>>Good morning an welcome to Global Perspectives.

I'm David Dumke.

I'm joined today by John Sullivan, who is the executive director of Partnership for Secure America, which is a Washington, D.C. based think tank.

Thanks for being here, John.

>>Thank you David.

>>So tell us a littl about Partnership for America.

What is your missio and what do you do?

>>Excellent.

So yeah, as you mentioned, we are a think tank.

However, internally we like to call ourselves a do tank.

We'r much more operationally focused, whereas many think tanks around town and there's no shortage of them in Washington, D.C., are are doing very rigorous research and trying to apply that and get in fron of the right people to to convey what they're researching and understanding.

We're more of a convening force.

I describe what PSA doe as building professional capital for for people within DC with a hyper focus on Capitol Hill.

But but we also work throughout the Washington, DC area with government sector as well as private sector and and professional capita is is a term that I'm trying to use to distill down what we do because it is this is hard to describe in some sense, but within that I have kind of three pillars within it.

There's an educational dynamic.

So very ofte we're bringing in a lot of those other think tank experts who are doing phenomenal work, to come and get in front of staffers with our network of professionals and, and engage in a very candid manner.

We do everything off the record so that they can they can speak more freely, and that the audience can also, you know, it's you're in this semi work setting, but it's also you're usually doing things outside of work.

So mixture of this social professional setting, and they're able to learn from these experts and get really valuable information and build rapport with those experts so that they can then have their own relationship with them and continue to stay well-informed.

Another side of that pillar is, our skills development.

Something that we pioneered was legislative negotiation training.

Years ago, prior to me coming on to PSA, we wanted to develop thi training for congressional staff to apply really a lot of Harvard's techniques and heft, into a legislative context.

And that program has grown, phenomenally.

We currently work with, American University, still work with, Harvard University and we have some colleagues over at Georgetown that we like to collaborate with as well.

And skills development is is really important, especially on Capitol Hill.

You've got 435 different offices.

You've got about 20 different committees on each in each chamber.

And each of those offices are like their own little small business.

There's there's no central HR, you're you're training is very much on the job training.

You learn from within, and there aren' tons of opportunities to engage in more of a classroom setting to to learn different skills.

And so that's incredibly valuable that, that we do.

And our last one, which I woul say is the most important one, is trust development.

The Capitol Hill is and legislatin is, is a very social practice.

Getting to know one another, building up trust with one another is how you can get work done.

And when people go through our programs because we're doing things off the record.

Again, this mixture of social and professional setting, they're able to really develop trusted brokers and other offices and, and with what we do, we're never pushing anybody i any singular policy direction.

So it it's it's this organic, grassroots effort to try to build greater cohesion among staff, working on Capitol Hill so that they then can go and collaborate wherever they see fit and responsibly.

And that pays enormous dividends in their jobs in the near term.

It helps them advise their bosses and find like minded individual on the other side of the aisle or other chamber that they can then go ahead and work with, and then years down the road too those those that rapport is, is incredibly valuable.

I mean, DC is a paradoxically small city.

You you very ofte are running into the same people year after year in different settings, or you go several years and then you run into them again, or you it's the two degrees of separation where you're interacting with someone.

Oh, I know them too.

And having that trust i is really incredibly valuable.

I think it's also in short supply.

I think it is part of the reason why politics is so difficult and so tenuous right now.

>>So.

So, John, your organization is working on a bipartisan foreign policy.

Kind of pragmatic solution is founded by former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman.

The mission of of bipartisan foreign policy, kind of having a national policy is obviously a noble one, but in a polarized climate like we're living in today, would you say that this is more needed or less emphasized?

Oh, I certainly more needed.

It's hard to believe.

So in 2005 is when Senator Rudman and Congressman Hamilton came together to help found the organization.

And and it's hard to believe and boy, how far we've come since 2005 that even then they saw this trajectory that we were coming on and and they wanted to find a way that, that this organization could, could start to unite people.

And bipartisanship is is very explicit in what we do.

I think that that term and nonpartisan can get used is a bit of a cudgel a lot in DC.

I mean, on Capitol Hill, if you have one membe from the other side of the aisle signing on or co-sponsoring your bill, it instantly becomes a bipartisan bill.

But w we are very distinct and adamant about having things done in a bipartisan way.

So when we do our programs, generally those participants are split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats.

I mean, you can't eliminat partisanship out of the system.

It's baked into the cake at this point.

