Pardon my nausea. President Trump’s often egregious behavior is on trial, and the prosecutors are not winning. Conviction looks impossible absent the emergence of felonious conduct. And Trump’s Ad-makers are attempting to define his conduct, “tough guy” in “tough times.”

Post-impeachment (indictment) we will be left with social/political distemper. Rather than candidates being forced to address issues, the election will be almost exclusively about Trump. More alarmingly, his conduct, if not rising to a convictable offense, will lower still further standards of political conduct.

Benjamin Disraeli, an iconic British Prime Minister, called politics a “greasy pole.” Indeed. But in America, history rewards those who, even though imperfect in their climb, strived to overcome their imperfections. It was thought, hopefully still is, that an elected leader can come back from a fall if he/she will yield to an aspirational set of values and show a modest amount of remorse.

Okay, aspirational values, what does that mean? I believe “truth” in politics is an aspirational value. Fair play—well hard to define. Passing up the cookie jar, for certain, embezzlement is not favored. Consult Proverbs and come up with your own list.

Trump understands two things well. He is the leader of a tribe called Republicans whose elected officials want nothing more than to be reelected. Fear is his weapon. A loyal cadre is his spear.

And he understands news biases and cycles. He excoriates the news outlets that tend to shape the news around their biases. They become the enemy, and unfortunately, they are an easy one. Twitter gives him a very useful weapon. He can use it to create the news cycle—he is hours ahead of them. He also is a good whiner. He couches his tweets in inflammatory language and picks his targets from the Tribe’s enemies list. In Republican circles, the New York Times tops the list.

His behavior, to me, sets a new low in the conduct of a political leader. But his enemies need to understand the game and the opponent. While they confer, he tweets. While they seek some operational consensus, he is a consensus of one with his elected followers (at least most of them) awaiting White House instruction. He has set new standards of political conduct, and even those in his Party who despise him quiver in the corner fearful they will lose their job if they talk back. Profiles in cowardice.

This predatory set of values will not be removed through a legal process; it will only succumb to a political one. The voters are going to have to lead the leaders.

I will repeat my recommendation one more time. Put this conduct to a vote. Strive to get some level of bi-partisanship by moving from impeachment to censure and then force the tribal leaders to go on record about conduct, not removal from office just months before the election.

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. 

I grew up in Southeast Missouri on top of swamp land that was said to have been reclaimed. I spent some time in the swamp hunting ducks and casting for bass. The wildlife habitat was swamp that, despite the best efforts of engineers, persisted. And it came with mosquitos and snakes.

In the 20th Century the word swamp became a metaphorical hinge. The phrase, “drain the swamp”, first used a century ago to characterize self-interested groups of people, has taken on a more contemporary meaning. President Trump frequently uses the phrase to characterize his opposition. Unfortunately the White House has become a swamp squared. Trump brought the insidious side of New York City into the Oval Office.

With apologies to the snakes of my memory and alligators, they have bred in Trump’s Washington beyond the constraints of natural laws. Back in the day, I felt secure with hip boots on; not in today’s Washington.

Historians, always searching for parallels, will find few, if any, when analyzing Trump—at least in United States history. Pride swollen to immense size has certainly characterized not a few occupants of the big house. And bullying was first given memorable recognition by Theodore Roosevelt who referred to the White House as the “bully pulpit.”  But, Roosevelt meant it afforded him a great platform for persuading the public to support his ideas.

Trump views humanity as either supplicants or enemies. With few exceptions enemies include any who challenge his leadership. He branded his supplicants with a memorable phrase: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?”

Trump’s other enablers are the far Left who attack his supporters as “deplorables.” The far Left, with their utopian schemes, fail to understand why anyone could be against bigger and bigger government. They sneer at those who fight having more of their hard work socialized.

Trump’s poisonous bullying has shrunk the potential challengers in his Party to almost zero. An absence of strong candidates prevails notwithstanding the likelihood of impeachment (although not conviction) and remarkably low approval ratings despite a good current economy.

