TRUST ME I KNOW WHAT I'm DOING

Hi. My name is Gautam Mukunda. I'm the author of Picking Presidents, How to Make the Most Consequential Decision in the World and Indispensable When Leaders Really Matter. And you're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing. Yeah.

My name is Abhay Dandekar, and I share conversations with talented and interesting individuals linked to the global Indian and South Asian community. It's informal and informative, adding insights to our evolving cultural expressions, where each person can proudly say trust me, I know what I'm doing. Hi, everyone. On this episode of Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing, a conversation with professor, adviser, and the author of the books Indispensable and Picking Presidents, Gautam Mukunda. Stay tuned.

Thank you all once again for listening and watching. Trust me. I know what I'm doing and for sharing this with your friends and family. I sincerely appreciate it, and if you're enjoying these, please take a moment and share a kind rating and submit a written review wherever you're getting this right now. You know, we sort of touch on it a lot, and it comes out in many different conversations, but on this episode, I wanna focus on leadership and particularly what goes into selecting leaders and of course the qualities that we're looking for.

Beyond the poster in an office break room with a picture of an eagle by a stream and some awesome quote underneath it, leaders have many qualities that may be obvious and others that are more subtle and unnoticed. Studying leadership and distilling this takes knowledge and expertise at many intersections, so it was both fascinating and terrific to share a conversation with Gautam Mukunda. Gautam has written 2 books, Indispensable, which offers insights from stories and rigorous analysis about transformative leaders in critical moments, and picking presidents, a book examining the characteristics and qualities that help predict success in what Gautam notes to be the most consequential decision in the world. Gautam's work connects ideas in political science, history, management, and economics. And as he puts it, is meant to give people the insights to see the right things to do, the skills to act on those insights successfully, and the courage to act when the going gets tough.

He's not only been a professor at Harvard Business School and the Yale School of Management, but Gautam has also served as an adviser on all types of leadership and strategy problems to start ups and investment firms, to fortune 500 companies, and to all kinds of sports teams. He also serves on the board of the Upgara Foundation, a national nonprofit devoted to providing college scholarships to underprivileged students of South Asian descent. So we had a chance to connect this summer to talk about a range of things on my mind, particularly as we're about to embark on an upcoming election here in the US. And since he's cultivated expertise in synthetic biology, security issues, and innovation, and he's also been a jeopardy champion, I wanted to start by asking him about something he's often quipped about in stating that his life's goal is to have the world's most confusing resume….

So there are 2 parts the 2 things.

They're really both the same thing. 1 is you do get, like, no day is boring. Yeah. I I get to meet some of the most interesting people in the world, you know, not on a, wow, this is a highlight of my year basis, but, you know, that happened that this happens every day basis. So Yeah.

You know, in the last before in the 2 weeks before I went to Sweden, right, I spent time with the head coach of the Patriots and with the CEO of a $100,000,000,000, technology company. And they're both equally fascinating in very different ways. And that's not, you know, anything more than having, you know, sort of built a a really eclectic career that crosses into lots of different areas where it might be it might be a general or an admiral one day. So it's you know, I do a lot of work with governments. Might be a lot of government people or business people or scientists.

Yeah. My wife is the chief business officer for one of the most interesting startups in the world, in my opinion. Mhmm. And so I get to spend time with that company and the c the scientific team there. I'm on the board there, and I spend a lot of time with them.

And it's abs just, you know, it might be the most interesting thing I do on a day to day basis, but the other half of that is teaching. My favorite thing to do in the world is teach. I just love teaching. I love being in a classroom. It is just the best thing.

What this gets me the sort of the ability to do is is to teach in lots of places. Right? So I am teaching Yale this semester, and I, you know, I taught that I taught there last year. I've been on I've been there for a couple years now. And I was at Harvard for many years before that.

And it just gives me a chance to meet all of these and get to know these wonderful students. And some of them to build really long lasting relationships with. You know, when we got married, that was the middle of COVID, so it wasn't as big as it might have been. And 9 of my students still came in from all across the country to make sure that they were over that. So yeah.

That's great. You you know, the adjective interesting and rewarding, and you draw a lot of energy from all those things, meeting with interesting people, meeting with your students, and and certainly having this this wonderful relationship development. And yet the word confusing is there also. And is it mostly just because, you know, these things are not always on the same linear pathway that that most people sort of think about when they think of kind of rewarding careers? Yeah.

That's right. So and that's in a real sense, right, I don't have a career. Right? I have a bunch of careers in parallel that often often help each other. And I you know, for for someone with my personality and my interest, that's probably the only way it was ever gonna happen.

But it's also difficult. Right? Yeah. So what I would say is that most people are looking when when they're looking to hire, they're looking for it. You know, like, there's a niche and and they're whole and they wanna fill.

Yeah. And that's not me. Right? Like, I was lucky. I was, you know, I was faculty at Harvard for for a long time, things like that.

When you when you when you build up that kind of background, it it makes a lot of things easier. Sure. But Sure. But there was a lot there was a big luck component to that. Right?

Like, that didn't it didn't have to happen that way. And if it hadn't, the story would be very, very different, and I suspect, you know, not nearly as as as happy on. So yeah. So that so the confusing part is real. Right?

So when when when somebody asks you, so what do you do? You You know? So, one of my college classmates was who was texting with me, and he's been, you know, extraordinarily successful in business. And he was and he was like, you know, you you knew each other in college. He said, so, you know, what do you consult with companies on?

I was like, well, the short answer I said is seeing around corners. I said, what do you mean? I said, well, the world's a lot stranger than it was 20 years ago. Things happen that you didn't anticipate. Right?

It might be Donald Trump getting elected. It might be COVID. It might be the war in Ukraine. It might be, you know, try tie chance tensions with China. Those are lots and lots of different areas, but it turns out that those are all areas that don't fit into meet disciplinary boundaries.

Yeah. Right? If you just do one of those thing if you just do one thing, you aren't nearly as able to give insight on things like that as if you do a lot of things. Right. Right.

And peering or I love that you described that though. Peering you know, helping people peer around the corner or at least think about what's around the corner and anticipate surprises. Yeah. That's right. And just think about, like, what if if the world is is suddenly gonna look very, very different, what might that look like?

Right? So, so when I, in February of 2020, I remember so I worked in biosecurity for a long time, and I published, you know, peer reviewed work in that area, and I I also lived in China. And so February 2020, I started hearing things from COVID from from China about stuff that were happening, and, like, that's why I was a I was a biosecurity person. I'm like, this looks really bad. Right?

This looks like this looks like like, you know, every so often we get scares, but this looks really bad. And, you know, the first thing my wife and I did was, like, I I told my wife this, and she ordered, like, pallets of of, you know, supplies in February. Right. I'll but, oh, you know, a few days later, I had a dinner with a member of the master senior member of the master state government. And I was basically, like, jumping up and down on the table being, like, you need to be ready for this.

