ļ»æEpisode 94. A Conversation about the State of America's Federal Workforce with Max Stier
Michelle Rathman: Hello, one and all, and welcome back to another episode, a very important episode of the Rural Impact. I'm Michelle Rathman, and if you're new to the show, just know this: we are the only podcast of its kind where we work hard to connect the dots between policy and rural everything, and as we say all the time, rural quality of life.
All right, so the day that you are hearing this conversation for the first time is Thursday, November 5th. I, however, am recording this final few pieces for this episode on Monday, November 2nd, and of course, that is just one day before the final day to vote in the 2026 midterm election. So, of course, that means that the results are known this morning, and as America wakes up today, even though we've got those results, as America wakes up today, we still have the same weighty policy issues that have made a significant, unprecedented impact on the United States federal workforce, and that is what we are going to be talking about today.
Why, you may wonder? Well, as the Partnership for Public Service so aptly describes, our future and our democracy depend on our government's ability to effectively serve the public. From providing veterans' care and disaster response to keeping our food safe, we've seen that all summer, protecting us when we travel, defending us from threats, ensuring the public's health, and so much more- the government plays an indispensable role in our daily lives.
But today, the growing disconnect between our government and those it serves threatens this core mission amid declining public trust. Unprecedented efforts to reshape the government and its workforce are eroding their capacity to serve us all. The time is now. As I mentioned earlier, our guest today is going to be talking about that: to safeguard and strengthen our government, our most vital public asset. I don't think that's controversial.
I hope that you don't either, 'cause you are in for quite the discussion. But again, no matter the outcome of Tuesday's election, I want to bring this conversation to the surface and hopefully keep it in front and center, because the fact of the matter is, as we've seen over the last few years, millions of federal employees have seen it firsthand; they felt it firsthand, including in rural places across the country.
Federal funding goes well beyond Washington, and whether it reaches it or not, we know that for sure there's an impact on food banks, shelters, schools, research in our labs, and that which impacts our communities. And when that funding and those supports are taken away, the impact, as we know, hits hard close to home.
Now, just a few examples before I introduce my guest, and this comes from Beck Barrett, a communications professional who uses storytelling to help the public understand complex ideas. And of course, you know, we're gonna always make sure that we put this information in our show notes and resources.
In New Mexico, here's an example. Waiting time to get a bed at Consuelo's Place, a homeless shelter for vulnerable individuals transitioning into permanent housing, has increased because funding and personnel cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Now, cuts to scientific research grants administered by the National Institutes of Health left Massachusetts researchers looking into early detection of Alzheimer's disease and Ohio researchers trying to find what causes endometriosis without funding, and this is in the middle of their studies.
In Illinois, my home state, a $5.6 million grant from the Department of Education dedicated to providing free mental health care for elementary, middle, and high school students was terminated. Another example, well, after personnel reductions at the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a screwworm outbreak went undetected for longer than it should have, impacting American farmers and their finances.
And one last example, of course- there are so many, is this comes from a few resources, including Healthcare Dive. HHS has reduced its workforce by over 15,000 positions since the end of the Biden administration, with an additional nearly 3,000 departures in 2025 alone. And specific cuts include 2,400 positions at the CDC, 3,500 at the FDA, 300 at CMS, and 1,200 at NIH, leaving those left to report to, you know, carry out their duties- they say unsustainable workloads and operational strain and feeling the impact of a significant loss of institutional knowledge due to these departures.
All that said, let me introduce you to my guest. His name is Max Stier. He is the founding President and CEO of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. Max has worked in all three branches of the federal government, with his most recent government position as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
If ever there was someone who could speak to the issues I just laid out for you today, right now, it's Max. And so now it is that time when I invite you to tune out that background noise. We know it's going to be there regardless, so just take the, this next 45 minutes or however long this conversation goes, tune it out and listen to my conversation once again with Max Stier, President and CEO for Partnership for Public Service.
I have been so eager to share this conversation with you, which means I'm ready. Are you ready? I bet you are. So, let's go.
Michelle Rathman: Hey, as promised, I wanna tell you something. The introduction I just, that you just heard doesn't even do justice to the conversation you are about to hear. And with that said, I am so thrilled to welcome Max Stier, President and CEO of Partnership for Public Service. Max, it's excellent to have you with us on the Rural Impact.
