Repetition is not my favorite activity. But, like all of humanity I have my habits. They revolve around the physical—eating, bathing, sleeping and the like. When it comes to the mind and its variable emotions and reason, repetition is something I mostly avoid. 

I read that many have watched The Godfather dozens of times. I have watched it once. Variations on The Godfather’s themes saturate movies and television. None are as well done, but I digress. My tendency with much of what is dramatized is to pause, enjoy and then move on.

Yet, I have always had an unquenchable interest in God—yes, the upper-case one. My interest in God is in part due to my knowledge of gods and the inescapable struggles we all have. The gods of temptations are especially challenging and too often degrading. Our underlying weaknesses need an upper-case god; of that, I am sure. 

An especially interesting feature of God or the possibility of God is mystery. Good mystery writers have trouble avoiding formula and after a couple of books by the same author the protagonist becomes predictable. But, for me, I do find authors who engage and probe the mystery of life an unyielding attraction.

Curiosity about God and necessary mysteries are limitless subjects. And, infinitely important. Take The Trinity, for example. It is a central tenet of the Christian faith. At its most basic it is a belief in derivatives—that is there is a God and He chose to communicate with us through a sentient being, Jesus Christ, and a perpetual presence, the spirit or what credal readings call the “Holy Spirit”. 

At the risk of becoming too personal and to some, opaque, I know there is a spiritual influence in my life. As my mind spins, the rotation and direction draw energy from forces easily and not so easily understood.  Somewhere, deeply embedded in the operating system (OS) of my mind is a voice that influences and certainly transcends the OS.

The room in which I write surrounds me with pictures and various artifacts from a long life. As I look out the window, for me a necessary diversion, I can identify most of the plants and birds. What I struggle to pin down is what believers, indeed most of us, think of as the spiritual dimension. And I am not thinking about the occult.

My sense of order tells me I should now consult a dictionary and give you a well-ordered definition of spirit. I have chosen not to do that; I know that a dictionary definition will strive to cage the uncageable.

So let me turn to a vivid experience in my own life. Every person comes to the same end—death. It is often preceded by weeks or months of anticipation. Impending death occupies the deepest interiors of our mind and is unrelenting. My bout with cancer was instructive.

Society seeks to find institutional responses. Hospice, for example. And increasingly laws are being re-shaped to allow euthanasia—presumably a shortening of agony. 

My Dad opted for neither—he chose what I think of as the spiritual option. Dad was not an overtly religious person; his interior life was quiet and in his final chapter I learned of its depth. I recall vividly a scene in a small room just off Mom and Dad’s bedroom. His friend and pastor and me talking about what comes next and then Dad’s surprising request that we hold hands and pray.

Final chapters are deeply personal. And, of course, a spiritual presence is not a pharmaceutical. Yet, we cannot help but celebrate the spirit as we talk about the spirit of Thanksgiving and Christmas.

So, there you have it. I could riff on expressions of faith and maybe I will at another time. But beyond the urgings of biblical history and its many interpreters (theologians) for me engagement with the spiritual is the enduring and essential mystery. It is there, but what is it? What is its source? What does it urge? How should I respond?

We humans have a need to sort things out. But, how do we categorize what we can’t see or reach out and grab? Or, using analytical methods, conclude? The next time you are in a bookstore (physical or virtual) search out those who help us puzzle through the mystery of the transcendent—the spiritual dimension. It is enduringly interesting and infinitely important.

Happy Thanksgiving!

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. 

  

Joking with my wife on election day I reflected on the nagging pull of politics past. Me: “I can’t help it, there is an ambient anxiousness in the air.”

Dating back five decades I seriously considered running for Congress. But, having friends who had won elections I was not naïve about the downside. I didn’t run.

So let me shift quickly from stage right to stage left—from the 1970s to November 8, 2022. 

In the Republican party, the one I know best, as election returns were coming in words were spilling out of the mouths of pollsters and operatives about the guys in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and the gal in Arizona, Kari Lake.

Ms. Lake, the Republican candidate for Governor in Arizona, animating politics by subtraction, at a campaign rally called out those who had previously voted for John McCain telling them to “get the hell out.”

Ms. Lake is not alone. There are a lot of politicians who are smoking their own dope—confusing reality with dark wishes.

Going back to stage right, if politics in the 70s had been anything like today I wouldn’t have considered a run. I tell this story hesitatingly as I don’t like to use myself as a baseline for anything. But, having known some quite gifted public leaders, I can think of a number who did run but today would have kept their filing fee in the bank.

