Reflect with me for a moment. We knew the children who were shot and killed in Nashville. And the adults. They are our neighbors.

We have seen 9-year-old children gleefully following their parents at school events or walking down the aisle in church or on the playground. And we know those late career professionals who have dedicated their lives to education. They are all a part of our community.

They all became targets of a deranged mind. While those in charge look for motives, we know warped minds don’t lend themselves to understandable motives. But what we do understand is the reckless availability of guns first designed for military use. Guns that in seconds can cause a school corridor to look like a battlefield.

Almost two years ago to this date I wrote a column on guns. Enumerable times since, I have started to put pen to paper on the issue of how we deal with guns but each time pulled back. It is not an easy subject. But I am drawn to the flame.

Let me begin illustratively with technology. It has increased gun lethality but it has not been used widely to increase protection. Biometric keys, passwords and the like personalize and protect our homes, cars, phones and more. Protective technology’s use in manufacturing and retrofitting of guns should become as ubiquitous.

But then there is the larger problem. Can citizens act or must all the action be shunted off to politicians who will engage once again in the theater of the absurd? And much of the political activity will occur on a State-by-State basis and the problem is national.

Any steps of consequence will not be taken swiftly and actions that lessen problems in the long run will not sate our immeasurable desire for quick results. So why not go long as I have suggested before. We need a nationwide campaign to amend the Second Amendment.

Women’s rights, for example, received a huge boost from a nationwide effort to add an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment failed but the drive made women’s rights topical and constructive actions followed. And, for those of us who were watching our draft status during the Vietnam War, we know that the momentum of the anti-war movement hurried our troops return.

Additions to the Constitution are difficult. If the Second Amendment is to be amended, the addition should be simple, clear, limited and broadly appealing. My suggestion, a second sentence that says: The possession and use of military weapons and their derivatives can be regulated.

Today there are many efforts to regulate gun possession but often gun ownership or use that doesn’t need to be regulated gets swept up in our zeal to regulate military-style weapons. A successful drive will recognize our nation’s history with guns used for lawful purposes.

It is beyond this brief essay to detail either constitutional or legal language to lessen the threat from guns being used by deranged or vengeful minds. We have, however, come to a point where the nationwide outrage should push lawmakers beyond their well-practiced talking points.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

There certainly should be a teenage exception. And, I would extend it to say 30 years old. In short, humans should be forgiven if in their 40s or beyond they contradict their earlier words or actions. But….

As a Congressman, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis, urged then President Barack Obama to send “offensive and defensive” weapons to Ukraine. He stated in a radio exchange with Bill Bennett, “I think when someone like Putin sees Obama being indecisive, I think that whets his appetite to create more trouble in the area. And I think if we were to arm the Ukraine, I think that would send a strong signal to him that he shouldn’t be going any further.”

Now, before I go any further, I will admit to agreeing with the earlier version of DeSantis’s “thinking”. But, this is a column about thinking not about foreign policy.

The latest version of DeSantis’s thinking on the Russia-Ukraine war is, “while the United States has many vital national interests…becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them”. Donald Trump was quick to jump saying, “Whatever I want he wants”. Perhaps Trump is right but my greater concern is that DeSantis engaged in casual recklessness.

DeSantis laid out his views in response to a Tucker Carlson questionnaire. First tier candidates, if they are thinking, should avoid self-defeat. DeSantis had spoken the week before at a prestigious event at the Ronald Reagan Library. Why not assess the war and our support as the Gipper (Ronald Reagan) peers down?

My views about the geopolitical consequences of withdrawing our support, treating the war as a territorial dispute, are just that, my views, of no particular consequence. But DeSantis, a leading figure in the Republican Party, and a potential successor to Joe Biden? He showed an egregious lack of humility and regard for America’s position abroad.

If DeSantis had just finished a tour of Ukraine and its immediate neighbors and then dropped by NATO headquarters for an insider briefing, he would arguably deserve to be taken seriously. His statement, given that we are a two-Party democracy, nudged the United States toward the indecisive—a stance he worried about when Barack Obama was President.

