American Manufacturing Returns?! | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: I don't know if you ever watched. the show Peaky Blinders. But the Peaky Blinders gang leader had a theory on power. called Big fucks small. And it feels like we're moving into the big fucks small era. ADAM TOOZE: You know, the economist in me. says, well, does big want to fuck all of small, all the time? JON STEWART: It seems that way. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome, once again to The Weekly. Show Podcast with Jon Stewart. My name is Jon Stewart. And it is March something.

I don't know what day we're taping this. March 19th, we're taping this. I don't know when it's going to air, probably March 20th, which gives 24 hours for more shit to happen that will not be. addressed in any way, shape, or form on the podcast, because things are moving. They're moving quickly. Ladies and gentlemen, this week, we did a bit. on the show concerning what we might consider. for the Democrats, a sense of fecklessness, feckle, feckles, fecklessness, feckless-full.

Are people feck-full? There's a feckless. But there's really nobody who is feck-full. And maybe that's what the Democrats are looking for, somebody feck-full, if you could find some feckfullness. And, obviously, Senator Charles Schumer. was the avatar through which we passed. our frustrations, our angers, our sadness, our desperation.

We passed it through him in an attempt. to raise his glasses from the lower part of his nose, through telekinesis, all the way up, all the way from here. I'm doing this right now. It's on a podcast. So you probably don't know. It's coming all the way. Here we go. We're urging. Come on. Come on, guys. Come on. You can do it. And get them to focus. And I think we need to make clear what. is being asked for here. It's not nihilism. It's not the kind of, shut the government down.

Fuck all this! Nobody cares. Because there's a great understanding. But they themselves spoke of, this was the moment. of leverage, that they had been neutered to the point, because they don't have the majority in the House, even though it's slim. And they don't have the majority. In the Senate, they don't--. you know, but because the senators didn't have 60, the Democrats could have filibustered. to maybe extract anything.

But I think the frustration is, a, you're. not clear on the specifics of what they would extract, if they could. And, b, they just fucking didn't! And, look, if that was the strategy all along, let people know. Don't make a big theatrical production. of choosing fighters. And we're going to do this. And I think they keep counting on this very strange notion. that somehow, in the House of Representatives, Massie.

will rule the day. Like, this is all theater. Even in the Senate, when you got--. I don't know how many Democrats voted. for the continuing resolution. But every single one that did is not up. for reelection in 2026, or retiring, which says to me that they put on a play. They're all putting on a play Oh, sure, these 10 people reject the CR.

Well, actually, we don't really know if they reject it. We just know that those are the ones that. have the political safety that they can step up and do that, that they can step up and accept. the continuing resolution, because it. won't hurt them politically. So we don't even know what they actually think, because they put on a play. And the Republicans do the same fucking thing, by the way. When they were going through the Senate.

confirmation hearings on Pete Hegseth, they put on a play. Oh, there's three senators that have principled. objections to this nomination. It just so happens that it was the exact number of senators. that could object, where JD Vance could come. in and cast the deciding vote. So understand what you're watching. And I don't know if we're in act one or act two, or where the fuck we are in this. But it's a play.

And they're putting it on. And we need better than that. And we've got, today--. the play that's being put on now is an economic one. And I want to get to-- we have two guests today. that I think are really, really good. One is an economic historian. The other is, I'd say, more of a conservative, center right, who's got a real focus on economic populism. And we're going to talk a little bit about the play that. is putting on, that is being put on, about our economy,

and how it's going to be transitioned, and what the reality is of how they're. going to be transitioning it. So I'm just going to get to them now, because they're fantastic. [MUSIC PLAYING]. We are going to get into it with our guests. I want to thank them for joining us. Adam Tooze, author of Chartbook, which. is on Substack, and Sohrab Ahmari, US Editor of UnHerd, and author of Tyranny Inc. And they are joining us today. to tell us, if I may, gentlemen--.

and I hate to put you in this position-- the future. You are my soothsayers. Adam, I'll start with you, as the economist. ADAM TOOZE: You just put that on me. JON STEWART: I just put that on you. It seems evident that there is a remaking. of the American economy, or at least the attempt. to do so through the Trump economic policies, whether it's through tariffs and more. protectionism, less government spending, these kinds of things.

We've had sort of two economic orders since the New Deal. We had the New Deal economic order. And then, we had that neoliberalism. that started with maybe Carter and Reagan, and moved its way on up. Is that the end goal, in your mind, for what is happening here? Is this an engineering of a different kind of economy. than we've been accustomed to? ADAM TOOZE: I mean, you might think that. And that would, in a sense, be a continuity with the Biden. team as well, because they were talking. in rather similar terms.

I mean, Jake Sullivan had that famous speech. where he talked about a new Washington. consensus, post-neoliberalism. It was all the rage. JON STEWART: Right, but that was the CHIPS Act, which was basically like, oh--. ADAM TOOZE: Well, CHIPS and IRA. And that's the question, is, where's the beef? And if they go on talking like this--. and it's quite difficult to actually put your finger. on what they're doing and whether it. could possibly be for real. You start wondering whether it isn't more like a face lift. It's more like a kind of--. it's more that Mar a Lago aesthetic,

where we all pretend to be 25. But the reality of--. I mean, and no judgment. Like, that's fine. You go do your thing. But we aren't actually 25, you know? And there's a way in which something like that. is clearly true about the economy. I mean, the economy, there's never literally, ever. in history, been a case of a society as. successful as the US, and as rich as the US, that has somehow reversed the structure of the relationship. between the key bits, the service sector,

the industrial sector. And, once upon a time, it would have. been farming and agriculture, which I know. you're into in New Jersey. JON STEWART: Oh, very much so, sir. ADAM TOOZE: You can't reverse engineer. Certainly, nothing in history to date has suggested, you can do that. And the US industrial and manufacturing sector right now. isn't the platform from which you would. expect a reconquest or a transformation. of all of American society. JON STEWART: Well, do you think that, Adam, is. this kind of reshaping done either because. of a catastrophic event, like the Depression,

or the introduction of a new technology. like industrialization, or, in the case of maybe. that neoliberalism, the internet, and a more global transportation and supply. line hub. Is that generally how this all starts? ADAM TOOZE: Yeah, technology is key here. And that's been the driver all along. And the basic story, and this is why this is all. so kind of ironic and weird, is that we've gotten really,

really good at manufacturing and industry, in the same way as we got really, really good at farming. Once upon a time, the vast majority of Americans. were farmers. And that wasn't a lifestyle choice. That was because we just couldn't. feed ourselves because we were so bad at farming. We got very good at farming. JON STEWART: And I don't know if you know, Adam, but labor costs for our farming were quite low for--. I can't remember why. But--. ADAM TOOZE: Yeah, I mean, that's the norm, right? Because people are desperate, and all over the world. have always been desperate. And so, it's really anomalous to have rich farmers. That's a really peculiar situation to be in.

