Patrick McHenry: Leadership when there's no playbook
“The Messy Middle” is a monthly podcast focused on some of the most complex public policy issues relating to tech, law, politics and the world of work. It’s a lighter, more real-world take on the issues shaping our professional world and an opportunity to get to know the individuals at the center of these debates.
How do you grow from a self-described "bomb thrower" into one of Congress's most respected institutional leaders? The latest episode of The Messy Middle features former Congressman Patrick McHenry reflecting on the evolution of his political career, from being elected to Congress at just 29 years old, to unexpectedly serving as Acting Speaker of the House during one of the most unprecedented leadership crises in modern history.
McHenry shares candid stories about learning that visibility alone doesn't create impact, why policymaking requires patience over performance, and how his understanding of leadership changed over nearly twenty years in Congress. He also offers a rare behind-the-scenes look at the three weeks he spent overseeing the House after Speaker Kevin McCarthy's removal, explaining how he approached one of Washington's most difficult leadership moments.
The conversation also explores the future of AI, financial innovation, and the relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington. McHenry argues that policymakers and technology leaders need a deeper understanding of one another as emerging technologies reshape the economy, while also challenging some of the biggest misconceptions each side holds about the other.
Here's what you can expect from the episode:
Plus, in our “Grab Bag” segment at the end of the episode, LinkedIn’s own nerd culture enthusiast Rae Hinton joins us for a new segment, “Nerd Corner with Rae Hinton.” where she gives Blake, Mindy, and Mike movie, video game and pop culture recommendations to get them ready for the ultimate nerd summer.
Episode 5 is now live—watch, listen, and subscribe.
Spotify: https://lnkd.in/esSqS7Mw
Apple: https://lnkd.in/eW4MkHgW
YouTube: https://youtu.be/p_h7qAT6Oxw
Short on time? A transcript of our conversation below:
Blake: Congressman McHenry, welcome to The Messy Middle. Thanks so much for coming.
McHenry: Happy to be on. Thanks for having me.
Blake: So, as I think you may know, this is a LinkedIn podcast, so we to kinda dig into people's career journey a bit. For you, I was hoping to start at your time in college, actually. I've read that you started the first College Republicans chapter at your school. And, so my question from you is, at that time, did you already think, "Oh, maybe I wanna go to Congress"? And then also, obviously, college kids are very much interested in what's cool and not cool. Did this give you cred or not give you cred in your college, to be starting the first College Republicans at the time?
McHenry: No, I mean, look at me, I wear a bow tie. I wouldn't say I'm the coolest guy. I don't think my kids would say I'm the coolest guy.
Blake: They’re not a good judge. They're, they're a terrible judge on this speaking from personal experience.
McHenry: I knew I was super interested in politics. I wanted to be involved in the political process in some way. I didn't think I was gonna run for office when I initially got involved politically. I knew if I could volunteer with campaigns, I would learn more about how they worked. If I got involved in campaigns, I could do policy, and I could help shape policy. I really enjoyed the campaigning process, working, meeting new people, meeting new interesting people, trying to convince them of your way of thinking, and the practical piece of it. And so when I started in college, I volunteered for campaigns. I knew in volunteering for campaigns, they would invite me to events. And so I got to go to high-dollar fundraisers that other people are spending serious thousands of dollars to get into, and as a college kid, I could go for free. There are a couple advantages. You can eat and drink for free.
Blake: It's great. People in their 20s like that.
McHenry: And then, I could meet people that could be interesting or impactful to my career and open up new opportunities. What I did was give free work, and those doors opened for me because I didn't come from a political family or have other means of getting involved in the political process, so I gave labor in order to get in the door. I became the chair of the North Carolina College Republicans, then I was a national officer for the College Republicans. And that enabled me to meet people from other states and other state chapters. Some of those folks I met then 30 years ago are still friends of mine today. That led me to getting my first job in politics, and then my second job in politics, all because of those connections and, and giving free work.
