Save this storySave this storySave this storySave this story
Hear and subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google | Wherever You Tune In
Subscribe to our regular e-mail to access the finest content from The New Yorker directly in your e-mail box.
Some time ago, after Stephen Colbert discovered his forthcoming termination by CBS and Jimmy Kimmel experienced an open-ended break by his overseers at Disney and ABC, it dawned on even the greatest optimists among the public that Donald Trump lacks any humorous appreciation when it involves Donald Trump, and that political humorists had become part of the increasing list of America’s vulnerable species. “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart’s platform, is currently under the control of David Ellison, the offspring of the affluent Larry Ellison. They seem to exhibit allegiance to Trump. Stewart, in contrast, now functions under their permission.
Recently, I appeared with Stewart at Webster Hall, situated in the East Village, during the yearly New Yorker Festival. Within our discussion, documented for The New Yorker Radio Hour, Stewart expressed his goals explicitly while at Paramount. Indeed, we commenced by presenting a segment from his program in reaction to Kimmel’s break: Stewart was seen wearing a dark suit and a Trump-esque red tie in a Trump-inspired ornamented setting. Adopting a posture of DEFCON 1 urgency, he acted as an anxious TV news anchor operating under dictatorial command. He portrayed sheer nervousness and anxiety. The audience at Webster Hall greatly appreciated this portrayal of amusing timidity, yet a sense of unease was also felt. What ensued in our exchange has been shortened and clarified. Any vulgar humor that was eliminated can be observed in the video rendition. These jokes were less effective in print, and we believed that Stewart, given his focus on his comedy’s refinement, would approve of the changes.
Let’s commence with what transpired recently when Jimmy Kimmel was dismissed from the air. You were obligated to formulate a reaction to a weighty occurrence. And, incidentally, you weren’t isolated in this: Stephen Colbert and John Oliver also offered responses. Was there any sign of collaboration or discussion?
No, I don’t even possess their digits. [Laughter.]
Indeed, we maintain a text group. Essentially, we all realize that a platform isn’t our entitlement. Nevertheless, we also comprehend that it constitutes a significant luxury, and that a degree of resilience resides within a society capable of enduring even trivial ridicule. When that disappears, when the leadership becomes, well . . . I have an associate who produced a program strikingly similar to my own in Egypt, and he was expelled.
In America, we largely presumed satire to be immutable law. The revelation that it, like Dobbs, was destined for reconsideration—what we had perceived as stare decisis—undoubtedly perturbed everyone to an extent, but it also unveiled a substantial chance. Consequently, I’m uncertain whether we’ve enjoyed ourselves as immensely as we did that Thursday morning as we created all the ridiculous antics you witnessed—incorporating the gold images and crimson ties. It furnished us with purpose.
However, I wish to emphasize a point. The sufferers of this Administration are not the comedians. We represent a noticeable manifestation of specific trends, but the real sufferers are those enduring difficulty in having their voices acknowledged and who are forcefully extracted from the streets by disguised personnel. They constitute the victims of this Administration.
I’m unsure whether Hitler cared about humorists, but I suspect this individual does. I doubt he is fond of being mocked.
Trump dislikes being ridiculed?
That is correct.
I’ll disclose something to you, and I’ll take a position here: I’m starting to have reservations about this Presidency. [Laughter.]
Audacious.
You know my inclination, I was deeply involved, committed completely.
You assert that this isn’t the heart of the matter. However, I recall when Vladimir Putin gained authority in 2000. His initial action involved removing a satirical show concerning politics named “Kukly,” or “Puppets,” from television. People remarked, “He’s taken the puppets off the air.” Within a few weeks, the uncensored broadcasts disappeared.
Correct.
Isn’t it probable that this political onslaught, despite its sporadic nature, is essentially indicative of something greater?
Undoubtedly. Are we comedians, as I mentioned earlier, akin to the proverbial canary in a coal mine? I consider that to be within the realm of possibility. And it can decidedly progress in that direction.
I will remark that when seven million people assemble across America during a weekend for any cause—sincerely, any cause—it implies something significant is transpiring. They are endeavoring, I believe, to introduce an incompatible culture into this nation. Our situation diverges from Russia and its background of autocracy or dictatorship. This culture is foreign to us and instills discomfort, and that very discomfort may serve as our protection. I do not foresee us embracing that willingly.
