One phenomenon of Donald Trump as a candidate for President is that never in a Presidential campaign have more persons looked beyond Election Day so early. And I am not talking of discussions about the inauguration or the President’s choice of key aides.
To me the Clinton-Trump match-up is no longer interesting. Both are fully revealed in a campaign that is focused on them and not the challenges our nation faces.
Turning briefly to Trump, a majority of those who supported him during the primary contests did not anticipate the cascade of self-inflicted bullet holes. And that, of course, is the essence of the problem. Trump’s decisions turn on his psychic needs. This fact causes an overwhelming majority to be unnerved, if not horrified. In a world of unpredictable dangers a discernable measure of stability and consistency is vital.
It is my guess that Clinton will win and that the failure of the Republican Party to pick a winning candidate, and the likelihood of negative down ballot consequences, will result in an intense leadership battle. If our laws were not stacked in favor of the two major parties, the Republican Party would be history.
I suggest to those who want to lead the Party that they not just lip sync the name of Ronald Reagan, but go back and do personal and leadership studies of the party’s legendary figures.
Why, they should begin, is there a Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln and his stand against slavery and for the Union is the answer. What, they might ask, would Lincoln do today?
Why, they might question, is Teddy Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore? The reformists (reform is essential) should look at his aggressive defense of business freedom and environmental initiatives.
Why, they should ask, did Dwight Eisenhower decide to run as a Republican when both parties were courting him? And why did Ronald Reagan switch parties and then serve two terms as Governor of California, a state where Republicans barely have a pulse today.
And the reformists must understand how Donald Trump gained the support of so many, given his obvious personal and policy irregularities? The answer, I would suggest, is that voters were paying attention to the full field of candidates and didn’t find scripted orthodoxy appealing.
Occasionally leaders shape culture; more often it is the reverse. Year after year we see certain sports teams dominate their respective collegiate or professional leagues. We understand that they are capitalizing on a winning culture shaped and sustained by legendary players and coaches.
When we look around the business community we find no shortage of new companies, but we also find iconic ones that underscore Jim Collins’s analysis, in his book, Good to Great. Inevitably these are companies with strong and constructive cultures and leaders that understand succession is the single most important act of corporate leadership.
My view is that both major parties have regressed into extensions of their strongest interest groups—neither party represents the broadly defined public interest. Since neither party can pass the public interest test, leadership succession has become a systemic problem. When prospective leaders are forced to ape the most extreme positions of their special interest coalitions the best and brightest use their energies elsewhere.
Bernie Sanders, an obscure socialist senator from a small state, would have won his Party’s nomination but for the Clinton Network pulling the strings of her party’s apparatus. Sanders used the title Democrat as a convenience not a definition. The Republican Party voters selected Donald Trump who for much of his life was what economists call a rent-seeker and a registered Democrat.
If the Republican Party is to be revived, its leaders must begin by working on its culture. They must revisit its historical sources of strength. If they fail to develop responsive policy positions, then leadership succession will remain problematic. If Party leaders are wise and skillful the Party will have a huge advantage because if Mrs. Clinton wins, the Democrat Party will not be forced to face its similar weaknesses. In short, whichever Party loses, has the potential to be the ascendant Party for the next generation.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
Helen Chappell says
If by reformists, you mean the Tea Party, they’ve pretty well shot themselves in the foot. Reform might be essential, but histrionic extremism is counterproductive. Even arch conservative George Will is struggling to distance himself from the hysterical wing of the party. Further, I would expect a former chair of the FCC to know that far from being pro-business in the sense Mr. Sykes alludes to, Roosevelt destroyed the monopolies. TR wasn’t known as the Trust Buster for nothing.
Steve Bailey says
Teddy Roosevelt is not celebrated for his “defense of business freedom.” Indeed, he is celebrated for finally using federal law to REGULATE business. Before TR, snake-oil salesmen were literally poisoning America; bad meat was regularly sold and eaten, sickening millions; and the Standard Oil trust had put small oil companies out of business. New agencies were created to reign in the abuses of big business. That’s why he’s on Rushmore. Even with his outsize personality and ego, what remember of him today is that he put the people ahead of the corporations. Republicans don’t do that anymore.
Al Sikes says
Business freedom was advanced by TR, the trust buster. Business concentration is contrary to business freedom.
Rich Levy says
Business freedom through regulation – a good, Democratic tenet of governance. Glad you are on board.
Shari Stauch says
Wonderful post, Al and spot on as well. In sports vernacular, we’re about to go into “rebuilding” mode. What continues to shock and disappoint those of us with a pulse is how many sad Republicans continue to support Trump after all the nonsense, shielding their eyes with blinder hands… while those who do not are being called traitors,
YET — Years from now, how will these supporters’ own historic sound bytes play out in the media when they’re trying to further their own ambitions, all while they try to say, “Oh no, Trump wasn’t MY guy…”
Watching both candidates eye-rolling and smirking and generally acting like adolescents is neither keeping OR making America great again… more like turning us into a poorly written cartoon.
Rich Levy says
“My view is that both major parties have regressed into extensions of their strongest interest groups—neither party represents the broadly defined public interest.”
And with that chant, we are led by the monks into the David Broder Chapel of Both-siderism.
Ignore 80-90 percent public support for sane gun safety laws, as the GOP does. Fifty percent of our major parties fight any gun safety bill.
I guess, since our arithmetic teachers taught us to round up fractions of .5 and over to 1, that means 100% of the parties are ignoring the will of the people.
There is point-by-point majority public support for every aspect of the ACA. As long as you don’t get crosswise with 40 years of GOP propaganda by associating it with “Obama!”.
There is over 60 percent support for raising taxes on the wealthiest brackets. The Democrats consistently support such progressive tax legislation. The GOP offers tax cuts for the rich. The public says stuff it. So instead the GOP offers cuts in taxes for the rich. The public says no. The GOP then says “We hear you.” and suggests an alternative – “Reduce, for the rich, the taxes they pay.”
Neither party represents the broad public interest? Yes, if you have a dish of B&J’s “Wingnut Garcia” ice cream, and carefully pick out the cherries, you’ll wind up with a steaming dish of bothsides. Enjoy.