I've been wanting to have this conversation for a very long time
Max Stier: Well, you're very kind to have me, and I'm looking forward to it
Michelle Rathman: You know, as I said to you earlier, I'm no Stephen Colbert, but we're gonna do our best. You know, this is not a light subject we're talking about, and so I appreciate that you were able to have a little bit of levity because things are pretty serious right now
Max Stier: They are, but you're right. My mom always taught me when things were tough, you could either laugh or cry, and laughing is generally the better choice. So, where possible, good, good to hold onto humor.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, indeed. I've done my fair share of crying these past couple of years. All right, so let's get into this, Max. This conversation is dropping on November 5th, which of course, as we all know, the midterm elections just closed a few days ago. And so I thought today was gonna be a really good time for us to talk about the work that you all do at Partnership for Public Service, because the interesting thing is, you know, we've been hearing a lot these last year about waste, fraud, and abuse, but at the end of the day, what most of us don't realize is all of the work that goes into public service.
So let's start with what you do. For those who are not familiar with your work, I think it's important they know.
Max Stier: Well, kind again, I appreciate it. Our mission is very straightforward: better government, stronger democracy. You know, our proposition is that everyone tends to fight over the steering wheel of the ship of state, what direction it should point in, and no one pays any attention to the engine room. And frankly, it doesn't mean a whole lot to point the boat one way or the other if you can't go anywhere.
And so our focus is on trying to make sure that government is effective. Big or small, that's a good fight to have in the political public sphere, but it should be nonpartisan: whatever a government is doing, it does it well and efficiently for the American people.
And we've been at this for 25 years. I started this organization 25 years ago. We started when the Bush administration was in charge. We've had a tremendous relationship with every administration since until now, and I don't think that's a partisan question. I think it's a question about whose benefit government belongs to, and whether it's the public benefit or the interest of the people in charge at the moment, and we're on the side of saying it's for the public and no one else.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, and we are at a time when we've seen unprecedented, you know, layoffs, and as I said before, I mean, there's been kind of this narrative, this false narrative that the federal government was just wrought with waste, fraud, and abuse. And, you know, there might be pockets of areas where efficiency is needed and so forth, but to the scale that we're talking about is quite astonishing for me, especially for our listeners.
They know that my actual profession, aside from this, is in healthcare, and nowhere have we seen more consequential, and maybe that's, maybe that's not true, maybe it's across the board, consequential, alterations in the makeup of the federal government.
So, I wanna start here because on September 16th, you all released a report titled "The State of Public Trust in Government." A few data points from that, if I may, if I may sum up some of the results. 27% of the public say they trust the federal government, while astonishingly 72% say it is corrupt, 75% say that it's wasteful, and just 37% believe the impact of the federal government on the country is positive. This is a crisis in confidence, to be sure.
So how did we get here?
Max Stier: So, you know, if I can, just rewinding to the front end of what you just shared, you're absolutely right that our government does need to be reformed. It can do better than it's doing right now, and every organization should go through constant self-improvement, basically. And we've not seen that in the federal government, largely because the leaders of both parties, you know, love to make policy pronouncements, but don't focus the energy on actually getting them done or creating healthy institutions, that are gonna be able to carry them forward in, in the, in the future.
So, we basically have a legacy government that has not kept up with the future or with the present. But the reality is that what we've seen over the course of the last year and 10 months, basically, is arson. We've seen an arbitrary and destructive tearing down of the, you know, of our government.
When I say government, I mean the people in government. It's not the buildings. The buildings can come and go.
Michelle Rathman: Some of that's happening too.
Max Stier: It is. It is. It is, and that's meaningful. I mean, where you put different operations, and we can go into that, but the core asset of any knowledge-based organization is always the people.
And in the public sector, yeah, you have a set of political leaders, but the people who actually matter most are those career civil servants. And just to add another statistic to what you just cited, it's actually about three-quarters of Americans today who say they want a professional, merit-based civil service.
And unfortunately, this administration is trying to remake what we have into one that's a group of loyalists, people who will do whatever the leader of the day says they want, irrespective of law or constitution, and that's just not good for any of us.
You asked the question, though: how did we get here? And the reality is that we've had decades and decades of rust in our government, and now we have a leader who's taken a sledgehammer to it. Rust over decades creates a huge amount of harm. Sledgehammer, a lot more and a lot faster.
