'The Interview': Andrew Schulz, 'Podcast Bro,' Might Be America's Foremost Political Journalist

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Interview": Andrew Schulz, 'Podcast Bro,' Might Be America's Foremost Political Journalist

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Daily
• Host/Author: The New York Times
• Episode: "The Interview": Andrew Schulz, 'Podcast Bro,' Might Be America's Foremost Political Journalist
• Release Date: June 21, 2025

Hosts: Michael Barbaro, Rachel Abrams, and Natalie Kitroeff

Description: This episode delves deep into the career and influence of comedian and podcaster Andrew Schulz. Known for his irreverent and anti-woke stand-up comedy, Schulz has also made a significant impact through his podcasting ventures, positioning himself as a leading voice in political discourse.

---

1. Introduction and Background

The episode opens with host David Marchese introducing Andrew Schulz, highlighting his rise as a prominent comedian and podcaster. Schulz is recognized for his bold, anti-woke humor and has expanded his influence through popular podcasts like Flagrant with Aakash Singh and Brilliant Idiots with Charlamagne Tha God.

Notable Quote:

• [00:41] David Marchese: "Andrew Schulz has arguably become even better known for his podcasting... which has made him one of the leading lights of the so-called manosphere."

2. Career Rise and Cultural Shifts

Schulz discusses the pivotal moment in his career when he transitioned from struggling to secure traditional stand-up gigs to leveraging the internet to reach a broader audience. By releasing his own special online, he tapped into an appetite for edgy comedy that traditional media was hesitant to promote due to cultural sensitivities at the time.

Notable Quote:

• [03:19] Andrew Schulz: "When I put out a 20-minute version of my special online, I started selling out comedy clubs the very next weekend. That's when I realized there was something significant happening on the internet."

3. Podcasting vs. Stand-Up Comedy

The conversation explores the differences between creating stand-up specials and podcast content. While stand-up relies heavily on live audience reactions and visual cues, podcasts offer a more flexible format where listeners can engage at their own pace, even if they tune in intermittently.

Notable Quote:

• [05:51] David Marchese: "On the podcast, you go for two hours, but do you change your material knowing people might be tuning in and out?"
• [05:57] Andrew Schulz: "We're still going to have the same conversation and endeavor to make you want to tune in the entire time."

4. Integrity and Audience Expectations

Schulz emphasizes the importance of maintaining authenticity over pandering to audience expectations. He acknowledges the temptation to tailor his content for maximum appeal but chooses to prioritize genuine expression, even if it means sacrificing some potential earnings.

Notable Quote:

• [06:48] Andrew Schulz: "If you create something authentic, you're going to make less money, but you maintain your integrity, which is the most important thing for me."

5. Media Labeling and Perception

The discussion shifts to how Schulz's podcasts are perceived and labeled by media and critics. Schulz addresses the criticisms of being part of the "manosphere" and the challenges of being misrepresented through selective excerpts.

Notable Quote:

• [07:40] Andrew Schulz: "We talk for six hours a week on a podcast. A 30-second excerpt, you can do whatever you want with it. And that's the cost of putting out content."

6. Responsibility of Influential Podcasters

Schulz reflects on the responsibilities that come with having a large and diverse audience. He acknowledges that with influence comes the potential to shape political discourse and the importance of using that platform thoughtfully.

Notable Quote:

• [58:21] David Marchese: "What responsibility might come with the authority that popular podcasters have?"

7. Emotional Sensitivity and Personal Growth

Schulz opens up about his personal journey with emotional sensitivity and therapy. He discusses the challenges of articulating feelings in real-time and his commitment to personal growth, especially in the context of his growing responsibilities as a public figure.

Notable Quote:

• [46:23] Andrew Schulz: "I'm working on understanding why I react to certain things and why justice is so important to me."

8. Political Engagement and Interviews

A significant portion of the interview focuses on Schulz's role in political discourse, particularly his interviews with prominent figures like Donald Trump. Schulz defends his approach to interviewing, emphasizing his commitment to asking questions that are personally important to him rather than pandering to audience expectations.

Notable Quote:

• [16:53] Andrew Schulz: "With the Trump interview, I had three things I wanted to ask him... Protecting IVF, empathy for illegals, and foreign wars."

9. Use of Language and Slurs in Comedy

The conversation delves into Schulz's use of derogatory terms in his comedy, discussing the line between offensive language and humor. Schulz explains his selective approach to language, emphasizing context and intent, and debates the evolving standards of what is considered acceptable.

Notable Quote:

• [27:14] Andrew Schulz: "Words can be made harmful by people outside my immediate circle, but I don't want to curtail my speech completely to avoid offending anyone."

10. Influence of Podcasts on Political Discourse

Schulz and Marchese discuss the broader impact of podcasts on politics, considering how influential podcasters like Schulz shape political opinions and the responsibilities that come with their platforms. Schulz argues that podcasts offer a space for more genuine and unfiltered conversations, which can influence listeners' political perspectives.

Notable Quote:

• [61:04] David Marchese: "What influence might popular podcasters be having on politicians and political discourse?"

11. Partisan Shifts and Party Dynamics

Schulz analyzes the shifting dynamics within the Democratic and Republican parties, attributing changes to broader cultural movements and internal party transformations. He posits that parties evolve based on constituent needs and external influences, leading to realignment and shifts in policy priorities.

Notable Quote:

• [35:49] Andrew Schulz: "The Democrats are tied to the same corporations as Republicans, making it hard for them to push back against those influences."

12. Final Thoughts and Future Directions

In concluding the interview, Schulz reflects on his personal growth, ongoing therapy, and aspirations to continue fostering authentic and impactful conversations through his platforms. He emphasizes the importance of empathy, understanding, and maintaining integrity in both his personal life and professional endeavors.

Notable Quote:

• [46:43] Andrew Schulz: "Learning about why I react to certain things and why I care about justice is part of my ongoing journey."

---

Conclusion: Andrew Schulz emerges in this interview as a multifaceted figure balancing the realms of comedy and political journalism. His commitment to authenticity, coupled with his influence through podcasting, positions him as a significant voice in contemporary political discourse. Schulz's reflections on integrity, responsibility, and personal growth provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by modern podcasters navigating cultural and political landscapes.

Notable Closing Quote:

• [70:34] Andrew Schulz: "We get to talk shit for a living with our friends and interview presidents and historians. This is awesome."

Transcript

[Sophos Ad]

This podcast is supported by Sophos. Many businesses think they're not ready for enterprise level tech or they're stretched too thin to manage that tech. But with Sophos, no matter your business size, you get enterprise grade technology and real world expertise. Always in sync, always in your corner. Sophos MDR is made up of more than 500 analysts who are on hand to alert you when, not if, a cyber attack strikes. And you can manage all security alerts effortlessly in Sophos Central. Don't sacrifice your peace of mind as you grow your business. Learn [e-mail].

[David Marchese]

From the New York Times.

[Andrew Schultz]

This is the Interview. I'm David Marchese. This week my subject is the comedian and podcaster Andrew Schultz. He's become an arena headliner on the strength of his very irreverent, defiantly anti woke standup. He is extremely un shy about leaning into raunch slurs and ethnic jokes. His most recent special though, which is.

[David Marchese]

Called Life and which came out earlier.

[Andrew Schultz]

This year, did see him move into more vulnerable territory. It's about his and his wife's experience with ivf, but it's still pretty not safe for work. Despite all his success with standup, Schulz has arguably become even better known for his podcasting, his shows Flagrant with Aakash Singh and Brilliant Idiots with Charlemagne the God Are Appointment listening for millions, and.

[David Marchese]

Not just for humor, but for their.

[Andrew Schultz]

Political discussion as well. That's led to him becoming one of the leading lights of the so called manosphere, though I doubt that's a term he'd ever apply to himself. But whatever you want to call Schultz's platform, it's definitely influential. Donald Trump went on Flagrant last fall ahead of the presidential election, and this year progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have been guests on the show, which for me begs the question of what it is exactly that Schultz is trying to achieve with flagrant and what, if any, responsibilities he feels he has. Oh, and just a quick note before we start. First, Schulz refers a couple times in our interview to Felice. Felice is a video producer on the show who was in the room while we spoke. And second, this interview contains language that some people may find offensive. All right, here's my interview with Andrew Schultz.

[David Marchese]

Andrew, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. I appreciate it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Absolutely. I'm honored. Thank you for having me.