Blake: Now, I understand this is a related question to working on campaigns, and it's a little bit of a side one, so bear with me here, which is that I saw, very, very accurately sourced from your Wikipedia page, that you helped run the nothillary.com website somewhere around this time. Is that true? And did you know, 'cause I checked, it is available for purchase on GoDaddy right now, for under $5,000. Did you run this website? And if so, have you thought about, , ever purchasing it as a memento or keepsake?
McHenry: No, it only comes along every couple of years where people ask about it! But yes, I did. And it was a coordinated effort. We actually won a political award to stop Hillary Clinton from getting elected to the US Senate in the state of New York in the year 2000. Obviously, it didn't work.
Blake: No. But again, you were on the cutting edge. This podcast is all about law and technology and politics. What was it like trying to do a digital campaign in 2000? Like, there was no social media. Did you win a Webby? I mean, what did you win at that point?
McHenry: Yep, that's what we won.
Blake: Did you really win a Webby? Wow.
McHenry: Yep. And it was not because of me. The people that had organized it are much smarter and more capable people than me. The difficulty was trying to get people to go to your website, to actually see your message, to see your views. And the way we enabled a lot of that was through, chat rooms, in essence, or people posting on different politically aligned websites. And so you're trying to get your message out through those means in order to bring them to your site, and getting them to your site was proof that you actually had activity. Completely different now because you now have platforms that can enable your messaging for free. And then you know, if you didn't have a number of activists that were interested in what you're doing, posting about you, you had nothing. There was no notion of “viral” at that point in time. It was a matter of collecting an email list. So, very very different worlds from then to now. What you're trying to do then is, is get people from the ‘real world’ of media to actually cover you, to talk about you, to bring you into the conversation. So, you're trying to do things to get clicks, yes, and get eyeballs, but it's a whole different game then than it is now.
Blake: Right now, much more tied to basically influencers, right? People who are gonna promote you on your platform. Maybe except for Matt Drudge which would be very early.
McHenry: But the height of political engagement was getting Drudge to link to you. That, that was the era that I was in then. Even this idea of sending your video, doing something that's digitally native video was expensive and not easy to come by then. A completely different world. Bandwidth was completely different as well. I mean, connectivity completely different. This is pre-iPhone age. It's Stone Age.
Blake: Right. The photo would be coming down ‘click, click, click, click’. Anyways this is two Gen X’ers talking about the good old days. I don’t know if it’s the good old days or not.
McHenry: Very different days, though. Completely different days than what we're talking about now.
Mike: Well, let's stay with the younger Congressman McHenry here. So you are in your mid-20s, you get elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives. You're there for a term. The congressional district with which your district overlaps was represented by a 10-term congressman. He retires, and there's an open seat. You get elected to that seat. You come into Congress, and I've read articles and seen you were described as a bomb-thrower back then, which is a characterization you agreed with, in other interviews.
McHenry: Oh, yeah.
Mike: If you still agree with that characterization now, what prompted that approach when you were coming into Congress? Was that born from your time in the North Carolina House? Was that more of a political campaign mentality? Talk us through your early years in the House.
McHenry: Well, after working on the Bush campaign in 2000, and then working in the administration briefly, I went home to North Carolina. I thought that's where I would be. That, that's where I would remain and build a life there – back in the community I grew up in, in the suburbs of Charlotte. After I got home, a State House seat opened up. I knocked on doors in the district, and won a really competitive primary, competitive general election, and really enjoyed that one-on-one experience of talking to voters. People then, when I ran in 2002 it was much more and then when I ran for Congress, it was a similar mindset. I knocked on doors across my district, which was not standard for Western North Carolina. In a rural district, don't expect you to knock on their door after walking a quarter of a mile up their driveway. When they open the door, they kind of look out on both sides and say, like, "Where did you come from?" and I go, "Well, I'm knocking on doors."
Blake: Were you wearing a bow tie then? Was that not part of your signature look yet?
