Ever heard of an agency review team? With Melody Barnes  

Valerie Boyd: Today on Transition Lab we’re excited to welcome Melody Barnes.

Melody is a distinguished public policy expert, attorney, and political strategist with a career spanning government service in both the legislative and executive branches, as well as leadership roles in think tanks, the private sector and academia. 

Currently, she serves as the executive director of the Karsh Institute of Democracy and is the J. Wilson Newman Professor of Governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, where she is also a distinguished fellow at the School of Law. Some of Melody’s career highlights include serving as an assistant to the president and director of the White House Domestic Policy Council during the Obama administration. 

In that role, she worked critically to shape policies on health care, education, and economic mobility. Before that, she also co-directed the agency review working group in 2008 for the Obama transition team. We’re excited to have you here for a conversation about all these experiences and how they inform current transition planning. 

Melody Barnes: Great. Thank you so much, Valerie. It’s wonderful being here with you and talking about this really, really important issue.  

Valerie Boyd: So, can we get started by reintroducing our audience to you and asking about your experience on the Obama campaign and then the transition? I’m curious to ask, how did working on the transition compare to working on the campaign? 

Melody Barnes: That’s a great question. And I feel as though I am quite fortunate because I was doing both at the exact same time. While a lot of my campaign colleagues were based in Chicago, I was still living and based out of Washington, DC. And my roles on the campaign and the transition were aligned. I was senior domestic policy advisor for the campaign. 

I was out and about crisscrossing the country, every place from Colorado to Montana to Pennsylvania to North Carolina and all over Virginia campaigning and simultaneously, I was working with John Podesta, who was leading the transition work and other colleagues there and getting the campaign set up. So, I was spending my days doing a combination of both pieces of work, trying to get then, Senator Barack Obama elected, and at the same time, anticipating what needed to be done in case he was elected in November.  

Valerie Boyd: So, there’s always a question for transition teams about staying aligned with the campaign, that the transition team is kind of working quietly behind the scenes to implement the campaign’s policy agenda.  

So, you kind of set this dangerous example of doing two jobs at the same time. Would you recommend that in the future?  

Melody Barnes: Well, I loved doing it that way.  

But I think that there are different approaches and different kinds of roles. So, I had colleagues on the campaign who had been based in Chicago by that time for almost two years. 

And they were head down building out the policy ideas, thinking through the strategy of the campaign, planning ways to share and disseminate information about who Barack Obama was and what he would do if you were to be elected president. And at the same time, the transition work, and I think you alluded to it, in many ways is very head down behind the scenes. 

And I think a lot has changed since then, meaning we were still living and working in a time where people almost pretended that the transition wasn’t happening, that you shouldn’t plan and look as though you are measuring the drapes, in case you were to win the election. So behind the scenes and going through a very process oriented task of trying to plan and identify what not only a president elect would need to know, but also what senior members of the cabinet and that next layer down in the cabinet would need to know in case they had to start to plan to do their work the day after the election and to be ready to go not only on the day of the inauguration, but in the month, six months, year to follow. 

Valerie Boyd: So, I’m fascinated still by how you balance these things at the same time. Did you find that the, the work on the transition team thinking about implementing promises helped inform anything you did to help set the agenda on the campaign?  

Melody Barnes: I think they can’t help but influence one another. 

But I also think that members of the campaign, those who weren’t focused on the transition, we’re also thinking about the same thing. I mean, the idea is to develop ideas that were consistent with the candidate’s philosophy and point of view and desired way of governing that also met the needs and were responsive to the challenges being faced by those who were going to go to the voting booth in November. But at the same time to put out ideas that you could execute on.  

We on the campaign were carefully tracking those ideas while working with those on the transition so that we would have a very clear record of what it was that The President and others were promising on the campaign trail and whether or not those things could be executed on and in many ways, that is part of the transition thinking. What the campaign wasn’t worried about shouldn’t have been concerned about where the nitty gritty nuts and bolts issues that a transition has to be concerned about very specific personnel issues, regulatory issues, what litigation was underway, how you were going to move people into the agencies to conduct the agency review process after the election.  

