The comedian Andrew Schulz has risen to arena-headliner status on the strength of his irreverent, defiantly anti-woke standup. His material is a high-energy blend of gleeful raunch and precise observation, all peppered with ethnic jokes, slurs and smack talk. (Which, as much as such a thing is possible, generally comes across as good-hearted or, at least, not meanspirited.) But provocation is not the only trick in his bag. In Schulz’s most recent special, “Life,” which came out on Netflix this year, the 41-year-old moved into more vulnerable and narratively driven territory. It’s about his and his wife’s experience with I.V.F. (told in highly un-family-friendly language).
Despite all his success with standup, Schulz has perhaps become even better known for his podcasting. His shows “Flagrant,” co-hosted by Akaash Singh, and “Brilliant Idiots,” co-hosted by Charlamagne tha God, are appointment listening for millions, not just for humor but for political discussion too. That relatively newfound breadth and Schulz’s ready embrace of disparate subject matter — from politics to sports to theology to culture writ large — has led to him becoming a star of the so-called online manosphere. Although that term, or “podcast bro,” or any other potentially reductive label one might apply, would most likely frustrate the entertainingly pugnacious Schulz.
But whatever you want to call him or his corner of the online world, it’s influential. Donald Trump went on “Flagrant” last fall ahead of the presidential election, and progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have been guests on the show this year. For me, that raised questions about what Schulz’s bigger goals are, and what responsibilities might come with his growing influence.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Amazon | iHeart | NYT Audio App
In the last four or five years, you’ve really blown up. What has shifted in the culture to enable you to come to prominence? When I started posting stuff on the internet, specifically standup, things changed for me. I was trying to get an HBO special or, back in the day, Netflix is just coming to prominence, or Comedy Central. I was trying to get anything, and I couldn’t get any motion with standup. So out of desperation, I filmed my own special, pitched it to everybody, nobody wanted it, and I was like, I’m going to put this online. At the time there was a sensitivity, especially in corporate America, about edginess and jokes. So my gamble was maybe if I put this out on YouTube, there will be an audience that likes this type of comedy. I put it out, and a weird thing happened: Everybody only watched 20 minutes. So I put out a 20-minute version of it, and the next weekend, I sold out a comedy club. The next weekend I sold out another one. I was like, Whoa, there’s really something over here on the internet, and I can be my authentic self with comedy despite what the cultural sensitivity of the time is.
You obviously have clear ideas about what works with audiences. Does that create a temptation to pander? If you actually are trying to create something authentic, you’re going to make less money, but you maintain your integrity. Oftentimes what happens is you’ll have an opinion that’s maybe a little different, and you’ll be rebuked for that opinion for years, and then people will start to come around. Then the same people that rebuked you will start echoing those sentiments with no accountability. We had Bernie on the pod, who I love.
Just a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about the way he was painted in 2016. Like, there was a “Bernie bro” problem — that his supporters were racist, sexist and bigoted. I asked him about it. He was like: Yeah, this is done by the D.N.C. They saw these amazing rallies that we were doing with all this diversity, and they tried to make us radioactive. That was interesting. During this election, we asked all these Democrats to come on to the podcast. None of them came on, and they called us not “Bernie bros” but “podcast bros,” and they said we’re sexist, bigoted and racist.
Who is “they” in this example? That’s a good question. I should give you an exact answer.
I just wonder if this is a straw man. Do you think that that was an unfair representation, that there are certain media figures labeling the manosphere and the podcast bros that way?
I think that’s right. So you have heard that?
Yeah. So who would “they” be for you?
The media. That’s what I just said!
No, you said “they.” I said something specific. I feel like your answer is just as vague. I’m not trying to bully you into a position. I don’t think that I was pinpointed enough in my accusation, and it is a kind of big accusation, but I’m glad that you agree.
It’s just interesting when people have a perception that they’re being attacked or labeled. The inclination for me is to wonder: Is that happening? I think in your case, it’s true. I don’t think it’s nefarious intent, by the way. When you talk for hours on a podcast every week, you can take excerpts and make me look ridiculous. You can make me look like the sweetest, kindest, loving dad. You can make me look like an absolute tyrant. A 30-second excerpt — you can do whatever you want. And that’s the cost that we have to take on for putting out content.