The Governor has been effective on a number of fronts. He has a command and control approach that resulted in a rapid completion of a temporary causeway from Ft. Myers to Sanibel after Hurricane Ian. And as most know who have followed his time in office, he is a traditionalist when it comes to cultural issues; not hesitating for example to take on what he considered a “Woke Disney”. But now he has done everything but announce he is running for President.

Consequential Presidential candidates must ask and answer a cascade of questions before going public on major foreign policy challenges. Foreign policy is America’s policy—it should certainly be debated at home. But when we face the Atlantic or Pacific, as much as possible we should project power, not division.

And, more specifically, how will a leading politician’s questionnaire blurb be used by Vladimir Putin? Now an accused “war criminal”, as the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. As propaganda, for sure. And, perhaps as an excuse not to negotiate until the American election.

DeSantis also indicates he thinks China is our priority. It is certainly one of them. So how will Xi Jinping interpret the DeSantis “thinking?” Irresoluteness tends to travel. It is hard to imagine that Xi will perceive the DeSantis flip-flop as a signal to Taiwan that America has your back.

My advice to DeSantis; pay attention to your senior US Senator, Marco Rubio, who alluded to his lack of preparation. To paraphrase Rubio, Tallahassee (Florida’s capitol) is not where foreign policy is made.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Planes barely missing planes. Banks failing. Trains leaving the tracks carrying toxic substances. Various commentaries on how America, in important strategic respects, is falling behind China. I can’t attest to the latter, but we can all attest to the former.

Are these failures the fault of the President? No, but in the chains of authority and responsibility as President Harry Truman noted: “the buck stops here.” Leadership is not easy and leading the United States is a singular, complex and at times almost impossible challenge.

In much of the organizational world the question of what is next is crucial. And beyond plans and budgets and research targets the most important question is who will succeed the person in charge. The best organizations get this right more often than not.

Apple, while Steve Jobs was leading it, was often said to be ill-prepared for his death. This became a recurring critique as Job’s illness was known well before he gave way to it. Tim Cook, one of Job’s senior executives, succeeded him and has done a rather good job.

Politics is harder. There is not an Executive Committee to plan and execute succession. Ambition, power and money intercede. In Maryland, Governor Hogan’s choice as a successor, for example, didn’t get beyond her Party’s primary.

It is an article of faith that leaders who have visions and ambitions want to influence the choice of their successor. President Joe Biden has both and is in a position to influence the choice of the person to succeed him. And as importantly, the timing. 2024? 2028? Or, at a time not of his choosing?

He chose Kamala Harris as his Vice President. He wanted to make a point of expanding opportunity. He limited his search to a woman of color. And if news reporters and commentators had it right he intended to choose from a handful of African-American women who at the time held office. It is unimaginable that a business or non-profit of consequence would have so narrowed the search for such a consequential role. It should be kept in mind that quite a few Vice Presidents end up in the Oval Office. In my lifetime, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, George HW Bush and Joe Biden.

Self-identified Democrats, if you believe polls, are not happy with an 80-year-old President whose constitutional successor is Kamala Harris. Yet it is said by significant pressure groups within the President’s Party that if he runs again he certainly must choose Ms. Harris a second time.

I will leave it to others to critique the Vice President. Perhaps her principal job in providing discreet counsel to the President is going well. Who knows? Her more public roles (taking the leadership on the challenges at the Southern Border, for example) have not gone well. But let me add, this is an interactive medium so if I have overlooked an important success please let the readers of The Spy know.

Overall I am not enamored with two-Party leadership which at the top rank is often filled with people who are less than the office needs. Too often getting to the top is an exercise in retail politics and fundraising; neither especially good preparation for facing the challenges offered up by a very large and complicated country. Looking way back, Harriet Tubman would have been an excellent national leader having proved her legendary skill in organizing the Underground Railroad.

And the Vice President aside, President Barack Obama showed concretely that a person of color can win the White House. And he won with a majority, not a plurality, of the vote. There are literally hundreds of candidates of color that have been elected to the top jobs in their jurisdictions. And they are not all Democrats. Is everything perfect? No, but as a culture we have been willing to make adjustments that would not even be contemplated in other societies.