Most sane people want to avoid his lethal tongue which has a reptilian rhythm. All those who push back are “crooked” or “sick” or “stooges” or whatever belittling phrase suits his purpose. Fear and intimidation are his tools.

Political Parties, in a two-Party framework, need a lively exchange of ideas and competition between those who aspire to leadership. This is especially true in a two-Party framework. Indeed, competition is an immutable principle in Republican ideology.

As any observer knows, few who run for President ever succeed beyond a tiny footnote, viewed mainly by presidential historians. There is now the possibility that a challenger to Trump can become at least a large footnote by reintroducing some level of give and take in the Republican Party. History is generous to the courageous.

Impeachment

“Consent of the governed” is enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. We are approximately a year away from an election that will decide who should serve a four year term as President.

Rancor always attends these quadrennial decisions as the delegation of power by the voters invites sharp disagreement. Yet, I suspect that if there were an entirely objective scale and associated alarm the current level of rancor would be deafening.

Increasingly impeachment proceedings against President Trump are anticipated. There is now an impeachment inquiry which is likely to result in the drafting of Articles of Impeachment and a formal proceeding in late 2019 and 2020.

In early February of 2020, voting begins to select the candidates to run for President ten months later. Impeachment hearings, floor debate, appeals to the Courts over procedural differences and, if Trump is impeached, a trial before the U. S. Senate would undoubtedly take up much of 2020.

Turning a presidential campaign into a trial would capsize any kind of a rationale election process—the campaign would turn on Trump’s retention, not on spending, taxation, foreign policy and the like. And during this two front war of charges, counter-charges, prosecutors, judge and jury the United States’ overseas power would be negligible. Indeed, there would be an open invitation for foreign meddling.

My recommendation. Move as quickly as possible to a censure resolution and vote in the House of Representatives. It is in the House where impeachment hearings are being held and it is the House which must institute an impeachment process. Also, the House of Representatives is the most democratic institution of government and the votes of the individual Representatives will be instructive as voters make their 2020 decisions. 

For further information on the use of censure

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. 

We are being played. Politicians and interest groups are scripting our views and rhetoric. And, in the middle of this self-serving cacophony, the media plays along. Sex, violence and anger sell.

The scripts are written by people who trade in emotion. They are in the moment; the long-term health of our country is of only passing concern. They stir up fights over guns, radicalize the weather and feud over abortion. It is either all or nothing over and over again.

Division is their goal. Politicians and interest groups know: if they can make us mad, we will write more checks with their name on them. Their business model is underwritten by division. Sincere efforts to bridge differences is their enemy.

Let’s step away from the white hot issues for a minute and consider two questions that threaten to imperil future generations. After all, leaders are supposed to be looking up the road.

What would happen if a candidate said enough with this foolishness about incurring more and more debt and simultaneously created unfunded entitlements?

Can voters force candidates to lay out the irreversibles — the must haves — and spell out realistic cost and revenue projections that show the gap between projected revenues and costs? Should voters then expect revenue plans for meeting the shortfall? In short, can those deeply embedded in the political process step back and deal with priorities and the country’s long-term financial health.

Is there any constituency for such a candidate? Are there media outlets that would persist week to week in getting to the nub of the most important question we should all be asking? Keep in mind, a budget is a plan with numbers attached. The plans of candidates should matter.

I would suggest the same approach on what is increasingly a climate change battle between utopians and realists with some deniers thrown in.

The questions are fairly simple. Which activities that burn fossil fuels should be either terminated or changed structurally and over what period of time? Assuming that abrupt and dramatic changes in heating and cooling and transportation are not going to occur, what energy sources will replace the current ones and over what period of time?

And, finally. Regarding the new energy sources, what role should the federal government play in ensuring adequate, timely and affordable supply?

We are now on the edge of political hell. At the very least candidates for President should be very specific about how they will pull us back.