The media, always looking for the next evocative story, have now turned to what Donald Trump will or won’t do. To me that is a secondary question. We need to give more thought to people who will not even consider running because of the poisonous nature of today’s politics. Voters can only choose from those on the ballot.

But back to the emerging presidential contest. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, had a big win on Tuesday. He got just under 60% of the vote in a State that is as diversified demographically as any in the nation. Predictably Trump, two days before the election, called him Ron DeSanctimonious and then on election day shot the following across his bow: “If he runs, he runs,” and “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.” A lack of self-awareness blinds Trump to the fact that he was able to overcome an encyclopedia of unflattering conduct.

It is, of course, impossible to know how many principled people decided not to run for office as politics became increasingly a ravenous blood sport. Just think, you are now considering a run reflecting on that oft-quoted aphorism, “Lies travel around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  

While many right of center pundits are saying Trump’s sun is setting, the most insightful ones know Trump is not going away and that he will continue to influence and inflame quite a few Republican voters. If the spotlight is not on him, he will find it.

So, today the soothsayers would subtract names like Governors Larry Hogan, Glen Youngkin and Chris Sununu from the prospect list because they don’t get along with Trump. I use Governors illustratively because many have leadership chops—they know how to optimize resources. 

My thoughts now veer from politics to boxing—a true blood sport. Governor DeSantis is also a pugilist. Go with me back to the halcyon moment in boxing. 

In early 1971, Sports Illustrated’s Mark Kram penned these lines to characterize the pending fight between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier: “The thrust of this fight on the public consciousness is incalculable. It has been a ceaseless whir that seems to have grown in decibel with each new soliloquy by Ali, with each dead calm promise by Frazier…. It has cut deep into the thicket of our national attitudes, and it is a conversational imperative everywhere.” 

I saw the fight on closed circuit TV in St. Louis. Wikipedia reports that Frank Sinatra could not get a ticket to the fight staged in New York’s Madison Square Garden, so he got a press pass and shot photographs for Life magazine. 

Frazier won the fight. DeSantis reminds me of Frazier. He is tenacious. If they pair off, Trump will need to keep his left hook in the front of his mind.

In the larger scheme of things, the 2024 elections will be day after tomorrow. The world’s speed has accelerated. Networks buzz 24 hours a day. There is a lot of time and not much time. Apparently, Trump will announce his intentions on Tuesday. But, unlike the legendary boxing match most don’t care what Trump does because his talent in the ring has been revealed: weak.

In the 1970s most betting was done in back rooms. Now it seems to be everywhere. Trump’s candidacy will be treated like a boxer with a big fight coming up. The handicappers will set the odds. On my card neither the former or current President will be in the ring in 2024. It might be DeSantis, but not necessarily.

The bigger loss is that ballot after ballot will not feature gifted leaders because blood sports are not in their blood. 

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. 

 

“Where is Nancy?” In Nancy Pelosi’s absence her husband Paul is hammered—skull fractured. Deranged actions are attaching to our culture—alien but present. Sort of, “my neighbor is my enemy”. But not exactly.

I would guess that few neighbors are attacked by neighbors because when neighbors are neighborly then they know that political opinions are simply one dimension of a complicated life. When we get to know our neighbors, we understand that they too face each day a swirl of pressures and emotions. Family disappointments. Illness. Financial pressures. The wealthy are not left alone; tabloids have a field day with their insecurities, divorces and overdoses.

Too frequently the various communication networks we use separate us; the “other” becomes just an abstraction. Or, the caricature of somebody to be avoided, maybe even hated. Too often we seek out confirmation bias as we narrow our friends (neighbors) to the agreeable. We should keep in mind what is going on in the background. There are business models that rely on provocation and Russia and others that rely on manipulation.

Speech, freedom of, is not a 21st Century legislative act; it became a part of our Constitution in the 18th Century. Time and distance and smaller populations were probably helpful. Speech was often pamphlets and political speech was often delivered before a heterogenous audience. One of the greatest, Abraham Lincoln, debated Stephen Douglas in seven different debates lasting over two hours apiece reaching an estimated 20,000 people.

Today speech is often clipped, provocative sound bites, and instantly networked and to get above the noise it is not infrequently framed by incendiary rhetoric. At times it recalls the seminal judicial commentary about “yelling fire in a crowded theater”—a paraphrase of words written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a Supreme Court decision. Holmes used prohibited speech (yelling fire in a packed room) to broadly state his support protecting almost all speech from censorship. The former conservative Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, recognized burning the American flag as free speech.