In a few months the candidate slate will be set, absent an intervening event none of us can predict. I can state unequivocally that my vote is for sale. And here is what I will not buy along with most voters occupying the middle ground of politics. I will not vote for Donald Trump. He might be able to lead his base but he cannot lead the nation. And I will not vote for an 82-year-old President who offers up Kamala Harris as his successor. I want tangible indices of success at the Vice-President level.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.

America has a Great Seal. It was adopted in 1782 as an outgrowth of the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Congress’s work on the Great Seal was begun just hours after the adoption of the Declaration. A Committee was appointed to give America a visual symbol and thematic beginning. 

The national theme was chosen by the first of three committees. The Committee work was led by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. The theme or what is often called our national motto: E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many One. 

I would like to suggest a new beginning—a 21st Century revisitation of our most fundamental expressions. A Congressional resolution that details Committee membership and objectives with recommendations due within a reasonable time frame.

While I would favor re-affirmation of Out of Many One, everybody should be given a chance to voice their opinions and then their representatives should advance a bill to both Houses of Congress. 

We are at the beginning of what will become a candidate cacophony. It will at times be an angry exchange. It is this reality that took me back to our nation’s initial motto, Out of Many One. 

Each candidate for President will be the subject of profiles and interviews and later debates. Why not begin interviews with those four words on our Seal? Asking: What do they mean to you? How do you believe the founding principle applies to contemporary politics? Would E Pluribus Unum inform your approach to being President? And, would you support a resolution calling for a Congressional Committee to re-visit our thematic beginning?

Voters most often, research shows, form opinions around basic expressions of goals and ambitions. They don’t delve into complex plans to revise our health care system or tax policy. And those that do not have a partisan default view size up candidates impressionistically more often than not.

Is it possible to get beyond identity politics used as a weapon? Is divide and conquer such a well-practiced tactic that it has become a habit? Can reporters go beyond the daily fury and attempt to probe more fundamental motives? Would this be a useful exploration for voters? Or is division more important than addition?

There is, in our technology centric age, a conceit that everything has changed. Yet, we are many and it will stay that way. The Southern border might tighten but even if it does, we will still be many. Our ethnicities will be varied and our socio-economic circumstances will be diverse. We will either exist on the combustible edge or we will find a better national temperament. 

Today’s political Parties have ultra-aggressive populist wings. Progressives want to re-engineer parts of America and are finding that their more radical views are fuel for populists on the Right. And on the populist Right a new isolationism and willingness to plan our industrial future are rapidly evolving. Each wing is smaller than it is portrayed, but their fervor and discipline are like helium. And, neither wing emphasizes the need to bring people together. Togetherness is attending amped up political rallies adorned with sporting regalia.

Progressives, the populist Left, made a bargain that has served it well. They made a deal with a candidate who became President—Joe Biden. When my wife Marty worked on the Senate side of Capitol Hill she saw then Senator Biden regularly because her office in Senator John C Danforth’s suite was near his. She commented that he was always engaging and pleasant, while most Senators strode down the hall looking neither left nor right. Might this demeanor have been determinative?

On the Right former President Trump retains a fervent following. Over the weekend in portraying his candidacy to his supporters, he said: “I am your retribution.” What he doesn’t have is a following of people who want a President of even and at times gracious temperament. This, in my view, is a dominant preference in the middle ground of politics. When divisiveness is the candidates’ offer, the risk of failure in the general election is much greater. And importantly, campaign excesses often translate into societal ones. 

A campaign without sharp differences would be lame and anti-democratic. But there is a radical difference between disagreement and demonization. I believe the person who takes the oath to become the next President in 2025 will reflect a degree of calm as he/she seeks to bring the country together. In the meantime, maybe we should all participate in defining our nation’s symbols and theme.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

The wind was measured at its peak at 155 miles per hour with sustained winds at 150. It pushed the water westward and then the tide surged as the moon and wind worked together. Our small home on Sanibel, a barrier island off the coast of Ft Myers, Florida held and then yielded to the briny froth.

