Integrity and Democracy with Representatives Steve Womack and Pat Ryan

Lindsay Chervinsky: What does it mean to lead with integrity in an increasingly polarized world? And how can leaders successfully navigate difficult decisions in times of uncertainty? For George Washington, these were hard learned lessons from a life of military service and leadership. And for today's guests, these same principles guided their journey from the U. S. military to the U. S. Capitol.

Welcome to Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library. I'm Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon. In this podcast series, we talk with leaders from across the nation about their growth, challenges, and innovative approaches that made them the leaders that they are today.

The first six conversations, which took place between August 2023 and March 2024, were led by our former Executive Director, Dr. Patrick Spero. In the spirit of George Washington's leadership, this series will feature the perspective of leaders from across industries and fields. As such, the thoughts expressed in this podcast are solely the views of our guests and do not reflect the opinions of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association.

Lindsay Chervinsky: Today, we are joined by two distinguished guests, Representative Steve Womack and Representative Pat Ryan. In this candid conversation, recorded on December 13, 2023, we explore the challenges and complexities of decision making in the political arena, the personal sacrifices that come with public service, and the qualities that define effective leadership.

In this interview, you'll hear about the journey both men took from military service to public service, and what it taught them about making difficult decisions in high stakes environments.

Steve Womack: When I put my voting card in that machine, I assume that my vote is the vote that's going to be needed to pass the issue or to sink the issue.

Lindsay Chervinsky: Both congressmen share their experiences navigating difficult votes, the importance of integrity, and the existential stakes facing our democracy today.

Pat Ryan: And a lot of those alarm bells, are blinking bright red. So we need people who both understand the stakes and are willing to try to keep that sense of integrity.

Lindsay Chervinsky: And now our host, Dr. Patrick Spero, former Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.

Pat Spero: So thank you, Congressmen for joining me today.

Steve Womack: Thank, thank you for having us.

Pat Spero: I'm thrilled to have this conversation. We haven't yet had a chance to talk to public officials about leadership. What leadership means to you all how it operates as an elected official.

So really excited to learn about your lives, your careers, and your perspective on leadership, which is something that is so vital to our country today. So I start all these podcasts with the same question that I ask my guest, and I've never had two people at the same time. So I want to do something a little different to start today.

Congressman Ryan, could you leave the room for a second so I could ask Congressman Womack this question? And then I'll ask you to come back in and see what your answer is.

Pat Ryan: Sure.

Steve Womack: I just sat down.

Pat Ryan: I'll be right back.

Pat Spero: So Congressman Womack, I wanna do a thought experiment. If you are teaching a fifth grade English class and you're teaching them vocabulary, and one of the words is leadership, how would you define leadership?

Steve Womack: it would be similar to what many other leaders have used to define leadership, and that is to always take the harder right over the easier wrong.

I mean, that's one definition of it. To me, though, leadership is more broad than that, my leadership philosophy, I think, sums it up and explains, you know, a lot of people have written books about this stuff, large books, made lots of money about it.

Pat Spero: I used to teach it.

Steve Womack: But I sum my leadership philosophy up in a couple of short sentences, and it says "lead by example and lead from the front," because there you cover two of the most important things about leadership. And I know we're getting a little bit away from definition, but to set a good example, to have personal integrity, demonstrate courage, just that entire leadership spectrum of qualities that you look for in leaders is all part of that lead by example piece of my philosophy.

The other part's a little more difficult, and that is leading from the front, because I'm a big believer that leaders become the face of the organization that they lead, and the only place you can be in the formation, if you will, is in front, because it's there and only there that you can affect two very important parts of the org, two, two important features of that organization and that is timing and direction where you can make decisions that allow the organization you lead to do what is right when it is right.

And to be able to lead it in a certain direction that you can see not necessarily literally but as events begin to unfold. So it's kind of lead by example, lead from the front. And then on the back side of my challenge coin, I've got four qualities that I always try to emulate when faced in leadership decisions: duty, honor, courage, and service.

So I think in that span of information you can glean that leadership is pretty important to me and I feel critical to the future of any organization if indeed it wishes to be successful. And it won't make any difference whether it's a Sunday school class or the United States Congress. It demands good, sound leadership.

Pat Spero: That's great. And I can't wait to talk more about how leadership operates in Congress and also as an elected official, how to lead from the front while also having constituents. So let me ask Congressman Ryan now to rejoin us and see what he has to say. And you get to listen to his answer. Yeah.

So Congressman Ryan I'd like to ask you the same question. If you were asked to teach a 5th grade class, English class, and it's vocabulary, and the word of the day is leadership, and you have to define it for these 5th graders, how would you define leadership?

Pat Ryan: Let's see, as a son of a teacher, my mom will put a lot of, a lot of pressure on—an English teacher, actually—a lot of pressure on this answer. I think there's two key components: direction and integrity, I think are the two words that I think about, especially in the moment that we're in, in our politics in particular.

