 Obama started his presidency with saying, you know, I'm the unifier, there is not, there are no Republicans, Democrats, there's only America. Obviously, the United States of America. Apparently, he was not that successful in breaking the gridlock. If you would have been president, how would you get a United States of America? How to do it? What's the trick? Well, first of all, I don't think Washington is the definition of who we are as a nation for starters. And I think shifting power away from Washington has to be part of the solution to this. And where there's much more engagement by people in having a say in their own lives. I mean, you can't outsource this to an ever, you know, larger and larger government and expect a good result. You have to assume that the people that disagree with you aren't motivated, they love the country the same way. I mean, I have deep disagreements with Barack Obama, but I don't think, I think he loves the country. And he's just got a different mindset about how to go about it. And I think he's wrong about that, but I don't ascribe bad motives to make my point better. And as president, you look at Johnson after, I've been criticized by telling the story because people take it out of context, like somehow I'm a big believer in the leadership skills of Lyndon Johnson. But when John Kennedy was assassinated in a six-week period, he first got a budget that was passed that had a year-to-year decline in it, first time since World War II. And he did that by being all in and dealing with people that were not, you know, not from his party as well as Southern Democrats that controlled the budget process. Then he got the civil rights bill passed in a six-week period. Now, part of it was that people felt, you know, horrible of the assassination of Kennedy. And he got the tax cut. The Kennedy tax cut is really Lyndon Johnson's doing. All of this happened in a brief period because there was complete engagement. He could jolt. He was actively engaged. He wasn't passive and removed. And he didn't ascribe bad motives or try to demonize people that ultimately had to be part of the solution. And he shared the credit. This is not the most complicated thing in the world to do today. It seems like it's almost impossible to do today, but there are thousands of examples of this happening in city councils with mayors and state legislators with governors. And it can happen again in Washington. To assume that it can't happen, that somehow it's impossible for the logical way of getting to yes, that we just eliminate that as a possibility, we do it at our peril. I want to pick up, though, on a point that you made earlier, which is, in a way, what you say, Emma, what you just said about Lyndon Johnson's all true. I have a lot of respect for Lyndon Johnson. The political culture in which he was dealing, however, was in many respects an easier one than any president would have to deal with today. And in part because of certain democratic achievements, there were, with respect to gender, totally different political culture where women did not figure as important people in American culture. Women's issues did not figure as important political issues in American culture with respect to race. I mean, the fact of the matter is, that's right, Lyndon Johnson did a lot of good things, but the people who were the political class at that moment were virtually all white men. It was a far less variegated, diverse, and therefore a far less charged political environment than we have now. So in an ironic way, some of the things that we're moaning about are actually, instead of us viewing them as altogether bad things, in a large degree, they're good things. I mean, when they're new actors, you're going to have friction. In the time that you're talking about in strategic places in American political culture, you didn't have Latinos and blacks and women. Therefore, you didn't have the friction. Now you have that presence, you have friction. And frankly, it's a good thing. It's going to be tough. All I'm saying is, Johnson did, he got people to do things that they didn't expect that they were rid of. No, I agree with that. And that's the sign of leadership that is the way you break through to this, the yet-to-be-defined system that we're moving towards that's undefined yet that looks pretty early right now. It's going to require that kind of catalyst of public leadership. And it exists all across the country. It's just not existing right now in Washington. It's just not, you know, it's dead temporarily, at least. And it is about politics in the end. I mean, I think there's a great deal of naiveté about how politics actually works. And this is where the either wing, the Trump wing of the Sanders wing, don't understand how politics actually works in Washington. Could have told the story on the team of rivals about how the emancipation proclamation, how Lincoln got things done. Keep on going with that movie. And so Lincoln, you know, was all getting the 30th Amendment through, was about politics, how politics operates. It involves engagement. It involves understanding where your opponent's weaknesses are, but also not ripping him down, but figuring out how to get it done. And this is an art which I think has been demonized funnily enough. The idea is, oh, you're just going to come in there and take over and make it happen, make America great again, because I can do it. That's not how politics works in this country. Never has been. And the same on the left. You know, the idea that we're just going to do what we're going to do, we're going to do it. There are other people out there who disagree with you. You're going to have to get something done. And you're not going to get it done by beating him over the head. You're going to get your gun by being a political leader. Come back to Randy's point before, because I thought it was really important. I mean, I think you're absolutely right that we live in a changed culture that has many more voices in it, that have to be listened to. And let's say less dogmatic partisan consistency. And I think one of the things that we have right now is we have a national system, a political system, that still sees itself as, I think Anne said this before, liberal and conservative. I'm not sure that if you look at people around the country, they're all liberal or conservative. They have very many different viewpoints. There's a lot of multiple identities going on in this country. Many people have three or four or five or six identities that they identify with. And we have created a national political debate that fits people into categories, left or right, conservative, Republican, Democrat, whatever. And one of the things we may need is to pull back, not simply on money, but of a national conversation and remind ourselves that we may have to let people in different parts of the country and in different communities live differently. And liberals are going to have to make more room for people living in ways that they find problematic. And conservatives are going to have to make more room for people living in ways that they find problematic. And we're going to have to listen to each other in a much more intense way on a local level than we currently are when there's this sense that you either have to be one of these other things. And I think the change in who the American people are is far outstripped to the political conversation. And we need to pay attention to that.