JON STEWART: Right. Well, we also had a system there where. I think we made them do that. ADAM TOOZE: You get slave labor. You get various types of forced labor. But the story here of technological change. is one that just cuts through this. The crisis story, the New Deal that you might be invoking, for instance, in the 30s, it doesn't change. anything about the balance between the bits, right? So the share of industry in the US economy as a whole. was 40% before the New Deal. And after the New Deal, it continued at that level until. the late 60s, when really rapid technological change.

and the global re-division of labor kicked. in, where the Japanese learned to make cars. which Americans would buy. And there was that shift. So I think what history does and what policy does. is set the terms under which capital and labor, amongst other players, transact within the frame, if you like, that technology provides. And the New Deal was very favorable to organized labor, which is why I think middle class America looks back to it. with nostalgia. That was the Treaty of Detroit. And neoliberalism broke that.

And it's, in a sense now, as though they want the promise. of the middle class lifestyle of the 50s without the power. relations, which would be powerful organized labor that. actually made that possible. JON STEWART: Wow, OK. ADAM TOOZE: And all of this suggesting somehow and feeding. off the idea that America's got to make things, and that, if it doesn't make things, it's somehow just floating free and without substance. JON STEWART: Thank you for that, Adam. Sohrab, I want to ask you. That's such an interesting-- so the idea. is the different bits that we have.

and the relationship between capital and labor. And what I think Adam is referring to. is that idea that the neoliberalism. advantaged capital, to a certain extent, through these technologies. So is the idea here, without union power. to re-balance this equation between capital and labor, is the idea that protectionism re-balances those bits? How do they plan on re-balancing it?

To my mind, I would agree with the basic premise. Financialization and capital should not be advantaged. in the way that they have. And I think it puts an imbalance. So is the question here just how they're. trying to re-balance it? SOHRAB AHMARI: I agree with Adam, in the sense that what we. see is too often, under the Trumpians, but also under the Biden administration, these two, as Adam pointed out, have actually. been in a kind of continuity.

The Biden administration came in and kept the tariffs. against certain Chinese goods, and, in fact, expanded them to electric vehicle components, and so on. So there's this broad attempt by the American ruling class. to try to have a different political economy. And I agree that what they're doing, including under Trump, too, is not enough. Where I disagree is the idea that the sectoral mix. of an economy between agriculture services,

manufacturing, and so on, is impossible to change. or re-engineer because, in a way, the tradition that I look. to, the Hamiltonian tradition, it wasn't inevitable. that the US would become an industrial superpower, a manufacturing superpower. It was a result of policies advanced by the Hamiltonians. And when I say, the Hamiltonians, I don't just mean Alexander Hamilton himself, although he laid down the vision, but a series of political leaders who advanced it. JON STEWART: Well, break that down a little bit, then.

Are you talking about a federalized system, central banks, a way of government intervention. and creating markets? SOHRAB AHMARI: Yeah, the triple foundations. where you can summarize them in one word terms, as tariff, canal, and bank, talking about. the early Republic's economy. Tariff being, of course, an attempt. to protect America's nascent manufacturing sector. from the manufacturing superpower of that time,

which was Great Britain. And the Brits, as Hamilton knew well, really were determined to turn and maintain. America as a kind of backwater, a swampy backwater that. was a resource pool for them, and that. would be a captive market for their manufacturers. In fact, in 1721, the British Board of Trade declared, quote, "the the colonies, lacking their own manufactures, will always remain dependent on Great Britain.". So knowing that the Hamiltonians said, no, we're going to protect our nascent industries with tariffs.

by protecting, also, maintaining industrial workers, trained, competent industrial workers in the country, but not just that. And that's the part where I think. the Trumpians are getting it wrong by just doing tariffs. He also did, you mentioned, the bank, which ensures the steady flow, disciplined flow, of credit, and the idea that the financial system. should serve the real economy. That is, we don't have finance for its own sake. And that's why banking for much of the country.

wasn't nearly as important as it is today. Wall Street now plays this overweening. role in the economy. The Hamiltonians stopped that. And then, when we say canal, it means. infrastructure, which today might mean. different things than canals. JON STEWART: Right. Apparently, no, today, it still means canal, I think, as we're. about to take over Panama. Sohrab, I don't know if you know this. But you may have stumbled into, if I may, the sequel. to Hamilton. I think Hamilton II, the economic foundation,

maybe not a rock opera. But I think it'd be wise. But this gets us back to--. and maybe we're backing off for a bit. But laissez faire economics is the doctrine, the invisible hand. And I think we've never actually had it, have we? It's not a real thing. I don't know if the French have a word for a very visible hand. But the hand is always visible. It's just a question of where we decide to place it.

Would that be accurate, Adam? ADAM TOOZE: I think that's right. And I don't disagree with Sohrab in his analysis. of the 18th and 19th century. My question is really about the relevance of that. analysis to the 21st century, and the world. that we're currently in. And the question really is, sure, we know from many cases, not just the American one, that you can engineer on the upswing, if you like, an increase in the share of your manufacturing. industrial sector. Most recently, the Chinese have done it,

to truly spectacular effect. The question is whether a mature and rich. society, like the American one, can, or even should want to do that. Now, this doesn't mean that America can't cherry. pick individual sectors and say, we'd really like to have more competence in chips. Fine, absolutely. You can do that. You can go after that. But that shouldn't be confused with a vision for society. as a whole, or the economy as a whole, let alone a fix. for the situation of the American middle class, which. is how this is so often badged and sold in American. politics today.

There's a national security case. for diversifying the source of memory chips, and processors, and so on. But there isn't, to my mind, a realistic social vision, which is why I raised the Mar a Lago and face lift thing, because it's not real, right? JON STEWART: How dare you, sir! How dare you say those faces aren't real! ADAM TOOZE: Well, you either go down that, or you go down the Tonka toy, hard hat vision of the economy, which Joe Biden was addicted to. I mean, he just loved a picture of himself. in a manufacturing plant. However run down, however 1980s, he wanted to be there.

And they are both visions of an American--. well, they're a past, projected into the future. And I don't think they're helpful, because I think. they're misleading as to what would actually. help the American working class, which is health. care, childcare. Those are the things where you could actually affect. tens of millions of people. JON STEWART: Hell to the yes, sir. That is my language. So let's stop for a second. I think what we're agreeing is, a, governments always.

make different choices, whether it's through infrastructure, economic policy, monetary policy, where they can. influence the direction and capabilities. of the economy, that which they're trying to build. Everybody makes choices of how they're going. to stimulate the economy. The second thing is, the Trump administration very clearly. is re-engineering how that economy works, through their tariff program, and I imagine. through deregulation and other more libertarian aspects to it.

