The Counterrevolution: Tom Shannon on America’s Retreat from the World – Transcript

Soft Power, Hard Choices, and the Hollowing Out of U.S. Diplomacy

Transcript – Informed with AI

Lauren (00:01.531)
Welcome to the Steady State Sentinel. I’m Lauren Anderson. I spent nearly three decades in the FBI, both in the US and overseas, focused on national security. We’re delighted that you’ve joined us for this episode. I spent the last few weeks thinking about how to frame this conversation, and it keeps coming back to one thing. It feels like we’re in the middle of what some are calling a counterrevolution in US foreign policy.

One that didn’t begin with any single administration, but has been building over the past two decades, shaped in part by the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan and a growing disillusionment with large scale intervention and nation building. At the same time, the world has become much more complex and we’re experiencing the greatest number of ongoing conflicts since World War II, including the current wars in Iran and Lebanon.

which have expanded into attacks in the entire Gulf region. China and Russia are both focused on challenging the post-Cold War order, and our allies are reassessing their relationships with us. We’re witnessing a fundamental shift in how America defines its role in the world. At the same time, our institutional capacity and capability have been eroded, and we’re operating with executive and congressional leadership that increasingly believes it can choose its own path with or without the support and consent of the American people. This will be a conversation about trying to understand what’s happening. And there’s no one better to help us think through that than Ambassador Tom Shannon. Ambassador Shannon is one of the most experienced diplomats of his generation with more than three decades of service at the State Department. He served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Effectively, the department’s chief diplomat for day-to-day foreign policy engagement worldwide, and he played a central role in shaping U.S. policy across multiple administrations. He also led the State Department during the presidential transition period between the Obama and Trump administrations. Earlier in his career, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and as U.S. Ambassador to Brazil.

Lauren (02:22.907)
His work has spanned Latin America, Europe, and Africa, and he has been deeply involved in some of the most complex diplomatic challenges facing the United States. He’s currently teaching at Princeton University on history and the practice of diplomacy, which gives him a unique perspective on how Gen Z is thinking about foreign policy and America’s role in the world. Welcome, Tom. We’re delighted to have you with us. And I always like to start with asking our guests to share a little bit about why they chose the path they took and why they stayed.

Tom Shannon (02:59.157)
Well, thank you, Lauren, very much. It’s a tremendous pleasure to be with you and to have this conversation. You know, my goal in life had for the longest period of time been to be a professional baseball player. But I failed at that when I was in high school and I had to pick another path. And it took me a while to land on diplomacy, but I knew I wanted to participate.

in public life. I knew I wanted to be a voice in the public commons. And as I moved around from undergrad school to graduate school from the United States to the UK, I decided that what better way to serve my country, to operate in this public space than as an American diplomat representing the United States abroad. And so when I left graduate school, I entered the United States Foreign Service. I spent 35 wonderful years as a Foreign Service Officer and can tell you that aside from an exciting and satisfying career, I also had a joyful one.

Lauren (04:11.023)
And that’s phenomenal because not everybody gets to say that. And as you know, I feel the same way about my own career. And those of us who are lucky enough to do something that matters, do something we love and have that much joy with it is just phenomenal. Not everybody gets that. It’s a gift, I think. In an earlier conversation you and I had, you used the phrase counterrevolution, which is what sparked my opening. From your perspective,

Tom Shannon (04:28.437)
It is indeed.

Lauren (04:38.533)
What’s actually changing in US foreign policy right now? And is this a break from the past or something that in your opinion has been building over time?

Tom Shannon (04:48.613)
You know, I would argue that for most of American history, the United States sought to be an independent, autonomous nation that was capable of pursuing its own interests and unwilling to become an ally or partner of any other country that might in any way compromise the ability of the United States government to choose a path that was wholly beneficial for the American people.

