I’m Alan Alda and this is Clear and Vivid, conversations about connecting and communicating.
George Mitchell: The hardest part but the most important part of conflict resolution is to change what is in people’s hearts and minds, and that takes time. It takes a lot of time. People who’ve lost a loved one don’t forget it when a peace agreement is signed.
That’s Senator George Mitchell, whose work to help resolve deadly conflicts I’ve long admired. So I was honored when he agreed to visit our Manhattan studio to share with me some of his secrets in bringing together people who hate each other. But we began with a gentler difference…
Alan: 00:00:01 So here I am drinking tea and you’re drinking hot water. What’s the story behind that?
George: 00:00:06 When I was a Senate Majority Leader I delivered the response to President Reagan’s State of the Union address a couple of times. On one of these occasions, I was part of the welcoming group that received him when he arrived at the capitol just before he was to deliver the address and the historic practice IS that a small group of the leaders meet him. You go into a side room and you have coffee or tea or water and chat for a few minutes.
George: 00:00:33 Reagan asked me if I could have someone bring him a cup of very hot boiling water. I said, “Sure.” I asked an aide to do it. He came and he brought that water. He took a sip of it and he said, “Now, you’re wondering why I’m drinking this hot water.” I said, “Yes, we all are.” He said, “It soothes my throat. It helps me get through the speech,” he said, “and it was recommended to me by Frank Sinatra
Alan: 00:01:17 That is an interesting story. It’s funny, I used to drink hot water and got famous for being eccentric among all my friends, and then for some reason, I stopped. I should bring in you now. I got it from you. I’ll start saying I got it from you and then nobody will think I’m strange.
George: 00:01:34 On the other hand, maybe they thought you’re eccentric and just use that as an excuse to tell you that.
Alan: 00:01:44 I was really struck by the title of your autobiographical book, which is The Negotiator, and you are the consummate negotiator that we have in the world today, I think. I’m so curious to ask you what you think are the essentials of a good negotiation.
George: 00:02:07 Well, first off, it’s not false modesty for me to say I’m not that great a negotiator. When I retired from the Senate, I got married. I wanted to live in Maine in the small town that I grew up in. My wife, who had been living in New York for quite some time, wanted to live in New York, so we negotiated and we compromised and we live in New York, so I’m not such a great negotiator.
Alan: 00:02:35 So you live on the north side of New York.
George: 00:02:38 That’s right.
Alan: 00:03:16 In negotiations that go better than that, what are the considerations you think really have to be present?
George: 00:03:25 Well, the formative experience of my life, I believe, was the six year period that I served as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. It’s a very difficult job. The Majority Leader possesses no real power. You have essentially the opportunity to persuade your fellow Senators to do things that they should be doing without being asked. It’s very difficult and I learned many things, first patience. I used to have a little bit of a temper, but I learned to control it in my six years as Majority Leader because you really lose control not only of yourself but of the situation when you’re angry.
George: 00:04:04 Secondly, I learned to listen more. The job of a Senator essentially is one of talking, and most Senators talk a lot. Some talk all the time. I tried hard to live up to that in my years in the Senate until I became Majority Leader and then I found I was more effective when I listened to other Senators, because I was then able to understand better what their needs were. It enabled me to make better decisions. Genuinely listening to someone else is very hard to do over any period of time. Think about many social situations that you’ve been in. You’re at a cocktail party. You’re standing around. You’re talking to some people. You speak and then while they’re talking, you only half listen and you think about what you’re gonna say next. You really have to listen focused, intently, in especially the cases when you don’t agree with what’s being said.
Alan: 00:05:00 Give me a little example of how you do that, because that sounds, to me, like something that is increasingly necessary in our lives, to be able to talk to somebody who doesn’t agree with us, and what process do you go through? Can you describe the process? Do you hear something coming in that you know, with all your heart, you disagree?
George: 00:05:22 Yeah. The human mind is constructed in a way and I’ll say this in layman’s terms because I can’t speak in scientific terms … When we hear someone speaking or read something that is consistent with our prior beliefs, we receive it very well. We retain it. We use it. When it is something that is inconsistent with our prior beliefs, and strongly so, our minds tend to close. We don’t remember it, we don’t retain it and we rarely use it. So, you have to make a conscious effort in that knowledge, that you have to exert yourself physically and mentally to actually listen to, in a focused way, people you don’t agree with.