[David Marchese]

You know, the people listening or watching won't realize this, but both the camera guys in here have mustaches. Our engineer in the Adjacent room. Mustache. Our producer, who you were just talking with. Mustache. I didn't get the memo. What happened?

[Andrew Schultz]

I don't know. But, like, I walked in here, I told Felice that there's a lot of testosterone, she's safe. There's nothing that could possibly happen. Okay. If anybody walks through that door, you got four mustaches ready to tear their head off. And me, I don't know about you. I think you're gonna be with Felice, and I think we're gonna keep you safe as well.

[David Marchese]

David, nothing's gonna happen. Okay.

Okay. So to start.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

You know, I think it's fair to say that it's probably in the last four or five years that you've really had a blow up in your career.

[Andrew Schultz]

Sure.

[David Marchese]

What do you think has shifted in the culture to enable you to come to prominence the way that you have?

[Andrew Schultz]

I have trouble, like, figuring out exactly when it happened, but when I first started posting stuff on the Internet, specifically standup, things changed for me in my career. So essentially, I was trying to get, like, an HBO special or back in the day, this is like, Netflix has just come into prominence, so it's like. Or Comedy Central. I was just trying to get on anything. I tried to get five minutes, and I couldn't get any motion with standup. And out of desperation, like, I filmed my own special, pitched it everybody, nobody wanted it. And I was like, I'm gonna put this online. I think there is an appetite for comedy online. And at the time, I think that there was, like, a little bit of a, you know, sensitivity, especially in corporate America, about, like, edginess and jokes, et cetera, which I think is, like, completely gone the other way now. But at the time, people are really sensitive or concerned. And so my gamble, which was not really it was just pure desperation, was maybe if I put this out on YouTube, there will be an audience that likes this type of comedy. And I had confidence in it because I was touring the country doing comedy clubs every weekend and, like, seeing audiences react to the comedy. And, like. So I put it out and a weird thing happened. Like, I got, like, some data from talking to people. Not people in the industry, just friends. They'd be like, yeah, I watched, like, 20 minutes. Like, everybody watched only, like, 20 minutes. I was like, okay, maybe it's too long, especially for someone you don't know.

[David Marchese]

Right.

[Andrew Schultz]

Like, getting an hour out of somebody's day is difficult. Like, everybody has a minute. Everybody has five minutes. Everybody's maybe 20. So I think I put out, like, a 20 minute version of it. And the next weekend I sold out a comedy club. And I was never like a sellout, a comedy club guy at that point in my career. And I was like, well, that's kind of cool. And I didn't attribute it to the special. And then the next weekend, I sold out another one. I was like, what the. Like, is this from the special? Like, and then I started putting out a new joke every week for a year. 52 weeks of comedy, I think I called it. And tickets kept on selling and just momentum kept on building. And I was like, whoa, there's really something over here on the Internet. And I can be like my authentic self with comedy, despite what the cultural sensitivity of the time is, which you can't really control. And it just continued to build.

[David Marchese]

It's interesting because on the one hand, we think of people's attention spans as being extremely limited and you need to chop stuff up. But then on your podcast, you'll go for two hours or Rogan will go three and a half hours. So if you know that in all likelihood people are tuning in and out of attention to what you're doing on the podcast.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

Does that change how you think about the material that constitutes the podcast?

[Andrew Schultz]

No. We're still going to have the same conversation and endeavor to make you want to tune in the entire time. But, like, you might be driving. Like, you don't have to watch every second of it. Whereas, like, with a stand up special, you want to watch, you want to understand, like, the tension, you want to see the, you know, ideally my face and how I'm reacting to these things. And the audience can be an instrument in a way, and you're kind of playing with it. It's almost like horror film. Honestly, how I edit comedy specials is like a horror film. There's just tension release, and it's hard to feel that unless you're watching.

[David Marchese]

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

[Andrew Schultz]

A way where you could just run it up every episode. But if you actually are trying to, like, create something authentic, you're gonna make less money. But the benefit of that in the long run is that you maintain your integrity and you maintain your authenticity, which is like the most important thing for me. Now, if I authentically feel a certain way about something and that thing happens to be popular. I'm not going to change my feeling on it just because it's popular. I am a contrarian in some ways, but I'm not going to say that New York is not the best city in the world just because everybody else is saying it. They're right. You know what I mean? And oftentimes what happens is you'll have an opinion that's maybe a little bit different, and you'll be rebuked for that opinion for years. And then people will start to come around, and then the same people that rebuked you will start echoing those sentiments with no accountability whatsoever. So it's like, close that loop on.

[David Marchese]

Not getting the connection.

[Andrew Schultz]

This is like a. So we had, like, Bernie on the pod, who I love, and, you know, we were just talking about, like, the way that he had been painted in 2016, that there was a Bernie Bros. Problem, that his supporters were racist, sexist, and bigoted. And then I asked him about it, and he was like, yeah, I mean, this is, you know, done by the dnc. And, you know, they saw these amazing rallies we were doing with all this diversity, and it was this beautiful thing. And they tried to make us radioactive. I go, it's interesting. Like, during this election, we asked all these Democrats to come onto the podcast. None of them came on. And Republicans made appearances on the podcast more. And they called us the not Bernie Bros. The podcast bros. And they said we're sexist, bigoted.

[David Marchese]

And who is they in this example?

[Andrew Schultz]

That's a good question. I should give you, like, an exact answer. I think that there was like.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, I just wonder if this is a straw man that you've. Yeah, that after the fact that I've.

[Andrew Schultz]

Created, maybe the question I would ask is, do you think that that was an unfair representation? That, like, there are certain media figures labeling the. The. The manosphere and the podcast bros that way?

[David Marchese]

I think that's right. Yeah.

[Andrew Schultz]

So you have heard that.

Yes.

So who would they be for you?

[David Marchese]

The media.

[Andrew Schultz]

That's what I just said.

[David Marchese]

No, you said they. I said something specific.

[Andrew Schultz]

You think that yours is more specific?

[David Marchese]

Yeah. Journalists, commentators.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah. I fear if I said the media, you would have been who specifically? You would have said the same thing. I feel like your answer is just as vague. And I'm not trying to bully you into position. What I'm trying to expose is that I don't think that I was, like, pinpointed enough on my accusation. And it is a kind of big accusation. But I'm glad that you agree?

[David Marchese]

Yeah. I guess what just is interesting, when people have a perception that somehow they're being sort of attacked or labeled. The inclination for me is to wonder like, well, is that happening? And I think in your case, I.

[Andrew Schultz]

Don'T think it's nefarious intent, by the way. I think that, like, when you talk for two or three hours on a podcast every week, you can take excerpts from it and make me look ridiculous. You can make me look however you want. You can make me look like the. The sweetest, kindest, like, loving dad. You can make me look like an absolute tyrant. We talk for six hours total a week on a podcast. A 30 second excerpt you can do whatever you want with. And that's the cost that we have to take on for putting out content. We can't complain about that. It's more just like oftentimes getting labeled a certain thing and then everybody, kind of, not everybody, but seeming like culture maybe catching up or coming around to it. And there doesn't seem to be much accountability of maybe we shouldn't have said those things about those guys for calling Biden old. Now that we're all saying that we covered up the fact that he maybe wasn't actually the president. So then I'm in this situation where I'm like, I shouldn't make a big deal about this because that's selfish. What I should do is just be like, hey, it's cool that we're all agreeing on something and I shouldn't punish you for agreeing. You know, that would be like the mature thing, you know?

[David Marchese]

You know what's funny? I have this long list of questions that I have structured in such a way as to try and like, get to the more provocative material in like a incremental way. But I feel like we could just get into things with you and I wouldn't have that kind of work.

[Andrew Schultz]

You don't have to do whatever. Also, I love when you're self reflective in your interview. So, yes, you like ruminating on what you're feeling in the moment is good.

[David Marchese]

All right. Thank you.

[Andrew Schultz]

Feelings are hard for me, man. You just know what you're feeling every second of the day.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, pretty much. Why are they hard for you? It doesn't seem like someone for whom feelings are hard.

[Andrew Schultz]

No, I'm very sensitive.

[David Marchese]

But articulating them in the moment. No, no, no.

[Andrew Schultz]

It's like understanding the type of feeling I have. This is something I'm learning with like therapy and shit, where it's like, I'm very used to be like, you did this thing to me, and it doesn't matter. That doesn't matter what you did, because it might not even be your attention to do that thing. But if I say I feel rejected by you saying that now, you're like, oh, shit, I didn't want to make you feel rejected. But I have to understand the feeling of rejection more than the feeling of justice. I'm justice oriented. Like, if I see somebody cut Felice in line and I don't even know Felice, I'll tap them on the shoulder, be like, no, the line's back here. I'm crazy like that.