However, in the aftermath of World War II, the American government led by first President Roosevelt and then President Truman and by an extraordinary group of American diplomats and warriors, determined that the foreign policy that had served the United States so well through the 18th to 19th century had been sputtering through the first part of the 20th century and that it was necessary to revolutionize American foreign policy. And so the real revolution in American foreign policy takes place in the immediate aftermath of World War II, when the United States decides that our hemisphere is not enough to secure ourselves, that we have to involve ourselves in the world, and that we have to do so through alliances, through security alliances, through political and economic alliances, and through attempting to build engagement in the world that not only promotes our political values and our prosperity, but convinces people that our peace and our prosperity can be theirs also by partnering with us. Unfortunately, when we get into the 21st century, for some of the reasons you alluded to, the attacks of 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the larger war on terror, the global financial recession of 2008, 2009, COVID, among other things, have gradually begun to wear at this understanding of how the United States conducts its foreign policy. And I believe that increasingly American people have thought that national security elites have been out of touch.

Tom Shannon (07:10.443)
and have not been having a conversation with the American people about American values and interests. And this has sparked what I call the counterrevolution, which is really an effort to turn on this alliance-based system and to go back to something that had prevailed through the 18th to 19th century, which is an America first, America by itself foreign policy. That does not understand ourselves as situated among allies and partners, but operating quite independently and taking advantage of our power. And in many ways, President Trump has been one of the most effective articulators of this kind of foreign policy. But the task before the American people today, I believe, is to determine whether or not this is a correct path.

From the president’s point of view, the alliance-based system, the effort to build a global economy, to build institutions of global governance is a model that has run its course. It has been overcome by changes in the world and now requires too much investment of money and blood in order to maintain it. And that increasingly the benefits are not accruing to the American people.

I don’t agree with that, but this is where we are right now in this moment of counterrevolution.

Lauren (08:41.349)
That’s an interesting point. And one of the things I’ve thought about, not just for this conversation, but as being a part of government for so long as you were, is in this shift, have we also lost sight of the fact, whether we agree or disagree with the forward movement, have we lost sight of the fact that our foreign policy should be taking into consideration what Americans think? And do you think that the…

shift that we’re seeing now is moving away from our values, which has driven us at times towards something more transactional, or do you think it’s more complicated than that?

Tom Shannon (09:18.818)
Well, first of all, I do think the American people are questioning what America’s purpose in the world is and what the trajectory of American power should look like. And they’ve been having a conversation among themselves and expressing themselves through elections for two decades now. It’s taken that long for government to hear this and to listen to it in a meaningful way. But what worries me, one of the things that worries me at this point in time,

is that the kind of unilateralism that is being expressed in parts of the American body politic and in this administration is one that is largely built around power and not around values. And my own view is that power without purpose, power without values or principle is an empty vessel. And it’s one that only allows you to accomplish so much.

And one that, like quicksand, once you step into it, it’s very hard to get out of. And so the advantage of values is that it shapes and directs the use of power. And I actually believe this is something that’s very important to the American people and that has to be articulated if the American people are going to understand the use of American power as the current administration is using it.

Lauren (10:42.237)
of the things you and I also talked about, and I know has been core to you as a diplomat over the course of your career, is considering the value of both hard power and soft power. the progression right now seems to be more focused on hard power and less focused on soft power. And I’d love to get your thoughts on how you’ve seen that dynamic play out and whether you see it’s effective or not effective and what that balance is.

might look like in an ideal world.

Tom Shannon (11:15.586)
You know, these are hard things to balance. There’s no doubt that hard power is important. There’s no doubt that military power and raw economic power command people’s attention and convince people to either stay away from you or to partner with you. But the magic of the United States, if you want to call it that, one of the reasons that it has played such a fundamental role in shaping global agendas.

over the last half of the 20th century in the first two decades of the 21st century was not hard power. It was soft power. It was the power of our values, of our politics, of political systems that showed they could solve tough problems and do so peacefully and within the structure of a constitutional order, and which generated this really remarkable culture and generated technological

and scientific advances that have had profound impact on how people live. And the truth of the matter is that lethality, to use a word that the current administration likes to employ, only takes you so far. You know, during World War II, we probably at the very best killed 10 % of the German army, but we still won the war. And we won it at the end of the day.

not just because of hard power, but because the way it was used, because the political strategies that were employed, because the alliances that were built, and because of our ability to convince our adversaries that there was no way out but to work with us. But at the end of the day, they understood that our purpose was not their destruction.