I guess the question that maybe we need to ask is, is it necessary? I would say that, yes, we have a real issue of inequality. within our economy. We have a real issue, as Adam talks about, in terms of what the government actually delivers to people. Is this the answer to the very real imbalances. that we're seeing, Sohrab?

SOHRAB AHMARI: Yeah, so with all this talk. of plastic surgery, I'm reminded of Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist, who said the prevalence. of plastic surgery is a sign of sexual generosity. I don't know how that applies to manufacturing. JON STEWART: Is that one of the books behind you, Sohrab? Is that what's sitting on that shelf? SOHRAB AHMARI: I definitely have. some Houellebecq in the back. JON STEWART: All right, fair enough. SOHRAB AHMARI: Here's what I would say, is, so the reason. that the Hamiltonian tradition, again, not just Hamilton himself. But I would include Abraham Lincoln.

and his economic advisor, Henry Charles Carey, and Teddy Roosevelt, and especially. FDR and the New Deal order. They all emphasize manufacturing. It goes back to Hamilton himself, who said, for the safety and independence of national life, you need manufacturing independence. Something that we encountered in 2020 during the pandemic. when we realized that, for basic components. for many drugs, to personal protective equipment. for our first responders, and so on, we couldn't produce that on our own.

because we'd off-shored so much manufacturing. And I heard you railing against offshoring, John, in your conversation with Senator Sanders as well. JON STEWART: Yeah, I don't care for it. SOHRAB AHMARI: So I would say, look, there is something special about manufacturing, because the period of lowest inequality. in American history, the New Deal Order, did coincide in an industry-led economy, when manufacturing. was nearly a third of US GDP in 1950, down to about 10% today. Now, I don't know how much Adam agrees with us or not.

I think that that wasn't the result of world. historical, deterministic inevitability. It was the result of concrete policy choices, where, in the beginning of the 1970s, we decided to favor. finance over the real economy. And this addiction to cheap labor. began, not just through offshoring, but, also, lots of immigration and so on. We disempowered the American working class, and, of course, the anti-union thrust of American policy.

that really took off under Reagan. So there is something about manufacturing. For example, the NYU sociologist, Vivek Chhibber, he's a Marxist. But lots of other scholars as well. have shown that manufacturing jobs are easier to unionize, certainly, than service sectors. There's something about the proximity of workers, in a regular, stable hours during the day, and even the kind of geographic proximity. that factory life creates, compared to gig-ified labor.

And even the Biden administration. was as friendly as you could get to organize labor. But the union density, the share of workers that. are covered by collective bargaining agreements, didn't really--. JON STEWART: --was so low now. And also, listen, their infrastructure investments. were enormous. They just couldn't build any of it. I mean, they spent billions on electric vehicle. charging stations and built, I think, eight. It was that sort of thing. So there's two questions here that arise for me. Are we fighting a war, a conventional war, when everyone else is using drones and lasers.

to rebuild something, creating a kind of, will it be a facade? Will it be a Potemkin village? Because even if you replace manufacturing jobs, manufacturing isn't done in the same way. that it used to be done. Part of what lost manufacturing jobs. was globalization, and the fact that capital can travel. And labor can't. Part of it was, hey, man, I can pretty much build a robot. to do what 50 of you do.

So, will we be capturing something real? So the first question to Adam, are we fighting the wrong war? Are we making Abrams tanks? And everyone else is making something more modern. ADAM TOOZE: I'll just put some numbers in the picture here. There are 160 million people working as employed people. in the United States, 170 million people. in the workforce as a whole. So there's 10 million self-employed. There are 12 million people working in manufacturing, tightly defined. If you add eight million in construction,

that gets you to 20 million for industry. Now, that is not a base from which you can transform. American society, right? JON STEWART: What was it in the 50s, Adam? Do you have a sense of the percentage? ADAM TOOZE: The share of employment, it was closer to 30%. JON STEWART: OK. So, now, it's closer to 10%. ADAM TOOZE: Less than 10%, 7% in manufacturing, narrowly defined. JON STEWART: Realistically boosting it--. ADAM TOOZE: Even by a couple of million, it would be a huge success. And it would take you closer to 10% than we currently are at. So there are two different projects.

There is the fulfillment of the Hamiltonian project. of sovereignty and independence and security, which requires certain technological capacities. There are industrial communities. that exist that should be defended, and developed, and supported in ways that are appropriate. But, then, the big challenge, surely, has got to be to deliver on something closer to a New. Deal, shall we say, for want of a better. word, social and welfare bargain for the 20. million people that work in health care, for the 17 million people that work in leisure and services.

And that is a holistic bargain which can't, any longer, be based around the male breadwinner model of the UAW, duking it out with GM and Ford and Chrysler. in Detroit in the 40s and 50s. This is a highly diverse, very feminine workforce, which has to continuously take the problem of child. care organically, with the problem. of their working conditions. That's where progressive politics, to my mind, needs to focus, not on the--.

yes, it's the last war. The promise of retaining industrial jobs. for that classic industrial working class. is not a bad goal. But it's not to be confused with the project of actually. supporting progressive change for the majority of Americans. In industry itself, John, amen to everything you've just said. The Chinese are discovering this, right? The cutting edge of Chinese EV production. is not for this tens of thousands of workers. It's not even like the Foxconn plants. that make the Apple phones. They're these dark factories with hardly any workers,

operating hyper-sophisticated robot machinery, which churn out the cars at unbeatably low cost. So the Chinese themselves are going. to discover this problem of the disconnect. between manufacturing and industrial success, and the share of people that can be employed, and the social model that goes with that. It's three layers here that are continuously conflated. JON STEWART: Sohrab, that's such. an interesting way that Adam has just framed it, I think. And it does beg the question, then.