But when it gets to such level that we're we're stuck talking past one another.

It inhibits any effective governance.

It inhibits our ability to address rising crises across the world.

And and so finding ways to t remedy that, it's not a panacea.

People want to find the one answer.

What do we just need to do to do this.

And and the answer is it's an uncomfortable one because there is no singular answer.

It takes time.

Consensus is not omnipotent and omnipresent.

It takes time to develop.

But you also need to nurture that development and create avenues and forums where people can start to develop and develop that trust.

>>When you're talking about people like like Hamilton and Rudman, of course these are these were powerhouses and you've had other powerhouses that have been members of your board over the years.

So I wanted to ask you wh it's been so important for PSA specificall to have this board of advisors that actually gives access and credibility.

DC as you know, has a lot of think tanks and a lot organizations trying to do a lot of different things.

What what has been key to your success, has it been the board of advisors or?

>>It's not one singular thing, but I would say the the that board of advisors is kin of that first foot in the door because we, we're very small organizatio where we're a four person staff.

Last year we did 60 events.

That's well over one event per week, and those vary in scale and size from cohort base programs, multi-month programs, overnight conferences, legislative negotiation trainings, and singular briefings.

And there are organizations that are many times our size.

People have much more heft than we do.

And so when people come and see us and they get interested they they go look at our website and seeing that Rolodex o people who who are committed to our mission is incredibly validating for what we do.

And so that that piques people's interest.

It gets them willing to come and, you know explore what we have to offer.

And then once they do experience that I mean, I can confidently say, many people who go through our program say, like, we deliver the greatest ROI, the return on investment for their time and congressional staf are stretched incredibly thin.

You've got in a personal office, maybe eight or so people, a legislative assistant will be handling maybe eight different issues that range from tax policy to foreign policy, homeland security, Veterans affairs, helping to deal with constituent issues.

So finding a way that they can engage with us in an easy manner that means also coming to them the way that we do our programing.

My philosophy is lower the barrier to entry.

So when we are doing exercises and things, these people have a lot of work and in their day time job.

And there's also a limited amount of, you know, free time you have.

So making things accessible for them, where it's going to still be a meaningful learning experience, but not so onerous that they're going to have to spend hours and hours of work for that.

So, so the board of advisors is incredibly important, too, because they we are also able to bring them in and they're able to engage in these off the record candid discussions.

And that is incredibly important for for young staff and mid-level, even senior people to hear what these old heads-- >>Practitioners.

>>Yes.

I mean, hearing those war stories that they have of how thing actually get done in practice, I heard I heard from one individual that, you know, they'll spend countless hours talking about different intelligence matters.

But when it comes to making that policy decision, it's incredibly hard discussion to have.

And how do you pull these enormously cumbersome levers of government t to kind of fix an acute issue?

>>So, so let me ask you, you kind of explain the overview in your approach.

Talk a little about some of your specific programs you do.

>>Yeah.

So, one of our mainstay programs that's been going on since 2009, supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, is is our congressional partnership program.

Before that, you know PSA was like other think tanks.

We were doing policy statements and things like that.

But when we developed this program, I would say that's really where we found our niche.

And in that program, we do it twice a year.

We'll get about 30 o so congressional staff together.

We'll have that split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, and they'll go through a multi-month experience and what that involves, you know, we'll we'll do an orientation, a meet and greet, and then we start doing those off the record.

I kind of if you're familiar with a Ted talk, I call these Ted talks.

So it's a good, intellectual atmosphere that people are starting to engage with.

We will do an overnigh conference generally, or a day long conference where, we'll we'll have a series of speakers, but we also do a series of exercises throughout that program.

And and that was also where we pioneered our legislative negotiation training.

And, and we've designed these simulations to really build upon one another.

So for that negotiation training, you'll get a lecture seminar.

We'll will work with a distinguished expert who will outline some different techniques, approache of how to go into a negotiation.

And and then we've developed our own exercises in-house.

The first one is it's kind of like a bilateral negotiation bill negotiation.

With that one, I kind of describe it is, is you have a box, we given them set box, and then they have to go through it and kind of fill in the lines from there.

Then we do another simulation, which is like a trade negotiation.

Very similar to NAFTA, USMCA.

So you have three countries, three different ministries.

You get the box, but this time you can edit the box, you can make it a little bit smaller, open it up.

And so it's a little bit more latitude in this one.

And it's also not only multi-party but it's multi-level.