[David Marchese]

Like, justice is important, even if it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Has nothing to do with me.

[David Marchese]

You know what I mean?

[Andrew Schultz]

I do. So.

[David Marchese]

All right, good.

[Andrew Schultz]

Just ask. No prep, nothing.

[David Marchese]

Let's go. So you said you asked Democrats to be on the podcast. Presumably we're talking about, like, last fall.

[Andrew Schultz]

In the run up to the election.

[David Marchese]

So who did you have before that?

[Andrew Schultz]

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

[David Marchese]

About what?

[Andrew Schultz]

About us reaching out.

[David Marchese]

They say they didn't.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah. And it's just wild. It's wild to blatantly lie when not only did I reach out. Charmaine, who's, like, working with them, reach out. Mark Cuban, who's a surrogate, reached out on our behalf, and we reach out, and they just blatantly lie. And then when people will write articles about it, they will lie by telling the truth. Meaning they'll say, like, flagrant or Andrew says he reached out to Kamala, but we reached out to the Kamala people, and they said that that never happened. So what is the reader supposed to interpret that as?

[David Marchese]

It's an evasion, and I think it's.

[Andrew Schultz]

An indictment on me because it's almost like calling me a liar.

[David Marchese]

Yes, this is the justice oriented part of you that's coming out right now. But so you had this interest in.

[Andrew Schultz]

Having Bernie as well, Obama as well, Clintons. We got close. I want a Bill on.

[David Marchese]

In having Democrats on, and it didn't happen in the fall of 2024 this year. In the past couple of months, you've had Bernie, you've had Buttigieg. And so the lag between actually having Democrats on in this space of all voices and wanting to have them on, you're saying, is solely because the Democrats wouldn't come on.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

And so why are they doing it now?

[Andrew Schultz]

What do you think?

[David Marchese]

I want to hear you say it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Well, what is your feeling?

[David Marchese]

Well, because they decided it's advantageous for.

[Andrew Schultz]

Them, and then before, they probably thought that they didn't need it. Also, I wouldn't say that they holistically decided that it was advantageous to them because I think the party is quite fractured. There's the Bernie side of the party, and then there's probably the frontrunner now being like, Buttigieg side of the party. And I think Buttigieg comes on and has his bigger interview of his career. And then all of a sudden the Bernie side is like, yeah, we'd love to come on. I also think, like, having Buttigieg come on, like, made it made me feel safe, you know, for others. Yeah, we're not a gotcha pod. If we're asking you to come on, it's because we're interested in you. We're interested in, like, the decisions you want to make and how it's going to affect, you know, Americans. That's, like, really important to me. So I was awesome having Pete on. Yeah. I thought he was great. Like, smart guy, like, doesn't, like, talk down or finger Wagner. You know, it's a very rare thing now in politics. But he'll meet you where you are, and then after meeting you where you are and disarming you and making you not feel like you're stupid for disagreeing, then he'll try to show you his side, and you're so much more willing to indulge in it.

[David Marchese]

And so I think the way you just put it was that you think it's important for Americans to have politicians on and to. Or you want to meet them for us, too.

[Andrew Schultz]

I want to, but, Leah, so let's.

[David Marchese]

Take the example of your interview with Donald Trump. I know that you're not a journalist.

[Andrew Schultz]

Correct. But am I not? I might be the foremost political journalist in my country.

[David Marchese]

You know, it's possible. It's possible.

[Andrew Schultz]

Like, what makes somebody that it's such.

[David Marchese]

A. I don't know that it's your job in the way that it would be a journalist's job to ask particular questions of political figures. But in your interview with Donald Trump, do you feel like you did the necessary work of asking him difficult questions?

[Andrew Schultz]

Do you think that's necessary? Yes, I will answer in a second. But, like, why is it? Well, that's assuming that I didn't ask the difficult questions. So I don't know what you think the goal of journalism is specifically. Is it to ask the things you're curious about? Do you have a responsibility for your audience within the New York Times? Do you have a responsibility for the New York Times audience? Do you have responsibility for casual people that sometimes, like, how many people are you responsible for? Are you responsible for people in Dubai, China, Japan? They might have certain curiosities that you didn't address at one point. You're gonna let somebody down. So what I'd like to see more is people asking the questions that they are curious about themselves instead of trying to pander to what their audience is curious about. And for me, with the Trump interview, I had three things I wanted to ask him about, and I asked them those things, and that's what I felt was.

[David Marchese]

And for people who didn't see it, what were those three things?

[Andrew Schultz]

Protecting ivf. My wife and I had a baby through ivf, and it was really important to me that he would do something to make sure that that was protected, especially with the abortion bans. And he specifically said that he would and the federal government would make sure that it was protected. Let's see if that actually happens, if there's federal support for people that are going through it. That was crucial for me. For me, it was empathy for illegals that are here that are not breaking the law, that have been working here, and a pathway to citizenship, which it doesn't look like has been happening. This is very disheartening for me. And to the foreign wars. I think it's really hard for Americans specifically to be struggling so much. And then the perception of all this money leaving the country to go fight these wars in places that we'll never go visit, I think that's hard for Americans. Really difficult. And you start to feel like you're left out. So, yeah, those are the three things that I really want to talk to about. And I did. But what's interesting about that interview is that the second it came out, the Kamala campaign and the Trump campaign were posting the same clips of the interview. It was lauded by both parties. It was really interesting, and it really just exposes it. Life's a Rorschach test.

[David Marchese]

You had These three things you wanted to ask Donald Trump. And that also means you didn't really ask that much about economic policy. Right. Which for a Bernie supporter, I thought, oh, that's weird that. I think you told Bernie. It broke your heart. When Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, I thought, oh, it's strange that he's not asking Donald Trump about more pointed questions about economics.

[Andrew Schultz]

What did I ask Bernie about economics?

[David Marchese]

Well, you guys talked a lot about economic inequality, but what about policy? It's an issue that matters to you. I don't know the specific question. The question is about.

[Andrew Schultz]

Specifics are important.

[David Marchese]

The question is about the.

[Andrew Schultz]

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

[David Marchese]

Yes, I asked you a question.

[Andrew Schultz]

That's where it feels gotcha to me.

[David Marchese]

It doesn't feel gotcha. I'm sorry, I can't tell you how you feel.

[Andrew Schultz]

No, this is good. We're both. Oh, this is good. Therapy's good. This is good. Okay. This is. This is. I love. That was awesome.

[David Marchese]

Yeah.

[Andrew Schultz]

But that's where I felt like it was gotcha. I don't know if that's your intent right there at all. I can't put anything on intent. But I felt gotcha. Because I asked you, what would you have liked me, and you didn't have an example. And then you brought up the Bernie as a thing to add more weight to your thing. And then there wasn't any convo about that in that moment. What I felt like is, oh, he's trying to point me out as doing something inadequate in this interview. But the only goal of his question was, was to expose inadequacy, not to actually learn something.

[David Marchese]

So to me, that's like.

[Andrew Schultz]

That felt like gotcha. Actually, gotcha is not a feeling.

[David Marchese]

Gotcha's not a.

[Andrew Schultz]

It puts the blame on you. So that's when I was talking about feelings I gotta get better at. I felt. I don't know. I'll figure it out. I'll talk to my therapist about it. I'm working on it.

[David Marchese]

David, wait. Let me try and come up with a different one then. So you and your wife, you went through the IVF process to have your child, and that's why IVF was an important subject for you to bring up with Donald Trump. And then when you're having that conversation with him, you know, you said, I'm paraphrasing. I'm not going to get exaggerated, but something like, I think it's important for women, moderates to hear that.

[Andrew Schultz]

I don't recall saying that. Oh, was I saying, like, women who might be on the fence about who you are as, like, a person and, like, how much you care about their. And their ability to make choices with their bodies.

[David Marchese]

Right. But then this is not.

[Andrew Schultz]

How'd that. Yeah, how'd it make you feel? Do you think it was, like, trying to, like, promote him or something like that to them?

[David Marchese]

It made me feel confused because there was then also no mention or suggestion of the fact that Donald Trump was credibly accused of groping a bunch of women or that he was found liable in a civil suit for sexual abuse. Why was, like, one thing important to hear and not another? That's an example where I thought, like, oh, this. Something about the balance or frame here feels to you strange.