McHenry: No. The admission is I love bow ties and, you know, there's this key moment in my adult life where I just said, "I, like them. I'm just gonna accept it," right? Back then, yeah, I would not look this odd. So knocking on doors, that gave me a real sense of what the community wanted, and what they wanted was somebody to go shake things up in Washington. Just shake things up. And that's how I got elected. I won my primary against two millionaires and a sheriff. The sheriff got elected to office when I was in kindergarten. I won the primary when I was 28 years old. It was a very narrow outcome. I won by 85 votes. I had this mentality that I had to go fast and I had to go hard, and I had to be responsive to the needs of the voters. Now, this was before the era of populism and before, President Trump entered the stage politically. So a very different mindset then, but much more on the side of being a conservative who's gonna go push the edges politically. But still very much mainstream. Like, this is all about cutting the size of government and, you know, conservative values. Not sort of this current set of ethos that are really politically confusing to sort of traditional conservatives or liberals. I took that mentality to Washington and I said, "No, I've gotta be a strong voice for my constituents," not recognizing that that's not, in fact, how you get outcomes. I pursued that very vigorously my first two terms in Congress, of being a hellraiser, a bomb-thrower. Yep. And with sincere intentions of affecting outcomes, but wholly ineffective at affecting outcomes. Yeah. And so it was then in my, the later part of my second term that I realized that this was just not the right approach. If I wanted to get results, I had to understand how power is utilized, how outcomes were shaped, and where they were shaped. And in doing that, I honed my approach to being an effective member of Congress. But I had to learn that from the experience of being on the outside, in essence, of being a bomb-thrower. I thought those were laudable attributes to achieve outcomes, and then events taught me otherwise.
Blake: Interesting. So, how much did your age play into that? You’re a 29-year-old member of Congress and you're a bomb-thrower. I assume that one of the things you're literally the new kid on the block, right? I mean, so how do you get people to take you seriously? How do you get people to, and particularly if you're someone yourself who would say, "I wanna, I want to get things done. I have ideas that matter," how do you approach that as a 29-year-old? And then would you have any advice for Maxwell Frost, who's a 29-year-old right now, , on the other side of the aisle in a different era.
McHenry: Well first of all, being exact and being highly professional really matters. You don't have enough of a track record otherwise, so you have to make sure that you are more prepared and you're more professional than any of your colleagues. But that hasn't changed.
Blake: This resonates with a LinkedIn audience. This is good. This is great content for LinkedIn.
McHenry: This is a natural conversation. Now, I say this politically, you see the current crop of younger members operating very different than I did.
Blake: What was the contrast?
McHenry: Well, you hear politicians using four-letter words as a standard part of their posts now. I think that's unbecoming of the public discourse. And look, I'm no saint, but I think the professional attributes still matter. Presentation still matters, and if you're going to say that I'm a professional doing a serious job- you have to act you're doing a serious job. And I've always had the thinking is, you know, you're really striving to perform for your next job, for this job. Yeah. Right? You're trying to perform at a higher level. If I'm 28 years old talking to people and they see me as a bum in shorts and a T-shirt- they're going to treat me like every other 28-year-old who's a bum in a T-shirt. So, you know, you would see me on the House floor-
Blake: Unless you're in Silicon Valley. Like, for a while in Silicon Valley, that worked, actually. Not anymore, but yeah.
McHenry: I think, once you hit massive success, they've shown a different regiment for how they approach it. But look, I'm talking about politics, I'm talking about Washington. Right? , So, the mindset's so different. So, I thought of professionalism. That's how I operated my campaign. That's how I operated my congressional staff, the seriousness by which you approach it. But because I got elected so narrowly, I wanted to prove to my constituents I was for them, and I would raise my voice for them and so that was my early going, which is why I was quite strident, vocal and visible. I gave a lot of speeches. In my first two terms, I gave more speeches on the House floor than I did in my next eight terms. So, just imagine that.
Blake: You obviously changed your focus as to what you were doing and what was important. I guess it'd be to talk a little bit more about your time in Congress and your focus on the financial services committee. Obviously, finances affect people's lives, right? Clearly. What was the tie between where I'm gonna spend my time, how I'm gonna be effective, and how that fit with what you were trying to do in your committee work, financial services, etc.?