They couldn’t and shouldn’t have been focused on those issues, but I think on a much higher level, the substance of the ideas and the way for us that Barack Obama wanted to govern and what his priorities would be were issues that crisscross both the campaign and the transition. 

Valerie Boyd: I want to fast forward to that period after the election where you know you’ve won and elements of the campaign are integrating into the transition planning. And then, the way that you’re describing the work of the transition team examining the nitty gritty of what’s happening in federal agencies. It gets to the questions of what you do after the election, when you know the candidate has won, the elements of the campaign are integrating into the transition team and then part of the work of the agency review is to help inform the president about what they need to know to get ready to take office.  

Can you talk a little bit about that period after the election and how the work that you did helped to further fine tune the knowledge of the campaign team and the president to take office? 

Melody Barnes: Sure. The first thing when you started asking the question I was immediately transported back to the morning after the election. And you are obviously on an enormous high. I mean, everyone is so, so excited about what transpired the night before. We were lucky we knew the answer the night before. And at the same time, you’ve got a transition team that has been focused on the transition for many months. 

You’ve got a campaign team that has been working in overdrive, in our case, for a couple of years. So you’ve got exhausted people who just achieved the thing that they had been working for for a couple of years. Who in many instances are thinking and now I’m going to go on vacation and what they immediately find out is actually, you are not. We need you and all of your expertise to start to integrate into the transition team. 

And, we immediately, as the leaders of the transition focused on the agency review process, started to have conversations with GSA and with others about the process to begin agency review To actually get those teams that we had started to create and to provide background documents for, that were loaded with critical questions that we knew they needed to answer to prepare not only the president elect, but again, also member those who are going to be selected for the cabinet as quickly as possible. 

So those early meetings took place and within a couple of days, agency review teams were starting to go into those agencies, and they went in as I alluded to a minute ago with documentation that we had prepared thinking through what are the big questions that need to be asked and answered about personnel, as I said, about litigation underway about the regulatory environment for that particular department or agency and to start to think about big questions aligned with the priorities that had been set by the candidate so that they could start to provide better information. 

At least the beginning of substantive information that would shape the agenda that would be set by the president and by members of his cabinet. 

So, it was months of planning and developing very specific documents that could be used across the United States government across the 2000 or so departments and agencies that those transition teams could use to gather the information and come up with a set of deliverables that would actually be useful. So, some shorter and then some longer background documents that those who would be nominated and the president elect could use.  

Valerie Boyd: I want to ask some more questions in a minute about how federal agencies prepare for this work, but you know, I’m struck by your recollection of the morning after the election victory and the sort of cruel punishment that for victory, you have at least 75 more days of even harder work. 

And then, the next surprise is entering the white house or a leadership role at an agency. And it’s certainly not any easier there. I think I heard you once describe the experience of working in the White House as standing in the ocean and being buffeted by waves of one thing after another. 

So can I ask for the people working on the transition you had been in Washington for a long time at that point. Was there anything coming into the white house and the domestic policy council that might’ve surprised you that even you didn’t know? Is there anything that you wish you’d known before showing up in January that year? 

Melody Barnes: Well, it was all, it was all very new. And even after having worked in the Senate for eight years, having worked on the House side and the House of Representatives on the Judiciary Committee there for three years, working in the White House is just a very different animal. And one of the things that struck me from the moment that I walked in the door on Inauguration Day when the assistance to the president had to report to the White House because of the importance of continuity of government that when I walked in the door of my office, I’d never been there before, never sat at that desk before, but the phone was ringing when I walked in the door.  

And the person on the other end had a substantive question and it drove home to me the fact that the government never stops working. And so even on this day, where literally millions of people were out and about in Washington, and there was a parade going on, there were important substantive issues to be dealt with. 