Closing note. In about a year President Trump will be on the ballot. In the meantime there are a lot of questions to be answered and his behavior is not one of the them. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks it is good.

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. 

This column is going to go radical in what seems to me to be a rather modest way.

The United States is drowning in debt. And, the Congress and White House are adding to the debt at the rate of around $1 trillion dollars a year. Let me begin with the year-to-year scandal. 

Government shutdowns, real and threatened, are the weapons. We all know the saga—well clothed persons who have taken their oath on the bible (mainly) engage in fanciful attempts at compromise. It has become tiresome; indeed it suggests we are not up to an effectual democracy. We are also aware that each drama involves spending much more than projected federal revenues. The compromises never balance spending and cash flow.

If I were an economist, I would feel obligated to give you a lot of detail. The overarching particulars are that our national debt is $22.6 trillion and our annual deficits are about 1 trillion. Perversely, these numbers are thrown around; the throw weight is so immense even the most athletic advocate is lame. How do we understand trillions of dollars projected into the future?˜

Most also know that the annual deficits would be much higher if interest rates were not so low. And there is nothing in human history that can give us confidence that interest rates will remain low. Indeed the one thing we can count on is higher rates.

Everybody else, including most national governments, cannot get away with this state of affairs. They must, we must, balance what comes in and goes out within a reasonable timeframe. Debt can be renewed, but ultimately it must be paid with something other than paper flowing through a printing press. Economic strength underwrites the value of the dollar; fiscal incontinence undermines that strength.

We also know that both political parties are at best indifferent to debt. 

The Republican Party for decades made fiscal probity an essential principle and then Arthur Laffer, an economist, convinced the Party leaders that taxes could be lowered with the tax revenue generated by a boost in economic growth off-setting the lower tax rate. The theory, which can be true when taxes are quite high has been put to the test: “Under the direction of conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Congressional Budget Office conducted a 2005 study on the fiscal effects of a 10% cut in federal income tax rates, finding that it resulted in a significant net revenue loss.” Wikipedia

Democrats mouth support for a balanced budget much like their GOP collaborators, but find too many new and urgent needs to more than account for any new tax revenue that might be raised.

So, games have been invented to make it appear that officeholders care about debt. Reality shows these claims and maneuvers to cohabit with what you find in a pasture full of cattle.

Now to my modest suggestion. Recently candidates on the Left have recommended a wealth tax. There is some support on the Right for a value added tax (VAT). The first would tax wealth above some dollar threshold and the latter would operate much like a sales tax.

I could support candidates on either or both taxes as long as the proceeds are earmarked for debt reduction. It is simply time to protect our children and grandchildren from our profligacy. Older generations have been borrowing from their children; it is time to start repaying that debt. And, it is time to force politicians to live up to their various pledges of fiscal probity. The key is earmarking. When our balance sheet is in better shape new expenditures might make sense. In the meantime the Congress should try setting priorities.

Organizations have been created to publicize debt accumulation and develop government spending policies. The record shows they have failed, in the ultimate sense.

Citizen efforts should be directed to politics. What about a balance budget caucus with bi-partisan leaders drawn from current officeholders? Previous caucus attempts have failed because the number of caucus members was relatively low and populated almost exclusively by more centrist Members.

Organizations with fiscal integrity missions should collaborate on a simple pledge and each candidate for Congress should be asked to sign the pledge. The pledge must include a willingness to shape bipartisan legislative initiatives. If the abject failure of bi-partisanship on fiscal integrity continues America will ultimately fail. As painful as it might be the Left and the Right need to find a patriotic way forward.

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. 

Thought is fragile—authority even more so. 

If you defy thought’s first principle, thoughtfulness, the value of what one thinks decays quickly. Thoughts, ideas, plans are highly perishable. The wise test thought before asserting it and especially when the risks of failure are substantial. Presumably, if you occupy the White House, the risks are more important than penalties for failing to leash your dog.