Lauren (13:06.077)
And that’s a really important point too, because I think people don’t realize sometimes the extent to which the science exchanges that we have encouraged under the soft power, and even after World War II, our willingness to seek out and bring in scientists that had been part of the Nazi regime, how critical that became to our own development. I think it’s been under emphasized sometimes, and I’m glad you’re pointing it out. Everybody in this country knows we have issues with immigration.

But a lot of the things that can help with that, not just our laws, which clearly need revision and work, but in terms of the reasons people come to the United States, I would argue that there’s been, if we’ve used greater soft power, more effectively, for example, in Latin America, we’re trying to address some of the core issues that would stop the flow of people trying to come into the United States illegally. And I’m curious as to what your thoughts are on that.

Tom Shannon (14:05.72)
Well, I agree. And this has been a central part of what the United States has tried to do over time, not just in the Western Hemisphere, but beyond. But in the Western Hemisphere, in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, much of what we focused on was first, trying to build common political values through democratization. Secondly, build common economic understandings through trade, especially free trade agreements, and then promote regional integration.

especially of trade, as a driver for economic growth. And in the process, not only did the United States, working with our partners and friends in the region, fundamentally reshape an entire hemisphere in terms of its political and economic standing in the world, but also prepared the hemisphere for a process of globalization that was going to allow our hemisphere to engage

with the great markets of Asia and Europe and beyond as democracies and as free markets and as political entities that had built through the organization of American states, through the summit of the Americans process and other mechanisms, means of conversation, cooperation and collaboration and peaceful resolution of disputes that made the Western hemisphere this remarkable strategic reserve for the United States.

And in the process, obviously our goal is to expand prosperity and to convince people in the process of expanding prosperity that there is a Brazilian dream and a Mexican dream and a Salvadoran dream that can be as attractive for their citizens as the American dream. And obviously sometimes we’re successful in this, sometimes we’re less successful. But the truth of the matter is

that you cannot stop immigration at a frontier. You have to stop it well in front of that frontier. And some of that is security related. Some of it is about proper policing and ensuring that people are passing through legal and orderly checkpoints. But a lot of it is about convincing people that life can be better.

Lauren (16:26.153)
And that’s a great point. know, for example, that I have a friend, excuse me, a friend who runs an organization called Glasswing International. And she has had remarkable success with turning people away from criminal activity and getting involved with gangs by creating programming within the community that involves the entire community and involves law enforcement, for example. At one point during the first Trump administration, she had talked with me about partnering and coming in and doing some training alongside her.

partners in the country. And unfortunately, at that time, and now it happened again in the last year, all of the funding that was coming through initiatives with the State Department was killed, was eliminated. And to me, that’s such a shame because it takes away great programming that goes exactly to the point that you’ve just made, which is, you know, how can we help the society become better? How can we build strength?

and infrastructure within civil society and these other countries if we withdraw the funds that are helping to do that exact thing. And to me it’s disappointing because it’s an opportunity missed.

Tom Shannon (17:37.014)
Listen, here’s a bigger point. When John F. Kennedy creates the U.S. Agency for International Development, when John F. Kennedy creates the Peace Corps, and when the United States begins to understand its political engagement in the world as not just government to government relations, but society to society relations, when we make a conscious effort,

to land in a country and let people know that we’re not only interested in how we get along with your government, but we’re interested in how we relate to you and how you relate to us. And this is powerful because no other country has done that. And no other country has been able to produce the kinds of results we have produced through that over time.

And for me, the real tragedy of the moment, as we pull away from that, as we make our foreign policy more mercantile, more focused on transactions and what we can get for something, we are convincing people that at the end of the day, we are not a reliable partner because we are not prepared to make a commitment to them as a people and as a society. We’re only there for what we can get out of it in the moment. And that might be beneficial in the short term.

but it won’t be beneficial in the medium to long.

Lauren (19:06.237)
I agree with you because I saw firsthand during the years that I worked in Africa, for example, how valuable those programs were from USAID, from the Peace Corps, other initiatives through the State Department, for example, creating cooperatives so that rural women could learn how to harvest nuts out of trees and create Argon oil in Morocco, for example, which became a huge global phenomenon.