Like, this is this is world changing catastrophe type stuff. And he was like, you know, like, okay. Like, I've known you for a long time, and you're not the sort of person who gets excited about things, but Yeah. You seem like a crazy person today. And, you know, a month later, he called me and said, so Yeah.

How about that? Yeah. Guess you weren't crazy. I was like, yeah. Yeah.

So so, you know, that is not in I would say in real real sense, I'm not claiming a particular foresight. Nobody has that. What I can say is, if you were someone who had deep expertise in bi in biosecurity and had lived in China, you kinda had a leg up on figuring out what was gonna happen. And that appears in lots and lots of places. And one of my one of my really good friends is one of the most brilliant and the most the wisest people I know.

He said, basically, for since the second World War, he said, there's been a recession for people who are multidisciplinary because the world has been so stable that the the normal silos that which it operates work really well. Yeah. And he said, just look around. Right? It's that that recession is over now.

He's right now is the time when you really, really need people who are like that. And And what you're basically doing is talking to people who are the first people to figure that out. Yeah. And and you're right that that kind of living in a multitude of intersections Yeah. And yet problem solving for all of those in a way and peering around the corner, at least helping people peer around the corner, I think, is of high value.

I I love I have to tell you that, you know, I love the intersections that you work in and you pursue scholarship and help peep help steer people in many of those areas, especially political science and thinking a little bit about management, economics. And while these seemingly are areas that people are often seeking out their fortunes, if you will, They're they're also really to seek and wield that much more, you know, power. And I'm just curious. It's that power that sort of brings out sometimes the absolute worst in people. I've I've heard you talk about this a little bit.

So power is not a sort of moderating for moderating force, but rather a liberating one. Are great systems one that can account to limit the liberation of any one person in power? So not always, but usually is the way I would put it. Especially in political system, things like that. Very few people go into that sort of situation for the money.

Right? I mean, it's just not there there there's just easier ways to make money in the world. Yeah. That's you know, with the sort of breakdown on anti corruption rules that have says or followed, you know, the age of Donald Trump, that's maybe less true than it used to be. But even so, you know, the old the old joke about about DC is that it's Hollywood for ugly people.

And, and it's kind of the place where where I mean, they're like, that's unfair, but but there's a there's a there's a, you know, a job of truth to it. And so it is really true that when you meet billionaires, right, like like, what I would say about them is is what makes them different for most people. They're not smart. It's not that they're smarter and harder working than than the other people you know. Right?

Like like, I know I know people who that kind of wealth who are very smart and very hardworking, but no more so than lots of other people who are not you know, I'm not even close to that. And I know some people with that kind of wealth who aren't either of those 2 things. Right? Right. What distinguishes them is they care a lot more about money.

Yeah. Right? It's not always true. There there are exceptions. There's the, you know, the the the random scientist who sort of fell into an idea and suddenly and it exploded.

But but Yeah. As a rule of thumb, especially, you know, like, people in the financial world, people like that, people who made their money by doing things with money as opposed to, like, doing things where they were creating something they fell in love with. Sure. What they care about is money. Right?

Like and so in the political world, a lot of people go you know, the the good people with politics go into politics because they wanna do something. But the bad people in politics go into politics because they want power. Yeah. That's what care that's what they care about. Right?

They don't actually wanna do something. And in fact, right, what you what you see in the American political system right now is enormous tension between you know, because if you the only thing you care about is winning, is having power. If you don't actually care about getting anything done, it's a lot easier to win than if you have sort of rules and principles and, you know, like, I have this discussion with friends of mine who are sort of set set who are sort of debating about what it looks like when Trump when Trump you know, how do you how do you stop someone like Trump from destroying the system? And I say the problem is, if you care about the system and the other person doesn't, they can do things that you can't, and And you can't fight back because that would destroy the system. And the whole thing you're trying to do is preserve the system.

And and I I'm curious about that one because, you know, are then the best longitudinal systems and especially the best outcomes for those longitudinal systems, almost like sort of dynastic success that, you know, sometimes you do see in different systems whether they're political or not. Are are they then dependent most mostly on moderately competent engaging but rather dispensable people? Yeah. So that's right. The the systems that do best over time are the ones where individuals are individual leaders are largely interchangeable.

Right? Right. So you write that the role of who is the CEO of Goldman Sachs is far less important than that there is a CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yeah. Right?

And then whatever you think about Goldman Sachs Goldman's, like, larger impact on the world, at the end of the day, it's a system that has succeed that has succeeded for the organization for a really long time by producing people like that internally, right, and doing it over and over and over again. And one thing, Gautam, it's it's a system too. Right? I mean, like, I I heard you talk the other day about what's happening at Starbucks right now. And seemingly, at least, like, the anointing is a little bit different than the system.

Yeah. And so when and the this like, this is the problem. Right? Starbucks is a company with a has had an entrepreneurial CEO who always goes outside to find his own successor, finds that person to be in a you know, inadequate or not up to the standards or whatever, replaces him with himself, and then repeats the process over and, you know, 3 times. And now finally with or or somebody forced out with it, we we so you at least he wasn't replaced by a showered Schultz for a 4th time.

Right? So Right. So at at that level, that's that cycle has been broken, I guess. Yeah. Yeah.

So organizations that are dependent on single people are volatile and risky, and they have this is deeply problematic. You take a company that is, Microsoft. Right? So, like, I remember you know, I'm old enough that I remember the Microsoft antitrust trial. And that was that's what going you know, that was and the the most shocking thing about the antitrust trial to me was the extent to which the answer to almost every question was, Bill runs the company out of his head.

Right? Like like like like, the company is run by Bill. It is not run by a system. It is run by Bill. Right?

Yeah. Also, I have never met Gates. Mhmm. Not not not never even been in the same room with them. Much less I interact with them in any way.

But, but I I know a lot of people who who know Gates. Right? And every single one of them, without exception, says he is the smartest person they have ever met in their entire lives. Period. Right?

Like, no qualifications. No, like, that he is the smartest person to ever met. Yeah. Yeah. Like, okay.

Like, you know, when when 20 people, all of whom operate at the very highest levels of business and academia, all tell you the same person, like, that's that's pretty striking. Right? Yeah. Yeah. But when Gates steps down and he get and he gets replaced by Steve Ballmer, you don't see Gates Microsoft producing, like, ordinary returns.

You don't see it producing ordinary returns for a tech company, which is much better than ordinary returns for a normal That's right. That's right. This is a company that just does really, really badly for a really long time. Yeah. And essentially becomes despite its, you know, enormous profitability and enormous footprint and things like that, you know, and the way it touched every part of our world, nobody really thought about Microsoft.

It was irrelevant. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And then Ballmer steps down and Satya Nadella comes in, and suddenly it's back out.

Right? Like, you know, you have this thing where you take you put you put one of the best CEOs in the world back in charge of a company with those resources, and things become it becomes incredibly successful again. But that kind of volatility is really risk. Like, what if they hadn't picked the Dell? Right?

You could see that could go really, really bad. Like, Goldman doesn't operate like that. McKinsey doesn't operate like that. Most really big, large, old successful companies say that they want to rely on the system, on you know? Yeah.