Alan: 00:06:15 I think I hear you saying you have to fight off the impulse to answer it right away, to negate the statement that you don’t agree with.
George: 00:06:26 That’s right. The corollary of that, the other side of that coin, is the human capacity to rationalize. It is truly unlimited. We are able, in our minds, to go through the mental gymnastics that allow us to permit someone who we like or who we agree with to do things that we would condemn if done by someone with whom we disagree. It’s on display all of the time in public life because public figures, words and actions are recorded and reported, but it’s true in the daily lives of most people, and so it takes first an awareness of the issue and then a determination to overcome it.
George: 00:07:17 I really did acquire that ability in the Senate. I listened to many hours of speeches by people who I didn’t like, some who I really disliked and didn’t agree with them, but I forced myself to listen because you have to try to put yourself into the not just typically … The word is “the shoes,” but really into the mind of the person on the other side to truly understand what they want. I forced myself to pay special attention to what they were saying, first off, I’m not fallible, and maybe I’m wrong in my assessment, but secondly, you can best counter what they’re doing if you know what really is driving their thought process and what they want.
Alan: 00:08:24 So, does that involve asking them a number of questions around it? Not just taking the statement but trying to dig into what’s behind the statement?
George: 00:08:32 Yes, but at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Alan: 00:08:36 What would that be?
George: 00:08:37 If you go on television in modern America, if you say more than six words, you’re interrupted before you can complete a thought. It’s very irritating and it makes for disjointed discussion. So, I made it a practice to learn not to interrupt someone in the very early stages of their talking to me. In other words, I wanted them to get some confidence that I was actually listening. Maintaining eye contact is important. Keeping a focus on what they’re saying. Trying to mentally keep track of the questions I want to ask, but not starting right off the bat, not to make them feel uncomfortable or that they don’t have the opportunity to complete their thought or make their argument.
Alan: 00:09:26 You know, it’s so interesting to me that we’re talking about this, essentially an exercise in empathy, in knowing what the other person is going through, what their point of view is and that kind of thing, and all of this is in answer to my question about what are the essentials in negotiating, whereas I think an awful lot of us feel that negotiation is me getting you to give me what I want.
George: 00:09:53 That’s right. You see it all the time. It’s on display now in public life vividly in the actions of President Trump. You begin a negotiation by making not just an unreasonable demand, but an outrageously unreasonable demand. A position that is not even in the stadium. Let’s say you think you’re gonna begin at a goal line and he’s gonna on the going in up the 50 yard line, but he begins not at the goal line but not even in the stadium, in the far end of the parking lot, and then when a concession is made to a modestly unreasonable position, it is billed as and argued as a huge concession. So, you have to understand what people’s approaches are, how they begin a negotiation, how far away from a midpoint they begin, and you have to calibrate your response in the same way.
Retiring from the Senate in 1995, Senator Mitchell was appointed Special Envoy to Northern Ireland by President Bill Clinton. His task: to bring an end to decades of fighting between those – mainly Protestants – wishing for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and those – mainly Catholic – wanting the province to become part of the Republic of Ireland. The fighting had killed thousands by the time Mitchell arrived in Belfast to chair peace talks between delegates from eight political parties or groups, all of them at each other’s throats.
George: 00:34:10 I’ve said and done a lot of stupid things in my life. I’ve made a whole catalog of mistakes. One of the dumbest things I ever did was to impress the delegates on the first day of the talks. I was aware that they had a long history of the dramatic walkout, not [inaudible 00:34:32]. It was a standard practice. They would get up and make fiery speeches. They always had a whole pile of papers and books that they lugged around and then they finished the speech with a massive denunciation of the site. They slammed the books and papers down on the table and they’d walk out before the other side had a chance to stand up and respond.
George: 00:34:52 That was their norm, so I wanted to make them feel that somebody would listen, so I said to them, among other things on the first day, I said, “I know that you guys don’t listen to each other, but I also want you to know that I will listen to you. You are going to make your case,” and I said to them, “Not one of you will ever be able to say with any credibility that you didn’t have a chance to speak your peace.”
Alan: 00:35:25 How did that turn out to be a mistake?
