If you think about the difference between a leader and a manager, a manager is someone who typically delegates responsibility and authority. A leader is effective at synthesizing multiple people's points of view and creates an opportunity, defines a vision, defines an objective that is the synthesis of all the people that report to him and for whom he is responsible or she.

And I think what we've seen in California in particular, and really across leadership positions or governing positions across the country during this pandemic, is a failure of leadership. Because when times are predictable, if A, then B, it is easy to manage and it is easy to look successful. I delegate down to the person who knows best and they are responsible for the outcome and they do it well.

Great. All I'm doing is pointing to the right person to run something. The pandemic is difficult and it is unpredictable. It requires the synthesis of economic information, social information, and health information. And more often than not, a person who typically acts like a manager points to the person they think should be in charge under the circumstance to make a decision.

And that person is not equipped to synthesize the economic and social ramifications of the decision. So what we have seen during the pandemic is most often people in a governing position have pointed to the health officer or the medical person and said, you make the decision. And that person does not.

And that person does not necessarily account for the social and economic ramifications of the decision they're making. A health person knows how to save lives. The best way to save lives is shut everything down. And so the test of leadership during this pandemic has been a test of synthesis and recommending an action that's associated with the understanding of the social, economic, and health implications of what's going on.

And that's really where so many governing bodies and individuals have fallen apart during this pandemic. So I'm going to stop there. Thank you. Thank you. It's an inability to do that effectively. And I think that is what is needed going forward. It is a moment of test, it is a moment of truth about the difference between a manager and a leader.

And we're seeing across the nation who is what. And I think it is highlighting why some folks may not be best suited to do this. The second thing I'll say, and I know I'm on a little bit of a diatribe, but the second thing I'll say is career po-- We've been waiting for your diatribe, by the way, it took 19 episodes, go.

Career politicians, I think, simply should not exist. If you go back to the origins of this country, right, having your place in government, and we talked about this over email, having your place in government was meant to be something that everyone was supposed to take their turn doing. And the people that were sitting in political seats, it was supposed to be the merchant and the local farmer and the banker, and we were all supposed to take our turn representing our communities, representing our people in government.

And what we've seen is people who have made a career out of being a politician. And the result of that is that they're not going to be the same people that they were before. And the reason for that is that their job depends on them getting reelected. In order to remain in their career, they have to get reelected.

And they ultimately end up making trade offs that don't necessarily represent the best long term interests of their community. And this is broadly true across nations across centuries. But it's particularly acute in the United States where we've seen such wealth creation over the last 250 years. And what's happened is when you have career politicians sitting in these seats for so long in an environment of severe wealth creation, you end up having governments that are ineffective and creating systems that are not effective.

And so you have these people that fail us. And here we are. And what we need is to have someone go in that's not dependent on the traditional folks that get people elected and fund elections and result in reelections. We need someone that can go in as an outsider and make a change.

And so my advocacy for what's needed in California, and I think nationally, and that's a longer conversation is to find those types of folks to come in and lead and be politicians that can take a leadership role, synthesize information and not be worried about the reelection cycle and not have anything to lose.

related to a career in politics.