So where is the “fire line”? Which side of the line is the Former President on? Or, what about Elon Musk?

Musk, the brilliant and disputatious entrepreneur, has added volatility to the subject. He just bought Twitter which is said by some to be an electronic “town hall”. What should Twitter’s content censorship look like? Who should be responsible? Musk has become a focal point of controversy because he has criticized Twitter’s content moderation. Now it is his problem—he is the sole shareholder. 

Musk has undoubtedly benefited in his electric vehicle and space businesses from the work of brilliant engineers. He now needs the aid of wise persons who understand public affairs but are not conflicted. Of course, the question is where you go to find them and can contrarian Musk find anybody to whom he is prepared to delegate responsibility? In the meantime, attacking Musk and now Twitter are largely talking points on the Left of the political spectrum.

Please take another look at the visual which accompanies this commentary. It recalls the world as it was. The visual, sent to me by a friend, Richard Marks, is important because it takes us deeper into a subject often discussed at the visceral level. As Marshall Mcluhan noted, “the message is the medium”. The medium, newspapers, were thought to be weighty and while all were afflicted by human flaws the best strived to follow a code of journalistic ethics. 

Most of us can easily relate to a time when almost everybody read the day’s paper and therefore shared, at least in part, a similar context as the day began. Now, too often, incendiary words are yelled in a fractious culture. And, if you get most of your news in a Left or Right echo chamber you will begin to see the “other” as somehow not fully human.

I wish it was possible to go back to the time when the context of America was more widely shared. But, the absence of disagreement has a central source: tyranny. Take a look at China and its Covid lockdown and be happy that in our Republic the government didn’t always get Covid policy right and we were allowed to disagree, even defy.

As to violent actions (and sometimes rhetoric) they are both over the “fire line”. The post-January 6th prosecutions and convictions clearly draw that line and cavalier dismissals of such crime are invitational and certainly not to a Party I want to have anything to do with.

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. 

 

Riveting, yes riveting. A baseball game during which I enjoyed watching the crowd as the camera captured those fortunate enough to be sitting just behind home plate. They were all watching each pitch and reacting. Some joined others in clapping to urge the pitcher on. Each pitch was suspenseful because the ultimate bragging rights were on the line.

I watch some St Louis Cardinal games during the regular season while fast forwarding through commercials. It was the team of my youth. Mostly the fans sitting behind home plate are talking, looking at their phones, eating and the like. Some are paying attention, but to suggest they are riveted would be fantasy.

It is said that given an amped up popular culture baseball is on the wrong side of the curve and baseball executives know how a good curveball makes even good hitters look foolish. When you have bought whatever team for a billion dollars or more being on the wrong side of the curve, well that warrants some batting practice and perhaps a change in your stance.

So, baseball executives are talking about a pitch clock to speed up the game. Good idea. And some kind of limit on defensive shifts. But let me get to my thought and not drag you through the details.

I love the NCAA basketball “one and done” tournament. Every game is win or go home. Suspense is the ambient emotion. And, at least theoretically, each play in a football game can be a game changer.

Baseball on the other hand is a game of intricacies and devoted fans talk about arm angles and why electronic pitch box computers and screens should be further used as robotic umpires. Warning: some of the umpires are more colorful than most of the players, but I digress.

Those with the power to make changes face a sport with a storied history, immortalized with team and player statistics. Be careful around the immortal. I am sure there are, in these meetings, purists who worry about going too far. There should be.

From my vantage point I would concentrate on one word, suspense. What changes are going to make each pitch more suspenseful not just more hurried by a pitch clock? 

My modest (although somewhat radical) suggestion is that the season be divided into say four 40 game tournaments with the fourth one, the end of the season playoffs, capped off with the World Series. 

The teams with the best records in the three tournaments would be rewarded with preferred positioning and more home games in the ultimate one. In short, there would be real advantages to winning from the first to the last game. Every game should be more interesting than what you might find on your smartphone. 

Regardless, I look forward to “play ball” next April. 

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 is distinctive—successfully so—because we, or at least most of us, are not limited by where we came from. We are willing to look for new ways because America is, in the unfolding of history, a new way. We have a foundation, but above it, when we are successful, there is a dynamic core.

We moved around. After all our family name began elsewhere and we or our ancestors, often at great risk, crossed an ocean to get here. Or, maybe walked hundreds or thousands of miles to our southern border.