The water in our house is long gone and now the interior walls have been replaced. Our neighbors have similar stories. One neighbor reported watching as the water surged to the half-way level of a stop sign. Some stayed, most didn’t and Hurricane Ian left behind a respect that had faded from stories of past hurricanes. Ian: will not soon be forgotten.

Destructive hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes or natural catastrophes in general are dreaded, but many find their way to harm’s way—risk be damned. We like coasts and mountains and lakes and the like. And when harm finds us often our humanity is reminded—neighborliness surges. Once again our plan, engineer, build, protect pattern is humbled and togetherness is refreshed.

Today like yesterday was one of those days. As my wife and I were helping to organize for the last push, neighbors came by to see what they could do to help. Earlier they had helped us transport, chain saw, launder and house several paintings.

We live in a world in which humans spend untold amounts of their resources to stay in control. We engineer and build to protective specifications. And then we are reminded of folly. Not bad for the throned to be dethroned from time-to-time. Catastrophes humble and humility is often the source of unity and getting things done.

We should all think of ourselves as part of a family and neighborhood and think of our country as the end result.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Former President Trump did not clear the field with his early announcement and initial rallies. He is going to find the Republican primaries quite competitive.

South Carolina’s former Governor and later United Nations Ambassador, Nikki Haley, began her campaign to be the Republican nominee for President last week. The political pundits were all over the story and most said she is a long shot at best. The handicappers are arguably right, but my sense is their assessment is relatively shallow. So let me go a bit deeper.

Haley, (Governor or Ambassador, take your pick), is the daughter of immigrants who migrated from India. In her announcement speech she characterized herself as “a brown girl in a black and white world.”

Haley’s husband, Michael, lost his mother at age 3, became a resident of a foster home and was subsequently adopted by Bill and Carole Haley. Michael served as a Captain in the South Carolina National Guard and did a tour of duty in Afghanistan while Haley was Governor.

Yes, America has changed. The Republican Party, not known for breaking glass ceilings, first elected Haley Governor of South Carolina after she had served several terms in its State legislature.

Unlike other Republican Governors considering a run, Haley has significant international experience having served as our United Nations Ambassador during the first part of the Trump Administration. This credential is reported as an asset and as a liability.

On the liability side, some pundits believe any association with Trump is toxic. I doubt that. She was certainly not an obsequious member of the Administration.

On the asset side, Governors do not typically have foreign policy experience. We will see how that experience plays out, but I suspect it will be a net advantage as our face-offs with Russia and China are not insignificant challenges.

Most handicappers believe that a large field of candidates will be to Trump’s advantage. That was certainly true in 2016. It is my guess that 2024 will unfold differently.

I anticipate there will be three contenders following the early primaries. Trump, Governor DeSantis of Florida and one other. If, and this is a big if, if Haley proves to be a successful fundraiser, she might well be holding down that third slot as she is widely regarded as a good campaigner.

Successful fundraiser—the test before the test. Major donors are not going to let the 2024 primaries devolve into a scrum. And that is where the long list of wannabes will have to run on a track of high hurdles. All but Trump and DeSantis and perhaps one other will need to win the fundraising primary which is well underway.

There is a relatively long list of Governors and former Governors who populate the potential candidate list, including Maryland’s Larry Hogan. There are some impressive persons on the list but with one exception they seem for various reasons to be long shots.

Virginia’s Governor, Glen Youngkin, is the exception. Finity.Com estimates his net worth at $470 million and reports that he spent $12 million of his own money in the 2021 Gubernatorial campaign. If Youngkin decides to run he will have bonus chips. He arguably has an additional advantage—a record on cultural issues that are roiling America.

The countdown has begun and will both more clearly define the GOP while sorting out it’s pretenders and contenders. One other thought: all of us should lower the rhetorical heat register; in a democracy discussing politics is essential.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Yes, I know the headline is oft repeated. Perhaps it is because it captures a bit of wisdom. But, let me go from the personal to the public — America’s taxpayers. Plus, we should include those persons who depend on a wide range of government payments.

Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives in November. Their thin majority and disputatious Members have been the focus of much reporting about the resulting divided government. Let me suggest that is keeping our collective eye on the halftime entertainment, not the game. And, in politics the cleverest politicians are good at turning ball games into shell games.

The ball, or pea under the shell, is in the House of Representatives and it is public finance, specifically spending. The House, and only the House, can originate revenue bills and one area of universal agreement is that we are spending more than our will to generate offsetting tax revenue. And we are now just past the eve of a $2 trillion spending gusher legislated last year.

President Biden has said he will not negotiate spending bills in the context of setting a debt ceiling. Without a new and much increased debt ceiling our government will be unable to pay all of its obligations. That outcome of course is not acceptable, thus both high and low drama.

Now I could get into the arcana but readers would quickly skip ahead to whatever is next. So let me simply say that the media should sharpen its focus on the deepening debt and how/when it will be resolved. The Congressional Budget Office has a relatively good reputation; they should be the scorekeeper.

It is easy to shine a spotlight on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz; they are buffoons and worse but as we all know the government is a three-ring circus and if the principal spotlight is on several clowns in one branch the intricacy of the acrobatic acts is missing.

Discretionary spending in the 2022 budget was $131.8 billion and 5% of that is $6.6 billion. That would be my targeted reduction in spending and it should be evenly spread across the entire spectrum of discretionary spending. Inevitably it will be said by those who advocate the status quo or budget growth that 5% is too deep a cut in particular programs. The advocates should introduce specific bills for increases in discrete programs and those should be voted on one at a time.

And remember that in 2022 mandatory spending was $1.5 trillion. The House majority should project within a given number of years a balanced budget including both discretionary and mandatory spending. And if cuts and GDP growth cannot balance our accounts over a reasonable period of time, then further cost reductions and/or tax increases should become a part of the budget.

I repeat: the ultimate problem is we are spending more than we are willing to underwrite with revenue bills. President Biden can see his legacy as programs but it is also about spending. If his legacy includes irreparable damage to the dollar’s value and our international credit worthiness, history will pair him with Herbert Hoover.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

We, humanity, are surrounded. Surrounded by a clash of Worldviews whose proponents insist on victory. Attack!

As laws against have receded, morality has given way to ethics shaped and reshaped by the culture. Humans leading humans. And talk of transcendence, or transcendent values, recede as those who wear religious adornments too often compete rather than teaching and animating love, God’s gift— “love thy neighbor.”

One of the analytical tools of decades lived is comparative analysis. We have been paying attention as things our parents warned us against became not just acceptable, but often promoted by governments. 

As government’s appetite for money pulled, situational ethics pushed. Somewhere along the way we concluded that people’s appetites should not be restricted even if they hurt others. This new culture lacked a North Star. Or maybe it had one—the dollar or euro or yen or whatever.

The House always wins in gambling and predictably its promotion is now in our face.  Ad agencies, appetite-makers and amplifiers, serve up gambling, sex and drinking in alluring audio and video invitations.

And drugs? Marijuana and more are being branded as recreational. Huh? Kudos to the brand managers and lobbyists who hornswoggled lawmakers. Although maybe in decades to come as the human losses pile up, “recreational drugs” will fall under the reality that turned tobacco from cool to toxic. 

As dollar ethics ascended, sports took over Sunday. When I was a kid, I played basketball in a church league and we didn’t play on Sunday morning. 

So let me take you way back. When Marty and I were married church sanctuaries and basements were often paired for the ceremony and the reception to follow. Now, for many, destination weddings search out exotic locations.

And when we got married, we said, surrounded by symbols of divinity: “in the name of God”, and ended with, “until death do us part.” Since death to many is an unfathomable distance away, many of the betrothed mouth the words and then move on. And I say this knowing that moving on from a failed marriage is often a regrettable imperative.

As what much of mankind thought of as moral imperatives became less influential in governance, venues of worship with their transcendent messages were also declining. Two-parent families were on the same trajectory. 