McHenry: Okay so breaking this down, there are a couple things that people misunderstand about Congress and what I had to kinda figure out. Visibility is a power, right? Having a public platform is a power. You have a lot of folks in Congress now that think that is being a member of Congress. That's what I thought my first two terms. You had other people that thought campaigns, elections, campaign money, is power. Those two things are attributes of political power in Washington. But that's like saying my strategy is technology. No, no, no. Your strategy is enabled by technology. And, if your strategy is technology, that shows you have no strategy. What you want to do is use these mechanisms to effectuate outcomes. So, the three attributes I figured out through study - reading, through study with mentors, and watching the process, I realized the attributes of political power in Washington are derived from the public sphere, public discourse, campaign money, right? Raising money is a form of political power. And then internally, positions of influence that enable you to move policy. Those are the three things, right? And internally, this is a bespoke process by which you do have power and connectivity with people, influence over people. That could be in position or through, using your platform and your money to have deeper connectivity. All those things, though, the internal power, the money, and, the message, the platform if you will, are to enable policy. Right? So your craft as a legislator is legislation. And I'm saying this, and you look at me all three of you are like-
Blake: I don't know that that's true anymore, but okay.
Recommended by LinkedIn
McHenry: Okay. That, to that point, I say this. I think it's a self-evident truth that if you want to be in a legislative body, your only outcome here is changing policy, right? Either through the in- influence of the executive branch on writing regulation the way you want to see it or law. Shaping law. And so, what I realized was instead of following the attributes of the glitter of being on TV or using social media as a platform or having this position internally. A title, a committee chair, or you know, being the vice chair of the Democratic caucus or whatever it may be. The goal was to use those things to enable policy, to enable policy outcomes. So, I got on the right committee, the Financial Services Committee. That was using the internal process smartly. I did that my first term. That was one of my best inside games, that I did my first two terms was getting on the financial services committee, where I spent my whole career. And that's where, nine-tenths of my legislation came from, from my committee. So when I realized that I was operating wrongly, or ineffectively in my first two terms, that's when I pivoted back to that process, understanding that process that I've just described, one. And then two, working and crafting the policy that I wanted to be my long-term legacy. And doubling down on substance, the substance which is the reason why I got politically activated is to deal in that, that legislative substance. So, that's a process. Other people just get stuck in Congress as a platform. A platform to what end? Well, for their fame or their fortune potentially. Or raising money so they can show that they have power or they have cliques or whatever it may be. Or a title that they can have so they can tell their kids or grandkids that they did something with being a member of Congress. Those things are just attributes of power that, that doesn't really speak to the substance of it or what you're here to get done.
Blake: So, when you look back now, I'm sure you do this, on the, on the metric that you've set for yourself there, how would you grade your tenure? And you say, so okay, so the purpose of this was to achieve policy outcomes that I think are good and improve people's lives. When you look back, and I'm sure you get contemplative at times, you're like, "Well, I got a C, I got a B+," where, where do you put yourself? When you sit around now and say, for that period of time, you know, obviously there's more going on and you're doing other things and accomplishing other things. But, for that period, when you look back and you get contemplative, how do you evaluate it?
McHenry: It's tough. You know I left Congress a year and a half ago. I think the evolution of time, the impact of time, it impacts your view of this. For the legislation I wanted to get done, I give myself a B minus because I had so much work left undone. A lot of that had to do with the political environment, the last couple Congresses, the last couple of years, but my overall impact in Congress was much beyond what I had ever hoped to achieve. If you'd told me in the first term that, that I would have the ride that I had in my last term, I would've taken it. I would've absolutely taken it. I would've thought I hit the lottery. The lived experience of it, though, is different because my hopes and dreams were oriented in a different set of policy than I touched and impacted directly in my final term. Well, let's jump to that final term. I know Mike wanted to ask you some questions about that.