That at its root was some of the initiatives that came out of the United States government. And not only is it helping them build themselves economically, but it’s creating enormous goodwill going to the point that you’re saying so that when things aren’t going in a way that they find helpful from the United States government, we still have that enormous goodwill that has been built up between the nations and a recognition that they are people and they’re not just a monolith sitting in a particular country.

And to me, it’s disappointing when that starts disappearing because another program that I love within the State Department is the International Visitors Leadership Program, which I know you’re very familiar with, which is, and I’d like you to talk a little bit more about it because I was a part of that overseas and identifying people to bring into that program. So could you talk about that just for a couple of minutes?

Tom Shannon (20:22.99)
The International Visitor Leadership Program begins as an effort by the United States government to identify young, rising political leaders of many different political persuasions, some of them hostile to the United States, who could be brought to the US, taken around the United States, introduced to lawmakers, introduced

to executives in our government introduced to representatives of our private sector, of faith-based communities, of universities, laboratories, you name it. And over about a 30-day period of time, hopefully come away with a much deeper and more truthful understanding of the United States, and hopefully with a willingness to understand us in a positive way and to be prepared to work with us over time.

And one thing I discovered across the more than three decades that I served serving in the United States is how many of the leaders, especially in my experience in Africa and Latin America, had been part of international visitor leadership programs at one point or another. How many presidents, how many prime ministers, how many members of Congress or the Senate or a parliament had been part of this. so it was a hugely effective program, one that connected us to these societies.

and left lasting impressions on political leaders that served for our benefit.

Lauren (21:53.502)
Completely, especially when you think about a time where we may be in conflict or in strong disagreement with another country, you know as well as I do that if you’ve got somebody sitting across from you or within that delegation that’s been through that program or another program, even through those disagreements, you’re going to find a willingness to work through that and find common ground in a way that you might not if the person sitting across from you has had no engagement or the program didn’t exist.

Tom Shannon (22:21.41)
And that’s absolutely right. But also in a world where we oftentimes treat our adversaries as caricatures of who they really are, we can present ourselves in a way that’s not a cartoon. We can present ourselves in a way that whoever is sitting across the table from us remembers the time that they were with a family in Wisconsin, had gone to a fish fry, had listened to wolves howl in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, had

Lauren (22:49.18)
Yes.

Tom Shannon (22:50.04)
traveled to the West Coast and spent time in film studios or in universities or in small companies trying to get started. And they’ve just come away with a much more sophisticated, much more nuanced understanding of who we are.

Lauren (23:09.977)
I think it makes all the difference in the world. And thanks for your insights on that. I’d like to shift gears a little bit and talk about strategy, resources, and expertise. So when we look at the three core documents for our nation about national security and broadly foreign policy strategy, the annual threat assessment, the national security strategy, and the national defense strategy, all three of which have been released in the past couple of months, we get a good idea of the threat picture.

Tom Shannon (23:16.952)
Please.

Lauren (23:39.25)
But the resources, the posture, and our current level of expertise, it’s not really lining up with these documents as they exist today. So I’d love to know from your experience, what does that gap mean, for example, with so many unfilled ambassadorial positions, so many fewer people working both back at, as we call it, main state in Washington, D.C.

and the embassies and fewer regional and topical experts. So what does that mean when we have that disconnect between what the strategy and threat documents are telling us and who’s actually there with expertise on the ground?

Tom Shannon (24:17.72)
Well, it means the world in the sense that you can describe the problem, but if you can’t deal with it, then good luck. And what the strategy documents and the threat assessment documents do is lay out the threats and challenges we’re facing around the world and then describe how it is we’re going to try to position ourselves in terms of our policy and strategy.

and in terms of our resources to deal with them. But the connective tissue in all of this is the human factor. It’s the women and men who are our diplomats, our intelligence officers, our law enforcement officers, our military officers, who are the ones who have to go into the world and implement these documents.

and address the reality of these challenges and threats and try to show that the strategies presented are going to work in one fashion or another. And for me, what has been distressing about the most recent efforts to reshape the structure of our foreign policy agencies and government

is that we’re shedding expertise, we’re shedding capability. in the process, we are creating institutions that are going to be less capable and that it’s going to be very, very challenging over time to rebuild that capability quickly and easily. In the past, in describing this,

I oftentimes point out that this is not happenstance and this is not by mistake. It’s purposeful. It’s a decision made by this administration that we are not going to be globally engaged. We are not going to be globally deployed. We are not going to be expeditionary. We are actually going to pull in. We’re going to define a fairly close kind of circle or sphere of interest and influence, which we are going to protect.