I think in addition to that, going into the White House and sitting in those chairs means that you have to have a complete view of government and a range of issues that even the issues that are prioritized for you and that are on your desk that are in your purview are the issues that you have to focus on day to day, that there are other issues that others, I know I didn’t think about it that way when I sat in the Senate, or when I sat in the House and I think when I worked at a think tank, so I was in more of an advocacy position, issues that people aren’t thinking about, aren’t connecting the dots on, are issues that are affecting the decisions that you have to make. 

So, it really is, even working on domestic policy, a very global perspective that you have to bring to that job. 

Valerie Boyd: It’s so true that, every one of these issues confronting you that, yes, you have to do list on your desk, but it turns out that it’s working across agencies to get it done. That’s certainly what you did at the, at the DPC to help coordinate big picture responses to tough.  

Melody Barnes: Absolutely. Yes, that was One of my main responsibilities was to coordinate the agenda across the departments and agencies, recognizing that significant work happens in those departments and agencies done not only by political appointees, but by civil servants every day and done well by them every day. 

But. One of the objectives and one of the goals for the directors of the policy councils was to ensure that the president’s priorities were being carried out. So, because we sat in the West Wing, because we saw the president, we engaged with our colleagues in the White House with great frequency, we had to have our finger on the pulse, what it was that the president wanted to happen, what it was that he wanted to push.  

And my responsibility was in part to help communicate that to cabinet secretaries and agency directors. To also understand what was happening in the departments and agencies to push for the things that were of critical importance to us, but also to help manage for and identify challenges and problems and to try and resolve them before you would read about them above the fold on the Washington Post, 

Valerie Boyd: My American citizen heart wants to ask you all kinds of questions about policy solutions and the tough process of doing that. And the policy councils are very close to my heart from being in government, but I’m going to try to stay focused on transition and turn us to the tough task of what the experience in 2008, how that might have informed the experience today and the tough questions about, about what might be different? 

So, we both got to participate in the 2008 transition from Bush to Obama, which is widely viewed as a gold standard and that’s in large part due to the collaborative attitude that came from the top on both sides. And I have to imagine it was especially useful for the agency review process for agencies to be primed, to be helpful and supportive. 

So, given challenging partisan dynamics today, do you think it’s possible to have bipartisan cooperation take place this election cycle in a similar way to 2008? Do you have advice for the White House or the transition teams in pursuit of this goal? 

Melody Barnes: Sure. So, we know that either former President Trump or Vice President Harris will be the president. 

I think that will certainly shape the dynamic of the transition. And you alluded to this in ways that were very different than they were for us in 2008. President Bush had made it very clear, and his staff was fantastic about working with us and ensuring the Peaceful, robust transfer of power. 

If vice president Harris wins the election, there will obviously be a very different tone and tenor, I think, than if former President Trump wins the election. 

From the standpoint of the Biden administration, I think they will, having worked with many of those individuals back in 2008 knowing President Biden, even from his time, leading the Senate Judiciary Committee, where I was a staff person, that they will endeavor to provide the information that is necessary to encourage and to support that transfer of power. 

We’ve all read and heard different things. I think about the way that former president Trump’s team may approach the transition. And ,we also can look back to the way the transition was handled in 2016. My guess would be that there were many lessons learned from 2016 about the value of a robust transition period and the leaders of the Trump transition team would hopefully use this period to, while not agreeing necessarily with the Biden administration on substantive policy issues to use this period to, really get a firm handle on what’s happening in those departments and agencies. 

And again, those personnel, litigation, regulatory issues how they might want to make changes based on the information that they are gathering, not only what they know, what they’ve observed on a high level policy basis but when they start to get the nitty gritty information from those who are in departments and agencies as civil servants and as political appointees right now. 

It’s also been made clear that President Trump, from his time in government before, that the former president is interested in potential civil service reform that could also have a significant bearing on how they manage a transition period in 2024, 2025.  

Valerie Boyd: Federal agencies are facing some difficult dynamics in the cycle. 