[Andrew Schultz]

Well, I think it's a fair question. The reaction I would have is like, what is less known? I don't think that there's a person on the planet that doesn't know that Donald Trump was like, you could grab him by the pussy. I don't think there's a person on the planet that doesn't know about the civil suit. People have done a pretty good job of getting that information out there. What people might not know is that he really wants to fight to protect ivf. And that might be really important for a woman who goes, yeah, I know all this horrible stuff that this guy has been accused of or convicted of doing. But the most important decision for me right now is I want to have a family, and I want assistance in that and I want support in that. And unfortunately, in elections, we look past certain transgressions because there are certain things that are more important to us. So if you're a trans person, I totally understand if you're like, I can't vote for that guy. It doesn't look like he's gonna allow me to live the life that I wanna live and live that life freely. They she or he has to go to the other option because that's the one thing that's most important to their life. So I think by your standard, you wish that I brought up the things that he had done in referencing that.

[David Marchese]

To make the conversation feel more balanced.

[Andrew Schultz]

To make it feel more balanced. Okay. Yeah. I don't think that that's unfair. I guess what I would say Is that, like, as an interviewer, I would be like, am I bringing that up for the person that hates Trump so that they're disarmed? And then am I doing this interview for the audience, not for what I authentically want to ask him? There's even a part of me that wonders, as you ask me these questions, do you feel like you have to put some pressure on me with the Trump thing? Because your audience might be like, why didn't you ask him about having Trump on? Or do you genuinely want to do it?

[David Marchese]

I think in this instance, it's both.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah. And that's an honest, fair question. And, like, I go through that, too, where I'm like, what do I really want to know? What do I really want to ask this person? And what do I feel like I should? Or else I'll be criticized for. Not, like, when I had Bernie on, Like, should I have asked him about taking the private jets? Should I have asked him about having three houses? Like, I saw that. And I'm not equating this to, like, Donald Trump being, like, convicted of things, but still, like, I could have brought those things up and appeased certain people that are definitely in my audience, but the cost of that is, am I doing it just to appease them? One, and does it make him clam up and then not open up about these other things that I really want to know? Do I lose my authenticity to things that I'm really curious about and building that rapport so we can have this honest, open conversation to appease what somebody who already fucking hates Bernie and what he stands for? And that's the thing that you just gotta decide as an interviewer, when you're.

[David Marchese]

Thinking about what is or isn't authentic for you. Do you find that you have moments during interviews or when you're on other people's podcasts where you're consciously in the moment, choosing to say or not say something based on.

[Andrew Schultz]

That's a great question.

[David Marchese]

Whether it would be authentic for you.

[Andrew Schultz]

To say, I don't. I need to think on it. I don't think I'm going, is this authentic? I think I'm going, is this not because my knee jerk feeling about the world, I'll just say, I can kind of like, I have opinions about whatever you ask me, and I can give it to you, but if I chew on it a little bit, I might actually disagree with that knee jerk thing that I felt. But I think what I've noticed through standup and I've even noticed through podcasting is that if you say the thing that you're feeling in the moment or if you ask the question you're curious about, it always goes, well, it might be the most absurd thing. If somebody's missing an arm in the front row and you're just like, where'd it go? Everybody else that's seeing it is also thinking that same thing. And there's this beautiful catharsis. And that's, I guess, what I mean about authenticity. It doesn't mean it's right. My authentic feeling isn't necessarily the right thing in a moment, but it is true. And I can live with criticism for the thing that I believe in and the thing that I feel like is true to me. Being criticized for the thing that is fraudulent to you is like a double whammy. It's the worst. You were fake and you were rejected. Reject me for who I am. That's fine.

[David Marchese]

Here's something I am. This falls under the category of things I am legitimately curious about.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure.

[David Marchese]

So in your.

[Andrew Schultz]

The other stuff. No curiosity.

[David Marchese]

So in your standup and on the podcast or appearances on other podcasts, there are some, you'd call them slurs that you use.

[Andrew Schultz]

Sure, sure.

[David Marchese]

And I'm thinking of one in particular, you know, starts with R. Commonly used to describe intellectually disabled people. So you use that, I think, in the first minute of infamous. You use a derogatory term for Mexicans.

[Andrew Schultz]

Which ones? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But to the Mexican, right? Yeah, yeah, but they're in on it.

[David Marchese]

You know, there are other ones you use. But then there are other.

[Andrew Schultz]

It's in a compliment. I think it's important to like, contextually.

[David Marchese]

Oh, yes. I'd also like to say the thing that is, I think, important to note with your stuff is that it does never feel mean spirited. But then there are other derogatory terms that you don't go near. Like which like, you know, I've never heard you use a derogatory word for a Jewish person.

[Andrew Schultz]

Or really I blame Jews for homosexuality in the latest special.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, but that's.

[Andrew Schultz]

No, no, no. Homophobia.

[David Marchese]

But you don't use the derogatory word.

[Andrew Schultz]

Which one are you talking about? The K1.

[David Marchese]

K. Yeah, that would be the one. Yeah, that would be the one. But how do you decide which ones? Which ones don't.

[Andrew Schultz]

We'll call them like the small hats. But where are the line.

[David Marchese]

Where are your lines for language?

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah, yeah. The N word. I don't do. Yeah, The K word I don't really do.

[David Marchese]

Why certain ones and why not other ones?

[Andrew Schultz]

That's a good question.

[David Marchese]

If we accept they're all derogatory.

[Andrew Schultz]

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

[David Marchese]

What do I think of it? Yeah. That's a hard question. What do I think of the term? To me, it feels like, have you.

[Andrew Schultz]

Heard of a fire retardant?

[David Marchese]

Yeah. How do you feel about that word, the fire retardant? Retardant in that context means to slow something down.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah, yeah. And should we make a different word for that? But at a certain point.

[David Marchese]

But a fire retardant is not a human being.

[Andrew Schultz]

But the root word.

[David Marchese]

Yeah.

[Andrew Schultz]

Has a scientific definition that we have then labeled an emotional painful pejorative that we could also remove that label. I think that it's mainly labeled by people who are not dealing with mental illness. I think it's people who want to often, like parents, who want to protect people who have these mental disabilities. So we're doing this thing, which is beautiful at its core, which is to protect the people who may not be able to protect themselves, but we don't truly know if they are hurt by that. Now, if a parent ever said, hey, that word hurts me and I want you to say it, I'm never gonna say it in front of them. I don't wanna hurt you. That's not my goal. But if they're like. And I don't want you to ever say it again in your life, then I'm like, that's not gonna happen. I'll never say it around you. Cause I just don't wanna hurt you. I wanna have fun. I want you to enjoy. But you can't dictate what I do or don't say. But the reality is, like, there's always gonna be somebody offended by a word or opinion or whatever you say. So at a certain point in time, what do you do? You just curtail how you speak completely so that you don't offend people? Or do you just have your constitution and understand who you are as a person and you go on living life and accept the blowback that comes with that?

[David Marchese]

You know what's just straight about that word. In particular, where I saw Joe Rogan said something like, the lack of inhibition about using that word is somehow a cultural victory.

[Andrew Schultz]

I need to know the context of that conversation. What I would presume it's this idea that we're no longer going to be policing language as strictly as we had maybe in like the last five or six years, and that we're going to understand intention a little bit more and we're not going to. I think there are people that, like, have great intentions and they're really trying to protect communities. And I think there are people that also have, like, bad intentions and they're just trying to bludgeon people with criticism. And it's a power move. And I've seen it happen. Like, this person said this on a podcast. We are going to email every one of their sponsors and ask those sponsors to drop them. Now, that's interesting. That seems like that person is trying to exert an immense amount of power from a position that maybe they don't normally have that in their life. And I think that's a little bit gross.

[David Marchese]

So just thinking about Joe Rogan is now making me think of this idea that there's like a manosphere podcast world that appeals to young men in particular. And it has a lot to do.

[Andrew Schultz]

With, you know, ideas of masculinity.

[David Marchese]

And even though none of these shows, and when I say these shows, I'm thinking of Flagrant or Theophann or Joe Rogan's show, where these shows are certainly not seen as progressive. Why do you think that there is some idea of masculinity that progressives or the left has not been able to talk to?

[Andrew Schultz]

Why do you think?

[David Marchese]

You know, Andrew, it's very hard for me to come up with answers to.