Mike: Yeah, I wanted to ask you some questions about that. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure in many of these interviews that you do, post your congressional career, obviously the 22 days that you served as acting Speaker comes up quite a bit. What I thought was even more interesting, in reading about that time and obviously paying attention to it, was when did you know your name was on the card from Speaker McCarthy? Because as I understand it, if the Speaker is incapacitated or the chair is vacated, it goes to this card that the Speaker sets up at the beginning of the Congress and keeps with the House Parliamentarian. Did Speaker McCarthy tell you that at the beginning of the Congress like, "Hey, you know, if something ever happens to me, you're going to be filling in," or was that something that you found out along the way? What was that like and when did you know that it would be you in that seat at some point?
McHenry: Well, that process is a continuity of government process. So as post 9/11, we formalized this process by which if something happens, to a branch of government. We all know about if something happens to the president, the vice president fills in on and on and on. Well, across the government, we have these roles that need to be filled. The Speaker of the House is a constitutional officer and the requirements to have a speaker are, major to our form of government. But having said that, you know, I was a part of the group that helped Speaker McCarthy in the opening week of Congress go through those excruciating votes for the speakership. More votes than we've had for the Speaker of the House in 100 years. Actually, the last time we had multiple votes for Speaker of the House was 100 years before Speaker McCarthy was elected in January of 2023. So very close with Speaker McCarthy and his team. Worked very closely with them on Speaker McCarthy's agenda and House Republicans' agenda. I did not know about, the speaker pro tempore position, or me being on the list, before roughly three weeks or two weeks before the motion to vacate. In describing the position, the position's a pretty simple one. The idea is that if the House moves to, ... Something happens to the speaker, a death- some sort of terrible nation state act against the speaker, - Or the removal of the speaker, which in our case, that's what happened. You know, this was thought of as political violence that would remove a Speaker of the House, not political ineptitude or political suicide, which is actually what led us to that in October of 2023.
Blake: The process was there for that though too, I guess.
McHenry: Yeah, it's there for that. But Republican stupidity was what made that happen in October of '23. But in talking about the position, there are really two things. Your caucus or your conference gets together and decide on the Republican nominee. The Democrats need to likewise do the same thing, and then you have votes on the House floor. So it's basically a scheduling position, right? That's what it was thought of. It took, you know, over three weeks for us to get through that process, which required us to, ... By the time we're all said and done, our fifth choice for speaker of the House became Speaker of the House. Interestingly enough, has had longevity in the job, after that whole long process. So, I was unaware of the job in any significant way other than sort of an abstraction that this existed. Nor was I informed that I was at the top of Kevin's list until very shortly before.
Mike: I mean, what's that like? When you find out that your name's on the top of that list, what's that like? I mean, do you come home, you know, to your wife and you're like, “work’s going to be stressful, but it's gonna be a lot worse because of this.", what runs through your head at that moment?
McHenry: Rewinding to the beginning, you know Kevin McCarthy and I had many, many long conversations. I said, "Look, I'm gonna be available to you for three things: opening week, the debt ceiling, and government funding. Those are the big three things for your speakership. I'm all in. I'll do whatever you want. Otherwise, I'm going back and running my committee because that's my public policy ambition, is to-"
Blake: Right. Like we talked about earlier
McHenry: ... move the agenda through the House Financial Services Committee. But you get pulled into these leadership positions in the House for a number of reasons. And I got pulled in because you know, a number of reasons, about how I focus on how the House worked, by relationships, by substance, understanding the rules, a number of different things. But, you know, when Speaker McCarthy talked to me about this, I didn't feel good about it. This is not a happy conversation. This is a friend of yours asking you to be the executor of their will. You don't take this lightly. It's a serious job even if it's a temporary, on a temporary basis. I've been around; I advised three Speakers of the House. I've been around them very closely, been around the leadership process and been around the people that have 24/7 security details. But I never had one in Congress and then when it happened, the moment that it happened, it feels different. It's a very different feeling than advising somebody who has the weight on their shoulders. It's a very different thing when it's you that has the weight on your shoulders, and that was something that was quite striking to me. I had an amazing experience but, you know, I'd been in Congress for 19 years and I’d done a number of different jobs and been around these decisions very closely. Yet, still it feels different when, instead of advising the person who's getting their head kicked in, you're the one getting your head kicked in. It just feels a little different.