How do you create this Hamiltonian model, which. I think is what we're talking about, as kind of an ideal of balance? You're talking about infrastructure and monetary. policy and these other bases. What would that look like? Adam's probably right here. We couldn't re-balance our manufacturing sector. or blue collar jobs to be 30% of the economy. and create that really stable middle class infrastructure. How do we create that really stable middle class.

infrastructure in this, while also realizing. that there's an AI chat-bot right now, taking over The Daily Show? How do we square that? SOHRAB AHMARI: Yes. So, a couple of points. I want to address Adam's point. I mean, I think it's right, that manufacturing's share of. the GDP can go up, somewhat. But that doesn't necessarily translate into huge gains. in terms of the manufacturing share of the workforce,

precisely because of automation. I think everyone in this space recognizes that. The first thing I'd say is, first. of all, the jobs that are currently in manufacturing. are worth protecting. I meet once a month with a gathering. of manufacturers who've committed to manufacture. only in the United States. And they will tell you that Chinese dumping. threatens their current employees, which are significant numbers. Would that get us to 30% manufacturing.

if all these jobs were protected? No. But there are good, high-paying jobs. JON STEWART: Yeah, let's be clear, though. There's not a sector of American jobs, though, that are not worth protecting. There's not a sector of jobs, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether--. SOHRAB AHMARI: I agree. I agree. JON STEWART: It's really important. SOHRAB AHMARI: So, I mean, there. are jobs to protect right now in this sector because. of its other dimensions, of its national security dimension. The fact that, again, to go back to this idea. that the Hamiltonian model sought to bind capital.

to place, to political community. JON STEWART: That's right. And, now, capital travels. And labor doesn't. It's just the way that things have been designed. SOHRAB AHMARI: Right. And because of the capital investments involved, the manufacturing-- the local factory boss is a lot more--. I mean, he might be a jerk. And you have to fight him with unions. And I'm all for that. As Adam knows, for someone who is of the center right, I'm all for trying to boost our union density, and all that. But, still, he or she is connected. to the local community in a way that Wall.

Street, or distant Silicon Valley tech firms, are not. But, OK, so if we try our best to increase. the manufacturing share of the workforce, that will hit a limit. However, let's try at first, because the thing. is, if we get to the point where we break. corporate America's addiction to cheap labor, especially through offshoring, it. will force them to pay higher wages here locally, or to innovate. Right now, the current globalization model.

that we're hopefully transitioning out of. incentivizes them not to actually. do labor-saving technologies, but to try. to do the same things with cheaper and cheaper labor. JON STEWART: Finding more and more countries. to exploit, which, by the way, we do in the United States. I mean, South Carolina, right to work states. do the same thing that globalization does to America, to states that have unions. I mean, Michigan gets decimated by, maybe, Mexican plants, but also by right to work states in South Carolina,

and Texas, and all kinds of other places. SOHRAB AHMARI: But just to finish this. point-- and I agree with that. I welcome our robot overlords. Let's bring them over. And if we're going to have full, luxury, automation--. JON STEWART: Let them be our robots. SOHRAB AHMARI: And then, you have an economy that. can pay more for its caretakers, for the kinds of workers that Adam mentioned, that the strength of the manufacturing sector. can absorb higher wages in a Burger King, or in home health.

care, and all those other. JON STEWART: But they won't. You see that the sectors where labor cannot travel, fast food, health care, where communities must have them in there, look at how hard they fight to depress their wages. And I'm not just talking about the people. who run those businesses. I'm talking about the Fed. The Fed raised interest rates, in part because of what. they called, wage inflation. ADAM TOOZE: Overheating. JON STEWART: Overheating.

But it wasn't overheating on profits. It wasn't overheating on supply chain constriction. It was, holy shit! Are we paying these people 15--. what? No, no, no, no, no. Raise the rates. Depress the labor market. That was the cudgel they used. ADAM TOOZE: Yeah. And it's always-- service sector. inflation is what really causes the financial markets to panic. And service sector inflation is driven by labor costs. So that goes hand in hand with wage increases for the lowest.

paid American, blue collar workers, blue collar. in the wider sense. But in fairness to the Fed, they ran this baby. as hot as they dared. JON STEWART: For as long as they dared. ADAM TOOZE: This is not-- by central banking standards, this was an experiment in risk which, of course, more centrist Democrats like Larry Summers. attacked from the very beginning. And the GOP rode in on it in an utterly cynical way. during the campaign, denouncing inflation, and everything else. Whereas, as you're saying, John, this has been,

like it or not, believe it or not, a good time for the least. well-paid American workers. A lot of the inequality of the 70s and 80s. has been closed up by rises in their wages, not at the super top. Obviously, the billionaires are better off than ever. But within the workforce, there has been. a modest closing of the gap. JON STEWART: Let me ask you a question about--. there is a real effort right now. And, again, this gets us back to the Trumpian, which is, remove the federal government from everything. Unleash the powers of laissez faire capitalism.

And that will close these gaps and inequities. But there are so many externalities in terms of--. and I think, when they keep pointing back to this Gilded. Age of a more libertarian economy, well, that was a volatile disaster. So I'm not quite sure--. where is it that they're taking us? They're certainly not taking us back. to the capitalized days of Hamiltonian central planning.

ADAM TOOZE: Everyone was farming in that period. 80% of Americans were farmers in the Hamiltonian period. JON STEWART: Right. This policy seems to be taking us back more to 1870. ADAM TOOZE: Really, it's great. This is a good exercise. The 1890s, with huge waves of migration, the '93 to '96 recession, the 1907 recession, 2021, and then, the big kahuna, the Great Depression--. the most dynamic economy in the world, by all means, but the worst governed, the most unstable,

incredible inequalities. JON STEWART: Patronage, corruption. ADAM TOOZE: Class war, the Ku Klux Klan, the whole--. that, this is what we want. JON STEWART: Sohrab, what is their vision? What's the analog to this? SOHRAB AHMARI: So the way I put this. is that they're pursuing Hamiltonian means. by Jacksonian ends. Now, let me explain that. [LAUGHTER]. JON STEWART: By the way, both are in my wallet right now. SOHRAB AHMARI: Yes, exactly right. And may there be ever more of them.

But Arthur Schlesinger, a great New Deal historian, described the New Deal project as Hamiltonian means. for Jeffersonian ends, meaning, using big government, directing markets, and so on and so forth, for the Jeffersonian ideal of a prosperous, relatively. egalitarian order-- of course, the Jeffersonian vision. didn't include African-Americans in it. But, still, the idea was to use this big state interventionist.

model to achieve the small r, Republican, Jeffersonian model. So, now, I think, if you want to use. these kind of categories, the Trumpians are coming in. They have, I think, Hamiltonian ends in mind. They want a manufacturing-led economy, et cetera, et cetera. But they're using the methods of Andrew Jackson, of course, the co-founder of the Democratic Party, who. believed in breaking things. He thought that the Second Bank of the United States.

was a vehicle for entrenched Northeastern elites. And in some ways, it was. So, Hulk smash. He broke it. But, the results, it didn't redound to the benefit. of those people. It actually, as Adam knows better than I do, his war on the Second Bank immediately resulted. in inflation and a depression, as a result of wildcat banking, lots of messy small banks, et cetera, et cetera. And the US really didn't stabilize its financial system.

for nearly a century, until the establishment. of the Federal Reserve. So I see some of that contradiction in the Trumpians. I like some of their protectionist efforts, and so on. But I find, frankly, the Elon Musk, DOGE stuff, really disturbing, and really contradictory to--. you need state capacity if they want to do stuff like that. You need workforce development. By the way, unions can be a part of workforce development. They're very good at it, as we know.