You you've got to negotiate within your team, which even times, I've heard from some of my board members that, some of the hardest negotiations are with you in your own team within the US government, having different agencies or so on disagree on certain things.

And then you also have that international level.

And then the final simulation that they do is you don't get a box you're presented with an issue.

And now you have to kind of draw it and fill within the lines as you see fit.

And so that that learning experience to that experiential learning I think is incredibly valuable because staffers and people, there's no shortage of talk and interesting things going on.

But having that experience, that gamified interaction helps ingrain those teaching points a lot more durably than than just hearing it.

And then it kind of going in one ear and out the other.

And then-- >>What kind of feedback do you get from the participants?

>>Well, it's it's ...one, especially for these, these simulations.

I mean, like, it's it's fun.

There's there's a certain degre of kind of social engineering.

Not only i that this learning experience, but it's like playing a big game of risk with a bunch of people.

And we'll use oftentimes point scoring system.

So they get that catharsis to say like, oh, I won.

I maximize my points, I out beat the other person, and having the number of exercises is, again, very helpful.

People really don't get those opportunities, as I mentioned, about the skills development and having done that or being able to do that with a certain degree of rigor, just makes it like a very worthwhile experience.

And as, as a general just kind of feedback, I mean, people, people remark of just how much thought we put into our program.

So again, I mentioned kind o lowering that barrier to entry.

A lot of what goes on in DC is, you know, there's lots of events going on around town.

So what we do is making sur that we're easy and accessible.

We're doing events near kind of where they're working outside of work hours, and we're doing lots of communication with them.

So lots of emails of hey, we have an event tonight.

Oh, the event started because, you know, you can also often lose track of your calendar.

I'm certainly guilty of that sometimes.

But a very, very important part to this program is the fact that we have an alumni network.

So once you go through tha program, you're able to continue to stay in touch with people.

You're able to have a continuing opportunity to engag in these types of discussions.

And because the program continues on, it's constantly building up greater, a greater magnitud of the people who are within it.

And given how long it's been going, I mean, we have people who have who have gone on to hold pretty senior positions within the legislature there, in the private sector, i other sectors of the government.

And so that that unique atmosphere, again, of of being able to hear very, very interesting speaker.

I mean, they'll be former ambassadors, very high level think tank people.

And the hearing, what they have to say is, is very informative for them because it's done in this candid manner.

And when you can only sa so much when you're in front of a TV screen such as this, but when you can be that provocative or, you know, I don't necessaril have this idea of figure it out, but here's something that I'm kind of working on it, you know, staffers really can take that and bring it home with them and mull it over.

And that's kind of how we help expand a consensu and growing ideas among people.

And then the feedback again, is, is is valuable.

We are small organization too.

So the nice thing is that we're able to be agile and adaptive to what we're hearing with feedback, especially with when you design a simulation.

I mean, it i it is a very difficult process.

>>You, you change the simulation.

So you have different scenarios based on whats going on?

>>Different scenarios or very often we're tweaking things.

How can we make this a little bit more realistic?

How can we maybe while you're going through the simulation infuse like oh, you just got a little line that was handed over to you that the boss is now changing their mind on something and then and trying to replicat how how in flux things can be in the real world is important to us.

And also how do we make, you know, the way we'll very often actually, design the simulations in a way with the scoreboard.

So like i some of our simulations, I've, I've actually graphed them out.

We have well over 13,000 possible outcomes.

I didn't know this at the time.

There is a limit to what Excel can do.

And I did reach that limit at one point where it's too complex.

So there's hundreds of thousands possible outcomes.

But we even graph that out.

And so it's trying to illustrate something that's that it's hard to to capture where at a negotiation it's it's not like when staffers go in they they have a point system marked out on what they're trying to figure out, but we'll actually graph out their outcomes.

And you can see how much you maximized, how much your points favored one side versus the other.

And where is that maybe equilibrium point for both parties.

And very often we'll also do asymmetri scoring to understand, you know, one party can have more to win or lose in a situation.

But and also in some ways that gives the party who has less to lose some more power over the guiding things.

>>So yeah, a lot of your focus is on Congress and congressional staff.

I want to ask you, you know, why is that the case?

And then obviously you look at Rodman and Hamilton were from Congress, but a lot of your board or former diplomats and other officials in other sectors, why do they feel it's important to work on Congress?

>>Well, and to answer that second part, I mean, for those who have worked in the State Department, they know who who write their checks.