[Andrew Schultz]

Questions like that because it's a tough question. I think you have a thoughtful answer.

[David Marchese]

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

[Andrew Schultz]

Off color shit with your buddies? Yeah, you do? It was fun. And it doesn't define you as a person and you feel comfortable saying it with your buddies because they know who you are.

[David Marchese]

But I just, I got away from my question. Why do you think the left has had a hard time?

[Andrew Schultz]

I don't think it's I think it's the nature of media a little bit. You know, when Joe is bringing somebody on, he's only bringing them on to ask him things that he's curious about. He's not going, I have to ask him these questions to make sure the interview is balanced so that my audience doesn't think that I was doing a puff, peep, whatever. So what I think is people prefer in general more genuine conversations, which is more curiosity based conversations instead of I already know how I feel about you and I'm going to prove to my audience that I'm right the way I feel about you. And I think what happens to that is, yeah, your audience that agrees with you will like it, but you can't bring everybody in. And so I think this is one part of it. I also think that the ability to kind of like speak freely, how you said before, what was it? When you're with your friends, you just kind of bust some balls, whatever the term is, which we all do. And saying maybe some of those, no, no words that we don't say here and we say we shouldn't say, but once we're with our friends, all of a sudden they're fine to say. So once you see those conversations on a podcast, that way more similarly reflect your life. And yeah, they're not trying to push a specific agenda now that you could make the argument that agendas are being pushed, by the way. So I would even like caveat that thing. But. But yeah, to me it's not surprising. And it happens on girl podcasts. They go fucking crazy, these girl podcasts as well. So it's not just oh, manosphere. There is immense curiosity in like authentic, genuine things. The New York Times is never going to do a get ready with me video.

[David Marchese]

I'm sure someone in this building has put thought into it, but you guys.

[Andrew Schultz]

Are probably like, that's it. I don't know. It's like, well, you better fucking get ready because these girls are doing on TikTok and they're getting millions of people to watch. So I think there's just been a shift towards more relatability. And I think that guys are definitely feeling more relatability on the guy pods. And then I think the girls are feeling more relatability on the girl pods. So to me it's just corporate media needs to. And I feel like it's already happening. Like this conversation is like a version of that where it's like they just need to make the adjustment to the new marketplace. And before when it's you know, the Times is competing with who else? CBS or the Post or these types of things. Like, you're all competing within the same rules. And then podcasts came in and threw out the rules. Say whatever curse words you want. Whatever. No, no words you want. Like, actually talk like you're with your friends. Well, yeah, that sounds way better.

[David Marchese]

You know, it's actually interesting to hear you put it like that, where you're sort of. We're all working under the same rules. Because it actually, for me, makes a conversation like this more difficult because there, like, are rules and expectations that.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah. What are some. I'd love to know. Like, what do you feel? Well, there's. Encumbered by.

[David Marchese]

The most obvious one would be, like, language, rules, you know, certain words. And I don't just mean, like, derogatory words, or there's even just sort of, like, an implicit style of conversation that I feel like I'm supposed to have that is actually, like, inhibiting a little bit in a conversation with you. And I'm feeling that in this conversation because it's like, oh, there's ways to talk with you that I think are actually made more difficult because it's like, I know there's sort of a little voice on my shoulder, but first of.

[Andrew Schultz]

All, this is another example of one of.

[David Marchese]

Don't say it again. Don't say again.

[Andrew Schultz]

Do you not like compliments?

[David Marchese]

And it's just. It's just comfortable for you. I don't like it. Why?

[Andrew Schultz]

You're so in touch with your feelings. I'm, like, so envious. It's, I think, a unique thing that, like, it makes me want to listen to your content more. It's like you're reacting in real time to. You hate compliments. What is that about?

[David Marchese]

But the thing I wanted to say was, you know, it's interesting, this idea of shift, right word for conservative young men and somehow, like, the manosphere is driving that.

[Andrew Schultz]

I wouldn't agree. Shift, right word. What I would say that this is a lot more of. And you asked specifically why maybe men are kind of drawn in this direction. And keep in mind, like, all of us. I can't. I don't know about Theo, but, like, Joe's Democrat his whole life. My Democrat. My whole life, like, registered Democrat.

[David Marchese]

Yeah. So you voted for Trump?

[Andrew Schultz]

I voted for Trump, yeah. Yeah. But I. To be honest, my vote was more like I voted against a Democratic institution, and I feel like was, like, stripping the Democratic process from his constituents. Like, I didn't like the way things were going. I Thought people were hurting, they didn't like the way things were going. And Kamala was literally just going, yeah, we're going to keep doing that. You can't be surprised if you go, yeah, I thought Joe did a great job. And we're going to keep on doing that if people are upset and they decide to vote in a different direction. So I think that the first reaction is, okay, we didn't do anything wrong. It was just podcast bros, that's what switched the election. And now I think they're starting to realize, oh, wow, maybe there's some policy things that people were unhappy with and we have to change that. And I think the most glaring example is that there were unions that did not endorse Kamala, they did not endorse the Democratic Party, and then there were some unions that endorsed Trump. If Democrats cannot win the votes of union workers, who are they for? To me, that says everything you worried about podcasts. The unions are going, we're gonna go with the Republican guys who are trying to break up unions. I think what happened is the Democrats, I think were, and I hate to make this so like Democrat, Republican, because it's not all Democrats, by the way. I think that there are some Democrats that are quite critical of this. You see, obviously Bernie, you see aoc. But I think what happens is the Democrats are tied to the same corporations that are funny Republicans, and they can't actually push back against those corporations because they get so much funding from them. And in order to really make it a class war, which you should, because that's honestly the thing that's gonna resonate with the most people. They can't do it, cuz they're in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, they're in pockets of the medical industrial complex, just like Republicans are as well. So what they have to do is they made it an identity politics issue. And I think that that was unrelatable probably and made people sway. And I would say that is part of it. And I would say the other part is, and I think that it's important to say this, for progressives in general, it is a harder job to be a progressive publicly than it is to be a conservative. Progressives are trying to push progress forward. How can we get more equity, more equality for our marginalized people? It is much harder to just fuck around with your boy on a podcast and say whatever words as we normally would when part of your identity and your agenda is to seem like push these things forward because it can be immediately used against you. Whereas a conservative can say Whatever they want, as long as they're not talking about the gun lobby or Christians and kind of say whatever. Because they're not exactly trying to push everything. It's not their identity to push. If anything, it's make America great again. It's like, let's roll it back a little bit. So I think it is a harder thing for Dems to do, and I think that's why they avoided the podcasts.

[David Marchese]

You're talking so intelligently about the Democratic challenge right now. But I was watching your appearance on the Trigonometry podcast, and you know the quote I'm gonna bring up for us?

[Andrew Schultz]

This is so disingenuous, but go on. This is so, like.

[David Marchese]

You'll tell me why it's disingenuous, but for people.

[Andrew Schultz]

It'S like, this is the exact example of the Rorschach test. But go on, go on.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, where you're talking about politics, you were talking about how you were Democrat and they sort of lost you and.

[Andrew Schultz]

No, no, I'll give it to you if you want.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, do it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

Okay.

[Andrew Schultz]

So the context of conversation was about like, did people change or have parties changed? Yeah, and I'm pretty sure. And then like. And I'm like, well, parties have changed their priorities, and then people haven't really changed theirs. Just parties have shifted in certain directions. So when I younger, Democrats are cool as hell. You know, Bill Clinton is playing a sax on Arsenio. He's smoking weed. You're like, oh, these guys are cool. Like, they embraced homosexual. I grew up in New York City. Like, I understand, like, the importance of the gay community and, like, making this an awesome place, you know, like, they embrace what I thought were minorities. I'm like, yo, this is awesome. And the perspective, when you're just a kid, you're not out there, you're like, oh, yeah, Republicans are just like some Southern racists. That's kind of what you thought. And then Republicans at the time were like, don't say bad words. Hip hop is bad. Rock and roll music is dangerous. They're like finger wagging, right? They're telling you what to do. And they're the ones that are, like, kind of inhibiting free speech. And Democrats were, perception wise, pushing it forward and protecting the free speech. And then I just create this exposition and I go, now Trump's got three baby mamas. And I go. And the Democrats are saying what words we can't say. You can't say, you know, retard or you can't say this. Like, you're policing speech. And you're. And the Republicans are like, yo, say whatever you want, you gotta do it. I'm like, wow, look at this shift in terms of the parties. Did the people move at all or have the parties move? And I say this thing. I'm being purposely reductive cuz I'm a comedian talking to comedians. And I'm like, I'm like, yeah, so I'm gonna vote. The guy gets three baby moms, so I'm voting for the guy with more who's getting more pussy or something like that. Yeah, I get how anybody who saw it out of the context of the conversation was like, this guy is an idiot. You voted for somebody because they get laid. But at the same time it's like, do you really think that that was like, at a certain point in time, can we afford even like a modicum of intelligence to the person saying something like, do you think that's the point? I was actually trying to demonstrate that all Democrats need to do is get laid and then, yeah, we'll vote for them. Ridiculous.