That’s not to suggest that we won’t encounter a form of subdued autocracy with regulated media. Yet, we retain a plethora of diverse channels. Suppression fosters opportunity, and a populace yearning for inspiration, direction, morality, integrity, and the absence of corruption presents fertile ground for that prospect. Therefore, as alarming as this situation appears—and it is undeniably dire . . .
Affirmative. Are you cognizant of the severity? David Ellison—
That individual is my new supervisor.
—recently acquired Paramount.
Indeed.
Not only does he—pardon me—own your operation, but he possesses the means to influence it as well. Furthermore, he has recently engaged Bari Weiss to manage CBS News. Kindly elucidate the implications of this.
This isn’t coincidental. It originated with Richard Viguerie’s mail-in drive aimed at attracting individuals to the conservative ideology. It initiated with figures acquiring AM-radio stations and converting them into conservative talk-radio outlets. It commenced with Roger Ailes and the Nixon White House declaring, “We shall never permit this scenario to befall a Republican politician again.”
Each of the establishments—education, media, news, academia, and the sum of those entities we’ve depended on as a firm foundation for constructing a decent society—essentially conveyed a dissenting opinion. They’ve conceived an alternate reality comprised of think tanks, educational resources, and media outlets to enable them, at some juncture, to activate a switch and redirect us onto that trajectory.
For what attributes do these establishments possess? They constitute the point of reference for our judgments. How do you proceed? By invoking, “Research indicates,” and incorporating data and the scientific method, coupled with supplementary resources, to formulate as enlightened a judgment as achievable. Conversely, should you align with a political movement that perceives investing authority within those establishments as counterproductive to your cause, the optimal course of action entails establishing entities that either degrade the credibility of those establishments or establish their own replicas.
But, respectfully, Jon, the current state diverges. It distinguishes itself markedly. It’s one scenario to possess the Brookings Institution, characterized by a liberal inclination, succeeded by the emergence of the American Enterprise Institute. The existence of a liberal publication alongside a conservative publication constitutes another situation entirely. Acceptable. Essentially, it’s favorable, in certain contexts.
Mhm.
The occurrences transpiring presently are unique. And you’re potentially going to confront it with Paramount and “The Daily Show.”
Assuredly.
What course of action will you undertake?
Refrain from compromising your principles, and continue until instructed to depart. That represents the sole viable strategy. It’s the complete set of available options.
I believe the statement you furnished earlier contained “I’m not yielding. I’m not departing—I believe.”
Precisely, I’m still grappling with my neuroses. [Laughter.]
Your agreement culminates in December. Do you intend to ratify an additional one?
I mean, we’re engaged in efforts to persist. Observe, the additional consideration to bear in mind pertains to its complexity. The business—
Stated differently, if the resolution rests with you, you intend to stay?
Oh, assuredly, yes.
How do you anticipate CBS News being impacted? Does evening news even maintain relevance in the present mediascape we occupy?
I’m not certain. We’re making forecasts about matters of which we lack awareness. The environment has undergone transformation. The monetization aspect has evolved. The ethos has changed. However, one aspect that we must retain is that the establishments we touched upon earlier present challenges. Indeed, they do. Moreover, should we neglect to tackle those challenges in a transparent manner, those establishments will become susceptible to such attacks. Credibility wasn’t merely seized. It underwent erosion as well. That constitutes a component of this equation that necessitates reflection. Furthermore, the Democrats ought to reflect on it likewise.
There’s a justification for Donald Trump’s rise to prominence. And that reason lies in the pervasive sentiment within the general public that the government no longer caters to the needs of the individuals it intends to represent. This feeling is universally held and intensely felt. Therefore, when a figure emerges and asserts, “The system is manipulated,” the response echoes, “Indeed, it is manipulated.” Clearly, he possesses diagnostic prowess. However, I harbor reservations concerning his remedies.
Articulate why you surmise Trump prevailed.