Blake: You're obviously a student of political history. You know, famously, Dick Cheney was in charge of the selection committee for vice president for George W. Bush, and said, "I've got a great solution for you." Yes. Right?
McHenry: Yes.
Blake: I'm sure that some people came to you during this time and were like, "You know what would be a great solution, Acting Speaker McHenry?... maybe Speaker McHenry." So, you don't have to go into who or whatever but, I'm just assuming that this happened. How did you think about that? How did you deal with, , the people who are like, "Oh, you know what could be a great solution?"
McHenry: So, in agreeing to be Speaker McCarthy's designee as speaker pro tem, the final conversation we had was whether or not I wanted to be speaker. We had these conversations in January when we were going through the multiple speaker votes and I wanted McCarthy to be speaker. I did not want to be speaker. I told him that in January. Then coming around again in October, the question was like, "This is your opportunity." But I said, I've advised speakers closely and progressively more closely. Speaker Boehner, Speaker McCarthy, Speaker Ryan, and progressively closer and closer to them. Kevin's a dear friend of mine and in being close to this process, had I been a layer removed, I would've been much more interested in being Speaker of the House. But having been so close to it, I did not want to be speaker. And I'd made that decision before I became speaker pro tempore. When events sort of overtook us and we went through multiple choices, I had a number of people approach me on a bipartisan basis about whether or not I would be willing to do it. And I eventually said, "I am willing to do it but I'm not gonna lift a finger to help you. I will do it solely because the institution thinks that there is no other alternative. Now, the people I said that to were not satisfied that I was not willing to lift a finger to help them. Right? I knew that was effectively a no, but, you know, I really do think the institution of the House of Representatives is super important. Yeah, and from that back, you know, the backbencher bomb-thrower, I became an institutionalist. I care very deeply about the functioning of the House, the functioning of our government, the checks and balances in our system. The American system that we have is something that we should cherish, we should protect. I am very, very keen to that. I also am keen to accepting the obligations that you're given. That's part of leadership. That's a part of being an adult, frankly. I felt like I couldn't say no, but I was unwilling to say yes. There are a few pangs of, you know, did I make that decision correctly, and I'll have to live with that forever, but I'm still very comfortable with the fact that, that my key instrument of power was resisting, resisting so that the institution could make a more lasting decision and protect the powers of the speakership. Over the last 160 years, the House has evolved in a similar format that it's in now, and I think it, it largely, it largely works. So yeah. Yeah. But you can hear I'm still sort of walking through the mental process here of whether or not I did that correctly or not.
Blake: I mean, honestly, it's very humanizing. We all look back and I appreciate you sharing that with us.
McHenry: But also the takeaway on this, is we're all put in situations that seem really complex, number one. That are emotionally fraught, right? Yep. That everyone has high emotion about whatever the events happen. This happens in business life, it happens in government, happens in families. For sure. So... complex, highly fraught emotionally, and there's a timeframe that is artificial, but a timeframe. Yep. So the confluence of those three things put this additional level of attention on primary decision-makers. So having felt that in October of '23, I distilled this down to forcing the toughest decision, and once we forced the toughest decision... everything else became easy. And so what I was forcing was day by day for us to get closer to a resolution on who would permanently be Speaker of the House. And what I had to do is day by day resist the temptation for me to act in their stead to alleviate their pain. And so by pushing that decision, and, and it's one decision, take the hardest decision: Yeah we're gonna find out who the Speaker of the House is. Everything else came into zone here. Sure. People were emotional, and then people said, "Well, we have this timeline." We had no timeline, right? But you have to create a timeline. You have to deal with. You have to distill it down and then determine the pace of play in an unemotional way as best you can, and that, that actually will resolve the issues. And that was the most, one of the most impactful decision-making processes I had to go through with the most attention on me. I mean, a huge amount. And so I loved that experience.