In The Godfather, part one, Vito Corleone wanted to keep his family out of the drug smuggling business. The drug smuggling families prevailed and the Godfather was dispatched.

Many who prefer restraint to accompany freedom have become defensive and aggressively so. Predictably they are targets of parody across culturally defining media. Reverence replaced by irreverence, laughs followed. Laughs are not always free.

As the more traditional religious strength waned, a new generation of leaders emerged. And many decided that progress required political activism. I guess they decided that nurturing souls and animating love was not challenging enough. But turning to the transcendent source I know best, Jesus’ was explicit: leave Rome to Caesar. As one theologian put it “love is the home of God.” It’s definitely not the home of politics.

As biblical literacy and authority declined, the libertine unrestrained by convention or morality, often shaped the philosophy that replaced it. And often that philosophy was simply a business model.

And ethnic differences are now increasingly used as political weapons. The world, many argue, must be seen through a racial prism.  You are white and privileged (regardless of your circumstances). You are a person of color and therefore blocked from experiencing your full potential. Both constructs are right and wrong, but in a world of situational ethics animated by politics, who cares?  If it serves the political agenda, don’t equivocate; simply repeat the proposition often and loudly.

An ambitious narrative on cultural cleavages would require a book and risk unwittingly stepping in a few deep and pitted holes. So let me end with this thought; as societal noise clouds the mind: “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” I borrowed this from the gospel writer Matthew who recorded Jesus, in the technology of the day; many have voiced this aphorism, but at a time of rampant hypocrisy I opted for a transcendent source.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Reality: most people are too busy living their life—working, parenting, romancing, or whatever, to do much more than surf political news. Until faced with voting, most surfing is done with a limited horizon while too often the news media is focusing on dissipating waves that at a distance seem large.

Donald Trump’s reelection bid is one of those. Who knew that he would announce and then hole up in Mar De Lago. Or, what about George Santos the newly elected Congressman from Long Island, New York who is the Bernie Madoff of politics?

And then weary after a long day you pick up the phone and a pollster starts asking questions as if you are paying attention. And in the world of surfing the story about the polling results is a barely noticeable wave. After all every third wave seems to be another poll.

Another reality: the majority of Republicans in the leadership ranks of the Party have no idea what the Party is for. All they know is what it is against and that distills into three words: Woke Progressive Democrats.

Senator Rick Scott, then the US Senator with a title—Chairman National Republican Senatorial Committee—that inferred he should know what the Party stood for tried to spell it out in a 12-point plan for the midterm campaign. The position paper arrived on fire.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lit the match. The plan included a call for every able-bodied person to pay some federal income tax so they have “skin in the game.” McConnell quickly said he was against any tax increase, which led Scott to pen an Op-Ed which the Wall Street Journal carried:

“I’ve been told there are unwritten rules in Washington about what you can and cannot say. You can’t tell the public that Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. You can’t talk about term limits, because, while voters want them, nobody in Washington does. You can’t talk about balancing the budget or shrinking the debt.”

But then Democrats and especially those who are rightly branded as Woke Progressives are the gift that keeps on giving. They are too often attack worthy. Ruy Teixeira who writes and edits a weblog, The Democratic Strategist wrote about his Party: “They apparently think the legislation they are focusing on, plus the association of the GOP with unpopular Trumpian antics, will function as a get-out-of-jail-free card with the electorate, and that their cultural problem can be safely ignored………. Culture matters and the issues to which they are connected matter. They are a hugely important part of how voters assess who is on their side and who is not; whose philosophy they can identify with and whose they can’t. Instead, for working-class voters to seriously consider their economic pitch, Democrats need to convince them that they are not looked down on, that their concerns are taken seriously and that their views on culturally freighted issues will not be summarily dismissed as unenlightened. With today’s party, unfortunately, this will be difficult.”

For example, all but three Democrats voted against a bill to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion. Allowing a child to die? Identity politics? This time with radical feminists writing the script, leaves “working-class” and many more voters outraged.