Attributing it to the dissatisfaction stemming from an analog system operating within a digital realm. The divergence between your perception of the world and the actuality of the world has never been more pronounced. We’re subject to the circadian rhythms of social media. Moreover, what incentive drives social media? Not to connect us! I’ve witnessed the Facebook promotional spot. Affirmative, its veracity holds. Should you exhibit an affinity for a specific breed of cat, there will exist other individuals who share that preference, enabling you to establish connections with one another.
However, social media’s objective rests in maintaining your presence on its platform. Exclusively. Those firms prioritize that aspect. They seek your prolonged engagement within that environment. The tactic they’ve developed to manipulate our cognitive processes involves leveraging outrage, anger, animosity, and hostility as significantly stronger catalysts for engagement than any other factor.
Now, upon considering the converse aspect, we possess a political system fashioned in an analog format—what constitutes the Senate? It functions as the cooling vessel of democracy. Moreover, what’s Twitter? The instrument capable of inciting violent tendencies. By amalgamating those elements, the outcome isn’t favorable. Thus, [Trump] succeeded in harnessing the animosity and catastrophizing inclinations to assume control of that other entity we possess.
And you didn’t deem Joe Biden and Kamala Harris appropriate solutions to that condition?
I considered them exceptional. [Laughter.]
Observe the developments concerning Zohran Mamdani. Finally, New York City boasts an individual eliciting affirmative votes in alignment with his stances, inspiring individuals and providing guidance. Moreover, how does the established Democratic Party generally react? “The individual is a communist.” Essentially, the Party embraces the caricature of this man.
Observe, we’re embroiled in a challenging situation, which transcends Trump’s incompetence. It encompasses the Democratic Party’s inaction in perpetuating a status quo widely perceived as dysfunctional.
In January, approximately a week subsequent to Trump’s inauguration, you presented a monologue on “The Daily Show.” It offered a critique of Trump, but you prioritized targeting his critics, or at least those characterized by greater hypocrisy and pearl-clutching inclinations. You appeared to advocate that, instead of sounding alarms and labeling him a fascist for each executive directive, such actions ultimately benefited him. Do you surmise that you underestimated the direness of the situation’s potential escalation?
No, I stand by my assessment, as it reflected my sentiments at that juncture. Furthermore, it need not have progressed in the subsequent direction. It may have remained at that point. It may not have overstepped. Fundamentally, I believe that you’re precluded from judging this moment predicated on that moment, due to a lack of cognizance of the extent to which corporate America would capitulate or the degree to which Congress would abdicate or the executive would encroach.
My assertion remains that the seeds of this unraveling were not sown this year. Citizens United sowed them. “Corporations are people” sowed them. A Democratic Party complacent with its Senate’s transformation into an assisted-living facility sowed them. Responding respectfully, I maintain that I could decisively conquer the Senate.
I don’t offer this cynically, I offer it ideally. I intend it as: we ought to recognize the gravity of this situation without delay. And it emerges from the vantage point of collaborating with our government to effectuate certain outcomes.
Throughout the preceding two decades, I found myself astounded by Republicans who would disseminate tweets invoking, “Never forget the heroes of 9/11,” juxtaposed against their votes concerning their medical care. Yet, I was equally astounded by the inertia exhibited by the Democratic Party’s leadership, repeatedly being instructed, “No, no, no, you must adhere to regular order when we hold this congressional hearing. We expect you to refrain from confrontation. We expect you to conduct yourself politely. Moreover, our aspirational objective involves integrating health care for the first responders and victims of 9/11 into the transportation bill. Unless Mitch McConnell determines to barter that for the import-export tax he ardently desires on petroleum.” And I would react, “That’s genuinely insane.” Thus, my assessment stems from lived experience.
Evidently, we find ourselves amidst a government shutdown, which evinces an altered mindset in contrast to its antecedent occurrence.
That’s correct.
Does Chuck Schumer demonstrate greater boldness now compared to his previous stance?
No. What Chuck Schumer has been informed encompasses “You’re losing, and people favor your glasses positioned higher on your nose.” Hence, here’s the strategy they’re applying presently. The tactic revolves around authenticity. Instantly, members of Congress engage in profanity.
I’m disinterested in the totality of it, frankly. Furthermore, I comprehend why individuals sought to dismantle it and why it proves susceptible to acquisition by a charismatic individual who articulates, “I grasp the execution of this process.”