Michelle Rathman: And I would say that the mechanisms to help shape those opinions, I mean, we didn't have that, like when you were talking earlier about, you know, how long you've been doing this. We didn't have social media. You know, we didn't, we didn't have the level of dark money being pumped into our political systems.
And, you know, this podcast, we do focus on the quality of life and its connection to policy for rural Americans. And I think, as I said in our last episode, there's no voter block really more with the, with scrutiny on them right now than rural, because I hear it everywhere I go, "This is what you voted for," and so forth.
And what we're hearing is that, you know, a lot of folks are saying, "Hmm, this is not exactly what I had in mind." Unfortunately, we're already digesting it. We're not just trying it. It's full on in our mouths, and we're having to digest it. And I, I wanna talk to you a little bit about, more about that report, but then also if we break it down into how have federal cuts, so that people understand it's not just, you know, the cuts to, to staffing at that professional level, how has it diminished, for example, public health capacity?
Max Stier: Absolutely. Look, I mean, the consequences are quite clear. The most obvious example is with the measles outbreak, which is profound and something we've not seen again in decades or decades. Our public health system has been turned upside down. Really important to emphasize the proposition that you can make smart cuts.
This is not the way you do it. The cuts have been arbitrary. And just to give some examples, and this is the people and also the money, but they went after the probationary workers first, the people who were hired most recently within the last year, which essentially are the people who are most likely to be the most valuable because you've had a decision to hire someone who's gonna be younger and more tech-savvy, and they got rid of them wholesale without any review of performance or anything else like that because it was easier to fire them.
Who else did they fire? They fired the people who stood up for the law. They fired the people who were involved in policies that the last administration pursued, even though they were doing it because they were following the direction of the political leaders. I mean, they made choices that are just plain bad for all of us, and that's true as well in the funding arena.
So yes, in your area of focus on public health, we've seen the largest loss of capability our society has ever seen and done brutally, both to the people who were involved inhumanely and stupidly, you know, without any, you know, rationale. We actually did a study of the cost of the, of their, of their, of their cuts in the first year, and we came up, in the things that we could count, and there's a lot more out there that, that we couldn't count, of basically $1,000 for every taxpayer in waste that they created in the cuts that they made.
So this idea that this is all driven by a desire to get rid of waste, it's really just a wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing. They're borrowing the language of reform to do things that are actually just pure, simple destruction.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. And with that, Max, one of the things that I've been thinking about a lot, 'cause that's the way my brain works, is I take a look at the FDA and the USDA as a couple of examples. Never in my lifetime, and I'm, and I'm not shy to tell people, I turn 60 in just a few months, in my lifetime do I ever remember so many recalls of food.
Our food safety, our, our food security, our food chain, you know, farmers are spitting mad about some of these policies. And so, you're not just talking about the top dollar in terms of, you know, you might cut those salaries, or you might cut those budgets, but the cost to the American taxpayer, and it doesn't matter if you're rural, suburban, or urban, it's an equal opportunity pain point.
Max Stier: 100%. And it's so important. This is just bad management. So this is not about Republican, Democrat, whatever. This is just stupid management, and we all pay for it, and there's no good rationale for it. I think that the best explanation is that they are fundamentally trying to reshape our government to make it a spoils system so that they're able to control the assets of the public for their own personal interest.
That's bad for all of us. There's just no good to be said for it. We've seen this movie before, before there were movies in the late 19th century, and we wound up with corruption and incompetence and ultimately a president that got assassinated that changed the public's perception about what we really needed to care about.
And this is so important, and that is that what is happening today is really bad for all of us individually. And the best response is for us to pay attention and to learn about why we need to care about the nature of our government and make sure that, you know, future political leaders do the right things and have actually the skills to run large organizations and, most importantly, the commitment to the public good rather than their own private interests.
Michelle Rathman: And run them successfully. We're gonna talk about what, where we go from here in just a few minutes, but first I do wanna talk. You know, we talk about food safety and, you know, public health protections and so forth, but then we have an equally serious, far more... I don't I'm kind of running out of words to describe it, of how concerned I am about how ill-prepared we really are to respond now to national security threats.