[David Marchese]

But the point was, or a point was that if Democrats exhibited more comfort with like a kind of libertinism, then that would be part of.

[Andrew Schultz]

Well, I, I think, I think it's a good extrapolation for it. But the point was actually that the people haven't shifted. We have these conversations all the time. Like you were saying earlier, like white males went to the right and it's like, I think a better way to look at it is have parties shifted? Like, we have no problem saying that Trump completely changed the Republican Party. Like it looks nothing like the party of ten years ago. Right. Like he completely transformed it. You could make the argument that like Bernie is transforming the Democratic Party. So we know that parties change and I think people kind of stay in their areas and parties shift and sometimes they can shift and grab more people. So that was the conversation I was trying to say. It's not people running away, it's parties running away. But who gets laid more, bro?

[David Marchese]

It's just so like, I saw it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Starting to go viral. I'm like, do I have to fucking address it? Like, oh God. It was like every pundit did something about it. Like, but whatever, I'm responsible. I shouldn't have said it like that. I should have found a way to make the point that wasn't so easily refutable. So that's on me.

[David Marchese]

When you said a second ago, you know, you're a comedian, you're on a podcast with other comedians.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

Do you Think there's something just like, slightly disingenuous about that. Because it's like, in the same.

[Andrew Schultz]

I know the argument you're gonna make where it's just like, we're using that as like a get out of jail free card.

[David Marchese]

But it's also. It's like, really is. When is somebody supposed to watching and are listening, they're supposed to minute to minute of the conversation be like, oh, now he's in comedian mode. Now he's in public commentator mode. Like, how?

[Andrew Schultz]

Always treat me as a comedian.

[David Marchese]

Always treat you as a comedian.

[Andrew Schultz]

Don't. Because I've never asked you to treat me any other way.

[David Marchese]

But you're talking seriously now.

[Andrew Schultz]

You are making me serious.

[David Marchese]

But I'm a comedian.

[Andrew Schultz]

To me, I'm always a comedian. You guys are deciding that I'm not. But do I have to be funny every second to be a comedian? When you're funny, do you stop being a journalist? No. So then why is it when I'm asking a serious question, I stop being a comedian?

[David Marchese]

Right, but when you say the serious thing.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah, go.

[David Marchese]

When you say the serious thing, does that then mean the reaction to the serious thing can always be defended just by saying, no, no, I was a comedian.

[Andrew Schultz]

When have I done that? I've heard this criticism about podcasters, but when have I gotten upset at the.

[David Marchese]

Reaction of like, no, but when you're saying that, no, no, I'm not saying I'm a political pundit. I'm just a comedian. That is your version of saying, it's not up to me to answer these questions about things I've said.

[Andrew Schultz]

That's not true. What question have I avoided?

[David Marchese]

I just feel like I think you understand the point I'm trying to make, and my semantics are not worth.

[Andrew Schultz]

No, it's not semantics. I think that you have an opinion about me and you're not willing to wiggle away from it, but you don't realize that I'm agreeing with you. So what I just did before when you brought up the baby mamas and Democrats thing is the last thing I said was I have to be better at what I communicate because I ultimately bear the consequences of that communication whether I'm joking or not. I go, I would love if I was afforded, like, a modicum of intelligence in the way that people interpret it, but that might not be happening. I'm saying, yeah, I'm a comedian. I'm busting balls with my friends, but I take on the responsibility of the reaction to that. If these people don't want to See me as a comedian. But what I would love is what you have, which is you get to be a journalist, but then when you make a joke, we don't go, hey, you were pretending to be a comedian there, and that joke that you did wasn't funny enough. So right now you never get to make jokes again because that joke you tried to make was not funny.

[David Marchese]

What I'm saying is that there is.

[Andrew Schultz]

Not an exact even exchange in the mirror between us, but I will take it on. I am. If I say something out loud, I bear the responsibility of it. That's the cost of this business. We get to talk shit for a living with our friends and interview fucking presidents and, like, thoughtful, like, historians and just somebody who thinks the pyramids were built by aliens. Like, this is awesome.

[David Marchese]

The experience you just had of trying to explain something to me and needing to do it, like, five times before I got it. Now you know what it's like to be my wife. How do you not understand what I'm saying?

[Andrew Schultz]

I've been there, bro.

[David Marchese]

I just did a joke. Did it too. See? See?

And if it wasn't funny enough, I.

[Andrew Schultz]

Want you to let him know, okay? He's. He's a journalist. Shouldn't be doing his comedy stuff.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, this may be the last question for now because, you know, we're talking again next week, but you mentioned just in passing being in therapy.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

What are you working on now?

[Andrew Schultz]

Just, you know, having, like, Just relationship. Like, having a kid is. Just throws everything for such a loop and. And you just gotta stay on it. So any way I can, like, improve in certain ways.

[David Marchese]

And so what are things that you need to improve on?

[Andrew Schultz]

Like, not. Not saying what the person is doing, but, like, saying what I'm feeling in a moment. You know, like, not trying to, like, win the interaction, but just, like, understanding how something affected me.

[David Marchese]

Yeah.

[Andrew Schultz]

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

[David Marchese]

And.

[Andrew Schultz]

And you're. And you're. You seem really frustrated, so I must be the reasonable one here. That's not necessarily the case. Yeah, so just, like, learning about that kind of stuff. And I wish I could do therapy every day. I'll Be honest. I think it's like, just understanding, like, why I react to certain things. Why is justice important to me? Why am I sensitive? Why do I care what people think? Why do I not care sometimes what people think?

[David Marchese]

When are the times that you care what people think?

[Andrew Schultz]

So, for example, that bummed me out when people took what I said at face value. It was fair with the trigger treatment. It's totally fair. I said it. You're allowed to react to it whoever you want. You're entitled to your reaction. But, like, that bummed me out a bit. I was like, oh, man, it's, like, so easy to discredit me as just some, like, dumb bro if you just look at that. So that was. That bummed me out. But then you just kind of. You keep on trucking, man, you know?

After the break, I talk to Andrew again, and he tells me what he's been thinking about from our first conversation.

[David Marchese]

You had a good question during the pod that I was like, I thought about, like, all week. You had several good questions, but, like, you're like, you don't say the N word or the K word, but you'll say other words. And I was like, I don't think that that's true. Like, I didn't know what to think of it in the moment.

[Podcast Producer]

Support for the perfect breakfast comes. Reminds. Breakfast had rules. It was sweet, it was savory, it was safe. Then someone brought out the ketchup. Not your usual breakfast move. And that's the point. Suddenly, hash browns found their soulmate. Aches got bold. Turns out ketchup is for breakfast. It has to be Heinz.

[Sophos Ad]

This episode is supported by Wealthfront. Markets can be unpredictable, but your cash doesn't have to be with Wealthfront's cash account. Earn 4% annual percentage yield on your cash from program banks with free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get a $50 bonus when you open your first cash account and deposit $500 at wealthfront.com thedaily bonus terms and conditions apply. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC. Member FINRA, SIPC. Not a Bank. APY and deposits as of December 27, 2024 is representative, subject to change and requires no minimum. Funds are swept to program banks where they earn the variable.

[David Marchese]

Andrew, thank you for taking the time to talk with me again.

[Andrew Schultz]

Of course.

[David Marchese]

So, you know, I was. I mean, I was thinking a lot about a lot of things from the conversation so far.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah.

[David Marchese]

But the first thing is, you know, you described yourself as a sensitive person.

Yeah.

Who also cares about what people think. About you. And part of your job is. Involves poking at sensitivities, which means that some people are going to think negative things about you.

Yeah.

And I thought, oh, that's an interesting psychological juxtaposition. So how might your own insecurities play into the work that you do?