George: 00:35:27 Well, it was a big mistake, because I said to them, “I’m a product of the US Senate. I’ve listened to 16 hour speeches, 12 hour speeches. There’s nothing you guys can throw at me that will be worse than what I encountered in the Senate.” Of course, I didn’t dream that it would be years. I thought it was going to be months. As the years stretched out, as I heard the same guy making the same argument the 19th time, I was hard to focus. My eyes forced [crosstalk 00:35:57] … I had to struggle to keep my eyes open. I had to struggle to actually listen. I thought to myself, “How could I have been so dumb to say that at the outset.”
Alan: 00:36:07 You had to stick with it. You couldn’t say, “Sit down.”
George: 00:36:10 [crosstalk 00:36:10] Now, I never heard a 16 hour speech in Northern Ireland, but I heard many one hour speeches repeated 16 or 36 times.
Alan: 00:36:20 Wow.
George: 00:36:20 So it was long and painful. Very, very hard to endure.
Alan: 00:11:19 You’ve always been a hero of mine, because, as I understand it, you did this thing that was at least unusual if not revolutionary. The way I understand it, tell me if I’m wrong, is that you taught business during the day but then they came together in the evening and weren’t allowed to talk about anything but personal things.
George: 00:11:49 That was a specific occasion where we were at a difficult point at a crucial negotiation and the two major party leaders came to me and said, “We have to get away from here because it’s impossible for us to make progress given the structure of the way things were occurring.” The negotiations took place in an office building that was a British government office building before we took it over. They adapted it to a conference center for us. It was surrounded by a fence. There were police and military. We were heavily protected. There was a lot of violence at the time.
George: 00:13:55 Just outside the gate there was a huge press gauntlet. Literally a gathering of reporters, television cameras, and so every day the men and women who were delegates to the peace talks had to pass through that gate and they were bombarded with reporters. “Oh look, here’s what your opponent said last night. Isn’t that terrible? You’d never agree to do that, would you?”
Alan: 00:14:16 Oh boy.
George: 00:14:17 So on the way in and on the way out they were subjected to this. Two party leaders said to me, “We can’t succeed. You, Senator Mitchell, have got to figure out a way to get us to a completely private place where we won’t have any reporters coming and going and we can come closer together personally.” Now, they really wanted me to arrange for them to come to the United States. They all like to come to the States, but the British and Irish governments were picking up the bill. You’re talking about a whole bunch of people, so they said to me, “Look, we’re happy to do it, but you find a place somewhere in Britain or Ireland.”
George: 00:14:51 One of the leaders then came to me and he said, “I saw in the paper today that the US ambassador’s residence in London, a huge building that had been donated to the US government, had just been renovated and just reopened,” so I called that ambassador. He of course welcomed us and we secretly went off to London and we spent a week there. A little more than a week before the reporters found us. There I said to the delegate, the leaders, I said, “Listen, we’re gonna be here we don’t know how long, but these are long days and nights. We’re gonna eat our meals together, and what I’m asking you is during the meals, don’t talk about business.”
George: 00:15:34 They said, “Well, what are we gonna talk about?” I said, “We’ll talk about your kids. Talk about your wives. Talk about your dogs. Talk about your vacations. What do human beings talk about when they’re not involved in negotiations to try to end a war?” I also said to them, “No sitting all on one side and the other on the other,” so we were mixed on both sides. It was awkward at first but then it kind of worked. They began to see each other not as part of them, the rival tribe. Human beings just like themselves with wives, kids, mortgages, problems at home, issues with their in laws, whatever the discussion is. Sports, music.
George: 00:16:14 There was one interesting story that I told that was reported in the New York Times. In one of the discussions, a delegate said to David Trimble, who was then the leader of the largest Unionist party, at one of these dinners, he said, “David, we know you’re a big opera fan. Have you been to the opera lately?” Trimble said he hadn’t but he said he’d listened to one and he began to describe it. Another guy yelled out to me, he said, “Senator Mitchell, do you ever go to the opera?” I said, “Well, it’s interesting you should ask.” I said, “Yes, I go to the opera and I always make it a point to go to the opera the night before I leave the United States to come here to meet with you guys.”
George: 00:16:56 He said, “What are you talking about?” I said, “Well, listen. I know when I go to the opera, in advance, every word that’s going to be spoken or sung. I’ve seen the opera La boheme 12 times and the character Rodolfo says the same thing every single time.” I said, “And that puts me in a good frame of mind to come and meet with you guys, because I’ve been with you for years and I know in advance every word you’re gonna say because you say the same thing today that you said last week, that you said last year.” They all got a laugh out of that, and we kind of made a little bit of progress humanizing them.