I think leadership, so much of leadership is about taking the time to think through a vision and set a direction towards that vision and then do the work to constantly communicate that vision, and without direction, we often turn inwards, we get into cross purposes with each other.

But if, whether it's a team or a family or a Congress or a country, if you have direction I think that provides a critical element of leadership. And then integrity, of course, if you're pursuing a particular direction without integrity and without a deeper moral purpose than that, of course, undercuts the importance.

And again in the institution we're both serving in, I think that is something where we certainly could have a little bit more. And so, yeah, I think if I had to say those are sort of the two traits of leadership in general, and that's also served me as a military officer, as I started two businesses.

So I think those would hold true there as well, but certainly in Congress right now.

Steve Womack: Those sound familiar.

Pat Spero: I was just going to ask you if you wanted to react.

Steve Womack: So you're a mentalist. One guy was standing outside this soundproof room and you got the same answer.

Pat Ryan: Really?

Steve Womack: Essentially.

Pat Ryan: Wow. I love that.

Steve Womack: Because I think you'll admit, and those listening heard Integrity. That came from me.

Pat Spero: Yep.

Steve Womack: And direction.

Pat Spero: Yep.

Steve Womack: Came from me.

Pat Ryan: Really?

Steve Womack: Both of ‘em

Pat Ryan: Wow.

Pat Spero: Yeah.

Pat Ryan: That's powerful.

Steve Womack: You passed.

Pat Spero: Well I was gonna ask, so you both have a military background in the Army as an officer. And I wanted to know how your ideas about leadership have been influenced by that experience.

And I dunno if I could ask you to go back to when you both were junior officers, maybe initially commissioned and now. What's it like to put in that position of leadership and what did you learn? And maybe I'll start with Congressman Ryan, since I started with you before.

Pat Ryan: I think the biggest lesson for me was humility. I remember—I went to West Point, we're proud, proud graduate, but hearing from lots of folks that West Point officers were known often for their overconfidence, shall we say, maybe to be kind about it.

And so there's nothing worse than showing up to a unit, as a second lieutenant, you're the youngest or near the youngest, certainly younger than your non- commissioned officers who actually know what they're doing and are technically competent and great leaders. And so my NCO, my platoon sergeant at the time said, sir, shut up, listen, learn, observe. We establish that trust, and I'll take care of you.

And so that's something that I did, mostly. And has served me, served me well in that role, served my folks I led more importantly in that role. So I think that's something I've tried to carry forward I don't think people always understand. They picture like a top down, I'm giving you this order and you will follow it just because I have a rank on my shoulder.

That certainly doesn't work in any situation, but in particular, when you're asking people to go into an incredibly, you know, out on, in my case, out on, to patrol in the streets of Mosul in 2008.

Pat Spero: That's great. I was going to actually ask later about what it's like to go from command and follow to rely on elected officials, but it sounds like there is an element of that in the military as well.

Pat Ryan: Certainly. I, I personally think alignment of purpose is always going to result in a better outcome than trying to force it top down.

Pat Spero: Congressman Womack, what was your experience like?

Steve Womack: Well, my experience covered 30 years in military service, and I'm going to break it down a couple of ways.

First of all, at the company grade level where, you know, you get commissioned, you're now an officer, and you're afforded a lot of respect and responsibility to go with it, but in those early years, in that second lieutenant to captain sort of timeframe, you are leading for sure, because it's a small unit leadership structure, but you're also learning.

You're learning your trade and, and that's where you kind of drink from the fire hose and, and you absorb. So you're always learning while leading. And then you get into that field grade area, and it's no longer about being competent in your skill set. It's more about being able to apply.

It's more of an application process. Applying all of those things you learned in that first six to eight years. And begin to apply it at a much higher, more strategic like level. So I kind of look at company grade time is the tactical piece of it. And the field grade, more strategic level, is that strategic sort of application of your leadership lessons.

But, what ties them all together are those same things. I mean, let's face it. If you're leading an organization, whether you're a platoon leader or a company troop commander or a battalion commander, brigade commander, division commander, the folks you lead are still looking for the same things in the leader.

You know, they want to see somebody who's technically competent, somebody who is trustworthy, somebody who's honest, somebody who is always willing to make the right decisions for all the right reasons, and that doesn't have kind of a finger to the wind test on those decisions, and usually those decisions are rooted in a philosophy.

That is basically galvanized over time based on those experiences. So I kind of look at that first few years as that's when you're going to skin your knee. And, and in, in my leadership structure, now as a civilian, and back then as a commander, I had a statement in my leadership philosophy that I would give to my subordinate officers.

And now, I impart to subordinate workers in my office, a legislative assistant, a staff assistant, a scheduler. And that is, I am not a zero defects guy. I want them to know that I grew up in a zero defects military environment back in the 80s, and it was horrible.

Pat Spero: So what does that mean for our listeners?

Steve Womack: Zero defects means you worry about making a mistake which to me shackles innovation and thought and experimentation so, so what I would say, and I can almost quote it verbatim because on my OER support form and in my leadership philosophy, I say, I underwrite errors of enthusiasm.