I have this long list of questions that I structured to get to the more provocative material in an incremental way, but I feel as if we can just get into things. I love when you’re self-reflective in your interviews. Feelings are hard for me, man. You know what you’re feeling every second of the day?
Pretty much. Why are they hard for you? I’m very sensitive, but it’s understanding the type of feeling I have. This is something I learned with therapy. I have to understand the feeling of rejection more than the feeling of justice. I’m justice-oriented.
You said you asked Democrats to be on the podcast. Presumably we’re talking about last fall in the run-up to the election. Whom did you ask, and who said no? Pete Buttigieg. Tim Walz. Kamala Harris — and then her team just lies. Blatantly lies.
About what? About us reaching out.
They say you didn’t? Yeah, and it’s wild to blatantly lie when not only did I reach out — Charlamagne, who’s working with them, reached out. Mark Cuban, who’s a surrogate, reached out, and we reached out, and they blatantly lie. Then when people write articles about it, they’ll say, “Andrew says he reached out to Kamala, but we reached out to the Kamala people, and they said that never happened.” So what is the reader supposed to interpret that as?
An evasion. I think it’s an indictment on me, because it’s almost like calling me a liar.
That is the justice-oriented part of you coming out. So you had this interest 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. Why are they doing it now? Why do you think?
I want to hear you say it. Well, what is your feeling?
Because they decided it’s advantageous. Before, they probably thought that they didn’t need it. I also think having Buttigieg come on made it feel safe. If we’re asking you to come, it’s because we’re interested in you. We’re interested in the decisions you want to make and how it’s going to affect Americans. That’s important to me. So that was awesome having Pete on. Smart guy. Meets you where you are emotionally. He doesn’t talk down or finger wag. And then after meeting you where you are and disarming you and making you not feel like you’re stupid for disagreeing, he’ll try to show you his side, and you’re so much more willing to indulge in it.
Let’s take the example of your interview with Donald Trump. I know that you’re not a journalist. But am I not? I might be the foremost political journalist of my time.
You know, it’s possible! But in your interview, do you feel like you did the necessary work of asking him difficult questions? Do you think that’s necessary?
Yes. 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? Are you responsible for people in Dubai? China? Japan? They might have certain curiosities that you didn’t address. You’re going to let somebody down. 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. With the Trump interview, I had three things I wanted to ask him about, and I asked him those things.
What were those three things? Protecting I.V.F. My wife and I had a baby through I.V.F., and it was important to me that he would do something to make sure that was protected, especially with the abortion bans. He specifically said that he would. Let’s see if that actually happens. Empathy for illegals that are here that are not breaking the law, that have been working here on a pathway to citizenship. Which it doesn’t look like has been happening. This is disheartening for me. And then an end to the foreign wars. I think it’s very hard for Americans 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. You start to feel like you’re left out. Those are the three things I really wanted to talk to him about, and I did.
You didn’t ask much about economic policy, which, for a Bernie supporter, I thought was weird. What did I ask Bernie about economics?
You guys talked a lot about economic inequality. But what about policy? What would you like me to ask about?
I don’t know the specific question. Specifics are important, David. You’re making an accusation that I didn’t ask something, but you don’t have the thing you would have liked me to ask. 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 were talking about?
Yes. I asked you a question. That’s where it feels gotcha to me.
It doesn’t feel gotcha. Sorry: I can’t tell you how you feel. [Laughs] That was awesome. But I felt like it was gotcha. I don’t know if that’s your intent. The goal of the question was to expose inadequacy, not to learn something. So to me, that felt like gotcha. Actually, gotcha’s not a feeling.
Let me come up with a different one. I.V.F. was an important subject for you to bring up with Trump, and then when you’re having that conversation with him, you said — I’m paraphrasing — something like, I think it’s important for women moderates to hear that. I don’t recall saying that. Oh, was I saying, women who might be on the fence about who you are as a person and how much you care about their bodies and their ability to make choices with their bodies?
Right. How’d it make you feel? Do you think I was trying to promote him to them?