Tom Shannon (26:36.344)
And we will sally out occasionally in order to meet specific challenges, but we are not going to be dedicating ourselves to establishing global order or stability. But in order to do that, not only do you need to re-establish your strategy, you need to begin tearing down the structures that allowed you to be global in the first place. And this is similar to what Hernan Cortes did when he arrived off the coast of Mexico to begin his march.

on the Aztec capital, which is once he got all his men and horses and supplies on the beach, he burned his ships to ensure that his men had no way back. And I believe that this is what’s happening now. I believe this administration is determined that we’re going to burn our ships, that we are going to end the structures and the personnel who fill those structures that have allowed us to be global over time so that we don’t go backwards.

Lauren (27:36.328)
Well, the problem with that, as we both know, though, is burning the ships does one thing, but it’s not realizing, it’s not taking into consideration that our enemies don’t just stay there, there those who wish to do us harm. And, know, from my own perspective, and we talked about this, you know, when I look at the FBI and I look at the fact that just before the president made the decision that we were going to attack Iran with Israel, they stripped

the FBI squad in the second largest field office in the United States, the Washington field office, of all of its Iranian expertise. We have squads looking at Iran as a unique target because we look at it within the US government as a counterterrorism threat, a counterintelligence threat, and a cyber threat. So a very asymmetric as well as symmetric threat to the United States. And the FBI director stripped them because some of those very people had been involved in the investigation of the president.

for the documents that he took to Mar-a-Lago. And so without a thought to that and without consideration to the fact that we were marching into a war with a country that very effectively attacks us symmetrically as well as asymmetrically, they stripped all that expertise. And much like in the State Department, and I’d love for you to comment on this, in that world that I came from, you don’t become a good counterintelligence or counterterrorism agent overnight or out of the FBI Academy.

It takes at least five years to develop that expertise. And, you know, there was a statement that, he’s going to backfill some of those people from new agents training out of Quantico, but they’re not going to know what to do as smart as they may be, as dedicated as they are. They can’t do that work overnight. You can’t read a file and understand what it means when Iranian proxies are going to take actions like the Lebanese man in Michigan who attacked the synagogue. Horrible attack.

But if you looked at the situation, you’d recognize, okay, most of the man’s family was just killed by attacks by Israel into Lebanon. I’m not justifying his behavior by any stretch of the imagination, but this is foreseeable. And I think by stripping the expertise, we’re creating a situation that makes us far more vulnerable, not just within the borders of the United States.

Lauren (29:59.73)
But overseas, a couple of days ago, an American journalist was kidnapped in Iraq. And they believe at this point it was by Iranian proxy organizations in Iraq who kidnapped her. So these are obviously not making us safer. So I’d love to know from the State Department perspective, you know, even if they try and backfill, to use a terminology with people coming in, what does that do for the State Department’s ability to effectively conduct its mission outside the United States?

Tom Shannon (30:29.896)
it’s been grievously harmed. There’s no doubt about that. But just as bad as the strip down of the department has been, has been the unwillingness to fill posts with presidentially appointed Senate confirmed ambassadors. Historically, there’s always been a mix of political appointees and career appointees. And we’ve managed it well over time.

bringing in people who are closely connected with the administration, closely connected with whomever the president is, but then leavening the mix with experts who have dedicated an entire life to being professional diplomats. We know languages and cultures well, and who know how to get things done overseas. But those numbers have declined dramatically and