I would say, like, the most specific or like, nuanced version of what we were talking about in the earlier part of the pod is like, I'm specifically sensitive about people believing I am somebody that I don't believe I am.

Right. So if you feel like you're being criticized for what feel like the right reasons or fair reasons, then you're able to deal with it.

Yeah. You had a good question during the pod that I was like, I thought about like, all week. Oh, you had several good questions. But like, you're like, you don't say the N word or the K word, but you'll say other words. And I was like, I don't think that that's true. Like, I didn't know what to think of it in the moment. And then you were even brought up, like, the R word, like, how I feel comfortable saying that one. And I really thought about and like, again, this is me, like, trying to like, ret fit my knee jerk feelings on it. Does that make sense?

Like, yeah.

And I think that, like, what makes a slur bad is like, it's a descriptor plus organized violence and perceived organized violence. And I think that, like, as humans, if we feel like there was organized violence along with a descriptor, we're like, ooh, that's bad. And if we don't remember or can't or aren't taught or it's like too far in the past that organized violence, we start to feel like it's not as heavy. And I think, like, that's why our reaction is different. You know, when it comes to maybe Latino slurs or when it comes to even Asian slurs, it's like, where's the organized violence?

It's very hard to talk in absolutes about these kinds of things, because when I heard you just give that definition, my mind immediately thought, well, I don't know if it's organized violence, but there definitely was a spike in violence against Asian Americans post pandemic. And like, does that count as organized violence? And then does that have some bearing on using slurs for Asian Americans? Because I feel like we could get stuck litigating word by word, you know, and it's just, I don't want to do that.

I agree with You. I think we're beyond, like, the word police. Like, I think if we get caught in, like. You don't want to be word police, David.

[Andrew Schultz]

I don't think.

[David Marchese]

I think that's like maybe five, ten years ago. I think we've moved on beyond word police.

But I appreciate that you brought up that you had been doing some reflecting on parts of the conversation that we've had up till now.

[Andrew Schultz]

Oh, yeah.

[David Marchese]

And I was wondering if you think there are ways in which your own sensitivities or maybe even insecurities might have shown up in our conversation.

[Andrew Schultz]

Sure.

[David Marchese]

I think that, like, to say no would be ridiculous. I think that, like, the world is constantly rebounding off of your insecurities or sensitivities and at least me. And like, I'm just trying to manage, like, what those reactions are. And sometimes I feel confident in those reactions and sometimes I reflect and go.

[Andrew Schultz]

Oh, wow, maybe that was.

[David Marchese]

Yeah, but I mean, I. I feel like you know the answer to that question. Do you think you were insecure at all in our conversation? If I go, no, I'm a psychopath, you know, so, yeah, of course. Yeah, I'm a fucking regular human being, David.

Yeah. You know, one thing that you said that stuck out for me, that perhaps relates is you said you can feel a need to win the interaction.

I said that that was the thing that I am working on.

I was wondering if. And also, Andrew, I want to be clear right now. In no question I ask, am I trying to trap you into anything. It's all coming from a place of curiosity and trying to understand. Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense. I don't know if I believe that you believe it, but I think it makes sense. I think, I think you would like to believe that of yourself, but I. I do think that you have, like, a line of thinking that you're getting towards and you're using questioning to get me to that. And so I am hesitant to simply just accept every single thing as a yes or no because that might be another rung of the ladder to get to this point where I might have to go, hold on, there's more nuance to what I just said.

You know, I did wonder if the way you so often turned the question I was asking you back around on me. Was that a way of trying to, like, wrong foot me or undercut the question or invalidate the questions? Cause.

[Andrew Schultz]

How so?

[David Marchese]

Well, cause, you know, there were times where I would ask you a question and you'd say, what do you think about that? And, you know, I didn't have answers or I didn't have good answers, but I thought it was interesting in retrospect because my ability to express an opinion or give an answer to the question I'm asking, especially questions that have some political content, it's like, supposed to be somewhat irrelevant. And I'm sure I'm guilty of hypocrisy in this sometimes, or I don't always ride the line as cleanly as I could. Like, it's the thing that I think I'm trying to do is giving people a chance to. To hear from subjects without my own political or ideological opinions filtering in. And that's kind of a big difference between what my job is and what your job is. And I think because of that difference, the question flipping it was something I really struggled with.

Why do you think you struggle with it?

Well, two things. One, and you're just flipping it again.

I'm just a curious guy. Like, I'm.

Well with the content that does have a political edge to it. I'm really not supposed to betray my own thinking and feeling.

Who's supposed to, according to whom?

Well, there is an idea of news journalism as impartial and objective. I'm not supposed to be putting my thumb on the scale. You know what I mean?

Well, maybe I was asking you to reflect on it because I thought you might be putting your thumb on the scale. And by reflecting on it and you sharing your opinion, it could inform the people listening why you're asking me such specific questions. And that way the listener goes, oh, I see why this line of questioning is happening, because he has this perspective about this situation and he's trying to get to this outcome. Me, for example, I just have a rule. I'm not going to ask anybody a question that I haven't thought of myself. Like, I just. I find that not to be insulting to you, but, like, if I haven't taken the time to, like, reflect on my thoughts on a question, like, I wouldn't even feel comfortable asking somebody, like, on camera, record it, how they feel about it. If you're asking me a question about what I done in a situation or why I did something in a situation, and you haven't reflected on what you would have done in that situation, what are you really seeking in my answer? Like, you know, what I did in this situation?

I think the thing I'm seeking is the thinking underneath it. What is the opinion of you that you seem to think I hold or I'm pushing you towards or trying to frame you in a particular way.

I don't know. That's why I ask. I'm not sure how much, like, you feel like you want to get across. I'm not sure how. How much you feel like a responsibility to your audience to ask certain questions. Like, I don't. Like, sometimes there's moments where I'm like, oh, David really wants to know about this.

[Andrew Schultz]

And sometimes there's moments where I'm like.

[David Marchese]

I think David feels like if he doesn't ask this, that he'll be criticized. Like, I'm trying to gauge, like, what you really want.

Yeah. You know, after our first conversation, when we were down in the lobby and you were leaving, we continued the conversation.

[Andrew Schultz]

Yeah, yeah.

[David Marchese]

We don't stop talking, David.

Maybe we should, but. But, you know, we were sort of talking about the idea that there has been sort of a growing distrust or dissatisfaction with legacy media. And in response to that, I think a lot of listener have turned to podcasts and other voices that they see as more authentic or uncompromised voices like yourself or Joe Rogan, that they shouldn't. So my question about that is, like, you know, if you have a kind of authority, you know, whether you ask for it or not, or whether you think it's correct or not, what are the possible ripple effects of that authority? And also then what responsibility might come with it?

Yeah, I think a bunch of things happen at the same time, right? I think that the Internet decentralized information. And I think with the Internet, and you saw this even, like, early, small little versions where, like, conspiracy stuff started to pop out, right? Like, conspiracy stuff is very exciting because it's like, it makes dumb people feel smart, right? It's just like, oh, I know something nobody else knows. I'm smart now. And the truth of the matter is, the truth is boring. Whenever we get to, like, the actual truth, truth of it, almost always it is boring. But when the information decentralized and then we're just podcasters talking shit with our friends. And I know that seems like a convenient excuse, but you have to understand, like, in its inception, that's what it was. And this thing gets so fucking popular. And I think that there's a couple issues, right? I think it's like media, for example, maybe traditional media has, like, echoed certain sentiments that weren't exactly truthful. Maybe they're not blatant lies, but there might be, like, certain things that they, let's say, push that we all kind of accepted and then have, like, recently become outed, if you will, right? So now all of a sudden, there's, like, this undercurrent of, like, oh, I guess we can't trust those institutions now. The reality is, it's like, you guys could get, like, 90% right when you.

[Andrew Schultz]

Get one thing wrong.

[David Marchese]

It's like they're a propaganda tool. You know, it's like. Like, you could do almost perfect reporting, but if you get one thing wrong, we can write the entire thing off. Right. So I think one. Also, people were, like, moving away from, like, was it print media? A lot of times. And I think that there's multiple reasons for that. One, like, I can listen to a podcast while I do my job. I can't read the Times while I'm driving to work. And then we build up, like, probably, like, a parasocial relationship with these people where you, like, really get connected. And I think what happened is more people started listening to us, and this is obviously spearheaded by the goat, Joe Rogan. And then more people started listening to podcasting in general. And because more people are listening, popular figures are now going on these platforms to have conversations, like presidents and other figures. And now all of a sudden, like, everybody's consuming their information about these very serious things on these platforms that were not designed to do this in the first place. And then when we go, hey, we're just asking questions and making fun of our friends, there is a very reasonable criticism, which is, yes, that's what you started out as, but now that everybody is watching you, do you now have a new responsibility?