For instance, even considering the shutdown—I commend the Democrats for supporting a cause, yet I persist in believing that the Affordable Care Act propagates the Republican and corporate agenda. Essentially, it constitutes subsidies allocated to insurance providers when our genuine requirement involves health care. However, the A.C.A. doesn’t furnish health care. It provides subsidies to acquire a voucher potentially redeemable for medical assistance, subsequently accompanied by a deductible. Forty percent of individuals in this nation forgo essential provisions such as sustenance and other necessities due to medical indebtedness. Consequently, when the Democrats proclaim that they’ve convinced pharmaceutical firms to graciously consent to negotiate prices on ten diverse medications—a mere ten—and deem that a triumph despite our subsidization of these entities by billions of dollars annually? Absolutely not, no further. I renounce the involvement.
We both matured in New Jersey, although I grew up alongside another Jersey comedian, Bill Maher. I engaged in driveway basketball games with him previously.
I acknowledge that nothing rivals playing basketball with diminutive Jewish individuals, I assure you. [Laughter.]
Bill Maher serves as the humorous political expression of the concept that the Democrats’ primary concern stems from wokeism. How do you react to Bill’s outlook on the universe?
Well, I’m uncertain whether that sentiment remains confined to Bill’s sphere of thought.
It operates as shorthand for it. Does wokeness inform your analysis of matters?
No. I’m uncertain whether I even understand its meaning. I would be better equipped to respond if I possessed a more refined understanding of the metric. Specifically, what defines the spectrum? Genuine anxieties persist among individuals regarding matters they don’t comprehensively understand and where they seek to abstain from causing offense, which may exert a censorious effect on discourse. I’ve witnessed it. Moreover, the left decidedly presents its—for instance, when an individual utters “pregnant people” to me, I’m inclined to remark, “I comprehend, but, truly, that’s excessive.”
Although, it doesn’t drive you to extremes?
For instance, an augmented strategy would encompass statements such as, “pregnant women and Dave”—you discern my intent? Thus, instances do spiral out of control. However, the notion that such instances exert an equivalent impact on the universe as a wealthy nation incapable of affording health care to its constituents—that represents the point at which I interject.
The most politically potent advertisement for the Trump campaign portrayed individuals undergoing gender transition. “She aligns with them, he aligns with you.” That proved extraordinarily compelling—
Nonetheless, the response to that promotional narrative remains equally straightforward. Unquestionably, Donald Trump aligns with you if you’re a convicted sex trafficker deserving of relocation to a less objectionable detention center due to your reluctance to implicate him. Donald Trump aligns with you if you possess an aircraft amenable to his use. Alternately, Donald Trump aligns with you if you furnish his campaign with billions.
Fundamentally, my predicament arises from the left’s inability to effectively contest that narrative. They fail to recognize the game they’re engaged in.
Elaborate on your meaning.
The social-media algorithm displays tenacity and bad faith. If you patronize a restaurant and discover the food delectable, that stems from the addition of supplementary butter, salt, or umami. Perhaps a bit of sugar in the marinara sauce. You discern my message? The ensuing experience consists of a declaration of decadence and beauty, coupled with a desire to return. However, such stratagems remain confined within the domain of commonplace tactics employed amongst us.
Nonetheless, scientific experts employed by Kraft are engaged in formulating a process to extract the secretion from a beaver’s anal glands and convert it into strawberry flavoring. A subsequent cohort of experts scrutinizes its consistency, devising a methodology to bypass the primeval reptilian wiring embedded in your cerebral cortex, thereby obfuscating your comprehension of the potential detriment of consuming two bags of chips alongside a quart of ice cream in the long term. Social media operates analogously.
Our engagement encompasses communication. Moreover, we employ hyperbole, puns, satire, and parody as mechanisms for conveying our intended messages. Moreover, it signifies a degree of deception, although social media symbolizes ultra-processed speech, mirroring the nature of Doritos in the context of sustenance. It’s engineered to circumvent the cerebral regions responsible for dissuading our involvement, steering us away from immersion in rabbit holes and preventing radicalization. You’re contending with this reality. These experts devise these instruments in a laboratory environment to circumvent our capacity to collaborate and coöperate.
At what juncture did these individuals assume this depraved nature?