I was listening to one of our senators, I think it was Chris Murphy, this morning, talking about the fact that he's been turned away from military facilities. For the first time ever in his career, both Democrat and Republican senators are not able to step foot onto military installations. I'm deeply concerned about this, and I'm not talking about the kind of concern about, you know, am I gonna run out of cream for my coffee?
I'm talking about my grandchildren's future depends on national security. Where are we there?
Max Stier: Yes. So it's so important what you say. I mean, I think that the... You know, when you could take a step back and say, "Why, why do we have a government?" And ultimately, it's the way that, as a society, we, we deal with our, our biggest, most difficult problems. It's the only institution we have that has the imprimatur of the public through our democratic process and taxpayer resources.
And the most fundamental responsibility of our government and our government leaders is to keep us safe from threats. And national security is the, is the heart of it. You know, you can argue about all kinds of things you want government to do or not, but, like, that aspect of it, pretty much everyone can and should agree with.
And it is deeply disturbing, as you suggested. We are less safe today than we were 25 years ago, when 9/11 happened. And the reason for that is it begins with ridiculously bad leadership. You know, the reality is that we have leaders who neither have the character nor the competence to do these jobs right.
And what we're watching is an unraveling of the organizations that they are then responsible for. So look at the Defense Department. It has had the largest outflow of talent of any agency. I believe it's, you know, north-- almost 80,000 people. The Government Accountability Office did a report saying that this actually threatened our national security.
We've seen generals and senior leaders fired, you know, en masse, and not, again, for the right reasons, for the wrong reasons. We've seen people fired because they were speaking truth to power. You know, who were the first people up to be, to be thrown out? The judge advocates, the people, the top lawyers who, you know, call the balls and strikes when something is illegal or not.
The inspector generals, again, the people who actually are responsible for dealing waste, fraud, and abuse. They got rid of the guardians. They got rid of the people who were, in fact, you know, watching the henhouse, and the foxes are in charge. That's bad for us. And so your point on national security, I think, is profoundly right.
You know, there are, you know, foreign policy reasons why people might support intervention in Iran or not. The way it's being done, not the choice, but the way it's being done is, again, horrible management, and we're not actually listening to the expertise that exists already in our military and in our civilian career leadership in the way that we ought to.
We have leaders who believe they know everything and don't need to listen to anybody else. That is dangerous.
Michelle Rathman: Dangerous is for sure. And then when we move over to the next topic I wanna talk to you about, it's natural disasters. And I wanna kind of just relay a story to folks. This just happened; this week I got news.
I was working with a hospital in on coastal part of Oregon, and a couple years back, maybe three years back, the then governor of Oregon said, "Listen, all you coastal hospitals must have a plan to be prepared for not when the big tsunami happens, but, not if it happens," excuse me, "but when."
And they applied for and received, in a very competitive process, a FEMA BRIC grant. I can't recall the actual, you know, the acronym for BRIC, but it is about preparedness, and it was almost $20 million. They were awarded that grant in 2024, and in 2025 that grant, as so many states saw their grants just frozen, congressionally appropriated funding already taken away.
They had to do a, a, a... You know, their senators got involved, the courts got involved, and this week they just got, or the week we're recording this is, is beginning of October, they just got that, most of that money restored. And that's a long way to say that, you know, here we are, we know what, what happens in hurricane season.
I talked to so many other that don't believe in climate change. I said, "Okay." But the realities are here. We're seeing it. How, how are we going to respond to natural disasters when we've got key government agencies that are no longer staffed to model, to manage all of that?
Max Stier: No, you're right. And, you know, FEMA's a good example where they lost, I think, upwards of 20-plus percent of their workforce, and again, not the right 20%. And the leadership there has either been nonexistent or not the right folks, people who questioned the very existence of FEMA.
You had a, you know, a DHS secretary that required that every allotment of, like, of 100... Any bill of $100,000 or more had to be personally approved by her, and that meant that they just stacked up in her office and nothing got through and nothing was done. Again, just terrible, terrible management.
But we haven't also talked about the morale of the people who are left. So yes, huge amounts of talented people were pushed out, but the morale of the people who remain has also been crushed and cannot be overlooked. So why are things slow? You lose your good and best talent. The people who remain are frightened about being fired and scared about, you know, stepping out of line in any which way.
Just to give you a few numbers, we did a survey of the federal workforce last year. and what we found were that, that about 80% of the federal workforce said they could not raise... 80%, four out of five people could not raise a violation of law or ethics without fear of retaliation. Basically, if we said, "Hey, you can't do that 'cause it's illegal," you get fired.