But politics—the way we choose leaders—more often than not now features verbal duels. It is our way or nothing—I win, you lose. And too often it works—it has worked to a degree for Ted Cruz, a Republican and Bernie Sanders, a Democrat.

Now at the Midterm of our voting cycle, I would argue that elected leaders whose temperament pushes them to reach for the verbal gun should rejoin the workforce where they will find little tolerance for yelling insults. Political parties controlled by rigid ideological bases do not compose listenable music. Iran’s mullahs are not having any fun these days.

A retrospective on near history shows a rising safety net or an economic floor if you prefer. But it also demonstrates how difficult it is to reengineer human nature. Personal attributes cannot be legislated—they are the product of fully engaged parents and schools. And elementary and secondary education is the only government program that can interrupt inter-generational poverty.

One way to look at Midterm elections is that they are moderating events. Presidents pushed too far by their own ambitions, or Party’s base, go too far and then two years in the voters push back. Life demands adjustments. Bothersome facts intrude. Hopeful relationships sour. Unexpected job losses occur. Interest rates upend consumer economics. 

Politics is complicated and if our emotions degrade it, we can be assured that prospective leaders will choose not to run. Being hopeful is a good thing. Naivety is not. When it comes to politics read, listen, process and vote. Pushing back is all we have.

Can a True Independent Win?

Is it possible for a true Independent to be elected to the United States Senate—one that will not caucus with either Party? The ultimate swing vote, the one the Party whips cannot control.

 In Utah polls show an Independent who has refused to accept special interest money is running a close race against the incumbent Republican, Mike Lee. The default opinion is that a Republican incumbent in a Red state wins.

The candidate is Evan McMullin. McMullin left the Republican Party after Donald Trump was elected and became a vocal critic of Trump and endorsed President Biden in the general election. He has also been involved in early discussions about forming a new center-right political party.

Readers of my columns know that I favor lower hurdles for the emergence of a new political party. I am delighted by the possibility of McMullin’s election. In business when new companies take on established ones, their success is measured incrementally. Politics, however, produces winners and losers and the winner has to have a majority or a large plurality of the vote.  If McMullin wins, he will become a case study in a third way and an encouraging one. 

Ukraine: Weakness of Strength?

There is an emergent coalition of cynics and short-termers on the Right and Left who want to weaken our support of Ukraine. While these uncommon allies have different motivations, if their attitudes become more popular, America’s global strength will be weakened.

Real strength in global politics requires a high level of unity. Putin’s assault on Ukraine would not have occurred if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had exhibited unrelenting strength. NATO’s evolving weakness, following the end of the Cold War, was an invitation to Vladimir Putin. 

Regardless of whether we like this or that political party, successful global politics requires a high degree of bipartisanship. History writes the narratives—principled strength wins, irresolution is a loser.

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. 

How Much Land Does a Man Need is a short story written by Leo Tolstoy. The story’s protagonist, an ambitious peasant farmer named Pahom, is told he can have, without cost, all the land he can walk around in a day. The day is to end with the setting sun. 

As the storied walk around the property unfolds, Pahom lingers briefly at the topographical turns. Should he try to go still further or make the turn which will bring him comfortably back to the start well before the sun sets? 

Tempted by still more land, he keeps enlarging the boundaries and eventually struggles to beat the setting sun. In the end, exhausted from the run he drops dead.  His servant buries him in an ordinary grave only six feet long, thus answering the question posed in the title of the story. 

Boundaries, always an important question? Most importantly, as the November 8th election for the Talbot County Council approaches, what should the boundaries be in this sublime place we call home?

Council candidates on the November 8th ballot are being asked how they see our home. The question is wrapped up in a bureaucratic phrase called “land use.” The animating context is the Trappe development called Lakeside where a developer has plans for 2,500 homes.

In the final analysis, for us, this is a question about the soul or, if you prefer, the character of our county. But, for the home developer it is a question of scale. How many homes can I build on a plot of land? 

Developer’s fixed costs (principally land acquisition, infrastructure development, professional fees) are recovered in the initial sale of lots and houses and then profit margins jump with each additional sale. The more homes the bigger the profits.

Companies that build housing developments do not build the roads that lead there nor the public utilities that must serve the homeowners. And then as the population grows, they don’t have to pay for added students in public schools, frontline workers, and the like. Governments too have fixed costs and tax revenue pay them.