They’ve perpetually exhibited unpleasant characteristics.
Ah. Hold a moment. We believed, or partially believed, that these individuals, given their attire consisting of jeans and sneakers and their cool disposition manifested by phrases such as “Don’t be evil,” and additional sentiments of that ilk—
Does that not mirror a sentiment articulated by an individual of malicious nature? Peter Thiel invariably expounds on Satan. “Satan, his presence may be ubiquitous. Potentially Greta Thunberg.” Alternately, he may embody an individual overseeing an entity designated Palantir. [Laughter.]
Hold a moment. You fail to acknowledge the early trajectories of these individuals’ careers. Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin proposed to facilitate access—should you occupy a desert locale bereft of library access, you could now peruse Shakespeare on your smartphone. Furthermore, this development proved extraordinary. The intention involved universally interconnecting individuals, thereby democratizing the press.
True. Correct.
Furthermore, their belief in it persisted. A substantial contingent of us subscribed to that conviction.
Invalid. They all aspire to emulate the exemplar. Each seeks to embody the subsequent Elon Musk. They aspire to prominence. Observe, we endure analogous circumstances stemming from our status as people. Our exceptional attributes retain the potential for weaponization against us. Nuclear energy is—as Robert Oppenheimer once proclaimed, “What potential could arise for undesirable outcomes?”
Jon, you’ve engaged with Joe Rogan on multiple occasions?
Affirmative.
What reflections do you retain concerning that experience?
I derived satisfaction from my interactions with Rogan. I believe he presents a compelling interview style. Acknowledgedly, there exist right-wing weaponized commentators whose exclusive objective entails manipulating matters to advantage the Steve Bannon initiative or Project 2025. Rogan doesn’t conform to that archetype.
What archetype does he embody? How would you delineate his essence?
That individual manifests as a curious comedian who stumbled into this sphere, which subsequently burgeoned into an enormous domain. He harbors viewpoints spanning the political continuum, though his proclivities fail to align with the aesthetic preferences of those on the left. He’s a—
Admittedly, he’s hosted individuals exhibiting a degree of Nazi sympathies. That’s objectionable.
Acknowledgedly, I’ve interviewed Henry Kissinger, who exhibited a penchant for carpet bombing. I’m uncertain as to the proper response. It’s convenient to condemn individuals associated with bygone stances deemed corrosive.
The disparity resides in the absence of your commendation of his carpet-bombing inclinations. As a counterpoint, Rogan occasionally listens to individuals situated at the perilous periphery of the spectrum and absorbs their sentiments without discernment.
My sentiment aligns with the validity of this assertion. He internalizes those notions without discrimination. Irrespective of who perceives that information as perilous, their responsibility encompasses advocating their perspective to refute what they deem misinformation. It’s inadequate to commission surrogates to embody your essence. You can’t deputize individuals to assert his presumed awareness and his accountability for prosecuting that viewpoint.
Nonetheless, Jon, the verity dictates that while I, the New York Times, or even you might assume that accountability, our audiences pale in comparison to Joe Rogan’s.
Then procure it. Then engage with that program. Engage in analogous endeavors. It proves unacceptable to merely declare, “I disapprove of his actions.” Outperform them at their respective stratagems. Our requirement entails tenacity and relentlessness. Simply voicing grievances about a platform and advocating for his deplatforming proves insufficient. The present domain lacks individuals bereft of platforms.
Frankly, my paramount apprehension lies in the tendency of many scientists to remark, “R.F.K., his notions are misguided. The information he disseminates is deplorable.” Acknowledgedly, O.K. Enumerate the pertinent details. Where are they situated? Disseminate your perspective. Contest.
I encountered slight turbulence—I was according an interview to a German publication. I asserted, “I would interview Hitler.” My presumption held that to be devoid of controversy. Are there individuals you would decline to interview?
My inclination revolves partially around the anticipations surrounding the interview. Bear in mind, our vulnerability stems from the belief that a sound interview will resolve the predicament. We speculate that a salutary interview might suppress the promulgation of misinformation.