They wanna rely on people who are in the organization, who evaluate all the candidates for leadership, and say, is this person up to the job? But I I have to tell you that that doesn't always make for a fun story. Right? I mean, you know, like, you you have these wonderful, very powerful, great systems that run well for so long. They're somewhat almost agnostic to the personality.

They're agnostic to the the fluff, and they're really, you know, looking at low risk individual who can power the system. And yet, why is society at large really seduced by the other part? Why are they sort of seduced by the unfiltered leader? They want I feel like there's an element that wants that kind of, I wouldn't say volatility, but they want that experiment. They want that try.

Is it just good storytelling? Is it a mirror for our unfulfilled desires? Is it sort of like the dopamine in us that that's required all the time? What what how do you reflect on that part where, you know, society actually in a way craves that that seductive process? So it's versus I think some of that is true.

Right? Like, it's just more like, our narratives are about people. They're not about organization. Right? Like Right.

And that matters. Right? It is more exciting. It is. But but the other part is there's a selection effect.

Right? Yeah. The these organizations that are driven by individual people are much more variance have much more variance in their outcomes. So the very best organizations, the best performing, best operational ones tend to be like that for disproportionate stretches of their time. Right?

Yeah. Tim Cook has created more value as CEO of Apple than any other CEO in human history. But Tim Cook is it would tell you himself. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Right.

Right? Right. Like like, no you you like, I mean, you it takes nothing away from Tim Cook's achievements to say that to this day, Apple is far more identified with Steve Jobs than it is with Tim Cook, and it always will be. Yep. And so when we this is sort of a basic error that almost everybody makes in the way they think about the world is they generalize, right, they generalize from the most prominent, which almost always means the most successful examples.

Right? We should do what this organization did because it is the best one. Yeah. It's best one. What you're That's precedent.

Right. But what you're actually doing there is you were generalizing from the highest variance examples. You were looking at the ones where all the dice rolled their way, and you say, well, we should do what they did. But you do not see all of the other people, all the other organizations that made the exact same decisions. Sure.

And it just didn't work out. Right? And in their their case, it was disastrous. Right. You're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing.

After a quick break, we'll come back to our conversation with author Gautam Mukunda. Stay tuned. Conversation. It's the antidote to apathy and the catalyst for relationships. I'm Abhay Dandekar, and I share conversations with global Indians and South Asians so everyone can say trust me.

I know what I'm doing. New episodes weekly wherever you listen to your podcast. Hi. I'm congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, and you are listening to Trust Me. I Know What I'm Doing.

Hi. I am congressman Sri Thanidar. Hi. I'm congressman Ro Khanna. Hi.

I'm congressman Ami Bharat. Hi. I'm congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. You're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing with Abhay Gandhika. Welcome back to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing.

Let's rejoin our conversation now with professor, adviser, and author, Gotam Mukunda. I think you talk about this a lot when it comes to presidential selection. Right? That there's, like, the person who gets to that pinnacle, and yet there are a 100, a 1000 possible persons who could have gotten to that pinnacle. And I was thinking a little bit about this, you know, based on at least the events of the last couple of months here.

Yeah. President Biden and and you talk a lot about these filtered and unfiltered, examples. And and president Biden, who was quite filtered and president Trump, of course, who was quite amazingly unfiltered, certainly are 2 different you know, very, very different leaders and had very, very different outcomes and demeanors and and what they presented to the American public. And yet they both demonstrated a common thread. And that was sort of a lack of being able to stand down perhaps when they needed to and for very different reasons.

Right. But they still have that kind of hesitance and not even just hesitance, but resistance, of course, to stepping down when they actually needed to. Is this something that pervades leaders and, you know, even very, very talented individuals no matter what their level of filtration actually is? I mean, the analogy that I can see in this in the sports world are, like, people who just can't retire. Right?

They just don't go away cleanly. And, you know, is there some parallel to all of this? So for very few athletes, is the last act a happy one? Right? Yeah.

Like like, it's just really rare. Tom Brady and I I've lived in Boston. They, you know you know, like like, they paid Tom Brady is the greatest football player who has ever lived. Right? Like, there's just no you don't have to like him.

You don't have to approve. You'll and, like, you can hate everything about him Yeah. And you still gotta say so just gotta, like, oh, he is. Greatest like him. Greatest player.

Yeah. The go. Just can't can't deny it. Right? Yeah.

And you know what? The last pass of his New England career Patriots career was a pick six. Yeah. Yeah. And, I mean, Jordan, no one no one's thinking about Jordan's illustrious Washington Wizards area.

I I grew up in DC, so I I remember that too. Yes. So particularly in the political realm, you could say it's really simple. White House fever is the world's least curable disease. Mhmm.

Right? Yep. And even yeah. And and more maybe even more broadly than that is when you are, you know, you're the president of the United States. Like, you are the center you are the center of the world.

Like like like, you literally are. Right? Yes. Yes. I can't imagine what it would be like to give that up willingly.

And you can you know, the number of people we have is incredibly small. So I guess does that does the filtering piece in that way go away to some degree? Right? That, like, even these two extraordinarily opposite poles of this metric, if you will, still had very great difficulty in being able to do that. And is that just the the, you know, the humanness of it all?

Yeah. I would actually split that out a little bit. Right? Because Yeah. Donald Trump broke the law and tried to overturn an election and really or tried to over to overthrow the government in order to maintain power.

Right. And he's just trying to protect. Yeah. This is not and it's not you know, that's not just refusing to give up. That's something else entirely.

Yeah. Yeah. Joe Biden is a different situation. Right? So when Joe Biden got elected, he sort of talked about transitional.

And I'll say, like, I mean, I'm on the record, you can find interviews with me saying this. This is nonsense. Right? Like, no one once you get elected, no one says, oh, I'm done after one term. Like, that happened in 19th century.

It doesn't happen any Yeah. And it was never gonna happen again. And I and it was a matter of great concern. Right? I wrote a I I you know, in my in my second book, I said, you know, age is a really, really big, big warning sign for leaders.

Mhmm. Way back more than, I think I think, 12, 13 years ago now, I wrote a piece in foreign policy whose title was don't trust anyone over 70. And the point was, like, you know, aging in leaders is really dangerous. So there's there's a a long precedent on that for for Sure. But what we forget is that, you know, when Biden stepped down, it certainly wasn't, let's say, it was not willing, but it was his choice.

And we kinda forget. It's easy to forget that. Right? Now as you know, like, I I I, you know, I played a very small role with this. I I was in the New York Times being quoted saying, you know, like, I'm working on saying, like, this is and I'm I'm in no sense of, like, a very, very small role, but it wasn't it wasn't 0, I guess.

Sure. I I say, like like, people always say, well, he was forced out. I'm like, really? How? Right?

So the party leaders went to him and said, you need to do this. For the good of the party, for the good of the country, you need to do this. But they didn't say, look. If you don't do this, we're gonna vote for Donald Trump. That's not a right?