As you said, there’s one potential that they may need to serve two candidate landing teams based on the changes to the presidential transition act. So, it could be twice the work for them. They’re also deeply aware of the campaign discussion about civil service protection and that affects people on a very personal level. 

So, absolutely. As you said, these things feel like changes. And yet I think also what we hear from federal agencies is such commitment to the missions, to fulfilling the missions and to their role as nonpartisan, honest brokers to provide facts and information to whoever the American people elect. 

Melody Barnes: That’s absolutely what we found when we were going through the transition period in 2008 and early 2009. And if it’s, Almost hard to remember, but if listeners reflect back and think about the economic crisis that confronted the nation, the level of fear and insecurity, watching credit markets freeze what was happening to financial institutions, the way that that was trickling down and affecting people with kitchen table concerns. The Commitment to not only working together to provide the transition information and the nuts and bolts and the way the government was working, but also substantively to engage, to address the crisis that was in front of the nation at that period of time to work together and on legislative matters to share advice and counsel with one another that I’m tempted to use the word was unique but I think even if it was, it was absolutely essential. And I think sits at the heart of what a good transition should look like and the commitment that public servants and those in public service should make not only to each other, but first and foremost to the country. 

Valerie Boyd: 2008 is such a powerful, beautiful example of working together to address the most important issues facing the country. And I could talk about it all day long because the examples of the Obama team holding, holding over officials and key positions and housing agencies you know, small business, economic positions in order to provide continuity and avoid vacancies and tough issues. 

I think there’s just so many ways that the cooperation was very thoughtful on both sides. So, there is one more thing that’s really interesting and different in this cycle is that both candidates are very close to the current operations of the federal government. You know, you were coming in, the 2008 transition, after the Democratic party had been out of the White House for eight years in this cycle. Our candidates are the vice president who has close access to the current issues facing federal agencies and a recent incumbent out just four years ago. And we know that the organization supporting his candidacy have been convening their alums from the last term to create agency specific action plans.  

So, I wanted to ask you, given their recent knowledge of agency operations, how important might the agency review process still be? Should they, I think people outside the process are wondering is it still important for them to assemble landing teams to arrive right after the election and ask about everything facing them?  

Melody Barnes: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think one, a lot changes very quickly. I know for many people; it feels as though government often moves quite slowly. But there’s a lot underway in those departments and agencies. People working on complex questions and the avenues for policy development and execution are many and varied from policy development to developing regulations on newly enacted legislation to notice and comment periods around regulatory issues that are in existence to Just the handling of the programs that are under the purview of departments and agencies. 

So, there’s quite a bit of activity on big, complex, nuanced issues. So, whether or not you had your administration in place four years ago, a lot has changed. And even if you are the sitting vice president, 

access to understanding and thinking about those issues now with a lens toward your leadership, your priorities and governing means that there will naturally be a different posture taken. 

And I think the vice president has spoken to that on the campaign. So, I think for those reasons alone, it’s important. But then there are also personnel issues. I mean, we all know the phrase that personnel is policy, that even for the vice president, she will have her team, people that she wants to bring in, people she wants to place in leadership roles, making sure that they are prepared, that they have the information they need to execute on their job will be important. 

And obviously if former president Trump becomes president, he will, I will imagine think in ways that are 180 degrees different in many, if not most instances. And so having that information, even though he was president four years ago. Will be critically important.  

Valerie Boyd: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more that the agency review remains critically important and that it’s tied to the personnel decisions, that makes perfect sense. 

I have one more question about transition planning before we turn to democracy. And it is the fact that both candidates named their official transition leads pretty late in the process by modern standards. Over the last 20 years, there’s been an expectation as, as you’ve said, that it’s not measuring the drapes, it is responsible to get ready early.  

So many transition team leads have been named in spring of an election year for both teams, and one of them unavoidably with the late change in nominee, but name their transition leads in August this year. So, do you have any advice for teams trying to do things on a much more compressed timeline than normal? 