I’ve assumed a position in alignment with effective interviews. Conversely, I’ve engaged with inadequate interviews—I interviewed Donald Rumsfeld. I endured greater sleep deprivation as a consequence of that interview than he experienced throughout the entirety of the conflict. Furthermore, do you acknowledge his subsequent conduct? He dispatched a note to me affirming, “That session held entertainment value.”
Jon, what perspectives do you maintain concerning the undertaking of comedians participating in Riyadh and receiving substantial remuneration?
My involvement remains distinct from handling others’ pecuniary resources. This predicament harbors intricacy. My inclination centers on renovating my residence. I seek to uphold integrity, but I lack a gatekeeping mentality. I abstain from soliciting advice from the font of hilarity nor do I encounter the paternal figures of—I perceive a multitude of comedians who vehemently denounced those individuals, and I discern that several among them exhibit the temperament of reprehensible individuals.
I would have favored candor and simple acknowledgment of the monetary compensation as opposed to assertions regarding its value as “a catalyst for initiating dialogue.” Would you have initiated said dialogue in exchange for twenty-five hundred dollars? Ultimately, the discrepancy stems from that divergence.
Upon reflecting on my professional trajectory, I recognize my engagement in various undertakings that failed to attain comparable—
Elaborate on your prior experiences. Did you embark on a journey to Turkmenistan to serenade at a matrimonial ceremony?
Observe, I labored for Apple. A prevalent sentiment prevails that Apple indulges in exploitative practices exhibiting horrendous traits. We each maintain our individually demarcated parameters that we permit ourselves to traverse. Lacking the disposition of Diogenes, none among us possess the traits of moral perfection. We encounter quandaries when we manifest inflexibility in any aspect, and we neglect extending leniency. That doesn’t denote an absence of individually demarcated parameters. I do endeavor to eschew rigidity—
Are you cognizant of the parameters in advance?
No.
I reference that matter, as, according to the conversation’s initiation, you confront an intricate predicament at Paramount.
Precisely.
Furthermore, you possess insights into actions you will abstain from undertaking. Should you discern supplementary developments transpiring within the corporation, do you possess awareness of the demarcation lines? Specifically, vis-à-vis news content?
That represents a critical observation. Preceding instances have precipitated my discontent. Conversely, were I to exhibit integrity, I might ascend and declare, “I relinquish my position.” Alternately, the exercise of integrity might involve persistence and ongoing engagement in the trenches.
The thrill of argumentative discourse holds immense appeal for me. The existence of discrepant viewpoints pervades every dimension, although I simultaneously appreciate grace. Members of my kinship inhabit the ideological fringe located to the right of Attila the Hun. In response to the questions concerning my facilitation of such individuals on my program, I articulate the regular occurrence of facilitating my uncle throughout each Thanksgiving celebration.
Coincidentally, I harbor affection for him. He manifests as a multifaceted human being possessing qualities I genuinely admire. Yet, that has become forfeit. We’ve forfeited the aptitude for cherishing individuals due to our pervasive application of litmus tests at every crossroads and in every instant.
Jon, your disposition has consistently struck me as idealistic, embodying American idealism. Furthermore, my recollection involves your statement surrounding 9/11 citing a view encompassing the towers from your abode. The subsequent disclosure revealed a view encompassing the Statue of Liberty.
The terrace proved exceptional.
That sentiment conveyed considerable American idealism manifesting in both diminutive and expansive forms.
I endorse it.
You currently persist in that conviction?
Unquestionably. Why abstain from that affirmation? Reflect on the exceptional individuals you encounter daily. Reflect on the discreet activism of residing contentedly. Virtuous traits outnumber deleterious traits. I shall perpetually embrace that belief. My enduring conviction involves the odds’ disposition in our favor. Invariably.
Your remarks centered on idealists present within the Democratic Party, alongside figures deemed unequal to the assignment. Your affirmation recognized Mamdani as one such example. Concerning figures emerging on a national stratum bearing promise as leaders, who emerges to your awareness?
[Pause.]
Your allotted time span encompasses twenty minutes.
[Pause.]
An audience member has proclaimed you as the candidate.
Has the situation truly deteriorated to that degree? That assessment also embodies a function of exasperation.
An expression of desperation.