Nobody thought that. That wasn't plausible. So what they did was he's unhappy about it. Whatever at the end of the day, he chose. Right?

He said like like, if he had said, no. I won the delegates. I'm gonna go to the convention. I'm gonna be the nominee. And if you and, you know and and he said, I'm calling your bluff.

Mhmm. If you don't agree you know, you if you you think I shouldn't be the nominee, sit this one out. Let's see what happens. Right. Right?

I estimate that the number of number of the Democratic leaders who would have said that taken him up on that chance is 0. Right? Yeah. Like Yeah. 0.

I say that with certainty. It is 0. Not one would have done it. Right. Right.

And so I, you know, I I I do not think he should have run for reelection. He was you know, like like, the presidency is there are probably 80 year old people who could be successful presidents of the United States for 4 years, but I don't think there are very many. It's just it is the hardest job in the world. But the fact that he, at the end of the day, did the right thing, I I I give him a lot of credit for that. I think most people would not have.

Is that what filtered leaders do? It's what you would hope they would do. You would hope that I mean, I the system, right, I'd say is, in a real sense, filtration sort of doesn't work here because it's not a situation anybody's ever dealt with. Right? Right.

I mean I mean, if if you believe that virtually none of these people would make this choice, and I do believe that. Yeah. Right? Because you can always tell you're like, Biden like, when Biden at his at his total matter after the debate, his odds of victory were not 0. Yeah.

Right. Right? Like like, you know, I I was saying 14. He could still pull it out. You know, Donald Trump could self destruct or, you know, defect to Moscow or something like you know?

Like, you know, you know, you know Lots of possibility. Lots of possibility. Yeah. Especially running against Donald Trump. Right?

There are lots of ways this could go south. So Yeah. Yeah. And I guess it's it's hard not to think about, like I mean, there is you're right. Like, there's not a whole lot of examples of that.

And, you know, you're in a way, you're a political apex predator when you're at the, you know, in the presidency. So, yeah, I I can see that that, like, the filtration piece really is sort of a slightly different model, to use because that decision is not one that's that's been made before. Yeah. Filtration is about selection. Right?

It's selecting the person who becomes president. But I always say is once you are the president, the filtration stops because you are so power right? Because you essentially control the systems that are supposed to be filtering. You pick the leaders of the parties. You, you know, you have that.

And so at that point, it's you know, what you or what you're trying to do with this filtering system is eliminate very variability in the people you pick to such an extent that once they have this level of power, they do what you would want them to do. Right. Because if they don't do what you want them to do, you really can't do anything to stop them. So let me ask you this. What what do you think where does Kamala Harris' progress into now being the Democratic nominee, where does this place her as in the same process?

Because it's been a very obviously, a very unique one that that's happened. And where does this place her maybe in that sort of filtered or unfiltered leadership design, not just on the 8 year threshold that you've talked about, but but also in sort of, like, the public's perception of this, of what they think sort of filtering and non filtering actually means. So in my model, let me say, like, if you if she wins, you know, for all of her demographic uniqueness as in, you know, she's an Indian American, like, you know, like like the 2 of us, she's she's the first she will be the first woman president. Lots of things. For all of her demographic uniqueness, if you evaluated her as a potential, like, you know, as a president as just just based on her background, as her her track record in politics Right.

She wouldn't just be, like, a a normal president. She'd be almost the most normal presidential candidate. She would actually of the 40, you know, like, she would she would score in some amount of filtration, she'd come in 23rd. She would be just behind Ronald Reagan. Right?

Like like, this is Yeah. As as perfectly typical 20 as perfectly typical as it is possible to imagine. And, right, if you took out woman, you know, demographics, things like that, and you said, this is a vice president, senator from California, and attorney general of the state of California, who before that was the district attorney for San Francisco, and prosecuting you'd be like, well, yeah. That's There it is. Of course.

Right. Indistinguishable from every other politician in America. Right? And so, yes, her path was unique. But the other thing I would say about as this is and, obviously, I didn't think about this particular case in the book because, god, who could have, is Biden decided he made his final decision that he was not gonna try and hold on to the nomination on a Sunday morning.

Yeah. He announced right Sunday morning. He announced he was not gonna run at, I think, 2 o'clock that afternoon. And at 205, he announced his endorsement for Colin. So she could not have had more than about 4 hours.

Right? Like like, it is not possible to have had more than for about 4 hours of advanced warning for anyone else, and you almost certainly had less than that. Yeah. Yeah. There were a bunch of other people who were plausible contenders for the nomination.

Right? You can just read them all. Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Andy Beshear. Right? Like, there's a lot of people who'd be like, oh, okay.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I see it. And there were a lot of Democratic party leads who were like, you know, Whitmer's won 2 landslide victories in Michigan. That seems Right.

Pretty good. Like like, maybe we should think about that. Right? She got the endorsement of every single significant contender for the nomination by Monday morning. Yeah.

Less than 24 hours. Right? Less than 24 hours. Which means that the I it sounds like the the party at that very moment, I mean, was just so poised for that actual selection. So I think a few things.

So one is, like, it suggests that the Democratic party is a lot more functional and a lot more organized than anyone going into this thought it was. So I I like and I include myself in that said. If you would said to me Sure. The Democratic party would just would be this perfectly oiled, highly functioning machine. Be like, what are you talking about?

One you know, one of the most difficult political tasks, not just in American history, in anyone's history. Right? Yeah. The hand off from one nominee to the other in this unprecedented like, like, just think about the piled on difficulties that they stack here. And they're like, no.

We got it. You know, we could do this. Like, we are not gonna miss a beat. Or it went so well. So, a very good friend of mine is a very, very senior former former elected republic republican elected.

Still republican, like, he was governor of a big state. Like, you know, he and I text, like, all the time. Yeah. Drives our wives crazy, because we text each other so much. And and so he he he, like, he was he was, like he he doesn't know Harris, but he, you know, he heard the the word, the gossip about her, and things like that.

He's, like, you guys are out of your mind. Like, if you nominate her, you are out of your mind. Like, she's gonna get blown out. And, you know, and he'd seen she didn't go she didn't do well in 2020. And I was, like, you don't know.

Like like like, you know, like, that might be true. You just don't have enough information. No one has enough information. Right? Like like like, no one knows.

And, you know, just a few days later, he he texts me, and he's, like, I stand corrected. Yeah. Like, this could not have gone better. Like like like and to my thing was, that is not just a testament to, like, wow, everything broke right for her. It is Yeah.

Things don't go this well without a lot of planning and talent on the part of the, on the part of the principal. Sure. So you should not just feel, like, wow, the Democratic party, you know, knows what it's doing in a way that is not traditionally associated with Democratic party. Right? I mean, like, this goes back a long time.

Will Rogers used to say that I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. Right? Right. Right.

Yeah. And I would say, you know, during the Bernie, you know, Bernie Hillary in 2016, I'd say, like, the traditional formation of the Democratic part of the Democratic party is the circular firing squad. Right? So Yeah. Yeah.

So guess what? Bam. You know? Got it. Very impressive.