Is there anything that can be jettisoned in the effort of moving quickly? 

Melody Barnes: Well, no, even when you start early, the time period is compressed when you think about it. I often for people in business, I will analogize this to the largest, you know, merger and acquisition deal in the world. I mean, you’ve got a big transition and new ideas that you want to implement. 

And the time period for doing is what, something like 85, 87 days. I’ve worked on deals and that’s a short period of time. So, it’s already compressed. One of the things that I know we thought about was how to use and tap into expertise of those who have already served in government. And I think in both instances there will be people who will be delighted to be tapped to participate in the transition process, who will be willing to drop almost everything for that short period of time to help the people the new president elect.  

So, I think building on leaning on that existing expertise, people who already know their way around those departments and agencies. And that’s different from taking every policy idea that those individuals might have. I mean, we know this is a period during the campaign where there’s a lot of talk of change and both candidates are speaking to that. 

What I am saying is that people who understand how the nuts and bolts of departments and agencies, how those pieces fit together, how government runs. Often I think people believe, well, if I read the newspaper, I understand government and how it works. There is both an art and a craft and real technical expertise to government function. 

And having people who understand that as part of the team and pulling them in as quickly as possible will be absolutely important. The other thing I would say is that during the transition, we were thinking not just about day 1, month 1, we were thinking about short-, medium- and long-term planning. 

And it may be in a compressed period of time that there are some adjustments that will be made or I don’t want to use the phrase kick the can but a more expanded timeline that may be implemented to use not just the transition, but that post transition period to do some of that work. That the focus will be on what needs to happen in those early days, getting cabinet nominees ready for confirmation hearings and for their first days sitting in office also understanding what things are just moving forward, because as I said, government is always working, that as the new president you want to stop. And what can you stop? 

So those things that are most immediate will probably be top of the list given the extremely compressed time period. 

Valerie Boyd: That matches and expands on our thinking, I think. That it is, there’s not a lot that you can jettison. You just have to pull in more people, do the work, but also there’s a way to think about it, about what you need to achieve in the short, medium and long term. 

So, one of the reasons that we’re so excited to talk to you is that, you as a person represent all of the things that we’re trying to do in this season of transition. We started out this season wanting to take a step back from the process of presidential transition and talk about why it’s so important to our country and our democracy and what contributes to the type of environment in which incoming and outgoing administrations can collaborate. 

So, it raises questions about polarization and working together across divides. So, I’m very excited to talk to you personally about the work that you’re doing now at the Karsh Institute. And so, you tell me whether you would want to start, I think you’ve done some work to identify threats to democracy and also work to strengthen systems to unite people what makes sense to you to tell us about the work you’re doing now.  

Melody Barnes: Well, I love doing this. This is my job, but it is also my passion, my professional passion. So, I’m happy to talk about all of it. And I think in many ways those pieces are well integrated. I mean, the Karsh Institute is now just over three years old based at the University of Virginia where we feel as though the work of democracy, the expansion of democracy and freedom is in the DNA of our institution. 

And there is great pride in that and the recognition that there could be no more important time to do this work. And do it at an academic institution gives us some wonderful advantages in terms of the just blockbuster talent of the colleagues that I have at the University of Virginia, scholars across a range of disciplines that are related to the challenges that are not only facing the country, but are facing the world mixed with our desire and are, I’m proud to say, the work that we’ve done has been to engage and build partnerships with those beyond the academy as well. 

And to think in, so I was saying during our conversation about this transition in short-, medium- and long-term ways. And we do that with a focus on promoting good governance and meaningful engagement in civic life. And sitting underneath those two priorities, it’s our assessment of some of the key elements to democracy, as well as some of the trends that are buffeting those elements. 

So, we think about democratic culture, and I think that speaks to the comment you were just making about ways that we engage with each other, concerns about polarization, the norms of democracy but also democratic institutions and their robustness and their vibrancy and people’s trust in those institutions. 