Donald Trump in today’s news cycle, hyper-attenuated by Twitter, frequently displays thoughtlessness hourly. What is Iran to anticipate when the words are aggressive and the action passive?

Authority’s first principle is to use it carefully. Authority finds its highest value when it doesn’t have to be used; when those over whom you seek authority quietly yield.  And thoughtful politicians understand that overused authority results in few, if any, lasting accomplishments.

What about dogma? Dogma according to the Cambridge English Dictionary means: “a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.”

In today’s Democratic primary, dogmatic assertions and compliance is pervasive. In the case of climate change, the underlying dogma is that a massive federal intervention is required and religious fealty is measured by trillions of dollars pledged. No time is spent on the sources of money.

The news media which has historically probed and probed and probed for rational thought often simply asks candidates to raise their hand if they support the “Green New Deal”. So rather than asking about the investment and regulatory framework needed to ramp up the use of “renewable sources” or the extent to which “carbon recapture” holds promise, emotive words suffice.

Now let me step back. We need a thoughtful leader whose assertion of authority is insightful and measured. Trump has stomped all over these criteria. And most of the Democrats running for their Party’s nomination are so compliant with dogma as to forfeit the opportunity to demonstrate independent thought. Although, I should give Senator Bernie Sanders a shout-out as on many fronts he has been specific and has led his challengers, thus his national Party, to the far left.

President Trump’s weaknesses are clear. But, the one thing he will have going for him is a pattern of results. Regardless of his almost daily breaching of the first principles of thought and authority there will be a pattern of results (like them or not).

I am adrift politically. My guess is that I am a part of a very large group of voters. But let me make a modest suggestion to Democrat leaders. There is nobody in the upper tier (Biden, Warren, Sanders) who will be easily embraced by a majority of Americans. It would be too bad if Trump won reelection because intense elements in the base of the Democrat Party shoved the Party too far to the left. 

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. 

Pardon my obsolete reference. I am asked from time to time (not often) about what was accomplished during the period I chaired the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Always I talk about encouraging and facilitating the transition from analog to digital communications. Not infrequently, however, the lingering historical connection is with Howard Stern.

Stern had a morning show on radio and failed to find anything humorous outside of sex. His best ratings came from pre-pubescent males. I initiated proceedings against him for violating anti-obscenity laws that were in place to protect children. I became a frequent target on his show; at one point he hoped I wouldn’t recover from cancer surgery.

Okay, I get it. This brief chapter is more interesting, if less consequential than technology transactions. Or is it? Did Stern’s sexual repartee with his fall girl, Robin, have any effect on male sensibilities?

Or, on Beto O’Rourke, who has lugged the F word into politics from somewhere. Or, on a culture that to Beto’s mind will find the adjective unobjectionable or at least non fatal to his political ambitions.

Before my knee talked back, I enjoyed downhill skiing. Then I took up the cross-country kind. I, of course, knew the characteristics of gravity, but got a lesson in the dynamics of pleasure. Downhill was more fun.

I am coming around to believing that contemporary culture is similarly affected. Comedy writers lead the way — politics follows. If there are serious philosophers today I wonder what they think? Or, will anybody care?

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. 

John McCain died on August 25th, 2018. The anniversary of his death resulted in many news outlets reviewing his career. Some lamented the passing of a United States Senator who was able to work across the aisle.

I knew the Senator. He was on the Senate oversight committee that held more hearings than I wanted, on what the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) was doing. I chaired the FCC during President George H.W. Bush’s administration.

Senator McCain was always straightforward in his conversations with me. I didn’t sense a hidden agenda. Most of our discussions betrayed his intense curiosity. Channels and devices that we now take for granted were in the early stages of change, and he was interested in what was taking place.

McCain was among the most principled elected officials I met. But he was not rigid. And while he could be impatient and dismissive, he valued unity. He was a true patriot who understood that prolonged division weakens a country.