That's what I call them. Because I want people that work for me—then and now—to know that I want them to be—I want them to be creative and innovative and I want them to be flexible with the times and I want them to be willing to think a little bit, outside the box, because it's a kind of a trite saying, but I do want that, and I encourage that.

And as long as they're not compromising matters of character or matters of safety, or security, then it's okay for them to do something and fail, learn from it, and then pick themselves back up, dust themselves off. I reward that, because, I guarantee you, Pat feels the same way, because I know the West Point structure. I didn't graduate there, but I chair the board there, and so I know exactly what West Point is producing, and Pat's a good example of it. That we want leaders. We want them to lead with honor and integrity.

What we want leaders who are, we want thought leaders. And that's the magic of West Point is they, in that 47 month experience, they train people to truly get outside that box. Use your head and think. If you look at the difference in the armies of the world, the biggest difference we have, maybe aside from the NCO Corps, which separates us from a lot of others, but it's that junior officer.

Yeah, they're decision makers. They can make spontaneous decisions where a lot of other armies, particularly Russian army, they gotta stop and they gotta call higher to try to figure out what the right answer is. But anyway, the point is that in my military experience we have—we've encountered a lot of different things, deployments and otherwise, and the totality of those experiences have formed kind of my overall leadership philosophy that I now apply to everyday work and I try to impart that to those junior to me.

Pat Ryan: And just to build on, one of Mr. Womack's points on, I was one of the company grade officers that you were talking about, so more junior officer and when I graduated and showed up to my unit, we were in the heat of both Iraq and Afghanistan, the thick of the, the, the highest number of deployments and folks serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, it required that set of both commanders who understood that a big part of their job was to resource and empower and underwrite the risk essentially for their junior officers and junior officers who were willing to adapt on the fly. And I think in addition to humility that I talked about before, a real understanding of what does it mean as a leader to understand risk in many different dimensions.

And then be willing to knowingly assume and take on that risk. And I think about that a lot in this job, actually, where I see a lot of colleagues who are unwilling to take on political risk to show true leadership. Unwilling to go against a party or a certain group of constituents who may be very vocal on a certain issue.

And I think a big part of what I've been trying to carry into this role that I learned as a junior military officer is your job as a leader is to ultimately take risk for purposes of achieving that direction and that mission.

Pat Spero: That actually gets to one of the questions I wanted to ask you, because one of the things I've noticed watching Sunday morning shows or just listening to you know, CNN and other channels that oftentimes, I feel like those that are elected in Congress, people that are either their constituents or are outside and trying to pressure them will say, show some leadership. And when they say show some leadership, they usually mean, I want you to do what I want.

Pat Ryan: Right.

Pat Spero: And so, I, you know, I've, I've been thinking about this conversation a lot.

I would love to hear what it's like to be an elected official in which you are now dependent on a group of people who are going to support you, and they probably support you because of your vision, your ability to execute on that vision here in Congress or elsewhere. But sometimes you might see things differently than your constituency.

How do, or, you have pressures from your party or elsewhere to do something that maybe you don't agree with. And just how do you exercise leadership? As an elected official, whether it's as a county executive, a mayor or in Congress. How do you navigate that?

Pat Ryan: Well, so I represent you know, what the political pundits would call a swing district.

Of 435 house seats, last time mine was the fifth closest race. So I have a district that encompasses a very broad set of views. And I actually think that's quite good for our democracy in my personal opinion. Because it means I have to be incredibly, almost ruthlessly focused on listening to everybody.

And so I've tried to do that in a bunch of ways. For example, it sounds super cheesy, but it's actually very few folks that I've been able to find have done this. We rented or leased a van and we call it our “C.A.R.E.S. Van” and we drive around, I have 87 different towns. We go to every single town regularly to just sort of do these mini town halls, do constituent services, get a real—I was an intelligence officer—get a feel for what's happening on the ground, sort of taste the soup, if you will, before making decisions.

So I think a big part of this job is being in constant bi-directional communication with all of the different folks in the district. I think where people often can go wrong and I'll put myself in this category, too, is losing sight of the fact that those about 800,000 constituents are the people that matter, not a lot of the other forces that swirl around here, whether that's party, whether that's certain advocacy groups or interest groups, or even as someone who is a military veteran represent West Point in my district, I have to remember, I can't get too biased towards even that institution because I have to think about the whole picture more broadly.

So that's how we're trying to think about it.

Pat Spero: How do you navigate it?

Steve Womack: You know, Pat talked in one of his answers a minute ago about the dimensions of risk.

I totally agree with him, that there are many dimensions of risk as an elected official because your job is now dependent. It's not pleasing a commander above you. It's pleasing a constituency that is, in many cases, very fractured. And in his case, I mean, like 50/50 when you think about it. And in many respects that makes his job easier, but harder because he's got to think, he's got to think in two dimensions.