80% of the federal employees said that. About seven and a half percent, seven and a half percent, said that their leaders engendered high degrees of motivation. I, I just don't... I don't know of any other organization that has been beaten up so badly that you get those kinds of numbers. So good talent's been thrown out.
The people that are still there, their morale has been crushed, and now they're hiring in a way that's all focused on loyalty rather than actually getting the best and brightest. So it's a triple whammy, and end result of all this, the important thing is that the American people get hurt. You don't get your FEMA support.
You don't have the s- you know, expertise at CDC, which has also lost 20-plus percent of its workforce, to deal with things like measles. You have foodborne illnesses that are rampant. You don't get the information you need about weather, on and on and on and on and on and on. I mean, there are so many ways in which we are losing...
You know, it wasn't perfect before, but what we're getting now is a lot worse because of this mismanagement.
Michelle Rathman: Lest we forget, there was- you said it in one of the interviews I watched of you- about the intent was to cause pain.
Max Stier: It was. I mean, I think the intent ultimately was to crush the willingness of the workforce to stand up for the law. I think that the lesson that was learned in the first term was ultimately that the president decided he needed to pick political appointees who would be loyalty first. And what he got in his first term were a bunch of people who said to him sometimes, "Hey, you shouldn't do this," or, "The law says you can't do this," or, "This is unconstitutional."
And he chose people who will not stand in his way for anything. And then the career workforce, which is supposed to be there through different administrations to ensure continuity and expertise, that workforce's morale has been crushed as well, so they won't stand in the way of whatever it is that he wants to do.
That is not our system. Our system is not a monarchy. It is not about an absolute dictatorship, and the framers didn't want it that way, but that is what we're seeing: our system being converted into that. And I wanna underscore mine is not at all partisan. This is nonpartisan. It's not good for any of us.
You can have all sorts of different views about what government should or should not do, but we all should agree that it should be done according to our Constitution, according to the law, and to the benefit of the public rather than those who are really renters. They're not owners. They don't, they don't own the government.
They've been elected for a period of time, and they're supposed to be doing it on behalf of us, and that is not happening.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, I'm so glad that you said that because for our listeners, I mean, you guys know I say, you can check your politics at the door. What I wanna focus on is policy, and policy is the best indicator of our quality, our collective quality of life. And right now it is on very, very- we're walking on quicksand in a lot of ways.
Max Stier: I think we're sinking in quicksand, not walking on
Michelle Rathman: quicksand. I was trying to be a little optimistic. Okay, so
Max Stier: Well, that's a good point. Yes, yes,
Michelle Rathman: Here we are, so November, again, dropping on November 5th, you and I can't predict any outcomes. That's not what we're here to do. No matter where we are, no matter where we land, whether or not we have a new majority party in the House, the Senate, whatever it is, we still have an executive branch that is still led by this president.
So, where do we go from here? I mean, you said something earlier that I really did appreciate, which, and we've been talking about that a lot on this show, which is building civic muscle. Okay, so I think that's a place for us to start. What does that look like in your mind and in your work?
Max Stier: Yes. So look, I think that there are several things we should have in mind. The, the, the long-term focus and what gives me hope is that we should be using this moment to create something better. Like, the disruption of the status quo is bad for lots of us, and it also means that we can rethink things and rebuild in a better way.
And so, that is what gives me my energy and hope. We call it in our-- in-- at the partnership, we call it Government for a New Era, like how do we build a better government? And I think this moment allows us to begin the work of understanding what that looks like. What you said is fundamental, though, which is that ultimately, we don't get there if we don't have a public that understands why they should care about the nature of our government.
If they give up hope, if they believe that there's no difference between, you know, a political leader who is actually looking out for them rather than their own interests, or who has the capability to run the government effectively versus someone who has no idea how to do that, then we're in trouble.
My belief is that all the harm we are seeing, that so many Americans are experiencing, and that will get worse, much worse, as these harms cascade, that this is a moment for people to see that the nature of the government is meaningful to them and that they need to hold to account the people in charge today, but even more importantly, future political leaders to actually prioritize taking this on.