The character of a town does not show up on a financial statement. Wooded acres turned into asphalt and buildings. Rivers and Bays often the last stage in waste treatment. Welcoming neighbors, becoming more cautious. Sirens more frequent. Intersections clogged. Swimming holes closed.

This year, starting with an Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC) meeting between candidates for the Talbot County Council and persons involved in land use management, more attention is being focused on the health of our county. And kudos to Dan Watson who set up an organization called Talbot Integrity Project (TIP).

TIP created a bipartisan citizen panel; they asked each candidate about their perspective on growth. The panel recommended that voters select five of seven candidates, the candidates are Pete Lesher, Michelle Dappert, Keasha Haythe, Phil Jackson, Scott Kane, Lynn Mielke and David Montgomery. Additionally, David Montgomery has released a comprehensive review of issues that face the next Council—it is a revealing read.

Some will contend that the issue of “how much is too much” is a political issue to be handled by one of the two political parties. I think of it as our problem to be resolved by persons who understand and revere the character of our home. Persons who, unlike Pahom in How Much Land Does a Man Need, understand when too far is too far.

Our identity is fused with where we live. We, all of us, know about our liquid assets: the Choptank, Miles, Wye and Tred Avon rivers and their tributaries. Well, they are on the ballot because they are a critical part of our nature, not just nature.

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. 

 

A small act indeed; infinitesimally small. But it does provide context for my thoughts. 

Fiction is now behind me. My attitude and political preference are now the same—Independent.

In the beginning my Mom prevailed. Her ancestors had been Lincoln Republicans and she passed it down. And then friends turned into colleagues who introduced me to new friends who turned out to be reform Republicans.

I ended up serving in both President Reagan’s and George HW Bush’s administrations. So, when faced with an unacceptable Republican candidate for President in both 2016 and 2020, I filled in my ballot with Republicans I admired. Several of my Republican friends chose to lecture me.

Remaining attentive to possibilities, I remained hopeful. But hope will only take me so far; reality intrudes and today’s reality is jarring. You are for Trump or you are a RINO (Republican in name only); well, if I am a Republican in name only, adios. I leave with this thought, politics by subtraction does not work unless it is toxic elements that are subtracted to broaden the appeal. Perhaps the former President in his frequent references to RINOs should define the quid pro quo. 

I have joined 762,594 other Marylanders who identify as Independents. We, by law, are told to join a Party or shut up— “our primaries are closed”. Given this exclusion you would think fewer Marylanders would be Independents. But, given the state of our two political parties, I’m not surprised.

Decades after choosing my Mom’s way I look at the two Parties and know that on many of the most consequential issues neither represent me. The blinkered choice we all face is a consequence of control by what are said to be the base constituents of the Parties. The two Parties, like the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), work to control the market.

Okay, I know. Comparing the two political parties to OPEC is unbalanced. OPEC only combines to influence the prices of fossil fuel products; the two political parties control the way we govern ourselves.

Increasingly both political parties practice identitarian politics. They tend to be the sum of their interest groups. The late comedian Robin Williams captured the reality: “Politicians should wear sponsor jackets like Nascar drivers, then we know who owns them.”

Since politics is often a necessary path to public leadership, character should be a first principle. Character is most often notable as something candidates declare they have. In government, character should be closely tied to truth. Hypocrisy, for example, is not admirable. Evasion, likewise—a rote recitation of talking points does not suggest a search for truth. And to leave the abstract, a $31 trillion-dollar federal debt is proof that most politicians use the public treasury as their political check book—a decided lack of private and collective character. It will take generations to retire such a debt—this is not a happy birthday legacy.

America’s strength is in choice. We don’t choose our parents but as adulthood approaches, we begin to choose the next step and the one after that and so on. Enough choose military service that conscription is not necessary. And since Americans like competition, we get to choose between sellers who compete for our business. 

Our political system should also be wide open. Our founding principle: Out of Many One. We should issue an invitation to all who want to apply their talents in our communal efforts that we call government. Let talent and attitude and persuasion separate winners and losers. In today’s political reality, financers and pollsters have more clout than voters.

Finally, back to Maryland. By my count there are 29 States with open primaries—Party affiliation not required. Within the open primary states there are differing rules—in fact in some States the top two finishers regardless of Party affiliation proceed to a run-off. My guess is that it will take a petition/referendum process to reform Maryland’s election laws as the two Parties will fight to retain their control. But, for the time being, primary election day is a day off for me.

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. 

