So any case that's coming up
through this next year that
was going to be a 5-4
decision for the conservatives
is now moot.
So basically they're going to
spend a year losing pretty much
any case they had a shot with.
So I don't know
what to tell them.
Take one more question.
Yeah.
Yes.
Me?
Yes, sir.
Oh, great.
Brothers in beards.
Thank you.
It's a new one I'm trying out.
I wanted to ask you about the
last interview on your show
which I think was Louis C.K.
Yeah.
So from my memory I think that
was after some of the rumors
about Louis CK's
alleged harassment
of female comedians--
Whoa.
--had sort of
started to come out.
It was just things
circulating on the internet.
Wait, what?
I think this was after
Jen Kirkman, for example,
had talked about her
knowledge of Louis CK's
alleged harassment
of female comedians.
At least people
interpreted it that way.
There was an article on
Gawker I believe about it.
Right.
And I just want
to know-- I mean,
if this is the first
you're hearing of it maybe
I already got my answer
that there really
wasn't a discussion
about this on the show.
But--
So wait, wait.
I'm a little lost.
So the internet said
Louis harassed women.
So there was first
a Gawker article
and then there was a
couple of tweets by people.
And I know this
all internet stuff.
That's pretty authoritative.
I know that this is how--
You know who you're
talking to, right?
No, I totally get that.
It's a fair point that
internet rumors are not
court cases or anything.
I just want to know if there
was any sort of discussion
about that on the show.
If that was a thing
on your radar.
No.
I didn't see the tweets.
No.
Or Jen Kirkman's
podcast about this.
I don't.
And I apologize.
I honestly I'm not that
connected to that world.
So I do apologize.
I don't know what
you're talking.
But--
No, and part of--
I can't really-- I
don't know what to say.
No definitely.
And I can turn that around.
And I think that's
a good point is
that a lot of people at the
time didn't know what that was.
And again the internet is not
for sure or anything like that,
but just there
have been comedians
who've taken strong
stances on Bill Cosby
without like certain
knowledge from Bill Maher
to Hannibal Buress.
But I just wonder
if you could talk
about the role of comedians in
relation to other comedians?
But as you pointed out
the Bill Cosby case
actually is a legal case.
Now it is.
But it wasn't when Bill
Maher and Hannibal Buress
talking about it.
Maybe if you could speak to
the role of comedians in--
I mean, all I can
tell you is I've
worked with Louis for 30 years.
And he's a wonderful
man and person.
And I've never heard
anything about this.
And we've all known Bill Cosby
was a prick for a long time.
So I don't know
what to tell you.
But I didn't know about
the sexual assault.
But you're right,
it's important--
Not sexual assault just
harassment in general.
Yeah, I don't.
Appreciate your question.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And let's say thanks
to Jon Stewart.