Blake: So what you clearly did is, what it comes down to though is prioritization. You have to decide what's important. And your journey from bomb thrower to institutionalist, you said what is important is the institution. How do we have a process here where we end up with a speaker, regardless of who that is, that then preserves the institution in a world that is, you know, has a lot going on, let's say? So that's the clarifying point. When you can see that and then act to that, then you can lead people through something that...you can even lead the House of Representatives in today's political world if you have that, I think. Yeah.
McHenry: Well, you distilled it better than I did, so thank you.
Blake: This is a podcast where we also talk about law and technology. Since you've left Congress, you've also moved to a role where you're working, at least advising in the tech world. A question for you. For when it comes to actual, sort of policy right now, who is more influential? Is it representatives or is it tech companies right now in sort of shaping tech policy?
McHenry: Well, I think the public discourse is being dominated by leaders in the AI space. The hyperscalers and key technologists are driving the debate. The government has a very, very important role in shaping the societal impacts, and how to deal with the societal impacts of this massive technology change. So, you know, there's outsize influence by a few CEOs that, that dominate the media and the media discussion here. That is not perfectly for good, though. Case in point here, if you have the leading CEOs for the hyperscalers, for the AI labs, are much more doom and gloom about the harm that they're gonna create to society, and yet they think society's going to accept them bringing this about, it's the most absurd thing that I've seen in our public discourse. Instead of saying, "I'm bringing you some revolutionary good," it's like, "I've created a nuclear device. I may or may not use it."
Blake: Doesn't seem a campaign to win hearts and minds, no.
McHenry: No, it doesn't. It seems like political discourse designed out of a laboratory rather than with human beings or human beings in mind. I think the body politic right now, the American people are very concerned about the use of technology. If you see this in public opinion surveys, the American people are more technologically skeptical than any other first world country. That needs to change and the tone needs to change because we're at an inflection point on the use of technology that could be a societal good. Just we've seen by this platform that, that we're on here is this exchange of ideas, this connectivity that we have, is a great societal good and well-utilized. That it can be a fruitful, happy conversation LinkedIn enables. Or it could be much nastier discourse you see on a street corner, a bare-knuckle fight that we see in other platforms. Platforms to be named, that remain nameless at the moment.
Blake: Oh, no, we would, we would not want to be specific about those. No, no, no. No one, no one has any idea what we're talking about.
Mindy: Congressman I'm curious about, I mean, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC are obviously very different places. I'm curious about your perception of, what's the biggest misperception about Silicon Valley in Washington, DC, and vice versa?
McHenry: So, so I think there's a great deal of fear from Silicon Valley about engaging with Washington. That this will make you a target. I think that's one. There's fear, number one. Number two, there's this belief that you can go around the governmental sector. We can just go be Uber and you can just go build. I spend my time at the confluence of tech and finance and public policy. What I try to talk to regulated financial firms or those that are doing stuff that is around regulated industries, is that you need to be very forward about your approach to law and public policy. And if you're not forward, if you don't prioritize that, you'll fall victim to it. The other side of the equation is from Washington, is that you have an ideological view on technology. And this is, this is a misguided view out of Washington. You believe from my conservative friends, that tech is a right-leaning institution that delivers sort of right-of-center results. You see from the left, and a few of them on the right, that tech is this beast that is controlling all of us, right? I think that too is misguided. And then you have this view, among both parties that tech is certain, right? That, in fact, Silicon Valley actually knows what it's doing, and it's and it's a monolith, right? I think you could have laudable attributes if you're on the left or on the right on the mechanisms of technology, right? You can enable more human connectivity. You can enact better economic outcomes. You can measure those outcomes in a better way. Is that right of center or left of center? I'm not, I'm not sure. Really depends on the idea that Silicon Valley actually knows what it's doing. That is not in the nature of invention, it's not in the nature of innovation. These things evolve in fits and spurts and sort of different ways and there is not a certainty, about what these new pieces of technology can in fact do. Frankly, if we're sitting at the advent of AOL bringing the internet to the masses in 1993, and we had this discussion, you know, what you're gonna do is use this mechanism, and you're gonna have somebody pick you up and drive you to the airport. It, it would be such a confusing conversation, you wouldn't even understand it, right?