It made me confused, because there was no mention of the fact that Donald Trump was credibly accused of groping a bunch of women or found liable in a civil suit for sexual abuse. So why was one thing important to hear and not another? It’s a fair question. The reaction I would have is: What is less known? I don’t think there’s a person on the planet that doesn’t know that Donald Trump was like, “You can grab them by the [expletive],” that doesn’t know about the civil suit. What people might not know is that he wants to fight to protect I.V.F., and that might be 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 I want to have a family. Unfortunately in elections, we look past certain transgressions because there are things that are more important to us. By your standard, you wish that I brought up the things that he had done?
To make the conversation feel more balanced. OK, I don’t think that that’s unfair. I guess what I would say is, as an interviewer, 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 a part of me that wonders as you ask me this question: Do you feel like you have to put some pressure on me with the Trump thing because your audience might be like, Why didn’t you ask him about having Trump on? Or do you genuinely want to do it?
I think in this instance, it’s both. And that’s an honest, fair question. I go through that too, where I’m like, What do I really want to ask this person, and what do I feel like I should or else I’ll be criticized? When I had Bernie on, should I have asked him about taking the private jets? Should I have asked him about having three houses? I’m not equating this to Donald Trump being convicted of things, but still, 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, and does it make him not open up about these other things that I want to know? That’s the thing that you gotta decide as an interviewer.
In your standup and on podcasts, there are slurs that you use. I’m thinking of one in particular. It starts with R and is commonly used to describe intellectually disabled people. And in the first minute of [Schulz’s 2022 standup special] “Infamous,” you use a derogatory term for Mexicans. Oh, yeah, but to the Mexican. They’re in on it.
But there are other derogatory terms that you don’t go near. I’ve never heard you use a derogatory word for a Jewish person. Really? I blame Jews for homophobia in the latest special.
But you don’t use the derogatory word. Which one are you talking about, the K one?
That would be the one. We call them the “small hats.”
How do you decide which ones feel OK and which ones don’t? Where is the line? The N-word I don’t do. The K-word I don’t really do.
But why certain ones and not other ones? That’s a good question.
If we accept they’re all derogatory. I don’t accept that. I think in reality, people are trying to protect people. The protection of people is a beautiful, benevolent thing. But sometimes it goes to the point where we’re making words harmful that aren’t harmful. For example, “Latinx.” What do you think of that term?
That’s a hard question. Have you heard of “fire retardant”? How do you feel about that word?
“Retardant” in that context means to slow something down. Should we make a different word for that?
A fire retardant is not a human being. Well, no, but the root word has a scientific definition that we have labeled an emotional, painful pejorative. 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, “That word hurts me, and I want you to not say it,” I’m never going to say it in front of them. I don’t want to hurt you. That’s not my goal. But if they’re like, “I don’t want you to ever say it again in your life,” that’s not going to happen. There’s always going to be somebody offended by a word or opinion, so at a certain point, what do you do? You 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?
There’s this manosphere-podcast world that appeals to young men. I’m thinking of “Flagrant” or Theo Von or Joe Rogan’s show. These shows are not seen as progressive. Why do you think that there is some idea of masculinity that progressives have not been able to tap into? Why do you think?
Andrew, it’s hard for me to come up with answers to questions like that. I think you have a thoughtful answer.
I think there are less complicated ideas of masculinity that are often put forward on those shows that are more approachable and more familiar to a lot of men, so it’s easier to latch on to. They’re like, “Oh, yeah, I like saying off-color [expletive] with my buddies.” Do you like saying off color [expletive] with your buddies?
Yeah. You do. It’s fun. It doesn’t define you as a person, and you feel comfortable saying it with your buddies because they know who you are.
Why do you think the left has a hard time reaching — I don’t think it’s reaching. I think it’s the nature of media. The ability to speak freely and saying some of those no-no words — it’s not surprising that people would gravitate toward the thing that they relate to. Corporate media needs to make the adjustment to the new marketplace. Before, when it was The Times competing with CBS or The Post — you’re all competing within the same rules. Then podcasts came in and threw out the rules.
It makes a conversation like this difficult for me, because there are rules and expectations. What do you feel encumbered by?