But even now, this is an administration that’s reluctant to put people forward for many of our large postings around the world. And it’s quite remarkable that we find ourselves in a war right now in the Gulf region, in the Middle East, where in most of these countries, we do not have ambassadors. We have Chargé d’Affaires. And this, you know, nearly a year and a half into an administration,

is pitiful, to be polite. but, but listen here, here’s the deal in my opinion. United States has built over time, the best diplomatic service in the world, the best intelligence services in the world, the best law enforcement agencies in the world, the best development agencies in the world. And, and we are tearing them down.

and redirecting them in a way that might meet an immediate political need, but will not be able to respond to a world that is quite uninterested in our domestic politics and quite interested in pursuing their own interests and purpose. And we’re not going to be able to turn away from them. We’re not going to be able to run away from them. They will come and look for us unless we were prepared to meet them beyond our frontiers.

Lauren (32:54.181)
It’s just, unfortunately, I think setting us up for a dynamic we’re going to deal with long into the future. And perhaps, like when I look at the FBI, I’d love to know your thoughts about this with state, but I think it’s going to take a half a generation to try and rebuild things and get that expertise back in place that we have lost. And I would imagine it’s probably a similar outlook for state.

Tom Shannon (33:18.03)
I would agree. Yeah, no, it’s going to take quite a while to rebuild the expertise that we’ve lost in a very short period of time and to convince people that these are careers that are more than careers, they’re vocations. They’re something you dedicate your life to and not just your life, but the life of your family because families come along, whether we’re overseas or in Washington, D.C.

and they become part of this larger world, in my case, of American diplomacy. But it will not be easy to replace.

Lauren (33:59.294)
On an optimistic note, I love that one of the things you’re doing today is teaching at Princeton. And you’re working directly with students. And so I’m curious, we touched on this a little bit, but I’d love for you to share from a Gen Z perspective, how did they see America’s role in the world? And what do you think they’re getting right or missing? I’m curious as to what you’re hearing from the students essentially.

And do you think that will alter how our foreign policy looks in the future?

Tom Shannon (34:30.068)
Yeah, it’s a great question. And it’s something that I’ve thought a lot about. I’ve been teaching for seven years now. And I teach a senior seminar at Princeton called Diplomacy in the US Role in the World. And so there’s a lot of discussion with these students about what the United States is, what it should be, how it should relate to our partners and allies and our adversaries. And there’s a couple of things that have come clear to me.

First and maybe most interesting is that all of my students were born after 9-11, which means that for them, the attacks of 9-11 are like what Pearl Harbor was for us. A horrific event, but a historical event. One they didn’t live through and feel. Like you, or probably like you, I knew more than a few people who were killed in New York and at the Pentagon.

knew some of them very well. And so 9-11 was this remarkable moment where we realized that we have enemies, profound enemies, who were prepared to do us grievous harm. So my students view 9-11 differently. Also, their experience of American power has been different because of Afghanistan, because of Iraq, because of the things we’ve mentioned, the global financial recession.

the challenges posed by COVID. And so they see the United States as an obviously powerful country, but not necessarily one that gets its way and not necessarily one that is a directing and dominant force in the world, but instead one that has to adjust and accommodate to any number of other challenges emerging around it. thirdly, these are students who for the most part are

know the world reasonably well for their age. Many of them have lived overseas. Many of them speak more than one language, which I did not when I was in university. I learned all of my languages in Foreign Service.

Lauren (36:42.482)
Me as well, same thing, post college.

Tom Shannon (36:45.018)
And, and, and, and so they just understand, the United States differently. And for them, when they hear established national security figures, whether they’d be presidents or secretaries of state or national security advisors talking about American strategy and foreign policy, American purpose, it’s almost as if.

I was watching a Charlie Brown cartoon like the great pumpkin, where when adults show up, you only see them from the knee down. And when they speak, all you hear is wah, wah, wah, wah. That’s what these young men and women hear. They hear wah, wah, wah, wah. They’re just not buying it because they think it relates and refers to a world that they are not living in. so that’s disturbing and distressing.

because it means there’s not only lack of comprehension, but lack of trust in political leadership. But what impresses me about these young women and men is, first of all, they’re smart, they’re hardworking, they’re ambitious, and they’re not fearful. They’re prepared to throw themselves into the world and they want to be successful. But they have this almost

inherent understanding that to be successful, they need a peaceful and connected world. And if they find themselves in a world defined by conflict, that they’re going to be become part of that conflict and that’s not going to be good for them. And therefore they’re very interested, I think, in in what you call soft power.