I mean, Congress is incredibly important and they provide the oversight for for everythin that the US government is doing.

And then very often the, the Congress is, is the first symptom of, of our political discord that is going on.

I mean, we see it there first and it's sometimes you can see it happening in various agencies and bureaucracy as well.

And our approach to staff is is very intentional.

And it is important because, you know, staff have greater latitude where they can engage across the aisle.

And they are doing such important roles and advising their bosses.

I mean, they are the subject matter experts within each of these offices.

And our philosophy is, you know, a better, more well informed congressional staff and staff across the US government and in the private secto lead to better policy outcomes because they're the ones doing the hard work.

I mean, ultimately it does.

It's incumbent on the bosses to agree to it and find ways to work together.

But the staff d countless hours of ground work.

I mean, on the Hill, you're you're constantly writing up different memos.

Very often some of those memos are only getting read by a few people, but it is that, thankless job that that leads to these great outcomes.

>>So with when you're dealing with, with congressional offices, I mean, obviously you have a Republican Democrat divide, but you also have members who are more interested in foreign affairs and those who are much less interested.

A lot of that, of course, determined on where they represent.

So if you're from South Florida, for example, you're probably more attuned to politics, the Caribbean, Cuba issue.

You're from Dearborn, Michigan, you have a lot of Arab American constituents and so on and so forth.

Do you take that into account in terms of, the simulations you do, or the kind of the outreach you do?

>>To a certain degree I mean, when it comes to the various events, there's a self-selecting nature to what we do.

So not only when we doing cohort based programs, you know, if someone's coming to our event, we're we're trying to cover as much ground as possible, but it also make it so that it's not such a niche audience, so that that's it's a balance that you have to strike.

And then when it comes to, us doing our, our cohort based programs it is this self-selecting aspect where the staffers are also givin this vote of confidence to say, I want to work across this side.

So, so in many ways, we're we're not getting pulled in one way or another where, one party is, is saying that we're being unfair to them or vice versa.

They understand what we're trying to do, and they have given us a those votes of confidence that that we are succeeding at it.

I mean, through that, one program I'd mentioned, we've had, well over about 850 congressional staff go over and through the years and, and word of mouth is our most powerful ally.

And so people are saying, no, you really should go through this program.

It's going to help you in your career.

It's a legitimate benefit and people thank us.

And that' one of the most rewarding things that that they do see what we're trying to do is, is intellectually honest and and being supportive and and at times it can be thankless at, you know, when when you'r seeing such dysfunction happen.

But I have hope.

And, when it comes to topical discussions.

So, yeah, covering as much ground as we can possible.

And that maybe requires us kind of tagging different issue and regions together to, again, get that audience together and also help understand how this tapestry of foreign policy initiatives are very inter woven with one another, where one thing that's happening over here has reverberating effects a down the line second third order effects.

>>So, you know I, like you I work for work on Capitol Hill.

And you know, there is a tendency, of course, when you're working with staffers and I talk as, as an alumni of that, that you kind of adopt the personality of the boss you're working for and the issues.

Do you see that kind of bleed into your work?

>>To a degree.

To a degree, I mean, and I worked on, on Capitol Hill myself.

I mean, these you need to understand that you're you've got to check your ow kind of ideologies at the door, that you're not there to represent yourself.

You're there to represent your boss.

So to a degree that happens.

But the the fact that we're getting them outside of work very often they're able to at least bifurcate.

That hat a bit.

And you certainly definitely see a certain there's cultures in each of these offices.

Like I mentioned, there's so many different offices and they all operate very differently.

Some are very top down structures, others are very kind of laid back, informal.

And so you can see that that bleed through.

But again, you don't necessarily get a lot of belligerence through our program just because those people aren't aren't interested in coming to the table to begin with.

And it's not like we're goin to be forcing them or anything.

It's it's on you to want to come in and be a part of that dialog.

>>So are yo are you catering primarily to, junior staffers who are just starting or mid-career?

What level?

>>It varies.

I would say our biggest focus is on the mid-career staff.

So you have your your legislative assistants who are who are actually handling policy issues and working with their members, advising them, your legislative directors, who are really kind of at the forefront of the whole legislative agenda for that member, even chiefs of staff com and participate in our programs.

And then you have you also have your committee staff, whic which really are able to be more subject matter experts up on Capitol Hill.

And so we were able to get them all.

We have other programs that that are more open to the more junior staff, who are getting their foot in the door.