And finally, the way that we as individuals not only in the country, but in around the world, get information, the information that we need, how we interface with media to engage successfully in democratic and civic life.  

The trends that we see affecting those elements include everything from a weakening of civic health. Also, the rapid transformation of technology, and we also think about the social and economic barriers to participation in civic life the things that prevent people from actively participating or because they are of where they sit. They don’t believe that democracy works or works for them. So, we think about the intersection of those trends with those elements as we go about doing our work. 

Valerie Boyd: These are all very major issues, the changes that technology is creating, access to information, the health of civic discourse and, and dialogue. And hard to know how to tackle them. As a very small issue, I was at my daughter’s back to school night last night and sat with her American studies teacher and learned that the American studies courses is kind of geared towards civic participation, but the way that they talk about it for eighth graders is about learning to use your voice.  

Which I think is very important and also a little bit amorphous for eighth graders to translate that to understanding what civics is. So how are you thinking about tackling those questions? I know UVA has this incredible convening power and love it when we get to go with our friend, Bill Antholis to participate in events with incredible people. How is the Karsh Institute tackling that? 

Melody Barnes: Sure. So taking on that issue in particular, and we think about it in terms of engaged dialogue and the skills, the competencies that individuals need, and everyone from, you know, your daughter to students at the University of Virginia, to, as was said to me recently, from, you know, talking to retired UVA faculty that we as adults need to those in leadership positions that are elected and appointed and breathe life into the institutions of democracy like Congress or the school board or the city council. 

So, we think a lot about those skills and competencies, and we address them in in a number of different ways.  

So, for example, as we are doing our work with students, in fact, just tonight, we’re going to launch our student dialogue fellowship and literally hundreds of UVA students from undergraduates to graduate students. From 11 of the 12 schools at the University of Virginia raised their hand and said, “We want to participate in this,” and we’ll bring them together tonight for the 1st time, and they will engage as part of cohorts over the course of the entire year. So, this speaks to the importance of sustained engagement with individuals who have different opinions, different backgrounds and different perspectives. 

We have very deliberately organized them in that way to engage in a conversation about the 2024 election pre, during and after over the course of this next year. And while doing that, not just to throw everyone in the room and say, discuss, hope you get along. But to provide them with some very specific tools to be able to do that. 

Both listening tools and engagement and dialogue and debate tools, ways to process the information that they are, are learning as they have these conversations over a sustained period with their peers, and we’re doing that in partnership with, the School of Data Science, the School of Education, the Contemplative Sciences Center, and the list goes on because our partners across the say, cross grounds across campus, for those who are not UVA alum, bring tools and ways that will help us support students in those environments to develop those competencies and capacities. 

Now, similarly the Weldon Cooper center, which is a part of and affiliated with the Karsh Institute of Democracy works with elected and appointed officials across the Commonwealth of Virginia and also beyond and supports them as they are also working to become better executors of democracy in those positions of trust that they have been given by those who vote for them or those who appoint them.  

So, I’m giving examples to speak to the range of ways that we engage with people to try and push through what is undermining civic health in our democracy, and quite frankly, in democracies around the world. 

Valerie Boyd: Your example of the student dialogue is an outstanding one, because it feels timely, not only for an election year, but also given challenges facing universities over the last year. 

And your point about giving them tools to have a constructive dialogue, not throwing people in a room together, but helping with creating that kind of environment for a constructive dialogue sounds outstanding. 

Melody Barnes: And, I just want to add to that, our objective as a next phase to this work is to also do additional research around what we are seeing and what we’re finding to contribute to a broader conversation about the way that we can go about addressing polarization and the fracturing and the inability for individuals, whether it’s across the fence to your neighbor or across the aisle to the person, with whom you disagree, who’s also been elected to Congress or to the school board. So, we hope that that research will help a broad swath of individuals and speak to this significant challenge.  

Valerie Boyd: And the point that you raise about research into trust in government and increasing trust of government is something that we care a lot about at the Partnership for Public Service, where we’ve been trying to understand not just what are the levels of trust in government, but what is what is contributing to it? 