Alan: 00:17:39 You had these meals together for a whole week?
George: 00:17:41 Yeah, for a whole week. Lunch and dinner.
Alan: 00:17:43 Lunch and dinner.
George: 00:17:44 Yeah, it worked out pretty well.
When we come back, Senator Mitchell argues that what’s missing in today’s politics is the personal touch that succeeded in Northern Ireland.
This is Clear and Vivid. Now back to Senator George Mitchell and the conclusion of what became known as the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.
George: 00:17:51 In the end, there were several factors that led to the agreement in contrast to all the prior efforts that had failed. Sort of an alignment of the sun and the stars, but I’ll tell you, it came very close to failure. It hung on a knife’s edge, the last day to the very last minute. It could’ve gone the other way. It was very, very difficult. I’ve said many times, I repeat it here now, there are many people who have been credited with helping to bring this to an end but the real heroes are the people and the political leaders of Northern Ireland. The people supported this process and they voted overwhelmingly for it afterward in ratification of the agreement.
George: 00:18:44 The political leaders had spent their entire lives in conflict. Think about that. Several of them had been shot. Many of them had been shot at. Some of them had been convicted of bombing, attempted assassination, had served lengthy prison terms. There was a huge, heavy layer of violence over the whole process and yet these men and women, ordinary people, rose to the occasion and at great risk to themselves and their families, to their political careers, some of their careers ended the day we reached the agreement did the right thing.
Alan: 00:20:09 You must have all felt a special bond, a similar bond to what people at war must feel, but here it was people trying to construct the peace that so much was at risk. Careers, giving up what you thought was your identity in hating the other side, and finding a new identity. There was so much risk, I would imagine, that it must have bonded the participants on both sides. Was there any indication that they were closer or somehow friendly after the talks?
George: 00:20:49 One of the delegates said afterward that trust crept in, but I personally think that’s an overstatement. I don’t think trust ever really made it inside the door. It tried.
Alan: 00:21:01 That’s interesting. From what I’ve read, a similar technique that you tried that week of socializing without talking business, was tried during the Oslo talks. From what I understand, they did it repeatedly, and two people, one an Israeli and one a Palestinian, became so close that one of them named his daughter after the other man’s daughter.
George: 00:21:32 Yeah. Well, just as that sentiment did not spread throughout the whole of Israeli or Palestinian society, so it also did not spread through the whole society of Northern Ireland.
George: 00:23:06 The hardest part but the most important part of conflict resolution is to change what is in people’s hearts and minds, and that takes time. It takes a lot of time. Grievances, people who’ve lost a loved one, a father, a mother, a child, don’t forget it when a peace agreement is signed. It’s a lifelong wound that really, in most cases, never heals, and that persists over a long period of time. Today in Northern Ireland there’s peace. There’s none of the outrageous sectarian violence that had existed for so long, but it’s a segregated society still. The schools are segregated. There isn’t a sense of togetherness or community. That will come as people who are involved in the conflict pass away and they’re replaced by younger people for whom it’s a part of history, not a part of their lives, but it’s very hard.
Alan: 00:43:49 You know, we live at a time now more than ever when we don’t listen to one another if we believe we don’t agree with what the other person is saying. For instance, your experience in Congress when you were a Senator was a time when people would get together and essentially do what you did with Northern Ireland. Get together and not talk business necessarily, but get to know one another as people. That was common, was it not?
George: 00:44:31 Much more than now.
Alan: 00:44:32 No, I hear it doesn’t happen at all now.
George: 00:44:34 No, it doesn’t. On the day that I was elected Majority Leader of the US Senate, the election was conducted by the Democrats who were in the majority. Each party elects a leader. The party that has the most seats elects the Majority Leader. The party that has the fewest seats elects the Minority Leader. Bob Dole was the Republican or Minority Leader. I was the Majority Leader. I called him up. I said, “I’d like to come see you.” “Well sure,” he said. “Come down.”