And it's important to to message and get in front of those types of people because, you know, like I mentioned, it's a smal town and the people very quickly move up through their career, especially on the house side.

And so while that person may be a very junior position now, you know, a couple of years from now, they're going to be actually advising the member and working on a certain issue and stuff.

But mainly our focus would be, I would say, more of the mid-career folks, people who actually are in this have skin in the game and and doing the job right now.

>>So your focus is is heavily on Congress, but you also work with other agencies.

So I'm wonderin wondering how they get involved.

So you're talking about State Department or maybe Department of Defense?

I know you have some former officers in your board of advisors as well.

>>Yeah, we have we have a unique program, called the Department of Stat Congress Communication Project.

And and, you know, communication and trust is in short supply on the Hill, but it also it gets carried over to the executive agencies.

And so we have a certain program where we we bring a group of congressional staff together with State Department personnel, because these are two very different organizations, you know, State Department, I describe them as a ver consensus driven organization.

And consensus is not omnipotent.

It's not omnipresent.

It takes time to develop.

And and Congress moves at a very fast pace.

>>Sure.

>>And I view Congress as more of a coalition driven organization.

So when Congress is asking for information, State Departmen has a long concurrence process that they have to make sure they have all their their i's dotted, t's cross and everything before that, they can get the hill, that information.

And I know that's that's very frustrating for people on the hill because there's there' a certain moment of opportunity that you have ther that you need to capitalize on.

But when it takes-- >>Its a a political calendar as opposed to a policy one.

>>Exactly.

Yeah.

And you know, just a bureaucracy is, is not going to be nearly as agile as a bunch of different members saying, okay, yeah, let's do this.

So that that program is helpin each of those two institutions, the personnel within them, understand it so well on the Hill, when you you write a memo, it's going to go to the boss.

You better proofread it.

You better spell check it because it's going straight to the boss, maybe to the chief of staff first, but you kno it's going to be right on you.

Versus in the department, I mean, you're going to have to go through ten different lines of concurrence process.

>>And may look nothing like, oh, where it started.

>>And then someone else might disagree.

Red line, what you're doing and stuff like that.

And so people in both those institutions don't necessarily appreciate that dynamic.

And in addition to because from State Department, you're in you're in a institution that is not supposed to be politicized, that that these are people who are there out of a sense of public service, and they see what goes on in Congress.

And very often, too, you get a skewed view of what is going on in Congress by just seeing what gets presented on television.

I mean, very often your those members are having a message and you're constantl campaigning, so their sense of the dysfunction is maybe a bit hyperized from, from what congressional staff see.

And knowing that there are serious congressional staff on Capitol Hill that want to dig into the issues that are that are there for the right reasons, out of a sense of public service.

You know that you may disagre on certain policy aspects, but there's still this this respect for each other that that we can develop between them of their shared values, for for America, for us to prosper, and finding ways for that, they can again connect on a bit of a socia level is very important to that.

And those future interactions that, okay, I can I can figure out a way to speak to them more and more candidly or kind of off the record in a sense, and help them understand what they need to know without saying too much, or getting the head of th Secretary or anything like that.

>>So foreign policy, of course, traditionally is, you know, the sayin that Senator Arthur Vandenberg once said about politics stopping at the water's edge is that still possible?

Number one, we just have a minute, a minute left.

So is it still possible?

And are you optimistic with, you know, 850 alumni and more work ongoing that you're going to see a change in culture to more bipartisan consensus, at least in foreign policy?

>>I certainly think it's possible.

I don't know that you will have a monolithic foreign policy.

I don't know that that's what we would want.

We want some divergence debate in there.

But I am I, I'm a I'm very much an optimistic I mean I hedged my that's a little bit because because things aren't, aren't working the wa that we would like them to be.

But seeing the amount of people who go through our programs, who are taking time out of their busy lives to to spend it with us, to learn and develop and and from what we hear from them, thanking us for what we do because they they're able to say, hey, my boss, who's a Republican, is now regularly working with this Democratic office and that that pays dividends down the road.

And and it is the building blocks i we're playing a very long game where, again, we're not pushin for the single policy decision.

We're not making advocacy.

But down the road, these people are finding ways to work together.

And that gives me great hope.

>>John Sullivan thank you for joining us today.

Keep up the good work wit Partnership for Secure America.

>>Thank you.

>>And thank you for joining us.

We'll see you again next week on another episode of Global Perspectives.