Reflecting on Change: Jon Stewart on American Politics

The comedian and co-host of “The Daily Show” shares insights on the evolution of American politics over the past two decades.

Looking back to the Tea Party movement of 2010, we find ourselves in a time when a fresh face joined the ranks of Fox News—Tucker Carlson. Just two years removed from his stint at MSNBC, Carlson’s transition was a notable shift in the media landscape. It’s astonishing to think that during this era, Elon Musk was a supporter of Barack Obama, while Jon Stewart was firmly in his second decade as the host of The Daily Show. Together with Stephen Colbert, Stewart organized the rally to restore sanity and/or fear at the National Mall in Washington, DC.

As Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert prepared to take their shows to Washington, they aimed to create a rally that blurred the lines between political activism and performance art. The nature of this rally was ambiguous, prompting questions about its true intent. In Stewart’s speech, he famously declared, “We can have animus and not be enemies.” Yet, upon reflection, he notes that the instruments meant to delineate this animus have since faltered.

From Stewart’s perspective today, looking back at that rally feels different. What once seemed a humorous moment now resonates with a deeper meaning. In the years following the event, Stewart has remained attuned to the media’s role in amplifying divisive narratives within American politics. Now back at the helm of The Daily Show, he expresses a blend of excitement and concern about the current political climate.

As election day approaches, I invited Stewart onto the show to discuss his observations from the past decades, his understanding of media transformations, and the notable figures who have shaped these changes. As always, you can reach me at my email: Nytimes.com. Jon Stewart, welcome to the show.

“Thank you, Ezra. I’m thrilled to be here,” Stewart replied. “Let’s journey back to the rally for sanity and/or fear. It’s hard to believe how many years have passed since then. We were all so young and naive, experiencing a sort of collective high. That rally holds a unique significance for me; it’s like a Rosetta Stone for understanding our political climate.”

Stewart reminisces about how the rally came to be, recalling the backdrop of Glenn Beck’s rallies, which sought to ‘restore honor’ in America. “I remember chatting with Stephen and laughing about the absurdity of it all. We thought, why not just throw something together? The planning was chaotic, and as you may have seen, the audio quality was a struggle.”

“On the day of the rally, we drove to the mall and were shocked to see the massive crowd gathering. We had only prepared two large screens for the event, and we were trying to coordinate performances with artists like Ozzy Osbourne and Yusuf Islam, all while figuring out the flow of the event.”

He reflects on how that rally encapsulated a moment of political division, where one could see the emergence of two distinct aesthetic camps: the aesthetics of sanity, which embraced science and institutions, contrasted sharply with the aesthetics of fear, which thrived on conspiracy and rage. Stewart muses, “At that time, how did I perceive sanity in politics? Honestly, it felt like a reaction to a decades-long effort by the right to build their institutions in opposition to the left.”

“The media landscape was shifting, and I remember listening to AM radio during my early days in stand-up. The vitriol was relentless, targeting anything left of the far-right. The right had effectively rebuilt their institutions, creating a narrative where anything resembling equality was seen as an attack on their values.”

When discussing the left’s response, Stewart emphasizes the technocratic approach that emerged during the Obama years—a coalition that sought to unite through expertise and common sense. “The narrative was about being rational and data-driven, but this created a new aesthetic in politics that often sidelined the complexities of people’s lived experiences.”

“This divergence in narratives was evident, as the right championed a populist, emotionally-driven approach, while the left leaned into expert-driven solutions,” he explains. “As I observe today, the political discourse has become increasingly polarized and the media, in many ways, has played a significant role in exacerbating these divisions.”

Stewart goes on to reflect on his 2010 speech at the rally, where he highlighted the role of social media in distorting public discourse. “It’s become a means for people to remind you of your past transgressions. I still receive comments that remind me of my heritage and criticize that rally we held, suggesting it somehow paved the way for Republican control of Congress.”

“I recall saying, ‘If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.’ The image of Americans reflected back at us through politics and media is often warped, like a funhouse mirror.”

Stewart admits that listening to his own words can be a painful experience. “Hearing myself speak sincerely about such serious topics while also being humorous is challenging, and sometimes it feels like a bizarre campaign speech.”

As the interview progresses, they discuss the transformation of media and politics over the years. “I’ve lived in deeply conservative areas, and while there are significant differences, I find meaningful relationships with my neighbors. The media shapes perceptions, but personal interactions can often tell a different story.”

“The rapid growth of 24-hour news outlets has created an environment where urgency and fear drive viewership. This creates a cycle where sensationalism is rewarded, leading to a distorted view of reality,” Stewart explains. “And while social media amplifies these sentiments, it often does so at the expense of nuanced discussions.”

As they reflect on the evolution of media, Stewart notes how the segmentation of media has led to a more competitive landscape. “What once was a balanced presentation of ideas has transformed into a battleground where the loudest voices often drown out the more nuanced perspectives.”

“We’ve seen media outlets shift their focus, and while we create content, we must remain aware of how it’s consumed. The editorial voice often gets lost in the noise of short clips and soundbites,” Stewart adds.

As the conversation winds down, Stewart shares his thoughts on the ever-present challenge of navigating the complexities of modern media. “We need to strive for a media landscape that prioritizes good-faith dialogue and reflects the diversity of opinions within society.”

The interview concludes with Stewart recommending books that have shaped his worldview. “I always return to Kurt Vonnegut’s works. His unique blend of hope and cynicism resonates with me. Whether it’s ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’ or ‘Cat’s Cradle,’ his writings capture the essence of humanity in a chaotic world.”

In closing, Stewart emphasizes the importance of finding common ground amidst the chaos. “We must remember that despite our differences, there is potential for understanding and collaboration. It’s up to us to cultivate that spirit.”

Jon Stewart, thank you for joining the conversation.