Is it the way that you ask the question reveals that sometimes respondents are, are indicating that they don’t trust partisan bickering, but when you ask about the work of the government, federal agencies and delivering services, they have very high satisfaction with the National Park Service, of courseMaybe we can kind of connect these 2 questions and ask about constructive dialogue on the national stage. What would you like to see the candidates do during the campaign to promote a peaceful transfer of power? I know that’s a fraught question this year, but what could they do to help move the country past the division shaping the election? 

Melody Barnes: Well, I think one of the things that we all have to understand that’s foundational is that we are going to disagree with one another. Democracy, our form of governing, is designed to bring individuals together who have significant disagreement, work constructively, and in society where we have to hopefully hit some level, want to coexist and to be productive to move forward and to create thriving democracy, thriving communities for every citizen. 

And I think that, and, you know, everyone who lives here, I think that at a fundamental level, most people want that. The challenge becomes, because we know that we’re going to disagree, how do we productively disagree? And I believe that the candidates, that their campaigns, the people who work with them, can certainly choose to model that behavior or not. 

And when they don’t, the ramifications are significant. You know, I’ve had many conversations with people about the importance of, the presidency. And one of the most powerful tools a president has is the bully pulpit. I mean, he is a, or she is a, singular actor to, on which so much attention is focused. 

So, the way we choose to model or not model productive disagreement and a desire to move forward ripples through the bloodstream of the entire country and in fact globally, mixed with the fact that there has to be a desire to do that is also the reality that there are many, even in our disagreement, there are many, many issues, not only that we agree on, but they’re fundamental things that everyone wants.  

Economic security, safety, the belief that they not only can provide for their families, their partners, the people they care for, but that they’re the next generation, their children will be able to do better than they do. If in fact there is a substantive policy focusing on the ways that we can advance those issues, it provides some level of muscle memory and the belief that government can and does work. It can function for everyone. I think it can scratch some of the itch that we’re witnessing as we listen to public debate today, but at a fundamental level, there has to be a desire to do that. And there has to be a belief that government isn’t the enemy that, in fact, government is us and it can work for all of us. 

We may not, and we will not get everything that we want. But if there is a fundamental belief in that that people are willing to absorb those trade offs because they see the fundamental goodness and efficiency and efficacy of the government.  

Valerie Boyd: I love that. I’m imperfectly paraphrasing you, but the idea that the candidates can contribute to the muscle memory of believing that government can solve problems by engaging in constructive dialogue about the solutions to those problems, I think that’s absolutely the right use of the bully pulpit from my perspective too. So, we’re asking all of our guests a final question about what gives you hope for the strength of democracy and a peaceful transfer of power coming close to November? 

Melody Barnes: Well, first of all, the fact that consistently for hundreds of years with few exceptions, we have been able to do this. And that there is a commitment and expectation by most in the public that it can and should happen. And that gives me hope along with the guardrails that we have continued to put in place in recent years to try and to protect that process.  

And those guardrails combined with hopefully the muscle memory of times past and the desire for, I think most in the country to not only be respected around the world, to have our children look at us and to be proud of our democracy, to believe in its fundamental ideals and principles and aspirations and for us to strengthen that so that our country can and our democracy can continue for hundreds of years more. 

Ultimately, democracy is an idea, and it’s a set of ideals and principles, and it requires our commitment to those ideas and principles and its architecture, if in fact it is to survive.  

Valerie Boyd: It underscores why your work is so important. Melody Barnes, I want to thank you for being with us today for your service over many years in several branches of government in providing us with advice for current transition teams based on the everything that you saw in and led in a gold standard in 2008 and for the work that you’re doing today to convene people to identify challenges and solutions to those challenges where you really are bringing together everything that we want to talk about in this season. 

So, thank you.  

Melody Barnes: Well, thank you so much for having me. It was a real pleasure having this conversation with you.