Blake: Yeah.
McHenry: We have to see how this tech evolves and, you know, Washington's not really certain about the direction of policy, frankly over a 10-year period, and Silicon Valley isn't the same. You know, it isn't the same. So I think there's a misunderstanding culturally on, on both sides of the equation. The final thing is, I, I think is super interesting, is that the physical distance between Silicon Valley and Washington is an inhibitor in either understanding the other. We see the cadence of policymakers going out and trying to, engage and trying to understand and demystify tech, frankly.
Blake: Same. It's why I go to DC.
McHenry: But also going to DC, as you know, Blake, it is a jarring process. You're like, "How does anything get done here?" But as a policymaker going to Silicon Valley for the first time- it's stepping into Oz. Well, it's stepping into Oz, but it's also, you're looking at the same sort of industrial park you would see anywhere in America.
Blake: Oh, that's interesting.
McHenry: Yeah, people expect that you're gonna go to Tatooine. Like you're going to another planet and it's gonna have this sort of different sense to it, right?
Blake: All right. But just sticking with that theme-
McHenry: Please, please ... you can show up in Washington and you feel you are in the Star Wars bar scene sometimes. You look around and you're like, "These characters are odd."
Blake: Well this is an amazing transition 'cause at the end I did wanna ask, again, on the podcast we also try and do a little bit of fun and pop culture. And the next segment is the grab bag, where we're getting recommendations on, on what to do nerd culture-wise for the summer. I wanted to ask you, you said it a little bit earlier, and this is a sense that we can cut this if you don't want it. But so you, you've made a signature look the bow tie, right? And obviously over the years, bow ties are associated with sort of intellectuals and as you know, somebody who's Gen X, grew up in the '80s. There's a some, some part of nerd culture, Bill Nye, whatever it is, around the bow tie. How have you thought about that in connection with that look? And do you have any recommendations for us in the nerd culture world? You worked in one Star Wars reference already, so. Yeah, once I heard Tatooine, I gotta go for it.
McHenry: You gotta go for it. So, here's the most surprising outcome of me serving as speaker pro tem. At the end of the year, New York Times did the most stylish of 2023. Know who it was? Doja Cat.
Blake: Nice.
McHenry: Beyonce…
Blake: Okay...
McHenry: And this guy.
Blake: Ah. That guy. Wow.
McHenry: Now it was the most bizarre, the funniest outcome. It was so fantastic and now I'm saying this and none of you believe me.
Blake: No, I believe it.
Mike: We'll fact-check. Yeah. We'll fact-check.
McHenry: I think, agentic AI has gotta be the, the cutting edge of nerd culture right now. Trying to figure out how to use AI to fetch things for you and simplify your life is pretty complicated
Blake: Have you done any vibe coding?
McHenry: Not to any great end, although I did use AI to help plan a family trip and to do a packing list for the family.
Blake: Alright. Well, this has been an amazing, amazing conversation, I really appreciate it. I've learned a ton and it's been amazing, and I just can't thank you enough for sharing everything you did with us. Really appreciate it.
McHenry: Well, thank you, Blake. Thanks, Mindy. Thanks, Mike. Thank you. And great to be with you, and thanks for having me on.
Such a great episode and so much fun to edit this one.
leading through a crisis you didn't sign up for is such a real leadership test, no time to prep, just clarity on your values in the moment Blake Lawit
Leadership is often tested during uncertainty, not stability. Looking forward to hearing Patrick McHenry's perspective on making difficult decisions under pressure.
Leading during a political crisis, as McHenry did, often means your 'important' list shifts daily; true transformation comes from adapting that core purpose.
wow so sweet and so cute