George: 00:45:05 I went to his office. I said to him, “You, Senator Dole, have been here 28 years. I’ve only been here a couple years, so you know far more about the Senate than I will ever know, but I’ve been here long enough to know that this is a very difficult place and our jobs are very difficult jobs, and if we don’t trust each other, they will be impossible jobs.” So I said, “I’ve come here to tell you how I intend to behave towards you.”
Alan: 00:45:35 This is like the statement and answer that you did with Northern Ireland.
George: 00:45:41 Northern Ireland. I set forth to them in a conversation just like we’re having, the most simple, fundamental, basic standards of decency, honesty, openness and fair play. He was delighted. He reached across, he shook my hand and to this moment, never once, ever has a harsh word passed between him and me in public or in private. We disagreed almost every day on almost every bill but we negotiated in good faith, we reached agreement on much legislation that passed with bipartisan support. When we couldn’t reach agreement, we went to the Senate and debated it, and when we made our closing arguments, we stuck to the issues. We didn’t insult each other. We didn’t make an ad hominem and attacking people the way you see now. We stuck to the issues of the legislation we are on, and as a result, we were and are to this moment very good friends. I still go visit him when I go to Washington, and we got a lot done. That’s all gone now.
Alan: 00:46:51 Somebody told me that one reason that’s kind of structural that leads to the fact that there is not even time for members of Congress to socialize, is that they have to raise money morning, noon and night. Their breakfasts, lunches and dinners are occupied with talking to people who have money.
George: 00:47:15 That’s true. That was true when we were there. On one occasion I took one of these calendars. A large white blank calendar of the month, and I had it blown up. I blacked it out so there were only a few slivers of white on it and I put it up and I had a meeting of Senators. I said, “Now, every morning I come to my office early, about 7, 7:30, and I have on my desk a stack of phone calls from Senators who called me, said, “Please don’t have a vote at noon because I’ve got a fundraising lunch. Please don’t have a vote at 4, I’ve got a fundraising meeting. Please don’t have a vote at 6, I’ve got a fundraising dinner.” I said to them, “If I accepted every request that you guys make of me, the only time we could vote is …”
Alan: 00:48:06 During those white slivers.
George: 00:48:08 Yeah, between 2 AM and 4 AM on Thursday morning. Of course they got a good laugh. It was a problem. It’s far worse now. The reason is that the amount of money is more. The costs are more. The money raising is more. It’s relentless. The United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, the best known of which is Citizens United, has made a disastrous contribution to the decline of democracy in our society, because American politics has been corrupted by the huge sums of money, unchecked, pouring into the political process. Meanwhile, transparency has declined to the point of disappearance.
Alan: 00:49:59 You don’t know where the money’s coming from, you mean?
George: 00:50:02 You don’t know where the money’s coming from and you hardly know where it’s going. So now there is not a person in the world, not you, not I, not anyone else, who knows where the billions of dollars that will be spent in this year’s election and the many billions in the Presidential election of 2020, where it comes from and where it goes. That’s why it’s corrupted.
George: 00:50:48 Alan, I travel the country and I speak to audiences, and I always ask this question of the audiences, and these are college, business, every conceivable kind of group. “Who here believes that our members of Congress are more devoted to their constituents than they are to their donors?” In all of 10 years, thousands and thousands of people, only two or three people have raised their hands. The first time it happened after years was in a suburb of Washington. A woman raised her hand. One woman in a big crowd of several hundred people. I didn’t want to embarrass her, so I waited till the meeting was over. Then I went up to her and I said, “Listen. I’ve got to know because you’re the only person in America who’s raised your hand [crosstalk 00:51:36] can you explain it?”
George: 00:51:37 She said, “It’s very simple. My husband’s a member of Congress.” That was it. That was it.
Alan: 00:51:44 Perfect.
George: 00:51:45 That’s the corruption. The corruption is not … Thankfully we have very little of, “Senator, if you vote for me, I’ll give you cash of 100,000 dollars.” It’s far more subtle than that. The corruption is that the American people don’t trust the people that they elect. They think that they are in the grips of money as opposed to act in behalf of the constituents, and democracy can’t function if the public does not trust the people who they elect to office.
Alan: 00:52:30 Yeah, yeah. Let me make it even more personal and see what you think. We live in a time when we read warnings in various essays right before holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving and Passover where the warning is, “Be very careful how you talk to Uncle Fred. Don’t bring up politics. Have a happy dinner.” Families can’t talk with one another with the same freedom and ease that they once could. There’s such total belief that you’re right and anything that doesn’t sound like what you’re saying is wrong, that families find it hard to talk about things, but maybe what your advice about listening, your analysis of what real listening is, would be a way for us to come together again.