He's got to be able to think about the party he represents and the fact that there is a thing called a primary. He's also got to think about the general election, the great contest of ideas should he become the nominee. And in my case it's different and I think I can get away with saying this because it's the truth that I'm not in a district like Pat's. I'm in an—what is—the partisan voting index of my district has been a PVI of 19 favored—a Republican favored district, and a Republican has represented my seat since back in the 1960s.

And there is no sign that I see that suggests that it's going to be represented by somebody other than a Republican in the foreseeable future. Now that could all change. That's just been the history of my district. So it adds to the leadership challenge for someone like me because the easy path for me is just to do what the hard right always wants you to do.

Steve Womack: And many of my colleagues from similar districts do just that, they just vote according to what that party demands. I look at things a little differently, and part of it's, you know, Pat's a young guy, so he's not 60, almost 67 like I am, but I look through a little different lens now than I would if I was, say, 40.

And that is, I look more at what my legacy is, insofar as saving this republic and a lot less about what's going to get me elected. If I happen to get beat in a primary election and go home, the worst possible thing that's going to happen to me, other than maybe having a bruised ego for about 24 hours, is I'm going to spend a lot more time with my grandkids.

And I'm not going to miss a lot of stuff that I miss today. So I look at, I look at my work through a little bit different lens. But it does challenge you because if you're interested in continuing to serve and continuing to make a difference, you certainly want to get reelected.

But in my case, it's all about prevailing in a primary, which means sometimes you're going to be asked to take some tough votes and you can either go with the politically expedient if it's different from what you believe is the right course of action. And I like to choose the right course of action. So it kind of puts me at odds sometimes with a lot of the people that are going to elect me. So to your question about how do you reconcile that when—and it's based on what—the context. I look at the context of whatever that vote is and every time I take a vote, when I put my voting card in that machine, I assume that my vote is the vote that's going to be needed to pass the issue or to sink the issue.

That's how I look at my vote, even if it's a suspension vote and everybody's voting for it. And I ask myself: if my vote is the one that makes it or breaks it, can I go home and explain it successfully? And that's how I approach my duty. So naturally, I've taken some votes. And I've got a primary opponent now to show for it.

But I've taken some votes that are a little bit upstream, you know, swimming upstream against the natural tendency of the discerning Republican. And I still think I'm a hardcore conservative through and through. But I have taken some votes that require a measure of courage to be able to do it because somebody in my shoes that just wants to get reelected would certainly have taken an easier path.

But that's not leadership. I'm committed to serving as a true leader.

Pat Spero: What's the most difficult decision you've had in Congress?

Steve Womack: Oh there have been many. When you say most difficult, look, you gotta define that. Difficult politically? Difficult personally? You know, because there are different difficulties out there. Probably the most difficult political vote—the one that probably comes to mind first and foremost because it's more recent, was that I chose not to support a gentleman who was nominated by our conference as the Speaker of the House and told him I wasn't going to support him.

And we have some differences, I could overcome some of those differences, but in this particular case, the gentleman did something to another person who had won our nomination in a secret ballot vote and did something that I thought kneecapped that candidate who never got a roll call vote on the floor of the House.

And we're talking about Steve Scalise, you know, he was nominated, he won, head to head, over Jim Jordan, and yet, before he could ever go to the floor for that vote. Mr. Jordan said he would only support him and endorse him—just having lost to him—if he could demonstrate to the conference that he could get 217 votes among our conference members.

And that was as I called it, a dog whistle to his supporters not to let Scalise get to near 217. And so when Jordan became the nominee, right after Steve Scalise stepped aside, I made the decision that that was bad leadership on the part of Mr. Jordan and I, and I had that conversation privately with Mr. Jordan and told him how I felt. And I told him it was a disqualifying move for me but still unpopular with a lot of people who are you know, hardcore conservatives in, in my district. And, but I tried to explain to them, and I still explain to them, that there are qualities of leadership that I think are requisite to becoming the Speaker of the House.

And I just thought that he fell woefully short of that standard, which is why I chose to oppose him. Each of the three times that a floor vote came up, and I'm, I'm still paying a political price for that. Which is okay. I didn't get into this job just to get reelected.

And so that's one of those, that, that's probably the most contemporary. There've been others, but and there will be more to come.

Pat Spero: Congressman Ryan, your most difficult decisions since you've arrived.

Pat Ryan: I've been serving a little over a year now, so I don't have as many of those moments. Actually sort of interesting way the Democratic Party, which I'm a member of, is in the minority now. So in many cases it's a different set of, from a making political decisions perspective anyway different set of, of decisions there. So there've been a few tough votes from a political perspective, but I've been pretty clear eyed on all of them. I actually think probably the hardest decision I've had to wrestle with around this job so far is, and I've only been doing it a year, do I want to keep doing it?

Pat Ryan: I mean, it's, as, as someone who—I have two young kids, I have a two, two year old and four year old little boys. My wife has a very busy and important job as well. I love our country. That's why I was willing to sign up and risk my life to serve the country in uniform.