I am often asked why so few elected Members of Congress show courage in the face of President Trump’s slashing personal attacks. Obviously the question is not asked by Trump lovers. Private conversations reveal that a fair number of Republicans who voted for Trump are resigned to take the bad with the good.

Most often the good is Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court. It is often stated rhetorically as in: “Who do you think Hillary would have nominated?” Fair enough.

But what about the “bad”. Most say, quite pointedly, that they “don’t like the man.” Since it appears that Trump will once again be the nominee of the Republican Party, there will be a new weighing and balancing before ballots are cast on November 3, 2020. Will character weigh more heavily this time around?

In the meantime, do not expect many 21st Century versions of John McCain. Most persons who hold office, on both sides of the political divide, believe their Party is their only vehicle to hold office. And, they cannot imagine an alternative career that will give them status and benefits equal to what they now have. They are probably right.

Yet, I am even more convinced that most elected officials are cursed by short-termism—especially on environmental and fiscal policy. They are on the wrong side of history. Their legacy will not linger as John McCain’s has and will. Elected officials who yield to personal motive over public trust will quickly be forgotten.

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. 

As I write people are boarding a flight from Bozeman, Montana to Salt Lake City, Utah. They are doing what people do: blocking out the discomfort of flying–looking straight ahead. 

My guess is that same attitude applies to today’s presidential politics. The journey is necessary, while the flight is a pain.

The high altitude view of a low altitude scrum leaves me with two impressions. As I matched images of boarding flyers with the demographic support groups for Trump or an Alternative, the Alternative was winning. Perhaps this is where observation matches polls. The current Real Clear Politics average of numerous polls show President Trump with a 43.4% approval rating, while 54.3% disapprove. 

Just ahead of watching the airline boarders I read several articles on late season baseball—the rush of suspense. My team, the St. Louis Cardinals, is in first place in their division. While several veteran players are doing well, some of the most impressive late season statistics are shared by guys that were in the minor leagues a month or so ago. 

All of this leads me to wonder whether the Republican Party has any leaders equal to a late season elevation to what baseball calls the Bigs (Major League). Trump’s batting average, whoops, poll numbers suggest a replacement should be considered. If his poll numbers translated to a batting average, he would be sent to Triple A ball for a rehab assignment. And, we all know, there would be no rehab.

While in Virginia City, Montana, I talked to one of his supporters. I began by asking how he liked his Governor, Steve Bullock, who is one of the several dozen running for the Democratic nomination. He said he didn’t like him as a Governor, but thought he was preferable to the current front-runners. And about Trump he said, “I don’t like the man but he fights for his policies.” And, that is where the Alternative seems to offer hope to Trump. The World Series of politics might well be contested between the Baltimore Orioles (40-86) and the Miami Marlins (45-79). Well, you get it.

In the early stages of Internet development, it was said that Bill Gates, then CEO of Microsoft, was a tail lighter. He was said to follow just behind the developing technology trends and then seize the initiative with Microsoft’s immense market power. I watched (as an investor) Microsoft move in on Netscape (the first commercial browser) and crush it with Internet Explorer.

Maybe in the Republican primaries Bill Weld, the former Governor of Massachusetts, will demonstrate Trump’s vulnerability in the New Hampshire primary like Senator Eugene McCarthy did in 1968. Brief recollection: President Lyndon Johnson beat McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, but not decisively. Weeks later, with Senator Robert Kennedy closing in on him, he announced he would not run for reelection

We are, of course, in the early stages of the 2020 Presidential election process; this is not late season baseball. But, at this point, the bettors seem to favor former Vice-President Joseph Biden and President Trump. I am staying away from the betting windows while hoping that Americans are faced with a better choice. 

America needs a leader with the potential to reach out. Unity, at least to a degree, is essential if governance results are to equal the promise of America. My somewhat fanciful dream: a unifier who is also a fiscal conservative. At some point in the evolution of the United States the nation will need a leader who is not allergic to saying, “We cannot afford it.” And, an electorate that is not fanciful.

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.