Unfortunately, what they've done is, they've crippled the National Labor Relations Board, which I find very disturbing. Lots of regulators that do good things, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that would have regulated Elon's own X, if he wants. to turn it into a payment app. JON STEWART: Sure. Gee, why would he have done that? SOHRAB AHMARI: In a completely self-interested way. So, I mean, that's the Jacksonian part. And the problem with the Jacksonians. is, they harness populist anger with the economic order. But it redounds to the benefit of other elements of capital.

JON STEWART: And, by the way, it's an exercise. they're doing explicitly. Adam, this gets to the central contradiction. of where we're talking about. So this is a thing that, in many ways, they fetishize the working man, right? They pay great homage to the values of the working man. But who is in there, smashing around the economy? It's not the working man. It's not people with an understanding of unions.

and all those other things. It's techno-billionaires who want to create. And, look, their vision for the economy, let's be honest, is very clearly not a bottom-up infrastructure. It is a gig economy run by overlords that are AI-infused. They have an, I think, dystopian vision, of what. work and relevance means. I don't think they're talking about the kind. of societal tent post economies that you.

guys are talking about. Address how that central contradiction plays out, Adam. ADAM TOOZE: I think, to make sense of this, it's a fascinating conversation, I think we need two extra terms. One is social democracy, which, I quite. like this reading of the New Deal, as Jeffersonian goals by Hamiltonian means. But another way of thinking of the New Deal. is, it's America's effort at social democracy--. in other words, an organized bargain between. American workers and capital. And the fact of the matter is that a very large slice.

of America, particularly in big cities, love social democracy. They really like that vision. They really like social insurance. They like the LaGuardia vision of well-managed cities. They like the Wisconsin, Minnesota, California. There's lots of different variants of it. But it's essentially recognizable as American social. democracy, like in Europe. And the partners of the New Deal Democrats, in doing this, were the professional managerial class--. in other words, folks like us. And I read Trumpism and the Musk element.

within it as a double attack, right? In the name of the working class, which. is largely nonexistent and not in the room, de facto, their immediate victims are civil servants, public servants. in federal government, doing things. like weather forecasting. JON STEWART: By the way, demonized. ADAM TOOZE: Demonized. JON STEWART: Somehow, they're not the working class. Somehow, they're not the middle class. ADAM TOOZE: No, but, in many cases, they're not the working class. They are actually university-educated, middle class people. American class language is confusing. JON STEWART: But they're being portrayed. as a criminal element.

Like, you bastard, testing our water for fecal matter. How dare you, sir! ADAM TOOZE: How dare you. So this is some kind of racket. JON STEWART: Right. ADAM TOOZE: And how I read this current moment. as a double attack, effectively continuing the undermining. of the real conditions for working Americans, but with a novel element of a really. no-holds-barred attack on the PMC, on the professional managerial class. And that includes big corporate capital, which has its DEI,

and its ESG agendas, none of which they're down with. And it's done in the name of a kind of entrepreneurialism. which is Jacksonian, which is about breaking things. and seeing what happens next. JON STEWART: But, by the way, let's also be clear. There is no real ESG, DEI ethos in any of this. That was all wallpaper and gilding and tinsel. ADAM TOOZE: But it was wallpaper. that was held in place by tens of thousands of people. whose job it was, and who did believe in it, and whose careers were actually owed to it. It's a real thing. JON STEWART: And who are real people.

ADAM TOOZE: Who are real people, and talented. And there were elements of that story. that actually worked, right? Affirmative action was a program. that actually transformed American society. for the better. And so we can't let go of that. But that, I think, is the double element. that's at work here. And I would agree with you, John, that the vision that someone like Musk holds out is--. I just don't think we've ever quite seen it. I go back to Jules Verne and late 19th century sci-fi, where you've got some bad, villainous. business guy who's got an island, and a submarine, and a rocket.

And the crazy thing is, he has an island. and a submarine and a rocket! JON STEWART: We're going to iRobot here. ADAM TOOZE: He's got, like, thousands of satellites! It's insane. JON STEWART: Sohrab, is the end game here, is this gold leaf on a shit-box? Like, what exactly is the plan here? If the tariff regime, which is going to be extraordinary. if carried out, can only boost our manufacturing. base by a million jobs-- which are real, right? But certainly doesn't re-balance the GDP.

in any significant way, especially. given financialization, and the way that that dominates. the economy. Is this sincere, or is it cover to do something. slightly more insidious? SOHRAB AHMARI: I mean, as with all of these things, I think it's a mix. And we should be careful about the Trumpians as a whole, because there are very serious internal divisions. between them. There is definitely the Lex Luthor-like, techno overlords.

JON STEWART: Who, by the way, all do have the Lex Luthor. There are a lot of stocky, bald dudes in the techno sphere. But, then, you've got Bannon, who is much more, I think, firebrand-y populist. And is that the trick they're pulling? Is it, we're using a populist trojan horse? But inside that trojan horse is a cadre of bald guys with AI.

Is that what we're dealing with? SOHRAB AHMARI: At least in some dimension, insofar as it's called the tech right, or the techno billionaires, are asserting an ever-greater role. in the Trump administration. It's to the detriment of its populist elements, some of whom--. you guys may disagree. I think there are very sincere people. in what is called the new right, et cetera, who--. JON STEWART: Don't doubt it. SOHRAB AHMARI: --who don't share that view. And they don't want that. JON STEWART: I've spoken to guys like Oren Cass,

who I think are very sincere about--. very good faith, very interesting ideas. I think there's a lot of guys over there like that. ADAM TOOZE: But I just want to address the PMC thing. a little bit, because I have the same reading, that the Jeff. Bezos types of the world used anger at the PMCs, because the PMC are people who manage working class people, in a way. The working class people don't come into contact with Bezos. JON STEWART: By the way, it's also Jeff Bezos. Like, let's be clear.

Like, Amazon factories, these are the people. who are managed by PMCs. And Jeff Bezos is one of them. ADAM TOOZE: Right. So, I mean, it's very telling that, for about a decade, the way that the Bezos types of the world. legitimated their power was through woke language, DEI stuff. My favorite example, John, you probably know it, is, there was this podcast put out by REI, the outdoor sports chain. The podcast, it was a company podcast.