I mentioned earlier that we've had decades of rust. So many political leaders approach their job in the short term. They know they're not gonna be around for a long time, so they don't invest in the institutions to make sure they're gonna work well for the future. We need to demand that of our political leaders.
And so the way we need to go forward here is both in Congress and in the executive branch, we need leaders who understand that the health of the institutions that they actually run is one of their primary responsibilities, and they must do that on behalf of the public. And so, you know, I'm gonna give you a very concrete example, and that is it's become accepted that we have ambassadors who are simply large campaign donors.
How, how is that? That's just pure corruption. We should have the people at the top of the House, the leaders of our government, being the people who actually have the best competencies and the best character possible, and we do not demand that of them today. And we need that from a, you know, a new president; we need that from a Senate, in terms of their confirmation authority, and we need to set a different bar so that we expect at least as good and even better from our political leaders than we do from the career civil servants.
Michelle Rathman: I think another strategy is that we need to be looking at different resour- sources of information. I mean, if I could just say, if we could, if we could make oligarchy illegal in the United States of America, I would be one happy camper because I think it is just really tainted. I mean, it, it is serving, it's serving not the best interest of the people, but the best interest of the donors, and I think that is definitely a path, you know, very dark path that we've allowed ourselves to go down.
Max Stier: Well, I think that the-- all of us individually and, and certainly collectively have a responsibility, as I said, to pay more attention to the nature of our government, to pay attention and to hold, like, to account the leaders, and to get information, to demand the information. I mean, this is another area where this administration has been hiding the ball.
They've been doing damaging things, and then they deep-six the data that would enable us to actually understand this holistically. We may experience it individually, but they're hiding the information that is actually vital to hold them to account.
So let me give you a very clear example. We've been doing a survey. You know, we got a law passed that requires that a survey be done of the federal and workforce every year. The administration decided not to do it, even though the law said they were supposed to do it. And then this year they're saying they're doing it, but they're not really doing it. And what that means is you don't have the data on the morale of the workforce, which is really important, which is what we've tried to do to fill that gap.
But again, your point is important. The public needs to hold itself responsible for getting the information needed to understand what the heck is going on and what, and what we can all do about it
Michelle Rathman: And don't even get me started on the data question, because I'll tell you, one of the things that has me gravely concerned is the lack of data that we are seeing. You know, the point-in-time surveys and all of it was so important, and now this- the potential changes to the census. I mean, this may seem like these abstract topics to folks, but at the end of the day, we-- I think we have to do a- some, not we, and who is it, do a much better job of explaining, meeting people where they are, and helping folks understand what this means to them on their soil, on the land they walk.
I have two more things I wanna make sure I ask you about, because it is safe to say that we will have some transitions happening: gubernatorial, presidential, even, you know, who represents you in the House. So, you guys do some work around transitions, and, dare I say, there's gonna be some tough transitions because it's like walking into, you know, a house that's just been struck by a tornado and trying to figure out where-- you didn't live there.
You're trying to figure out what makes what. I'm from the Midwest. I use that analogy. What's, what's the work that you're doing there, and what can we expect to see?
Max Stier: Well, it's fascinating. Again, it comes back to, like, just the, the basic plumbing of any organization. Like, it's a pretty important moment when someone comes in to take charge, and you see that in the business world, huge investment, you know, when you have an acquisition. And our insight, this was close to 20 years ago, was that no one was paying attention to how the power was handed off from one president to another.
It was Groundhog Day. There was no learning system. There was no manual about how to do that, and we started creating one and getting it better every cycle, and we're now doing that at the gubernatorial level in a bunch of places, too. And it's so important. How you start really defines, at minimum, the front end of your administration.
So this is, again, clear, basic, good management applied to the public sector. And, youā€™re right, it's gonna be much more complicated in a world in which the people who are vacating the house have left it in a pretty poor situation and may not be very cooperative to help the new people coming in.
That's bad for all of us. Again, this should all be seen as nonpartisan. Not bipartisan, nonpartisan. And, the public should demand of leaders that they invest in transition preparation, even if they don't know if they've won the election, and do the right thing as they're leaving to make sure that whoever's coming next gets everything they need to be successful.
For me, you know, when we elect someone, we're electing the pilot of our airplane. It does us no good if they fail, because we fail with them. We need to make sure that, you know, whoever is governing has everything they need to be successful for all of us, and it all begins in the transition. And the transition begins before the election, because you can't be ready by inauguration if you've only started after you know you've won.