But the other thing is you is you should is what however badly the Iowa the however badly Kamala Harris' campaign went in 2020, it went very badly. You should say, like, either because there was bad luck then or she's learned a lot since, you should believe that she's bringing a very high order political skills to this game Oh, yeah. Because you can't do what she's done without it. Right. Right.

And, I mean, it feels a lot like those required and almost requisite setbacks. And her not so successful run-in 2020 certainly have have created at least the the ingredients for her and that maybe the discipline, you know, for her. And it sounds like definitely for the party, this has definitely, you know, gone well, obviously, in the last, you know, several weeks, since that that Sunday morning. I'm I'm curious about this one. In the end, a lot of this, of course, is about successful risk mitigation.

And so president Biden being able to have that foresight certainly, especially quickly being able to execute on that decision. So why aren't we in general and maybe we are. We just don't know it. But I'm just curious for for your expertise. Why aren't we using the Moneyball and the sort of sabermetric approach more to kind of call the data and use that decision support and, you know, other tools to, for that matter, pick our leaders better?

I mean, we do this in medicine all the time. Right? Like, we we use our data and we use decision support, so we reduce errors and we, you know, create better outcomes and and reduce harm. Is there a same logical pathway to do this when we select our leaders and, you know, not just in the political arena, but but anywhere. So, I mean, in in a real sense, that's what I was trying to do with my second book, right, is give people the tools to do that in politics, but also outside of politics.

I mean, you know, I mean, clear clearly, the takeaway from these events is that all 330,000,000 Americans should buy a copy of my book. Like, look, there is no other takeaway. Like, like, when I'm writing That's the only that's the only logical solution. Right? The only thing you should learn from the last few the last few years.

That's right. Yeah. But the the answer is that this leadership is it's actually pretty hard to pick traits that predict success. Right? What I what I all I say is that that what I can really I can do some things to help you pick predict success, and that's what I try to do, to give you the tools to do that in the book.

But the most important thing I can do is sort of tell you pick is give you tools to avoid failure. Right? That that if you're that that these are not the same thing. This goes back to our selection effect problem. Right?

Sometimes the same decisions that lead you to success lead you to failure. And when you're the United States of America, the wealthiest, most powerful society in human history, that's not a good trade off. You don't wanna take like like, you don't need you don't you know, having Abraham Lincoln is nice, but you don't need Abraham Lincoln. What you wanna avoid is the anti Abraham Lincoln. Right?

Like, that's the that's the catastrophe. We haven't done a great job of that either. Let's hope for no more Andrew Johnsons, by the way. That that's right. No more Andrew Johnsons.

For what it's worth, and I say this in the book, there are basically 2 sets of traits that I would say you should select for, you know, essentially all situations. And then you can, you know, there's the, and that's it. And then because there's nothing else you can say that's that's general. And I the one thing I say to to students and, like, clients and, you know, colleagues all the time is leadership selection is not a ranking problem, it is a matching problem. Mhmm.

You do not Yeah. Look at all the candidates and say, this is the best leader. That does not exist. You look at the candidates and say, this is the best person for our situation. And when the situation changes, you might have a different best person.

Right. So all that being said, the great sign the great great psychologist, Dean Simonton, he's from California actually, had looked at leadership performance and actually just performance across any number of human domains, right, from science to art to and then in leadership in particular, what he found more and it is the it is in fact the only individual level predictor of leadership success that takes a significant individual level predictor of leadership success that he found and seems to be consistent across domains is what he calls intellectual brilliance, right, which is not the same thing as IQ. It is related to IQ. IQ is a component of intellectual brilliance, but it is schwa intellect combined with breadth of taste, lots of different interests, curiosity Curiosity. Hobbies.

Right? And why these are, you know, writing books. Like, these are so important as predictors. Intellectual risk is a predictor. In my opinion, I don't think because Simon actually gives you a real causal chain as to what why he's like, this is what the data shows you.

You. I think the causal chain makes sense, right, that the world is complicated. Mhmm. I can't really tell you, you know, if when you elect George w Bush in in November of 2000, you probably are don't go into thinking that his success of his presidency or the failure of his presidency is gonna be measured by handling a terrorist attack, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the greatest financial crisis is the Great Depression. Right?

Like, that's the none of no nobody saw that coming. If you did, you're a very wealthy man. I guess a couple of people did. And so given that, Seth, right, what you need is to elect someone with a broad set of capabilities. Yeah.

So maybe they're not the best person in the world to handle any particular crisis, but they're pretty good, and they're good at lots of all the other things that might come up. And Sure. Because they have this openness to new ideas and things like that, they're they they will not rely purely on their own capabilities, but they're able to integrate, you know, advice and suggestions from other people who might have better expertise on a particular crisis that they're dealing with. So that's one. And that's and I think and that I would say is measurable and quantifiable scientific.

You can do that in a reproducible way. And, you know, and when I work with companies, like, this is something you can do. Like, you can actually, you know, you can actually set up program. It's actually possible with software to create software that actually measures some of these capacities. But the other is character.

And, you know, as I get, you know, older or, you know, watch watch Donald Trump, maybe some combination of those 2, I more and more believe that character is is sort of overwhelmingly important in these roles. And the first and simplest reason for that simply is, as you said, is power. Right? Where we almost where we began this discussion about it. Power is unbelievably important.

Right? Power changes who you are. Yeah. Power, when you have a leadership position, what you are given is power, and power reveals character. Right?

It most people, it turns out, become worse when they have power. So what it reveals about most people is not particularly flattering. But for some people, power seems to make them better people. Right? They actually their character improves under this on on under the microscope.

That's really great. Right? We should be happy about that. And that character, I really do believe this, if you're really honest with yourself, is quite discernible. Now, it's not easily discernible.

I'm actually writing right now about the fact that about how it is that some people, in particular, people who have personality and psychological disorders like psychopathy, work very hard to to hide. Right? You know, there either there's medical problems or there yeah. There's a lot of masking there, and it take takes effort. But, you know, at the most at the summit of the American political system, like, we actually these people do face a lot of scrutiny.

And then some of them, you know, whether you wanna be the CEO of about a $1,000,000,000 company, we we got some resources to throw at this problem. Right? Or or argue this. And whatever else you say about Donald Trump, we know who he is. Right?

Like like like like, we knew who he was in 2016. Right? I mean, you just say he's he hit it, but he didn't hide it effect try to hide it. He didn't hide it effectively. Right?

Like, if you were honest with yourself and you're making that judgment, you knew who he was. Maybe they didn't bother you. Maybe the other there were other assets that you thought he brought to the table, whatever they might have been, that made you support him anyways, but you knew who he was. Right? Yeah.

And, like, the fact that since that, you know, 42 women have accused him of sexual assault since then. I believe that's the number. I might, like I I don't wanna I don't wanna get sued by his Right. Extremely litigious. Yeah.

But, you know what? But, you know, there have been an extraordinarily large number of accusations of completely consistent pattern that match with his own statements, descriptions of his own behavior. Right? Right. Like, let's say it's okay.