Yeah. And what's the answer to that?

First of all, I just want to say I think that that's fair. I think that that is fair. I don't think that we have to, like, take a specific journalistic approach, meaning, like, we. I don't think we have to kind of remove our own desires and the questions that we want to ask. But just for me personally, I think it's important to, like, reflect multiple viewpoints on the pot, and we desperately tried to do that in the last election. The Democrats that we asked were not willing to come on. Now they are starting to come on, and I think it makes for, like, much better podcasting. Also, like, the numbers when they come on are incredible. Clearly, there's, like, a real thirst from our audience about that, but also the world over, like. And to me, what that indicates about our audience is it's not this extreme one direction. We are interested in all these different things. So now that we have access to these people, I think it makes for, like, a really fruitful conversation. And Then we would hope that people have the agency to make their own ideas.

And the amount of political influence podcasters have had or have is highly debatable. But there is, of course, the old idea that politics is downstream of culture. So if we take that as true, what influence might popular podcasters be having on politicians and political discourse?

I think that's a great point. I think that you're 100% right about politics being downstream from culture. What I would also say is that I think podcasts are downstream from culture too.

Oh, yeah, explain that.

I think podcasts are before politicians, but I think culture starts then podcast is like something over here and then politicians. And I think that the ones that offer societal utility in that moment tend to be the most prolific in that moment. Same thing with comedians. Like, comedians are downstream from culture. And if you're a comedian and you got a lot of, like, women are annoying jokes, if we're going through, you know, the rise in fourth wave feminism and have all these slogans like the future is female and all men suck or something like that, that comedian is gonna probably do really well during that time period because there's a societal utility.

You know, on the idea that the culture was hungry for comedians and podcasters who were doing what you were doing. Do you have any hunches about what the audience needs are that, like, are currently not being served and, like, sort of what a new wave of voices might step in to offer?

I think you'll see a lot of voices on the left that are like, really disciplined. Great arguments, like, well thought out, like brilliant left wing pundits will rise during this time right now because you always want something to, like, offset the amounts of power and the right's in charge. You want great arguments from the left. And I'm not talking about, like the septum piercing, like, you know, like purple fucking hair, like, not those great argum. I'm talking about like disciplined laser focus research, understand legislation. I think they'll be quite prominent.

What about in comedy?

I think people tend to, during a Trump administration to get a little exhausted. And I think now that you can kind of say in comedy, there's like different cycles, right? So it's like when things are super censored, you have the. I think maybe the more prolific comedians start to sprout out from that where the George Carlins, the Richard Pryors, the Chris rocks, right? They come from these times of, like, censoriousness, right? So it's like you can't say these words and they're gonna use humor to kind of say these things and to have these ideas, and then the pendulum swings to kind of where we are right now, where you can say anything. There's. Nobody's really upset with anything anymore. And during this time, comedy tends to get quite absurdistic. So when there's nothing to push back on, you just float. And this is where, like, the Zach Galifianakis tend to thrive, the Steven Wrights tend to thrive. There's nothing to push back against. So they're almost pushing back against reality itself. So I would think, like, people in that realm. But that's, that's just my personal take on kind of, like what happens in comedy. And eventually we'll get more censored and then you'll have the voices that push back against that and the cycle repeats forever.

You mentioned Trump, so I want to ask. You said you voted for him basically as a protest vote against the Democrats, but how do you think of the job President Trump's been doing so far?

I think that that's unfair for me to say. I don't think it was simply protest. I think the reason why I entertained the Republican Party for the first time in my life was because the Democrats, I didn't like what was happening. And they had said very clearly that that was just going to continue. In terms of ivf, I think that, like, he's. He's taken action in protecting it and potentially, like, in increasing people's ability to access it. Who knows if that legislation will actually, like, get put through, but that would be awesome. And in terms of immigration, like, I want more, like, if you broke the law, you fucked up. You're already here illegally, so you already broke the law and you're breaking the law. You gotta go. If you've been working your ass off for 10 years here, you've got a family, there's gotta be a system where we can just give these people a pathway to citizenship or a green card or something. There has to be a better way than simply just, hey, you go. And that's what I was pleading with him for on the pod, which is maybe pleading is a strong word, but I was asking him to show empathy for these people that he's also employed. Like, I was like, listen, you've had hotels, you know these people, you know that they're going to bust their ass, they're going to work hard, and they want a better life. It's like, why my mom came here, that's why your parents or maybe his great grandparents or some shit came here. So it's like I would like there to be much more empathy in that department. I don't think that that's happening.

And what would a Democrat have to do to win your vote back?

He would just have to be named Bernie Sanders, and I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. No, no. I think what the Democrats need to do, number one, is just, like, allow a democratic process. The primary will tell you everything about what the party wants. It really will. It's like, trust the democratic process. Just get some primaries going, and you're going to see which part of the party people support. I think that they've become quite disillusioned with, like, the typical institutional elites, as Bernie Sanders calls them. And I think they're probably leaning towards, you know, maybe Bernie's. What does he call them? Like, Democratic socialism faction of the party. And you could force feed people one thing that they don't want, and they will reject you. And I think that's kind of what happened. Or you could embrace the changing of the party, and then if that change in the party ends up failing those people, they will eventually reject it. But a democracy allows people to make the decisions that they feel like they want. For better or for worse. We have to at least be willing to entertain for worse. How can we learn as a people if we don't entertain for worse?

Andrew, can you end with a family friendly joke?

Yeah, a family friendly joke. Okay, here's a joke. This is a joke that. I think it was a Louis joke that then Seinfeld told the joke to Louis when they were doing this conversation. It was like, for them. Do you remember that thing they did with Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock, Louis CK and it was like comedians on Comedians. And so Seinfeld tells a Seinfeldian version of this Louis joke. But the joke itself is something like.

[Andrew Schultz]

You know, like going on vacation with the family.

[David Marchese]

You know, like, I. I put the kids in the car seats, I put my wife in the car seat, put the coffees in the coffee. Calder. I. I put the bags in the back. I give the snack seat to the kids. I put the last bag in the back. I go. I close the trunk, I close my wife's door, I close the kids door. And when I'm walking from my wife's door to my door, that's my vacation.

I know exactly the joke you're talking about. I think about this joke constantly. It's so good.

And it's like, at its core, you could say quite mean. Like, the idea that like. Like, that's the beauty of a joke and why, how we can't like what it does is allows us to freely access these, like, maybe darker thoughts and emotions that we have. It's like he loves his family. They all love their family. But in that little moment, they're like, oh, they're safe and I don't have to fucking deal with them. And we all have that feeling for a little moment and then we come back to reality. And maybe that's what would be awesome if people get about jokes is like these things that we're saying. It's just what we feel oftentimes in that little moment and then we step back.

Thanks for taking all the time to talk with me, Andrew. I appreciate it.

You're great, David. I know you hate me saying that, but I love this format about coming back. I love it.

[Andrew Schultz]

Zip it, Zip it.

[David Marchese]

Bye.

All right, take it easy.

[Andrew Schultz]

That's Andrew Schulz. His most recent comedy special Life, is streaming on Netflix. This conversation was produced by Seth Kelly. It was edited by Alison Benedict. Mixing by Sonia Herrero. Original music by Dan Powell, Elisheva Etoupe, Sophia Landman and Marion Lozano. Photography by Devin Yalkin. Our senior booker is Priya Matthew and Wyatt Orme is our producer. Our executive producer is Alison Benedikt. Special thanks to Rory Walsh, Renan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Matty Masciello, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schuman, and Sam Dolnick. If you like what you're hearing, follow or subscribe to the interview. Wherever you get your podcasts to read or listen to any of our conversations, you can always go to nytimes.com theinterview Also, we have a new YouTube channel where you can watch this interview and many others. [e-mail] TheInterviewPodcast I'm David Marchese and this is the interview from the New York Times.

[Podcast Producer]

Support for the perfect breakfast comes your minds. Breakfast had re. It was sweet, it was savory, it was safe. Then someone brought out the ketchup. Not your usual breakfast move. And that's the point. Suddenly, hash browns found their soulmate. Aches got bold. Turns out ketchup is for breakfast. It has to be Heinz.