Turning back to the Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal asked in an editorial: “What is wrong with Mitch Daniels”; Daniels, the recently retired President of Purdue University, who had earlier been an admired Governor of Indiana is apparently considering a run for a US Senate seat. The editorial noted that “Last week the Club for Growth released an ad preemptively attacking Mr. Daniels as “not the right guy for Indiana………. 50 years in Big Government, Big Pharma and Big Academia, Mitch Daniels forgot how to fight,” the 60 second spot says.

The editorial noted that conservative groups attacking leaders like Mitch Daniels are the “new establishment”. Count me a revolutionary.

One problem the Republican Party has is that when criticism is always the lead then at any given moment the Party is defined by its most vocal critics. And that begins with Donald Trump. Plus, there is a small band of Republican House Members who parrot him on a day-to-day basis. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, raced around the House Chambers during the final stages of Speaker selection with an incoming call from Trump.

The Party’s founder Abraham Lincoln understood the folly of harsh attacks noting, “I destroyed my enemy when I made them my friends.” Trump and his acolytes provide their enemies with kindling.

Positions on issues matter, but so do the characteristics of political leaders. Persons of good character will try to find truth. History matters. Research matters. Quick and intuitive minds matter. The world is complicated. Leading requires not just optimal methods of inquiry and decision-making, but selling and negotiating and reaching decisions that can move through the Congress.

Ronald Reagan was reelected in 1984 winning 525 electoral votes and 58.8 percent of the popular vote. He had plenty of critics and the Congressional House was controlled by the Democrats led by Tip O’Neill. Yet he didn’t face the other side as implacable enemies. His winsome approach might be said to be antique, but approaching people as potential allies is superior, disarming.

America’s founders enjoyed rare insights into human nature. The insights resulted in a Republic with interlocking and at times competitive checks and balances. And the early leaders of first a rebellion of colonies and then stitching together a Republic were prepared to lose; even die for their cause. Now back to the present.

If a candidate approached me for more than just money, miraculously, I would ask at least these questions. If you don’t like what is happening on the Southern Border what would you do? If spending is out of control, what would you cease spending on? If you don’t like our support for Ukraine, how would you re-shape our response to Russia? And how should we reorganize the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in its public health role? And for Republicans, which of your Party’s leadership principles do you apply to George Santos?

I still recall vividly the aftermath of 9/11 in a midtown Manhattan church as we all, Christians, Jews and Muslims, locked arms and voices and sung of unity. I would like to see political leaders in 2023 reflect an understanding of that moment.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

This is a rehearsal—perhaps I should become a movie reviewer. But then I would have to watch a lot of bad movies, so let me move on to a remarkable one I saw last week.

The movie is Banshees of Inisherin. And my take on the movie is partly bound by story and in part reflective of its allegorical dimension. “Pilgrim’s Progress” was said to be “an allegory of the spiritual journey.” Banshees is an allegory of the male spirit defying reason under the watchful eye of nature. And, to be clear, I am talking about male pride.

First, I had no trouble suspending disbelief; Banshees is not an otherworldly romp. It is an interesting story with compelling over- and under-tones. Banshees unfolds deliberately, but never loses its magnetism as the Irish coastline setting flirts with our mind.

Humanity or the lack of it is the central theme and the setting is a remote and sparsely populated island off the coast of Ireland. Two friends, where the potential for friendship is severely limited, are torn apart by ambition. One, played by Brendan Gleeson, Colm, has ambitions well beyond the daily pint in the pub with an amiable but dull character, Padraic, played by Colin Ferrell.

Supporting roles include Kerry Condon, the sister of Padraic, and David Pearse, as the priest in the local Catholic Church (is it possible to have a movie based in Ireland without a Priest?). As village gossip makes it into the Confessional, the Priest yields his claim to divinity.

Now I could go on and detail what most reviewers called dark humor. But I have no desire to issue a spoiler alert and then attempt to summarize the 114-minute film. Written and directed masterfully by Martin McDonagh, I’ll let him tell the story.

It can be found on HBO Max among other streaming services.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.