The most obvious would be language rules. Certain words, and I don’t just mean derogatory words, you can’t say. There’s even an implicit style of conversation that I feel as if I’m supposed to have that is inhibiting a conversation with you. This is an example of what I love.
Don’t say it. Do you not like compliments?
I don’t. Is it uncomfortable for you?
I don’t like it. Why? You’re so in touch with your feelings. I think it’s a unique thing that it makes me want to listen to your content more. You’re reacting in real time. But you hate compliments. What is that about?
Yeah, it’s interesting that there’s this idea of a shift rightward for young men and that somehow the manosphere is driving that. I wouldn’t agree with “shift rightward.” You asked specifically why men are drawn in this direction. Keep in mind, I’m a Democrat my whole life.
But you voted for Trump? I voted for Trump, yeah, but my vote was more like I voted against a Democratic institution that I feel was stripping the democratic process from its constituents. I didn’t like the way things were going, and Kamala was saying, Yeah, we’re going to keep doing that.
I was watching your appearance on the “Triggernometry” podcast. You know the quote I’m going to bring up, right? This is so disingenuous, but go on.
For people who don’t know: You were talking about how you were a Democrat, and they lost you — The context of the conversation was, Did people change, or have parties changed? And I’m like, Parties have changed their priorities, and people haven’t really changed theirs. When I was younger, Democrats were cool as hell. Bill Clinton is playing a sax on “Arsenio.” He’s smoking weed. They embraced homosexuality. Republicans at the time were like: Don’t say bad words. Hip-hop is bad. Rock ’n’ roll music is dangerous. They’re finger wagging. They’re telling you what to do. Then I create this juxtaposition. I go, Now Trump’s got three baby mamas, and Democrats are saying which words we can’t say. And I say this thing — I’m being purposely reductive, because I’m a comedian talking to comedians — and I’m like, Yeah, so I’m going to vote for the guy who has three baby mamas; I’m voting for the guy who’s getting more [expletive], or something like that. I get how anybody who saw it out of context was like: This guy is an idiot. You voted for somebody because they get laid? At the same time, do you think that was actually the point I was trying to demonstrate — that all Democrats need to do is get laid, and then, yeah, we’ll vote for them? Ridiculous.
But the point was that if Democrats exhibited more comfort with a kind of libertinism, that would appeal? That’s a good extrapolation, but the point was actually that it’s not people running away, it’s parties running away. But, “Who gets laid more, bro?” It started to go viral, and I’m like: Do I have to address this? 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.
You mentioned in passing being in therapy. What are you working on now? Just relationship stuff. Having a kid throws everything for a loop, and you gotta stay on it. So any way I can improve.
What are some things you need to improve on? Not saying what the person is doing, but saying what I’m feeling in the moment. Not trying to win the interaction, but understanding how something affected me. Just understanding 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?
When do you care what people think? So, for example, with the “Triggernometry” thing. That bummed me out when people took what I said at face value. You’re entitled to your reaction. But I’m like, Oh, man, it’s so easy to discredit me as like some dumb bro. That bummed me out. But then you just keep on truckin’, man.
A few days later, Andrew and I talked again.
I was thinking about a lot of things from the conversation so far. Yeah. You had a good question that I thought about all week: You don’t say the N-word or the K-word, but you’ll say other words. I was like, I don’t think that that’s true. I didn’t know what to think of it in the moment. Then you brought up the R-word and how I feel comfortable saying that one. I really thought about it. This is me trying to retrofit my knee-jerk feelings on it: I think that what makes a slur bad is, it’s a descriptor plus organized violence. As humans, we’re like, That’s bad. But if we don’t remember that organized violence, or aren’t taught about it or it’s too far in the past, we start to feel like it’s not as heavy. I think that’s why our reaction is different when it comes to Latino slurs or Asian slurs. Where’s the organized violence?
There definitely was a spike in violence against Asian Americans with the pandemic. Does that count as organized violence? I feel like we’ll get stuck litigating word by word, and I don’t want to do that. I agree with you. I think we’re beyond the word police.
I appreciate that you’ve been reflecting on parts of our conversation. I was wondering if you think there are ways in which your own sensitivities or maybe even insecurities might have shown up earlier? Sure. To say no would be ridiculous. I am a regular human being, David.