And some lady came on and said, hello, my name is so-and-so. I'm proud to serve as your diversity and inclusion chief. I use she/her pronouns. And I just want to acknowledge that I'm. coming to you from the traditional lands. of the Ohlone people. By the way, the topic of this podcast. is why you shouldn't join a labor union, right? I mean, the examples are legion. And it just shows you, the PMC left did do harm, because it blended some legitimate, economically.

re-distributive policies that I would support. with a bunch of nonsense that ordinary people. got really fed up with. JON STEWART: Right, would roll their eyes at. ADAM TOOZE: And it's amazing now. that the same Bezos who marched at the forefront of the Black. Lives Matter column five years ago is now issuing diktats. to his newspaper that he owns, the Washington. Post Editorial page, saying, don't be so woke. Isn't it telling that it's the same guy? JON STEWART: I guess my point is that the corporate entries. into that world have always been, for the most.

part, bullshit. Now, we can talk about it. The DEI, to me, it's not about giving people. jobs who don't deserve them. It's about expanding supply lines. into fields, under-served areas, where you can develop new talent. It's about investing in emerging markets of people. who've been traditionally-- it's actually about creating. more competition, taking out the monopolies. that have existed in the labor market. in almost every industry.

But, man, anybody who ever watched somebody. wrap a McDonald's breakfast song understands. Corporations are usurping any culture. that they can get their hands on, that they think will give them a legitimate entry. into another market. SOHRAB AHMARI: Yeah, I disagree. I think that, for the most part, it was about making, the c-suite, making it more diverse, but not really changing the power.

dynamics between the c-suite and the asset-less majority, you know? JON STEWART: No, that's my point. SOHRAB AHMARI: I get that. But I just put a more negative spin on it. ADAM TOOZE: And another way of reading this. would be less manipulative. And it would be more optimistic, in the sense that these changes are. happening in American society. JON STEWART: Yes. ADAM TOOZE: Women are going to college at rates. never before seen. They dominate in many parts of education. DEI, as far as they're concerned, is not some sort of concession. It's just companies getting real.

JON STEWART: No, they're trying to constrict it, is what I'm saying. ADAM TOOZE: Yeah, exactly. And they're flexing around it and trying. to figure out what their positioning. is in relation to it. I think, at that level, the same. is true about the American working class. It's a large percentage of women. And it's incredibly diverse. And so, woke strategies of recognizing that diversity. are just realism. JON STEWART: And by the way, to that. point earlier about the social programs, so there's always been this thread through social programs, that that is somehow--.

that the people in those situations. are there because of a lack of virtue, right? ADAM TOOZE: Yeah. JON STEWART: They are there because they are. taking advantage of a system. The majority of people on those programs are working poor. They're working their asses off. They're doing one job, two jobs, three jobs, working at Walmart and still having to get SNAP benefits. This is not a problem of desire and intrepid spirit. It's a system that would rather protect.

the billionaire's last $20 billion than help somebody. get their first $1,000. To me, that's the system that has to be realigned. And is any of this that we're doing here actually. realigning that system? SOHRAB AHMARI: I would just put the emphasis. on class, genuinely, as opposed to these other identitarian. dimensions because, in a very real way, lots of those DEI,

woke cultures, practices, et cetera, cashed out, hey, you haven't gotten a meaningful raise. in nearly two generations. Your health care is lousy, et cetera. But take solace. Your boss is a disabled trans woman. I see it as much more, I think, cynical, than Adam does. But I think, if we just focus it on class--. because, by the way, all these identitarian divisions are. management strategies as well. You can divide the working class.

And they do it all the time. So, again, I'm of the center right. But when I listen to Senator Sanders, especially the Senator. Sanders of circa 2015, '16, I'm like, oh, my god, this was good. And what a tragedy it was that, for example, he called for all sorts of antitrust measures. And Hillary Clinton said, yeah. But we're breaking up the banks and systemic racism. No, it doesn't. But that's not the problem it's supposed to address. And it was telling that she ganged.

up on him using that rhetoric. JON STEWART: Gaining potential there. Adam, do you see-- so is there opportunity here, in this re-balancing, for--. look, I think the New Deal came about, to be frank, as revolution insurance. I mean, I think that the powers that be. saw the socialist revolutions. They saw communism taking hold. They saw these various--. in countries that refused to understand the discomfort.

and pain that the majority of their people. were going through. If they didn't take meaningful efforts. to fix that systemically, they were going to find. themselves head in a bucket. It was the French Revolution. So, again, that's probably a more cynical. way of viewing the New Deal. But this doesn't seem to be re-balancing that discomfort. in a meaningful way. But I think Democratic policies fall short of that as well. What it sounds like to me is, people get.

mad because they pay taxes. And they don't get health care. They have to still buy insurance. And even when they buy insurance, they don't get health care! They just get this pass that says, well, maybe if we agree to give you that MRI, you'll get the health care. But, actually, still, you're going to have. to pay in a deductible. Isn't that fundamentally what's wrong with this? ADAM TOOZE: No. I mean, I basically agree with you. As late as the 1970s, there was still that fear, that if unemployment went really high,

there would be something akin to social upheaval. And in parts of the world, in Europe, for instance, in Italy, and Great Britain, for a time it did actually. look that way. '68 was a working class uprising in much. of Europe at that time. But that fear is no longer. And that's part of the just grotesquerie. of the current moment. And Trump's inauguration, with just. the line-up of incredibly rich men as an ostentatious display. And insofar as we can point, I mean, part of my argument. a minute ago was that there is a social pressure.

I mean, I think it's going to be really interesting to see, in the long run, how gender rights, how. issues around reproductive freedom, and so on, play out in American society, because I. don't think the conservative agenda will work. it's not a threat of a revolution. But it is a huge polarization in politics. we're seeing around the world between men and women. And, in the end, that may tell. The question now is, what does the PMC do? Because they are a much larger group. than manufacturing industrial. JON STEWART: And by the way, much more.

at risk of the AI revolution. ADAM TOOZE: And very at risk of the AI revolution, and now under a hugely politicized attack. And I'm not saying--. I'm not predicting that there's going. to be a revolutionary upsurge of elementary school teachers. But that would seem to me to be the piece of the puzzle. And the question, of course, is where the Democratic Party is. Why is it not leading? I don't understand. Like, why is--. JON STEWART: So, that was interesting, Adam. So you mentioned a Democratic Party. Now, I wasn't aware there still was one.

ADAM TOOZE: That's exactly--. JON STEWART: Have you noticed? I had no idea. I had heard something of it. It had been whispered in the wind. ADAM TOOZE: Yeah, once upon a time, right? JON STEWART: Democratic Party. Sohrab, the center right, how do they address? I'll give you an anecdote. And you can respond. I spoke to one of these AI super-beings. that owns the thing. And I said to him, industrialization. raised the standard of living.

But it was really disruptive, right? And then, the internet revolution and globalization. was really disruptive. But industrialization took 150 years. The globalization was over 30 to 40 years. as this disruption occurred. AI's disruption, the timeline is much narrower. It could be five years. It could be 10 years. But, that disruption, look at how volatile the disruptions. were for globalization. Look at how volatile the disruptions. were for industrialization.