I believe in our democracy and to—I think in a way, to those that believe in it most, it's the hardest to watch right now to see it not functioning in the way that our founders, intended and our constituents expect and deserve. To wrestle with that particularly when I know it's incredibly hard and combative I am going to continue to do it because I think we are truly at an existential moment for our democracy.

And I do not say that lightly. And I don't say it for political hyperbole. I say it as a, I think a patriot really. And I think patriots have to look at what's happening right now and realize we're at or approaching one of the most politically dangerous moments, certainly, I would say, since you know, leading up to the Civil War.

And so—and a lot of those alarm bells, same alarm bells, are blinking bright red. So we need people who both understand the stakes and are willing to try to keep that sense of integrity. And, you know what Steve just said about that hard vote he took on the speaker is a perfect, in my opinion, perfect example of that where every political incentive would've been for you to vote the other way. And there were a small set of people on the Republican party who didn't. And I don't think it's coincidental that a large number of them were those that have served our country in uniform, who have a deeper sense of what it means to be a patriot, to be a servant leader.

[BREAK]

Pat Spero: That's great. And in fact, it brings me to the question that's come up in the course of this conversation in a number of different ways. So you referenced the Civil War. Historians have debated for a long time, you know, what were some of the causes of the Civil War? And one of the arguments has been, it was a lack of leadership.

They didn't have the political will, the vision to confront issues, and as a result, fragmentation and eventually the Civil War. The other thing that came to mind just now is the fact that when historians have looked at who supported the Constitution. Overwhelmingly, it was those who had served in the military under Washington in the Continental Army.

And part of that had to do with sacrifice, a belief that they were serving a larger cause, and also a vision of a, of a nation that was based on union and united, not fragmented by states, which is how many people thought at that period of time. So the question that has come to mind now is, what can we do as a country to, you know, improve leadership, to teach leadership.

You both have had this experience in the military that has inculcated these values. You have shared them with your staff, but in the wider world, how can we have Americans think about leadership in the same way that you all do?

Steve Womack: I think we have to do it at an early age. I think it's part of our educational process.

And we have to inspire the young minds of our country to be able to think on their feet and for themselves and not be washed away by all of the shiny new things that happen through social media and on TikTok. And all of these other platforms that I probably shouldn't talk about because I'll embarrass myself by not knowing enough about it.

Pat Ryan: Never even been on TikTok.

Pat Spero: Neither have I.

Steve Womack: I referred, I remember a few years ago I referred to a social media site as MySpaceBook. I got, I, I got corrected pretty quickly. But I do think we have to get to the young minds and you know, you asked earlier about defining leadership to a fifth grade group.

I speak a lot. And I would believe that Pat does the same thing to young audiences. I go to schools. My staff knows when I go home, when school year's underway, I want to get into classrooms. And I don't go to the classrooms to do brainwashing for a political incentive.

I go to these classrooms to talk about the very things that we're talking about here. And what I believe are the pillars that will give a young person a reasonable shot at success, no matter how they define success, and there are two questions that I encourage fourth, fifth grade and up to consider asking themselves, to confront themselves with, and they're both very simple questions.

And from time to time, they're going to be in a position where they're going to have to ask themselves this question. The first question is why? And if you look at, and Pat's well aware of the five paragraph operations order that we all trained under. And it's paragraph three, the execution paragraph of the five paragraph operations order that starts with the commander's intent.

This is what the commander is wanting to do and why. It's the task and the purpose. And I think kids today need to understand why. Who and what and how, all those other one word questions have certain meaning, but the underlying is why are we doing this? And if you can understand why, the who and the what and the how kind of, and the when takes care of itself.

If you just understand the purpose. So that's the first one. And there's a book out there called Start With Why. The other question, and maybe the more important question, is if not me, who?

Because everybody's going to have an idea as to what right looks like and where we ought to be going. But too few people are willing to step into the breach and do it. And it's because of the single biggest, in my opinion, single biggest challenge of leadership. And that is leading, not knowing if anyone is willing to follow.

So I think we've got to get into the minds of these young kids to create leaders. And if you do, you can solve for some of society's biggest problems. On the mental health stage, on the substance abuse stage. On the sexual assault, sexual harassment stage, if you can train young minds to lead and to be willing to step away from their peer group, then some of society's biggest challenges can be solved just by helping kids become better leaders.

And I try to do that in every, with every opportunity I have.

Pat Ryan: Yeah. and I think that—I love those two questions and to your question that precipitated that great answer, I think a lot of history in general, and certainly American history is cyclical, and we are certainly at a moment of near or peak individualism, lack of really answers to your two questions, Steve.

With the answer being why? I don't care or, why should I take that time and, and more importantly to your second question, the answer is, well, somebody else will do it, I guess, because they always have. And I think as you see, in my case, my grandfather's generation who served in the Pacific in World War II and earned the Purple Heart, that generation, they knew the answers to those questions because they had seen it up close and personal.