One thing that you said that stuck out for me is that you can feel a need to “win” the interaction. I said that that was the thing I’m working on.
I want to be clear: In no question I ask am I trying to trap you into anything. It’s all coming from a place of curiosity. Does that make sense? It makes sense. I don’t know if I believe that you believe it, but I think it makes sense. I think you would like to believe that of yourself, but I do think that you have a line of thinking that you’re getting toward, and you’re using questioning to get me to that. So I’m hesitant to simply just accept every single thing is 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.
I did wonder if the way you so often turned the question I was asking back around on me was a way of trying to wrong-foot me or undercut the question. How so?
The thing that I’m supposed to do is give people a chance to hear from subjects without my own political or ideological opinions filtering in. That’s a big difference between what my job is and what your job is. Because of that difference, the question flipping was something I struggled with. Why do you think you struggled with it?
With the content that does have a political edge to it, I’m not supposed to betray my own thinking. “Supposed to” according to whom?
There is an idea of news journalism as impartial and objective. I’m not supposed to be putting my thumb on the scale. Maybe I was asking you to reflect on it because I thought you might be putting your thumb on the scale. By reflecting on it and you sharing your opinion, it could inform the people listening why you’re asking me such specific questions. 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. I just have a rule. I’m not gonna ask anybody a question that I haven’t thought of myself. If you’re asking me a question about what I’ve done in a situation or why I did something 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.
The thing I’m seeking is the thinking underneath. But what is the opinion of you that you seem to think I hold? I don’t know. There are moments where I’m like, David really wants to know about this, and there are moments where I think, David feels like if he doesn’t ask this that he’ll be criticized. I’m trying to gauge what you really want.
After our first conversation, when we were down in the lobby, we were talking about the idea of dissatisfaction with legacy media and that a lot of listeners have instead turned to podcasts and other voices. That they shouldn’t.
If you have authority, whether you ask for it or not, or whether you think it’s correct or not, what responsibility might come with it? Maybe traditional media has echoed certain sentiments that weren’t exactly truthful. So there’s this undercurrent of, Oh, we can’t trust those institutions. Now the reality is, you guys could get like 90 percent right. When you get one thing wrong, it’s like, They’re a propaganda tool! And I think what happened is more people started listening to us, and this is obviously spearheaded by the GOAT, Joe Rogan. 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 — presidents and other figures. Now all of a sudden, everybody’s consuming their information about these very serious things on these platforms that were not designed to do this in the first place. 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?
And what’s the answer? I don’t think that we have to take a specific journalistic approach. Meaning I don’t think we have to remove our own desires and the questions that we wanna ask. But I think it’s important to reflect multiple viewpoints on the pod. 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, and that makes for much better podcasting. Also, the numbers when they come on are incredible. Clearly there’s a real thirst from our audience, and to me what that indicates about our audience is that it’s not this extreme one direction. We are interested in different things. Now that we have access to these people, it makes for a fruitful conversation. Then we would hope that people have the agency to make their own ideas.
Andrew, can you end with a family-friendly joke? This was a Louis C.K. joke that Seinfeld told when they were doing a conversation — comedians on comedians. The joke is something like: You know, going on vacation with the family, I put the kids in the car seats. I put my wife in the car. Put the coffees in the coffee holder. I put the bags in the back. 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 it constantly. It’s so good, and at its core you could say quite mean. That’s the beauty of a joke. It allows us to access these darker thoughts and emotions that we have: He loves his family, but in that moment, they’re safe, and I don’t have to deal with them. We all have that feeling, and then we come back to reality. And that’s what would be awesome: If people get that these things that we’re saying — it’s just what we feel in that little moment, and then we step back.
This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations. Listen to and follow “The Interview” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Amazon Music or the New York Times Audio app.
Director of photography (video): Timothy Shin
David Marchese is a writer and co-host of The Interview, a regular series featuring influential people across culture, politics, business, sports and beyond.
The post Andrew Schulz, ‘Podcast Bro,’ Might Be America’s Foremost Political Journalist appeared first on New York Times.