You've gotta start earlier. And it s- you know, keeps going past inauguration because the work of setting up takes a bunch of time.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, we are have, we have a long road to recovery ahead. Okay, before I let you go, and by the way, I'm the daughter of a pilot, so I do absolutely appreciate that analogy. My father was a general aviation pilot, and we've had a few thorny situations, I should say, and it wasn't just him; it was all of us in the plane that he got us out of.
Okay, so all right, looking ahead, what can our listeners do? And I guess why they should advocate for public policies, again, that are nonpartisan to protect our freedoms, our elections, our environment, our rule of law, and our taxpayer dollars? You know, what, what can we all commit to doing differently that we haven't done?
'Cause we can't expect the other person to make it better for us.
Max Stier: Look, I think the first issue is to pay attention, as you just suggested, and to understand that this really is nonpartisan. I mean, we need to look for more things that bring us together than separate us. And it is appropriate for people to have different views on policy, but reality is it's not really a good idea for us to have two separate views about the need, again, for that pilot to succeed and for the plane to be the best plane possible.
Where you fly it, great, but you want it to actually work as best as possible. And on issues like national security, as you said, we all need to be signed up for it and understand that it is something that should bring us together and not, not separate us. So what can you do about it? It's to pay attention.
It's to actually speak up and make sure that future political leaders understand that this is something that you care about so that they actually run and prioritize. It's one of the biggest lessons I've ever learned in my life, is that getting people to agree on this is relatively easy. The hard part is getting them to prioritize doing something about it, and that requires the public to care enough to force the political leaders to do so.
'Cause if you don't have prioritization, it gets lost. There are so few things can get through the busy, busy schedule, et cetera. You need it to be on top of the list. And so, ultimately we need to then have people who are running for office who actually know how to run organizations and people who are, who are trying to get into these political positions who understand, again, the basics of large organization management and are committed to the public good.
Those are the things that would be most important going forward, and I hope people check out the Partnership for Public Service and look at our resources and other ways they may be able to engage.
Michelle Rathman: Oh my gosh. Well, you better believe that we're gonna put links to everything that you, all your, just stuff on our website for sure. Max, I hope you'll come back and join us again because I know we've got some other things to talk about. This party is not over, as they say.
Max Stier: Yes. It's been my pleasure. Thank you so much for a great conversation
Michelle Rathman: Oh, thank you so much. All right, for the rest of you, you know I've got some closing thoughts after this, don't you? So sit right there where you are. Don't go away. We'll be right back. Thank you.
Michelle Rathman: My thanks to Max for his time, his insights, and all the work that he and all those at the Partnership for Public Service are doing to help all of us understand why it is imperative for all of us to understand our shared responsibility to work toward better government and stronger democracy. Now before we close out today's show, I have some news to share, and it has to do with National Rural Health Day, which, as you know, I hope you already know this, is always the third Thursday of November.
And it happens to land on the very day that we have our episode, our next episode, and we've got something very special planned for that day, because you are going to meet our newest partner, and they are Trualta. And we will be discussing a subject that most everyone I know in rural America understands or can personally relate to, and that is that the, the fact is that 53 million caregivers provide 34 billion hours of unpaid care.
So, our next episode shines a bright light on the solutions, including policy-related, that are making a shift happen where this is concerned. So you are not gonna wanna miss that episode, I promise you. Now, if you've not subscribed yet to the Rural Impact on your favorite podcast channel, you know I strongly recommend that you do, and you can even do that when you visit our website at theruralimpact.com, where you can subscribe to our feed there as well.
And that is exactly the place that you're going to find the resources for today's show, as well as our merch shop. You know I'm always gonna ask you to consider going online and making a purchase because every time that you do, you are helping to support the content that we were able to bring to you.
With a shout-out of appreciation to Brea Corsaro and Sarah Garvin for all their hard work behind the scenes. We want you to know that we understand that the topics that we talk about here, you know, they're not light subjects, but at the end of the day, when you leave us, we do hope that you are enlightened, even just a little bit.
So, I'm gonna invite you now, before we are together again, to please take the best possible care of yourself and, to the best of your ability, all those around you. So we will see you soon on a brand-new episode of the Rural Impact on National Rural Health Day. Until then, again, as I said, take good care.