Like, let's say, But no one's you're not surprised. Like, I don't know anyone who's like, oh, gee. I did not see that coming. Shocker. Yeah.

Yeah. Shocker. Right? Yeah. Like, yeah, of course not.

You knew who he was. Maybe you were fine with it, but you knew who he was. And so that, I think, that we should weight that maybe more heavily than we do. And that is I just know that is not a partisan point. Mhmm.

Bill Clinton was not Donald Trump. Right. But he was deeply lacking in character of this in of this way. And there's really no sugarcoating that statement. Right?

We should you know, like like like, both everybody has done this, and people everybody has played this game, not to the same extent. This is not a false equivalent statement. Bill Clinton was, you know, was not is not the same as Donald Trump, and I don't Yeah. I don't know if it was. But he wasn't great either.

And we should, like, we should stop doing it. Right? We should sort of say that, like, this stuff really matters. Right? Like, it it actually has an impact, and it's not about being a puritan who the French sneer had.

It's because it turns out that character crucially influences how you use power. And the only thing I care about when you talk about the president of the United States is how he or she uses power. Yeah. Yeah. You're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing.

After a quick break, we'll come back to our conversation with author Gautam Mukunda. Stay tuned. Every story told is a lesson learned, and every lesson learned is a story waiting to be told. I'm Abhay Dandekar, and I share conversations with global Indians and South Asians so everyone can say, trust me, I know what I'm doing. New episodes weekly wherever you listen to your podcasts.

Hey. This is Kal Penn. I'm an actor, author, former public servant, and you're listening to trust me. I know what I'm doing. Hi, guys.

I'm Indra Nooyi. Hi. I'm Lilly Singh, and you're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing. Hi there. I'm Abhay Dhrandikar, and you're listening to Trust Me, I Know What I'm Doing.

Let's rejoin our conversation now with professor, adviser, and author Gautam Mukunda. I'm I'm curious about this in your own sort of interrogation of this and your own sort of exploration of this. You've collected so much insight, and you helped develop strategy for peering around the corner and, you know, thinking about leadership and how both of those things. Right? The curiosity, the breadth of what they're, you know, thinking about and their character, how they help them succeed.

What personal lessons have you gathered along the way that have actually changed some of your own behaviors and really thinking about this? I mean, have you had to unlearn any of your own sort of, you know, context as you've progressed through this ongoing journey of of exploration? Oh, I for sure. On a few on a few components. And, and and, you know, some personal and some, I think, you know, you you I I know you you said this podcast is not exclusively, but sort of heavily with the Indian American you know what I mean?

We can talk about things with things like from that cultural background as well. So for me, personally, it says the first thing I I is, is and and my wife says is I am she says, you are far too quick to give people the benefit of the doubt. Right? Yeah. So, I think Mad Men is one of the 3 or 4 greatest television shows of all time, and maybe one of the maybe the best line is, you know, Don Don Draper is saying.

Right? People tell us who they are, and we do not believe them because we do we they are not that is not who we want them to be. Like, yeah. That no. No.

That's and so I've certainly had a couple of pretty awful experiences with people where I was like, oh, yeah. You. I've known you. I've known you for a long time. I knew your father.

You're trustworthy. Like, Ed, no. You weren't. Like like yeah. Like like and you know what?

There were some warning signs. Like like like, there were warning signs that I chose to not pay attention to because I had Yeah. Because I had you know, not full not stupidly, not but because there were reasons not to pay attention to them. But you know what? They weren't good enough reasons.

In retrospect, it's clear that they were not good enough reasons. I was making excuses for people. Right? Right. The second is is so for me and when sometimes I do while this is certainly not true of all Indian Americans, I do think it is something that a lot of people in our community are internalized.

Right? Which is Yeah. You need to be willing to stand up for yourself. Right? You mean, like, my parents were wonderful.

I you know, I couldn't get be luckier in having parents than me. But I do think that they, in a way that is not uncommon for conflict communities, right, or for sorry. For immigrant communities, were conflict diverse and taught me to be the same. Right? Yeah.

And and I I observed that in a lot you know, there's there there are stereotypes of of Asians and things like that. Like, yeah, the stereotypes are invidious, but they're not entirely unjustified either about, like, you know, being a little bit more passive than we should be or a little bit willing to accept the bad deal that we should and, like, you know, and this is something my wife who is Swedish, has been very she's like, no. It's like like like like like yeah. Like like like, you are, you know, like, you know, it's not like you are in a fear position. These people, like, they don't treat you badly.

Like like, stop answering their phone call. It's like like, that's not you're like, you don't have yeah. And that that that has been something that's been it's still something I struggle. With. I say not on, you know, not a lot not on a daily basis because I don't feel that I'm mistreated on a daily basis.

But Right. Right. More often than it should happen where I'm like, okay. I'm just gonna let this go. And she'll be like, you don't have to hold a grudge.

Yeah. But you don't have to, like, you don't have to roll over either. And that that has been it's something I still struggle with, actually. Yeah. Sure.

Well, you know, in in building those two characteristics up, you know, not necessarily always giving people the benefit of the doubt and and then in a way sort of advocating for yourself and and being bold in that, you know, hopefully, the the turn on this doesn't mean that you become more cynical and you are not listening to any other voices at the same time. And and hopefully, at least in examining leaders and examining risk and all the different work, all the different, you know, sort of aspects of your work. I'm imagining that there's just so much that in that can inform you and really make you, you know, sort of, like, pivot very, very quickly and and see those things. So I'm gonna I'm gonna key on a particular word you said because it's something I really very important to me. So becoming cynical.

Yeah. And so I despise cynicism. Cynicism is the laziest of all intellectual pa of all postures towards the world. Right? It is just the belief in the worst of everyone else.

I I cannot I I I just loathe cynicism. Mhmm. No worthwhile thing has ever been achieved by a cynical person. I mean, all I I I said, like, I I have very few universals about life. Right?

There are very few things that are always true. Right. I will tell you what, no worthwhile thing has ever been achieved by a simple person. Yeah. There's a difference between cynicism, which is believing the worst, and skepticism Yeah.

Which is not believing anything unless you see it right where it's just putting beliefs to the test. Mhmm. Right? Cynicism is lazy. It is an excuse.

It is a reason to not try, to not work right, build a relationship, to not trust, to not engage, because everyone will always screw you over anyway, so what's the point? Cynicism is the worst of all. Right? Right? I would rather you be a Penn Glassian optimist than a cynic.

But the responsible person, the right the the the adult, the person who really tries to do great what they are is a skeptic. They take what people say to them and they put it to the test, a fair test. And that's a very big difference. Do you do you find as you're maturing and aging that your success see the gray. It's okay.

That's alright. Yeah. Me too. But, I mean, do you find that being a healthy skeptic and translating that well as you as you continue to pursue scholarship and you teach students. And, you know, for for you, has have you also been able to now cultivate your own evolving leadership style?