George: 00:59:13 Yes, but you know, Alan, this has a long history in political life going all the way back to our mother country, England. There’s a very famous moment in history when the then ruler of what is now the United Kingdom, Oliver Cromwell, who many thought had dictatorial tendencies, was having a dispute with Parliament and he had made what has come down through history as a very famous statement which I will not be able to repeat exactly, but close to … He used the phrase that isn’t commonly used in politics. He said, “In the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be wrong.” So he’s imploring his opponents to consider the possibility that they might be wrong and we think about that now. We are to have more of that imploring our opponents to think for once that you might be wrong, and that means, of course, that we also have to think that we may also be wrong. It’s hard to do.
Alan: 01:00:21 It’s probably the hardest thing to think, that you might be wrong, especially when you’re really passionate about what you’re professing to believe. Well, I may be wrong, but I think you’re terrific and I thank you for this conversation.
George: 01:00:36 Thank you very much. I appreciate you having me.
Alan: 01:00:40 We do with guests something that I hope you’ll go along with. Seven quick questions with seven quick answers. Just one, boom, boom, boom.
George: 01:00:48 Go ahead. I’m not one for quick answers, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.
Alan: 01:00:52 Well, restrain yourself.
George: 01:00:53 I’ll try.
Alan: 01:00:56 Okay, first one. What do you wish you really understood?
George: 01:01:00 Science.
Alan: 01:01:02 What do you wish other people understood about you?
George: 01:01:07 I hope to think I’m fair.
Alan: 01:01:10 What’s the strangest question anyone has ever asked you?
George: 01:01:14 The one you just asked me.
Alan: 01:01:18 Nobody ever said anything like that? Okay, how do you stop a compulsive talker?
George: 01:01:26 Well, in my experience, you get up and you walk out.
Alan: 01:01:29 Just, bang, walk out?
George: 01:01:30 Just walk out.
Alan: 01:01:32 Is there anyone for whom you just can’t feel any empathy?
George: 01:01:37 Oh, many historical figures, of course, but not in recent years in our country.
Alan: 01:01:45 How do you like to deliver bad news, in person, on the phone or by carrier pigeon?
George: 01:01:50 Always best in person. It says something important about looking a person in the eye.
Alan: 01:01:58 As hard as it might be.
George: 01:01:59 Hard as it might be.
Alan: 01:02:00 What, if anything, would make you end a friendship?
George: 01:02:05 Oh gosh, I can’t give that in a short answer. There’d be a lot of things.
Alan: 01:02:09 Oh really?
George: 01:02:10 Sure. Yeah, yeah. I mean, misrepresentation, many forms of criminal behavior. There’s quite a long list of things, I think, that if I felt people engaged in them deliberately, particularly repeatedly, that would cause me to end a friendship.
Alan: 01:02:32 Thank you for … You really shortened your answers really well.
George: 01:02:37 I mean, I’m trying to discipline myself to impress you.
Alan: 01:02:41 Thank you so much. Such a pleasure.
This has been Clear+Vivid, at least I hope so.
Senator Mitchell is a hero of mine and having the chance to talk with him was treat for me and I hope for you too.
I feel it’s worth mentioning that this interview took place on June 12th – the same day as the first summit in North Korea. He had more to say about that too … we’ll release part of that portion of the interview at a later time.
George Mitchell has written two books that I highly recommend. The first, which we talked about earlier is called The Negotiator: Reflections on an American Life. The second is called A Path to Peace, which is a brief history of the Israeli and Palestinian negotations, with more of Senator thoughts about a path toward peace. You can find either of those books on Amazon or through Simon and Schuster.
This episode of Clear+Vivid was produced by Graham Chedd with help from our associate producer, Sarah Chase. Our sound engineer is Dan Dzula, our Tech Guru is Allison Coston, and our publicist is Sarah Hill.
You can subscribe to my podcast for free at Apple Podcasts.
For more details about Clear + Vivid, and to sign up for my newsletter, please visit alanalada.com.
You can also find us on Facebook and Instagram at “Clear and Vivid” and I’m on Twitter @alanalda.
Thanks for listening.