This Liberal Comedian Is Trying to Unite the Country in Her New Show

Comedian Sarah Silverman hasn’t held back when it comes to her dislike for President Donald Trump. But with her new show on Hulu, “I Love You, America,” Silverman hopes to reach out to Americans who voted for Trump as well as the rest of the country.

“When we’re divided, we’re easily controlled,” she said on the show. “So the challenge for us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other just as best we can.”

On today’s show, Glenn commended Silverman’s goal of trying to bring people together instead of further dividing them. But he added a caveat: You can only build bridges with the opposite team after you’ve held your own side accountable.

“I agree with her; however, it doesn’t work if you’re only going to single out the other side,” Glenn said. “You have to single out your side.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So comedian Sarah Silverman, who is an outspoken opponent of I think everything, at least everything that is conservative, says that she -- she considered stockpiling food and weapons last November because of Donald Trump.

Now, listen to this.

SARAH: When it was finally official and Trump had won, I felt something I had never felt before, which was this overwhelming survival-based fear. You know, I had the sudden urge to buy a gun and stockpile water and weapons and canned guns. And in an instant, I became like a liberal doomsday prepper. And for the first time, I felt an actual kinship to the far right militia person who, you know, thought Obama would end the world. But I realized, it's that. It's that feeling of fear that makes us the same. You know, we are, all of us, both paralyzed and motivated by fear. We fear the unknown.

And that's why Trump's campaign was so effective. He took our fears and our rage, and he gave us a place to put it all. And that place was each other.

And when we're divided, we're easily controlled, right? So the challenge for all of us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other, just as best we can.

GLENN: Okay. So I think this is a really good thing. It's a good first step. But will she go as far and say, "And so I've reflected on what perhaps we have done on our side?"

And, you know, placing the fear of that's just the way white people will do you. Did she reflect on that?

Because I agree with her. However, it doesn't work if you're only going to single out the other side. You have to single out your side.

STU: Yeah. Because, I mean, you've said things similar to what she's saying there.

GLENN: Yes. I've said -- right after the election, I said, look, we have an opportunity because they, for the first time, feel as though the entire country and our civilization could slide off the cliff, where they thought that was insane before. They now know how fragile things are, and they are afraid of the same thing you are afraid of, for the opposite reason.

STU: And my instinct hearing that, knowing Sarah Silverman and what she said over the past several years is to dismiss it. Because, well, are you even -- it's so inconsistent to where she has been and the things she has said publicly about politics recently.

But, I mean, A, I should resist that instinct, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If she's changed -- if she's decided she did things wrong in the past, great. But you're right, you have to take that additional step. People dismissed you when you said things like that.

GLENN: But I took the initial step.

STU: You took the initial step to say, look, I've done things that I don't like, in the middle of this. You take responsibility for whatever you can find that you feel that you may have done wrong.

GLENN: Yeah. And you have to do that. You have to do that before you do the other side.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You have to say, look, I'm going to take on my own side, I want to take on me, before I even take on my own side. I will take on me. What am I responsible for? How did I miss it? What did I do?

And, quite honestly, I think be generous on the give yourself an extra helping of, you know, I made mistakes.

STU: Yeah. Like think of the border thing for a minute. If the left came to you and they said -- they're always saying, we need to let these people who are illegals become legals. Become citizens. You have to give them passes on their illegal activity from before.

And if they came to you, not and just said it, but actually secured the border and actually went through and there were no new illegal immigrants coming in and they were arresting the ones that tried. And they were very -- like they actually took steps on their own --

GLENN: I would be for it. I would be for it.

STU: I don't know that I would be for it, but you would at least consider it, right?

GLENN: I would be willing to say, okay. We're not going to call more problems by doing this. Because we have -- and I would need something physical. Because I wouldn't believe that the next guy is coming in and he's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You build a wall -- the only reason why I want a wall is because I don't believe that the presidents will be consistent from one to the next. And so if you actually secured our nation and you actually took it seriously, then I would -- I would seriously consider that.

STU: Yeah. And if they said --

GLENN: But not until.

STU: -- look, this is our fault. We were the ones that were really light on border security. That's why these people are. We realize now it is a problem. But as everyone will admit, there are people here that seemingly have lasted multiple decades and haven't been committing additional crimes. Maybe they're okay. Let's talk about those people.

GLENN: Yep. I would be there.

STU: Especially if you take responsibility for the problem. It was our fault, because we didn't allow you to have border security because we kept saying you were racists.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If they came to you with that sort of pitch, at least you would consider it.

GLENN: Yes. Absolutely. And I think most Americans would.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's just, it requires both sides to own it. And none of them are going to own it.

So here's a story: Late June, President Trump hosted a group of Native American tribal leaders at the White House and urged them to, quote, just do it. And extract whatever they want from the land they control.

The exchange turned out to be an unusual vivid window into almost kingly power that Donald Trump sees himself as holding, which he has begun describing with increasing bluntness.

This scene was recounted by a source in the room and confirmed by another at the White House. The White House has not disputed this story. The chiefs explained to Trump that there was regulatory barriers preventing from getting at their own energy. Trump said, but it's me. The government is different now. Obama is done. And we're doing things differently here.

There was a pause in the room. And the tribal leaders looked at each other.

Chief, chief, Trump continued, addressing one of the tribal leaders. What are they going to do? Once you get it out of the ground, are they going to make you put it back in there? I mean, once it's out of the ground, it can't get back in there. You just got to do it. I'm telling you chief, you just got to do it.

The tribal leaders looked back at one of the White House officials in the room, perhaps somebody from the White House counsel's office could answer: Can we just do that?

The official equivocated, saying the administration is making progress and has a plan to roll back various regulations.

Trump interjected again: Guys, I feel like you're not hearing me right now. We've got to just do it. I feel like we have no other choice. Countries are doing it. China is not asking questions about all this stuff. They're just doing it. Guys, just do it.

Okay. So this is what the left fears. And this is what the right fears.

The right fears somebody who is going to say, just take these rights away. Just do it. I know we can't -- just do it. I'm here. It's different now.

No. There are laws. Now, the left is afraid of a president who will just tell the Indian chiefs or somebody else, just do it.

No. Where we're supposed to come together is not on the man or the party, but the principle. There is a law, the president is not a king, you don't just do it.

You don't pass it to find out what's inside it. You don't lie to the American people to sell stuff. And you don't just do it through executive order or just because you say so.

We're a nation of laws, not of men. And the idea that we have to arm ourselves against a -- an out-of-control government, because that's what she's saying.

Now all of a sudden I understand guns. Well, I could say back to Sarah, well, wait a minute, Sarah. Are you going to fight the tanks? Are you going to fight the missiles? Are you going to fight the drones? Because that's what they always say.

Yeah, if I have to. If it's a fascistic government, yes. If it's a totalitarian government, yes.

If it's a religiously -- a religious totalitarian government? Yes. If it's an atheist totalitarian government? Yes. If it's a constitutional government, based on this Constitution? No. No, I'm not.

Because I have nothing to fear from that government. But we are not that government. And we are not moving in the direction that strengthens that government. We are moving away from that government.

And this is where the left and the right should be able to come together. I don't want to regulate you. Don't you regulate me.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.