Because at some point, you know, you're a student. You're you're constantly sponging in great conversation and relationship development with all kinds of people. And yet at some point, there is also a capacity to lead in in this respect as well as, you know, for those who behind you are trying to also develop the most confusing resume in the world. Yes. You know, how how has your own leadership style maybe evolved, as as a result of some of these things?

So a few things, I would say. So first is, I believe the transparency is a virtue, and you should, especially as a leader, be as transparent as you can be in all circumstances. Right? Secrecy in even the most secretive environments is usually not worth it. And that's both a personal bias on my part, but something I learned from one of the 2 or 3 greatest leaders I ever had the pleasure of getting to know, Stan McCristle, right, who ran American Special Operations in Iraq.

And and, you know, is the in my opinion, not just my opinion, but many people's opinion, but in my opinion, the greatest living American soldier. Right? The greatest American soldier since the 2nd World War, one of the greatest living Americans. And so, you know, Stan ran special operations in Iraq. It is as secretive as is possible to imagine a human being think to be.

And he found success because he said, we are not going to be secretive. Right? We are going to push information out to every part of the organization. We're gonna get everybody to work together. I'm gonna tell you what I'm thinking.

You tell me what you're thinking. We're gonna make this. And, yes, we will leak. Yes. The enemy will find things out.

Right? In this context, yes. People will die. Yeah. But you know what?

We'll be better off we will be so much better because of this that it you know, that that trade off will be worth it. He was right. And I can't imagine how, you know, like, what makes him a great leader is he was able to do that in that environment, both come to that conclusion and do it in that environment, but it is something we can all learn from. But for me, what I learned from the math, and I've I've never talked to Stan about it, but I think he would agree is, there's a time and a place for everything. Sure.

Right? And the answer, right, is is when you're teaching, when I am 1 on 1 in front of a class with with a student, I am 1 on 1 with a student and meeting after class, I am happy to share just about you know, obviously, confidential things about other students aside, I'm happy to share as much of my thought processes as they wanna hear. Yeah. I'm happy to take them and be like, this is how I structured the class. This is why I was going this way.

This is why I called on you. This is why I didn't call it. Like, that fine. Like like, most of my colleagues will not do that. I'm like, no.

Do it. Like, do it. Like like, just tell them everything. Why not? Yeah.

Why not? Like like, we had a I had a a section once where they were they were a little bit concerned that women weren't getting called on as much as men. And I was like, I don't think that's true. Like, I, like, I I do not believe that to be true, given my history with these things. But I said, but you know what?

I got data. Right? Every call I make in this class is charted, and I don't look at it. Like, I have never looked at that data because I believe that I do not have a bias. So, like but let's look at it.

Let's find out. We put it up, and we found out that over the course of the semester, my calling patterns would have matched the genders of my students perfectly if I had called on one more one, not per class, over the course of the semester. Right. And I was like, this is the data. Like, hey, guys.

Like like like, you know, you you picked up on something, and, like, it what it turns out the data does not support that presumption. But now we know. Right? And let's let's talk it through and figure that out. Yeah.

And I was I was I you know, like, I have to say, I was kinda shocked because if I had been if I had been deliberately trying to match the numbers, I could not possibly have gotten it that close. Right? That's right. So so so so it was quite I was like, oh, hey. By the way, if that data had been wrong, would your with the transparency of this and and your ability to, in fact, synthesize all these leadership lessons, would have would you have been able to I mean, it's easy in retrospect, but are are good leaders able to take the data and say, yeah.

Boy, I made a mistake. Or Oh, yeah. You know, this is this is how I'd like to move forward transparently? Yeah. Absolutely.

If you're gonna pick the one characteristic that the best leaders ever Stan absolutely is like the more more than Stan, more than anyone else I've ever met is like this, but just over and over again is they want people to tell them they're wrong. Yeah. Right? Like like, I'm not learn if I'm not you know what? If I'm not wrong about something today and you don't tell me what I haven't learned.

Right? Like like, I I thought, like, the same things the other day at the beginning. I didn't get any better. Like, tell them I'm wrong. Like like yeah.

Like like like, you know, I I work for I now I work for home a lot, but my next office, I have a sign I'm gonna put up. And the sign is literally going to say, tell me why I'm wrong. Yeah. Right? I wanna hang you over my desk.

Tell me why I'm wrong. Right? Don't tell me I am wrong. Tell me why I'm wrong. Right.

Right. Which is a which is a big difference. Yeah. Yeah. Or a big difference.

But that moment, that was worthwhile. Yeah. When I first started teaching, I would talk to students, like, well, I was in front of, like, oh, well done. This is happening. And one of my colleagues was started he's, like, stop doing that.

Yeah. He's like, you are right. Your job right there is to communicate clearly, and you cannot communicate clearly if you're communicating 15 things. Like, communicate one thing. Right?

That's your job. Get that. And if you know, and there's nothing wrong with being transparent, but pick your place for it. So that was a huge learning for me. Oh, it's great.

I mean, I love that. Right? Like, the idea of of superb transparency, being able to to learn fast and and also focus. I'll get you out of here on this because I feel like we could talk for a whole other hour on all the other things that you do and, you know, enjoy so much of your work. And particularly also, I know that you sit on the board of God and and just such a great organization and trying to get a lot of that, you know, important support to, South Asian Americans, you know, are out there as well.

And I will just say, if you are listening to this podcast and you either are or know a South Asian student who's, in their scene about to be in their senior year of high school, take a look at Upcar. And and, you know, if if you if you meet the requirements, apply that. We we we would love to have more I I I always feel that the biggest obstacle we have is not enough not enough South Asian students know that there is support for them if they need it. Yes. Yeah.

We will we will plug that for sure, and and I'll make sure of that. I let me get you out of here on this. I think, I mean, out of all the things that you you talk about, you you bring, you know, such an a dynamic perspective to people making choices. And, you know, many, many Americans now in the next coming months are gonna be looking at these upcoming elections with very, very jaded eyes and yet really, really firmly planted in their tribes, one side or the other. And you've talked about, like, sort of, like, the advice in in picking and and, you know, what people should maybe look for in in candidates.

I'm just curious. What's your advice for voters in thinking about themselves? Like, how how can they feel more optimistic and joyful and engaged in the process? I think the biggest thing you can do for that is perspective. There are a lot of things to be angry about.

Right? Like like, it's not invalid to be to look at what's happened in this country for the last 45 years or so and be pretty upset about where we are today. You know, in particular, we you know, I would say about the financial crisis, that if you look at the fine what happened in the financial crisis, both how it happened and how we responded to it, if you are not angry, you either work on Wall Street or you're not paying attention. That's it. Yeah.

Right? You should be angry. Angry is the appropriate response, but you should also step back. Things in the United States aren't far from perfect. Things in the world aren't far from perfect.

Yeah. But from the world's perspective, the world has never been in as good a shape as it is at this moment, and it will be in better shape tomorrow than it is today. And there is just no empirical models. There is no statistic that does not support that statement. That is not a Panglossian optimism.