They’re very interested in how to engage in a larger world in a way that will allow them to be successful and be able to live long lives. And I’m hopeful about this because I think what it means is that there is going to be greater demand on our politicians to do things right.

Lauren (38:58.469)
And I think that’s an important point. You when we do these podcast episodes and it is, I love hearing what you’re saying about your students. And I hear similar things from the young people that I mentor. In fact, we now have a fellow helping out on the podcast too, as a senior from my alma mater, Muilenburg College, Edna Asima. And I love that. But I think important point that you’ve gotten to, and I’d love for you to touch on it as we close this out.

and because I’m sure we both have views is, you know, people listen to this and they think about, well, is there anything I can do or what can I do? What does that look like? You know, and certainly we always say, you know, reach out to your members of Congress, but do you have any thoughts that you’d like to leave the audience with, perhaps reflecting on your students about concrete steps people can take or what you’re seeing your students take in terms of steps to move us forward in a more constructive way?

Tom Shannon (39:52.652)
Yeah, there’s a few actually. And this is a great question. I mean, first and foremost, because of the nature of technology, because of the connected nature of our societies, and because of globalization, we live in a country and in a world in which there’s no place to hide. And I tell my students, you you can go live in a cave with a goat and the world will find you and it will demand something of you.

Lauren (40:12.945)
right.

Tom Shannon (40:21.738)
And so it’s best to understand the world and ensure that when the world comes looking for you, it’s not there to kill you, but it’s there to have you do something positive. And the second larger point is that we live in this period of remarkable transformation, political, economic, and social, and that this rising generation is going to play a role in shaping the world.

live in. In other words, it’s going to be a world of their making. That was not true when you and I came into the US government in 1980s, because the Cold War was alive and well, the Soviet Union was going strong, we were in a fight for our life. And nobody ever asked you or me whether or not the Cold War was a good idea. Nobody asked you or me whether or not the Soviet Union was just a misunderstood adversary.

that would change its behavior if we talked to it differently. We were just told, listen, we’re in a fight. This is a fight for our lives, and now so are you. So get to work. But we’re in this place right now where, as the American people try to determine what the purpose of American presence in the world is, what engagement is, as we try to understand how we link our power and our values, how we link our interests and our values.

this younger generation is going to play a fundamental role in how that happens. And what a wonderful opportunity. What an incredible challenge to be presented with and to know that what you do is going to have an influence that’s going to carry through the rest of this century. And so for me, what I try to impart on the younger generation is that they should be excited

what’s in front of them and that they should realize that there will be tough moments, but that in many ways, as Condi Rice used to say after a very tough day, welcome to the NFL. This is going to be a lot like the NFL where there’s going to be a lot of great plays and a lot of glory, but occasionally those plays are going to hurt. And that what you need to do is just get back up and get into the huddle and ready yourself for the next play.

Tom Shannon (42:47.426)
You know, there’s no way to kind of chart a life in this world. You have to be open to the serendipity of life and the opportunities that are presented. But having a clear understanding of what it means to be an American, having a clear understanding of what the United States is, is an important part of all of this. And so that’s what I spend a lot of my time.

Lauren (43:15.217)
Well, thank you. I cannot think of a better way to end this episode, Tom. I am so grateful for your time, your service, everything that you’re doing today with these students and sharing this with us because it means a lot and it gives me a lot of hope. You and I talked about we’re both optimists at heart, but to hear this coming from you, from your students is just terrific. So thank you so much for.

joining us today. I’m really grateful for your time.

Tom Shannon (43:46.031)
Thank you. This has been wonderful. I really, really appreciate it. All the best.

Lauren (43:49.831)
Thank you so much. And to everybody else out there, thank you for joining us for this episode of the Steady State Sentinel. We’d love to hear from you, both your reaction to this episode and ideas you might have for future episodes. Thanks again. This is Lauren Anderson, Still Standing Watch.