They had seen what the stark choice was just like in the early days of the Republic, they knew starkly the answers and that fades over time. So it's our duty and obligation to do everything we can to pass that along and to inspire. But it's hard. Because we all view the things through our own lived experience first and foremost.

I believe from a legislative and congressional perspective, and this is something people always talk about, and we haven't been able to move, a program of national service. You could debate whether it needs to be mandatory or not, but a true nationwide program that gets it right on motivating and compensating folks that do this in a way that makes it achievable in today's economy.

That's the game changer. I mean, the experience that I had as a young 22-year-old getting thrown in with a group of people from all over with a tremendous amount of differences and having to realize there's actually great strength in those different viewpoints and experiences and leadership is bringing them together rather than focusing on those differences and cleave points.

That sounds easy, but it's incredibly hard and the only way I know to do it is like to actually do it. So expanding programs, not just for military service, but to bring healthcare providers to rural communities like mine where we desperately need them, to bring more teachers to underserved communities, both in cities and in rural areas.

I mean, it's such a no brainer to me, but every time we try to get it moving, it always comes back to a cost argument, which I understand in theory, but man, I mean, talk about the best return on investment you could possibly get. It's literally our future. So that's something that I'm hoping. And it's something, it almost sounds naive in today's politics to really push and really try to build more support.

Steve Womack:  I was just going to say this, that there is for individual people matriculating through the public education system or whatever education system they're in there seems to me to be a vulnerable timeframe.

And I'm just going to take like 18 to 22. Just think about that age timeframe. Pat Ryan during that timeframe in his life was at West Point.

So he was in a highly regimented, disciplined, structured routine for 47 months. Some of his peers, not all, but some of his peers, were wandering around the world aimlessly. No real direction in life, and that time frame was lost, never to be recovered. And so there's a stark difference between what Pat was experiencing at that time, me too, you know, in college versus those who didn't have any direction and were just kind of trying to feel out life and you know, in some cases, they're still trying to figure it out and I think we've got to, that's why I think reaching into these minds at an early age and helping them understand not to have a gap in their life where they just kind of lose touch because it can cause them to be on a path that is going to be far less successful than if they were to have some kind of a structure.

Now in Arkansas, our governor, Sarah Sanders, Mike Huckabee's daughter championed some changes in our education system that now mandates this, in part, a requirement for kids coming through high school. They have to have some kind of service requirement. I believe that will pay dividends for us to be able to look back and find out that these kids at a very important time in their life when they're experiencing things are having a requirement now that they got to go do some public service, that they've got to be productive in their lives at that teenage timeframe.

So, there's a lot of potential out there. I just don't want us to lose, I don't want to create gaps in lives that cost people an opportunity for, shall we say the light to come on, and if we can do that better then, then I think the country wins as a whole. Now I'll say one more thing and then we'll go back to your questions and that is why do military people seem to do better at this leadership thing?

And I think it goes back to the fact that when they took the oath, basically they were consigning everything for something bigger than themselves. To include life for country. And when you make a commitment like that, all of the stuff that Pat and I have to deal with in the halls of Congress, and that's not life or death, maybe politically, but we've made a commitment for something far bigger than that.

So the risk to us is much different than it is to somebody who never served their country in uniform by and large.

Pat Spero: You know, that actually brings up a question that popped into my head in terms of your idea of service. Which is, imagine a national service program in which individuals from around the country are brought together, different backgrounds, economically, socially, ethnically, racially, into these service programs.

What do you think today unites them together?

Pat Ryan: Well, we have it in some forms, including our military, and there are some other great service programs. Peace Corps is a great one, and a lot of others. What I think unites them is the immediacy of the situation they're in.

The discrete and concrete task or mission that they're given as a team, whether that's, you know, whatever it may be. In the Peace Corps, building a well in whatever country, or in our case, going out on a patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's less actually what you're doing, in my opinion. It's more that you have a clear mission and purpose, and that you know the only way you're going to solve that is with this team. And you are completely, to Steve's point, sort of surrendering yourself as an individual to a team and to a mission and purpose that is noble and has real moral, you know, bedrock upon which it's built. And that, again, can be broadly defined. And that just makes, it makes the world of difference.

And it's incredibly frustrating to me that it's hard to do anything at scale. But man, this is the United States of America. We should be able to figure out how to do something to this effect.

Pat Spero: But what would unite them as Americans today?

Pat Ryan: Well I think, so one, you know, I think it would be that experience.

You start with that concrete, specific set of tasks, and then you realize, as you get older and more mature, and you can do some of the sort of education through the program: Oh wow, that actually feels pretty good to do something selfless and to be a servant leader, and maybe I want to do more of that, and then you start to realize, that's kind of the whole ethos of our whole system and country when we're at our best.

So I don't think you actually have—like I think, not that it's magic, but in some ways, it just flows from doing that, that work. And to me, a big part of the fight we're in in our country right now is to define like kind of what does it mean to be a patriot. And to me, the original, revolutionary and, and founding sense of patriotism in our country was a, a common defense.