The crux of the issue resides in otherness. My existence remains distinct. Years prior, I attained victory in a poll entailing “Most Trusted Newsman in America.” My inability precludes recalling the entity responsible for administering it. The poll acknowledged my otherness. A phallic implement swathed in glitter could have claimed victory in that contest.
Never, amid the audiences attending the broadcast, has the desire for leadership proved so pronounced. The Democratic Party proves susceptible to a scenario mirroring the Republican Party’s transformation in 2016. Hopefully, an individual who harnesses that authority for benevolent ends, instead of self-aggrandizement and gratification, will emerge.
As an individual—Elaine once affirmed to Jerry—positioned “on the periphery of the humor enterprise,” do you deem Donald Trump to possess humor?
Humor, in the sense of laughter? [Laughter.]
I perceive him to exhibit a performer’s cadence. If he relinquished command over the Army, his presence would bear augmented amusement.
What accounts for the attribute? Its significance cannot be denied. Some entity connects with an audience through him.
Correct.
What trait does he possess?
He understands how to channel the frustrations residing within an audience. His aptitude encompasses perceiving the room and articulating that sentiment back to the collective. An indisputable connection manifests between him and his audience, thereby obviating the commonplace norms of engagement. Regrettably, the Democrats emulate Wile E. Coyote operating within the confines of the Acme Corporation, sustaining a fallacious presumption of his capture.
“His conviction on thirty-four felony counts precludes the prospect of victory.” “Now, we possess incontrovertible evidence with his indictment on . . .” Periodically, Donald Trump gains entry and asserts, “Meep meep. Pew.”
What stratagem proves effective in ensnaring the Road Runner? What event terminates this occurrence?
Enticement of the Road Runner stems from proffering a counterpoint beyond his negation, offering an enticement transcending negative space. We remain ensnared within a pattern in which the Democratic Party has embraced an agenda throughout four decades that incorporates supply-side economics and a neoteric perspective of how matters operate. Furthermore, the belief persists that gains for workers will materialize through enhanced unionization. The assumption remains that marginalized populations merely require superior lobbyists. Specifically, the Democrats necessitate a coherent vision. Irrespective of perceptions surrounding Donald Trump, his presentation to the audience conveys a lucid vision. My aversion precludes existence within that vision. My conviction precludes its augmentation of American greatness. The reality precludes its connection to the historical fabric of America.
This inquiry emanates from the audience. “Jon and David, your collective efforts have sounded an alarm regarding the state of American democracy since 2016. Approaching a decade of issuing warnings of impending doom, do you speculate that the populace discerns your message?”
[Pause.] Is it viable to simply phrase, “Dear David and Jon, why not relinquish your existence? What compels your daily ascendance?”
A concurrent sentiment resonates within my consciousness. Do you possess an explanation?
It remains immaterial. My sphere of control remains limited to my own domain. Individuals inquire, “Do you presume the efficacy of your endeavors?” Lacking comprehension, I remain compelled to act. Abandonment of the development of an internal compass indicating morality and integrity and subsequent utilization of that compass to govern one’s existence renders one susceptible to other’s judgment. Furthermore, I lack authority over that sphere. Absence of dominion remains over others’ perception of me.
What influence do your explorations into alternative formats, particularly podcasts, exert on the audience’s composition? Is the mode of connection unique, or is it the same?
Lacking comprehension, such is the nature of communication. The inhabitants of my sphere are confined to my dwelling. Inquiries arise regarding the experience of appearing on television. Replying mirrors the sentiments of abstaining from television. Visual accessibility exists, but our interaction remains unilateral. Lacking comprehension of the audience’s response, their influence on it eludes me. The information remains intangible. I wish to attain cognizance. Its potential effect consists of harm. My lack of comprehension remains constant.
What has been your reaction to observing and analyzing the Gaza situation over the last couple of years? Have you noticed any effects?
Tremendous enjoyment at Passover gatherings.
Affirmative.
Evidently, this occurrence introduces a fraught and intricate emotional dimension for numerous Jewish individuals. Persisting, I strive to engage in transparent, authentic discourse to the extent practicable, maintaining amenability for discourse even if such conduct precipitates distress among sectors. A position of intensity resides in the horror surrounding that sphere, encompassing all aspects. My alliance manifests with humanity.
Throughout my maturation period,
Sourse: newyorker.com