Are you worried that we won't be. able to manage the collateral damage to jobs, to lives, through this? And, by the way, that was the length of the question, that pedantic. And he goes, no, I think we'll be good. [LAUGHTER]. So, it doesn't seem like they're. taking the concerns that we are discussing, in any.

way, seriously. Is that your sense of what this new order is? SOHRAB AHMARI: No, I agree with that. And I worry about that. Listen, you said something, and I. think Adam agreed, that, fundamentally, the New Deal. Order was a conservative project, because it was. an attempt to bring the turbulent market, and all the disruption it can bring, under some degree of political control, strike a different bargain between. the asset-less majority, and the asset-rich few.

As Roosevelt himself said, if you would preserve reform, meaning, if you want to preserve, if you don't want a revolutionary scenario, give into reform. So I think my hope in the long term, to try to think dialectically, is, if these guys want to return the power relations that. prevailed in the 1890s, let's say, then what you're going to have, potentially, is the kind of labor and industrial relations. that you had in the 1890s.

Adam already hinted at this as well. You had mass strikes. You had violent uprisings, at factories, and mines, and so on, and railroads. Is it possible that we're heading into several decades. where we're going to see things like that, between, for example, masses of people who've become turned into, not even a proletariat, but a lumpen proletariat, as a result. of automation being ruthlessly pushed through without. political push-back? And is it possible that, down the road,

that will lead to some new labor settlement, some new--. whatever the true New Deal of the 21st century might be? But, as much as possible, personally, I'd. like to avoid upheaval, right? I don't want to live through the early 20th century. JON STEWART: I would like to avoid a violent insurrection. Is this disruption necessary, Sohrab? Is this a necessary step? There was a kind of--. everybody talks about the rules-based order. But what it feels a bit like is--.

I don't know if you ever watched. the show, Peaky Blinders. But Thomas Shelby, OBE, Peaky Blinders gang leader, had a theory on power called big fucks small. And it feels like we're moving into the big fucks small era, that big powers can take advantage, to go back. to that idea of, we extract the wealth. from places we want to extract it from because we can.

And it's vindictive. And whatever disruptions or whatever ill will. it causes, tough shit, because big fucks small. But, given that, the problem is, government is the only thing big enough, in my mind, to countervail multinational corporate power. And if it is not exercised with, as Adam says, an eye towards the needs of the people,

and it's been de-fanged for a more. vengeance, exploitative version of it, where does that leave us? And am I painting too dark a picture. of what this looks like? And I'll start with Sohrab. And we'll end with Adam. SOHRAB AHMARI: No, I share your alarm. at what the techno-billionaires are up to. And I'm about as pessimistic as you put it. And what I put my hope in is democracy, and democracy.

not just as going to--. JON STEWART: I got some bad news, Sohrab. SOHRAB AHMARI: No, no, not just going to the ballot, democracy. not as just going to the ballot box every few years, but the idea that technology, economy, all these things, they shouldn't just be left to their own devices. And we say, well, inevitably, it's going to lead. us in this or that direction. But, no, people should have political input. in how AI is rolled out, how it affects.

labor markets, the shape that the market takes, and so on. JON STEWART: Unfortunately, though, anything that would. do that is being demolished. SOHRAB AHMARI: That's what I'm saying. I think, just logically speaking, there's going to be push-back. And the only question is, is it ferocious upheaval, of the kind that I think none of us would like, or will a kind of wisdom reign, like it did in the 1930s, when elites came to realize that, for the sake of social order, they need to give more,

bottom line, to give more, and not just fuck one way. JON STEWART: Right, right, right. SOHRAB AHMARI: That's my hope. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Adam? ADAM TOOZE: I mean, to pick out the big fucks small theme, I think the economist in me says, well, does big want to fuck all of small, all the time? JON STEWART: It seems that way. ADAM TOOZE: Well, the question, I think, is serious. Like, who is it that's victimized? And at what level can resistance. and resilience be built? And how far does this also involve middle-sized players, predating smaller players?

You were describing, small town labor relations. are some of the most vicious in the United States. because the stakes are very high, even though it's a small pool. And I think, I mean, it's a version of Sohrab's. point about democracy. That's the content of the kind of democracy. that we need to build, is a democracy. that faces this harsh, brutal, brutally expressed. I think the sexual metaphor is wrong. There is a predatory, rapist, kind of mentality to this--. that resists that at every level, both cultural and political.

And this is where I think the agenda of feminism. is crucial, because it speaks to this experience of power. as being fucked. JON STEWART: And the consent. I mean, what do they always talk about? Democracy relies on the consent of the governed-- consent. ADAM TOOZE: Consent. Who is it that plays along? And that is where this countervailing power has to be. And being employed by big institutions in a. formidable city like New York. And you imagine some Trumpy--. some person like Trump coming along, wanting to fuck this town. Try.

You might want to. And people have done it. But it's hard, right? And it's not hard because it's a place. full of flaming radicals, though they. try to paint us that way. No. It's just a place full of people pursuing. their own projects in relatively decent ways, quite bought into the legacies of New Deal. institutions, Great Society institutions which work here, knowing that we need diversity, because this. is a very diverse place. And we can't function without it. This is not Mar a Lago or Palm Beach. We can't pretend the world is different from the way it is. And so, we need politics appropriate to that.

That's where I really don't see this. spiraling off into disaster. I think of a community like New York City, and think it'll take--. as Adam Smith would say, there's a lot of ruin in this. It'll take a lot to really bring this down. JON STEWART: Well, that is the most optimistic. note we've heard so far. And I appreciate that. Adam Tooze, author of Chartbook on Substack, and Sohrab Ahmari, US Editor of UnHerd and author of Tyranny Inc. Guys, thank you so much for spending the time.

with us-- and really, really helpful and interesting. And thank you. ADAM TOOZE: A real pleasure. SOHRAB AHMARI: Thanks, John. JON STEWART: So, here's what I saw. I saw a guy on the center right, pretty conservative, Catholic, has those bedrock values. of what you would consider to be a pretty conservative guy, with a guy that is much more on the left end.

of social democracy and all those other things, sitting and saying pretty much the same thing. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, absolutely. JON STEWART: That's how far we've moved. into this other direction. Is that where you guys are? What are you hearing from these cats? GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, something that you all. were talking about that really resonated. with me was just the lack of vision. for all of these policies. And it reminded me of the MAGA motto, which, you never really determined when we were trying.

to revert America back to. And it's kind of the same with this economic vision. And something that we were looking into prior. to this conversation was just all the justifications Trump. has given for the tariffs. And it goes from, to balance trade and spur. US manufacturing, to stop illegal immigration, to stop the flow of fentanyl, to balance the budget. Like, how can it be all of these things? What is the actual vision? JON STEWART: By the way, even trade. imbalances, when they talk about,

we've got to fix our trade imbalance. Well, America buys a shit ton of stuff. That's going to be really hard to do. And China has a positive trade balance. And is that the economy we want? What are we even talking about? So I think you're right. There's all kinds of justifications. But I think what we did get to is, there is a plan. That is the one thing I think they do have. We may not like it. But I think it's, to go back to Peaky Blinders, big.