Common defense and the general welfare, I mean, written into our founding documents. Then there are so many other, you know, E pluribus unum  and so many other examples of that. But until you can have that original moment of sort of self sacrifice and surrender, it's sort of impossible to then go those next steps.

Steve Womack: I'd also add to that that, you know, the Army is driven by a soldier's creed. And when you think about what that soldier's creed says, among other things, that it's always mission first, always going to place a mission first. That you're never going to quit, that you're not going to accept defeat, and that you're not going to leave your buddy behind, leave a fallen comrade.

Those are four pieces of the soldier's creed that—and the Army gets a lot of this stuff right, that speak to the heart of what it truly means to be a selfless, servant leader. And that doesn't all have to come back to, you know, war or conflict, those kinds of things, but it does always come back to the qualities of leadership that distinguish between those who are successful, those organizations that are successful, and those that are not.

And I often say, because we all get to travel, we get to do these CODELs, and we get to go to other places in the world, and I wish people I represent, and particularly kids today, could go see some of the places I've been. Because when they would return home, they would feel a lot better about their country.

Even with its warts, they would love their country more because they have seen it first-hand that the billions of people around the globe who didn't wake up and hit the lottery like our kids did. We take it for granted. And that's the one challenge I think we have to be able to solve for. And that is the inclination or just the idea that we take what we have for granted.

And that's why you're talking to two guys up here that are in Congress, that could go be doing other things right now, making more money having a lot more success and home at night with our families. And that's why these two guys are up here in Washington, D. C. trying to help this country be that more perfect union that Lincoln talked about.

Pat Spero: That's great. I do want to talk about what it's like to be in Congress and leadership within Congress. We've talked about what it's like to be a leader an elected leader, a public servant, but you're relatively new to Congress.

And you come into this new organization. I don't know if you want to talk about what it looks like to—leadership within Congress itself, how that actually functions. I think a lot of people watch on the TV and are trying to figure out how is the sausage actually made. So how does leadership function within the House as an institution?

And do you have any ideas for how it could function better?

Pat Ryan: I'll be very blunt. In my limited experience, it's not—there is no leadership, truly. I mean, and I don't say that lightly.

Pat Spero: Why is that?

Pat Ryan: In every dimension, there's—yeah, at the committee level with, with some notable exceptions, certainly.

I'll say particularly in my party, the Democratic party folks often put in charge of those committees are there because they're gonna be loyal to the party leadership more so than a larger purpose or mission. Same in informal work to build support for a bill. It's often incredibly hard. So I've looked around and seen folks like Steve and his party and a few folks in mind that are not operating by that playbook, which really places heavily party loyalty and even individual loyalty to a specific party leader above a lot of other things. And you need to do that to a certain degree because ultimately you need built in support for anything you want to advance.

And I understand that. But there needs to be more balance in that direction. I've looked around and there've been some moments where someone stands up and speaks with real moral clarity and purpose and everyone looks around, they're like, oh man, I wish it was like that every day.

I wish it was like that on every vote. I wish it was like that in these committee hearings. But that is the exception right now. And I think that to me, the solution kind of to how to fix it leads to a lot of what we're talking about here, which is it's at an individual level, we need to have people here who have the priorities right in terms of country over party, constituents over self, mission accomplishment over reelection.

Easy to say, incredibly hard to do. There are a few groups out there right now trying to do this in terms of recruiting candidates from both parties who have this servant leadership ethos. There's a caucus that Steve and I are part of called the For Country Caucus that tries to literally put country over party mostly military, maybe exclusively military veterans, I think.

Steve Womack: I think it is.

Pat Ryan: Yeah. That caucus. Yeah. So. It's happening, but it's by exception, and that is incredibly, it's actually infuriating to me that that is how things are functioning right now.

Steve Womack: My problem is, is that Congress has become shirts and skins, red and blue, and as Pat said, a lot of what we do is a team sport.

You wanna go with your party as much as you can, but maybe not exclusively. Although, if you are in an R+19 like mine, and you get outside of exclusively, then you become politically vulnerable, and I'm okay with that. At my age, I'm really okay with that. But, what really frustrates me up here is that though a lot of what we do is kind of classified as a team sport, in Pat's case, you know, what the Democrats ideology is, good or bad, Republican ideology, good or bad, and that these ideas clash, but we too often allow the perfect to get in the way of the good or the acceptable.

And I'm an old football guy. If coaching football at the high school level had’ve paid anything, that's what I'd be doing. But I'm a first downs guy. And I guess it was because my dad—another retired colonel—beat into my head over a long period of time, this saying: "young man, success is a cinch by the inch, but it's hard by the yard."