There is just no way to argue otherwise. The global poverty rate right now is the lowest it has ever been. What global life expectancy is the highest it has ever been. Right? There are people like like like, the if a mortality rate is the lowest it has ever been like like like, I do not care what number you use.

This is the best it's ever been for the human race. Yeah. That's something and I like that there's something you should look at that and say like, hey. There is something to be said about living at that moment in human history. Right?

Yeah. And for an American, if you're looking like, hey. That is true at the moment in human history where the United States has been the most powerful nation of the world for 80 or 79 years. Probably longer than that, but, unquestionably, it's over 79 years. Do you think those two facts are unrelated?

Right. Right? Like like like like, do you think that's a coincidence? Like, of course, it isn't. Right?

Like, for all of the, you know, all the things that might be gone wrong, it turns out that the period of the human of human history in which the America United States America has essentially dominated the world and the American political system has been the center of the world system have been the best period in all of human history. Right. Right. And for us as Americans, right, like, there are lots of problems we could deal with, lots of things that we should change. And, you know, I I'm, like, I'm they don't hide my politics.

Like, I'm a good Democrat. There are a lot of things you wanna change. Sure. But, hey, guess what? My wife is from Sweden.

Amazing country. Right? Every everybody's tall. Everything's clean. They live forever.

Like, you know, great. It's it's awesome. Right? Yeah. If you took Sweden and you made it into a US state by per capita income, depending upon where the dollar is, you know, purchasing power, things like that, but it would be something like Missouri or Ohio.

That's the comparison by per capita income. Missouri and Ohio are great states, but they're not wealthy US states. They're not even close to being wealthy US states. Right? Like, Sweden, this country that we think of is, like, you know, like like, as sort of the place where everything is perfect, like, would be a would be poor in the United States.

Right. It wouldn't even be in the same universe as Massachusetts or Connecticut or California. Yeah. Right? Right?

Like like, we should look at that and go, like, hey, yeah, there are lots of things we could tweak about this, but, you know, this is great. This is pretty great. And for for the United States as a whole. Right? Like the like, of the presidents where I'm old enough to have a meaningful, like, contemporary opinion.

Right? George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden.

So Bush, Clinton, you know, Bush again, Obama, Trump, Biden. That's 6. Yep. 4 of those 6 were Are you in the Reagan era at all? I I was born, but I was, you know, like, I I was 10 when he when he stepped in.

9, but I think I was 9 when he stepped out. So Yeah. Like, of of so of the 6 where I was, like, you know, like, able to have a meaningful opinion about American politics. Yeah. 4 of those 6 are pretty great.

Like like, you know, maybe they're not Abraham Lincoln, but any country would look at George h w Bush and be like, I want yeah. I I I could deal with that. Like, that that that works. I could deal with that. Yeah.

Yeah. Any country would look at Barack Obama and say that. Any country, you know, would look at Bill Clinton and, you know, whatever his personal character flaws are. People look Bill Clinton and be like, yeah, that worked out pretty well. And so, like, look, we often make our judgments say is we make our judgments about the system by zooming in.

We look at our day to day, and zoomed in, things suck, and you should not forget that. Right? Like Yeah. Like, I this is not a message that things are great. Things are not great.

You should not well, you should look at the world and look at the United States and be like, this could be better. We're you know, we should be you know, the United States is about to drop out of the top 50 in global life expectancy. Every American should be outraged by that fact. Yep. But you should also say that, hey, for all of those things, the system has worked so well that it has the that, like, the things that it has to fix are a lot easier than the things that it has already doing right.

Yeah. If you no. There is no country in the world that would that would not trade places with our situation in a heartbeat. Yeah. Right?

When I I do a lot of work on competition by the US and China and things like that, and that's something that says, what's the difference? The difference is this. If you made me put me put me in Xi Jinping's job and said, fix China's problems, I would say, I have absolutely no idea. I quit. Right?

Like like like, I don't know how to do that. No one knows how to do that. Right? Like like like, there are things we can try and then, but no one knows how to fix those. Like like, no one.

No one. In the United States, it'd be like, I you know, like, I got a lot of good ideas. Maybe some of them are, some of them won't. But you're telling me, like like like, the biggest and and the the biggest thing is the United States, like, could needs to fix, they're fixable. Yeah.

Especially given the unimaginable resources that we have and the imagine unimaginable success that we've had. And, you know, we should be proud of that. Right. Do do you think that because of that perspective word and the ability to both zoom in and zoom out, zooming in and and, again, like you mentioned, like, being very, I would say, engaged to solve these things that that aren't going very well. And yet in in the grand scheme of things, when you pan out, you know, those 80 years plus are are going swimmingly, and and we should be very proud of that.

Our Americans, because we absolutely are are starved sometimes for what happens in the news cycle or, like, this kind of, like, really, really small, small perspective. I mean, like, not taking the the sort of deep perspective that you're talking about. Is there is there a quick fix to that? I mean, they're they're they're almost in some ways needs to be so people can have a little bit more of the attitude that you're talking about, but that's not always what we see at least or what we hear. And and, again, we're not having neighborly conversations all the time.

We're sort of consuming things as as bits in that in that news cycle. So how do people get a little more disciplined about keeping that perspective and yet at the same time being engaged about those things that should be should be, you know, better. So that's it's it's it's like the answer is get involved. Right? Don't be a passive news consumer.

Get involved. You will you will learn more about the way things are by doing that than anything else. And in fact, right, it's that's irrespective of your political position. One of the things we've seen, right, is you've seen in a lot of, you know, a lot of states, like, Trump Republicans who get swept in because they they are, like, election deniers. Like, they think there's fraud, all that sort of thing.

They come in, they take these offices, and, you know, they find out that they had absolutely no idea, right, about how this stuff worked. And they do it. They find out how it works, and they're like, you know what? There's no fraud. Like, there isn't.

Like like, guess what? If you know how to do you know, there's no fraud. Like, this complete nonsense. But they find like, the way they learned that was not because someone like me told them there's no fraud, you know, shut up. They had to dig in.

They they they had to get involved. Like, and good for them. Right? Yeah. Like like, I I have far more respect for the person who disagrees with me and gets involved than the person who, you know, agrees with me and doesn't and, like, and doesn't lift a finger.

Like, get in the game. Like, you know, you you you want what's best for this country, you know, put some put some blood, sweat, and tears into it. And guess what? You know, we can work with that. Well, I know so many people are are hopefully gonna be taking that exact perspective, get involved.

And moreover, hopefully, they're you know, again, the the single most important piece, that they might be able to take away is to absolutely buy your book. And Yeah. That's right. Gautam, thank you so much. This is really a treat.

Like I said, I we could probably talk, forever about a a whole meandering pathway of things, but I really appreciate the conversation and hope we can visit with you again down the road. Thank you. It would be my pleasure. I look forward to it. Thanks so much, Gautam.

Please check out his books available everywhere, and more about his work can be found in the show notes. Thanks again for listening, and a big, big congrats to my cousin Akshay and his wife, Roma, for baby number 2. Till next time. I'm Abhay Dandekar.