fucks small. I think that's where we're at. I mean, Gillian, did they say anything that you thought, that's the kernel. That's the--. GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, I think it's just something Adam said. early on, which is, this economic realignment, this pursuit of on-shoring, these. are not necessarily bad goals. But they're not to be confused with policies. that actually advance the interests of the working class. And I think Sohrab was completely.

in agreement on that. JON STEWART: Right, or we'll do it in a relatively. small way, regionally--. but might not be a broader plan. Brittany, what's the view on Long Island? What's the view on Long Island from this? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: People just. want to be able to afford their bacon, egg, and cheese, you know? I think that's the big--. JON STEWART: It's the provincial concerns. that we all have. But I do think there was real agreement.

that the volatility of this is a real danger for them. And that part, I thought, was really interesting, when they were talking about, look, this realignment. is probably real. Protectionism is one aspect of it. There are billionaire technocrats. that are going through this other aspect of it. And maybe it is about reducing the deficit. But there are some volatile offshoots. of this that could create some real hardship for people.

And that's the thing that's scary. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Can I just say, this episode really made me want to listen. to the Hamilton soundtrack. [LAUGHTER]. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. I mean, how does a bastard orphan, son of a whore--. JON STEWART: Am I wrong, that that's a sequel? That we don't have-- the sequel is. how he put together the three tent posts. of Hamiltonian economies. GILLIAN SPEAR: It's hard to do a sequel. when, spoiler, he dies.

JON STEWART: I do appreciate that. Yeah, you say you want a revolution? Well, I want a revolution. I've only listened to it a few times. GILLIAN SPEAR: Only a couple. JON STEWART: Yeah. Brittany, what did the people say? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: All right. We've got a couple questions for you this week, Jon. Considering all the cuts and layoffs DOGE is implementing, especially as it affects veterans, what can ordinary people do to push back? JON STEWART: Oh, Jesus. Man, I so appreciate the question. And the frustration I always have. is that it's left to ordinary people.

Like, that's the part that makes me so mad, that our elected representatives are there. We send them to Washington so that--. every time the shit hits the fan with this, there's always that question, of--. I liken it to, if you're at a basketball game. and your team's just getting the shit kicked out of them. And in the timeout, the players just turn to the crowd. and go, all right. You're in. You're like, wait. But I don't know how to play basketball. And they're like, I don't care. We're fucking-- we're dying over here.

Just get in there. So, I mean, look, what I would say is, keep vigilant. Stay on it. And when a task comes--. but there has to be leadership in this, that, ultimately, if this gets to a veterans march on Washington--. which they did do. And it was really--. these are real people that, throughout the country, stood up and said, these cuts are hurting people. They're hurting us.

And very little blip. It's very hard to break through. So there has to be-- what we learned during the fight. for PACT Act, or is it-- or any of those things, is it takes strategy and leadership. from the top that is able to empower. people to particular tasks. And that plan has to be developed. But, man, the fact that people are out there saying, what can we do, says there's a thirst for that leadership,

and for direction. And, hopefully, it will be provided, because the usual shit is, call your Congressman. But I can tell you, man. They ignore that shit, unless it's. really targeted and really specific to a certain date. or action. And that date or action has not been articulated yet. But it will be. It has to be. And so, that's where I would say. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Amen. JON STEWART: Yeah.

Let's hope. Let's hope. But what else they got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, do you ever experience FOMO. at this stage of your career? JON STEWART: Wow, no. I don't experience FOMO, forget about career, in life, because I don't like doing things. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah, that's the secret. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Do you know what you have? It's called JOMO. JON STEWART: Jon of Missing Out. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: It's the Joy of Missing Out. JON STEWART: JOMO! I have JOMO. Do you guys get FOMO?

Gillian, you're our, perhaps, youngest member. Is that something that you experience? GILLIAN SPEAR: I think I'm similar to you, where I love being home with my dog. If somebody else was doing that, I'd have a lot of FOMO. But-- JON STEWART: You know what? That's a good point. Why is that not usually included in FOMO? Like, oh, man, you sat at home and watched. Severance with your dog? I'd be like--.

GILLIAN SPEAR: Take me there. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: That's exactly. why I can't get a pet, because I'll never go anywhere again. GILLIAN SPEAR: You won't. JON STEWART: You'll never. So, Lauren, do you need to be almost--. I find the energy to leave the house to be, like, it is an endeavor I have to endeavor. LAUREN WALKER: I know. I was going to say, I feel like you have. a fear of not having canceled. You would definitely like to be at home. JON STEWART: Yes, I prefer that. But, Brittany, you go out there.

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I put it on. JON STEWART: You know how to take it to the streets. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I try. I try. But, at the same time, I really enjoy, like, how I spend. my rent money, staying home. JON STEWART: I've never heard it put that way. But I kind of like that. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: You got to enjoy the ride. JON STEWART: What are you doing tonight? I'm spending my rent money. How are you doing that? I'm going to sit on the couch. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I'm staying home. JON STEWART: Yeah, no, I actually think that's great. I am, and I think, to, sometimes, people's. surprise, very introverted. And I don't-- even when I was younger, the jobs I had were--.

I bartended. I went out and did stand-up comedy. So it gave me the illusion of having friends or being out. But I like that. It's so much more preferable to socializing, not that I don't-- there's many people that I love, and I like to see, sometimes. But, boy, inertia-wise? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: You can always call them. I don't think you are taking into consideration, necessarily, how many people you talk to.

You talk to a lot of people. You need to recharge. JON STEWART: As far as I'm concerned, this was a cocktail party. And right now, I'm going back to bed. GILLIAN SPEAR: Socialize, off the list. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Power off. JON STEWART: That's what I'm talking about. Brittany, how can they get in touch with us? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, We. Are Weekly Show Pod, Instagram threads, TikTok, Blue Sky. We are Weekly Show Podcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment. on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Yeah! And do that, because we read them. Well, we don't.

But they do. Then they tell me, but generally curated. so that I don't go, what? Why would they say that? [LAUGHTER]. As always, thank you to everybody, lead producer, Lauren Walker, Producer, Brittany Mehmedovic, Video. Editor and Engineer, Rob Vitolo, Audio Editor. and Engineer, Nicole Boyce, Researcher and Associate. Producer, Gillian Spear, and our Executive Producers, Chris McShane and Caity Gray. As always, it's The Weekly Show Podcast. We'll see you guys next week. Bye, bye. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount.

Audio and Busboy Productions. [MUSIC PLAYING].