And I try to apply that wisdom in what we're doing. So in our case, on the Republican side, I look back on some opportunities we had to get first downs and because it wasn't a Hail Mary touchdown, we just left it on the sideline. I think Congress has got to get back to incremental progress. When you're playing a team sport like that, it's essential that when you go to the line of scrimmage, so to speak, that everybody's on the same snap count and they block their assignment.

Every once in a while, on our side, and I bet Pat sees this on his side, a couple of our key blockers just let the guy through and the quarterback gets sacked. That happened on October 3rd when the speaker was fired. So up here, sometimes there are just too many free agents. Too many people out here that are just brand builders, grandstanders, up here trying to raise money to prop themselves up or to write a book or something.

As opposed to being the selfless leader, servant leader that we have both talked about throughout this podcast.

Pat Ryan: And somebody just very briefly said to me yeah, there, there's always some ratio of show horses and workhorses in any institution, certainly in Congress, but the proportion and the ratio of now people that are here for show— to all your points, Steve—versus work. And there are committees that are known to be workhorse committees versus showhorse committees. Are you gonna get on TV or are you gonna actually pass things? So it's, it's that same, I agree with that sentiment that we have to adjust back the balance to people that actually want to do the work.

Pat Spero: Yeah, and that actually brings me to, to my last and final question, cause I know you both have to get back to working for the American people. Who was an inspirational or influential person in your life who taught you about leadership, perhaps in the military, outside of it? And what was it that they imparted on you that you'd like other people to hear about?

Steve Womack: Clearly my father, who just turned 89, hardest working man I know, you know, self made person. Picked cotton to buy school clothes growing up on a rural farm without electricity, without indoor plumbing back in the 1940s and 50s. And the one that told me, you know, if you want to get ahead, this is how you do it.

My dad in high school, when I was in high school, cut my hair. I didn't like that. And what's amazing about it—I wanted long hair, because in the 1970s, you know, it was, it was long hair. Mullets, those kinds of things. And every time he said, it's haircut time, I just cringed. Because I knew I was gonna come out looking like a military officer.

How ironic, that today, I wear my hair the way my dad cut my hair back in the day. Maybe a little longer. But, the message there, that I could not see at the time, was one of discipline, and one of, you're not going to be just guided by what everybody else is doing. You're going to be a disciplined individual who is focused on all the right things and not susceptible to the peer pressure.

And you know, I still didn't like the fact that he cut my hair back in the 1970s, but I am eternally grateful that those lessons of life I got to learn at 14, 15, 16, 17 years of age that some of my peers never learned. And so I'm grateful. So my dad would be the first guy that I would throw.

Then I, you know, we've read about, studied, and I've operated with a lot of other really great leaders and I could, I could start naming names here and I won't, but there have been many that we have all tried to absorb some of their lessons learned over time. I just have to say my father was probably the guy that had the biggest impact on me personally and professionally.

Pat Ryan: Yeah, I mean, on a political level, I have the FDR Library, Presidential Library and Museum is in my district in Hudson Valley, and so I've spent a ton of time actually physically holding some of the original marked up drafts of particularly FDR's “Four Freedoms” speech, which I think is incredibly of the moment we're in now, actually, in many ways. But on a personal level, similar to Steve it's actually my grandpa who I think I mentioned briefly earlier was 17 at the time of Pearl Harbor, ran to the recruiting station, fibbed about his age so he could join the Navy, and was actually on the last, the USS Callaghan, the last US ship sunk by a kamikaze pilot at the end of the Pacific.

Clung to debris for almost two days. Never talked about it. I, I learned all this from his shipmates after he, he passed, actually, who wrote a book. So, certainly that military service, but then he came home to my hometown, Kingston, New York, and served as a local alderman in the city of Kingston, and very involved in the community. He was actually a staunch conservative politically, but someone who just loved our community, loved our country, and was just a loving person in general.

So, very fortunate to have him as my sort of personal and, and leadership role model.

Pat Spero: Well, thank you all for taking this time. Thank you.

Pat Ryan: Thank you for having me.

Steve Womack: An honor to be with you.

Lindsay Chervinsky: As we navigate these turbulent times, Representatives Womack and Ryan highlight that the need to uphold democratic values and serve the public good remains paramount.

 Next time: From traditional warfare to emerging threats in cyberspace, General John Allen describes the necessity of balancing technological advancement with ethical oversight.

General Allen: What happens if our military isn't aggressive in adopting AI when all of our enemies are? And that's not an insignificant consideration, frankly. But more broadly, I think AI is one of the great technological breakthroughs of the modern era, not just the 21st or the 20th century, it's the modern era.

Lindsay Chervinsky: Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library is a production of The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. This podcast is hosted by Dr. Patrick Spero and Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky. Our executive producers are Dr. Anne Fertig and Heather Soubra. We would like to thank today's guests, Representative Pat Ryan and Representative Steve Womack for joining us.

To learn more about Washington's leadership example or to find out how you can bring your team to the George Washington Presidential Library, go to www. gwleadershipinstitute.org. Or to find more great podcasts from Mount Vernon, go to www.georgewashingtonpodcast.com.