Today’s news and 21st Century rollercoasters seem to be searching for the same thing—the scream threshold. Knowing more about the news, I congratulate the news directors—you/we have succeeded in eliciting a scream from, well almost everybody. 

Opioid addiction, fentanyl deaths, suicides, gender dystopia, educational failure, climate disasters—society seems to be on the edge. And, rebalancing life on the Sabbath is in a long-term decline. 

The thread of societal disruption has wrapped itself around our communal decisions. At the national level, most politicians seem in a brain fog; answers often parrot experts who are actually analysts trying to figure things out. The combination of disruptive elements and “black swan” events (unexpected/disruptive) present novel challenges. Political talking points say, “go big”; the lack of cogent analysis says “go small”. Take the future one step at a time: innovate, test, adapt. 

Globally, the news is double-edged. I begin with the courage of Ukrainians and, in Iran, women who have put their lives on the line. Courage to do the right thing cuts through the fog. And when the war in Ukraine is over, the communal answer will be let’s rebuild and join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Maniacs clarify—people join together to fight them. Mythologists should remove Putin from their lists.

Elsewhere, Sweden is contending with bombers, yes Sweden. According to news reports explosive devices are now paired with guns in gang related warfare.

Cross the North Sea and you will find The United Kingdom trying to reinvent itself with a new Prime Minister and King, while still sorting out post-Brexit. 

South of the British Isles, Italy has a new government—a conservative one. Many commentators are saying Italy’s turn to the Right is grounded in fascism. The Wall Street Journal interviewed some Italians after the election and one who had previously voted on the Left this time voted for Giorgia Meloni, the winning Party’s leader, noted: “She’s not a fascist. There is this terrible habit of labeling as fascist people we don’t agree with.” Pre-judgment is especially discriminatory.  Back at home my wife noted, calmly, “women are winning more and more of the top jobs.” 

My advice, we should calm down. Here are a few improvisational takes.

Inflation will, as it always does, run its course and leave behind well-worn but important lessons. Humanity and households must be prepared for downturns—they happen. The US government cannot spend billions more than it takes in without over-priming the pump. And, as interest rates rise the government’s debt will balloon; there are no rainy day reserves at the federal level.  

There are idealists/zealots of one sort or another who specialize in trying to re-engineer society. They have turned on schools with a pious assertion: “If books or professors disagree with our point of view, cancel them.” Too often schools, ostensibly the centers of learning, are so confused about their mission that they comply. Is the mission to teach or persuade?

And the zealots work is expansive. Their ambitions and conceits seek to sweep aside anything resembling tradition. My quick takes on a few of the louder movements: 

*America was built by immigrants; structure an orderly process that recognizes America’s magnetic history and embrace the migrants who pass muster. Congress’s failure on this front is decades old.

* Green house effects are provable and threatening but we should not try to save nature by redesigning it. Invest in roof-top solar to minimize covering up nature with solar panels. And, invest in nuclear generation and carbon capture.

* Be extremely careful when dealing with youth during the emotional peak in their lives. I can think of few hubristic movements that should be humbler.

* Progress. Education should be understood as the keystone in interrupting generational poverty. Education leaders should be continually innovating, testing and adapting—a monopoly system of delivering education services is not working. If this approach was embraced by conservatives, it would be said to be racist.

I cannot end without going back. Early in my career I represented indigent criminal defendants and still later, as a State Assistant Attorney General, I worked on the prosecution side of the criminal justice system. There are bad people. And, across the full spectrum of people doing their jobs there are bad employees. But, to the social engineers out there making police, prosecutors and judges scapegoats your action is akin to planting a time bomb on a crucial part of society’s foundation. 

And, when it comes to politics, bake some cookies and take them to your neighbors.

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. 

Today’s political imagination is awash in a sea of cynicism. We have a hard time even imagining a modern-day version of America’s best leaders. Any Lincolns or Eisenhowers or Roosevelts out there?

Are we at a pre-clinical stage of arsenic exposure? Or, is this just an amped-up trip along a disruptive path?

Former President Trump spends much of his time berating anybody that does not genuflect. President Biden cannot decide which narrative line serves him best. One day so-called MAGA Republicans are called Semi-Nazis and the next day we hear his unity message. The music from the titular heads of our dominant Parties is absent harmonic chords.

Stories often shape our opinions as they take us deeper into the fabric of life. Recent weeks have served up narratives of real depth and, potentially, inspiration.

We have once again honored the victims of 9/11 and reflected on the horrors and derangement of passenger planes being used to bomb office buildings. And for those of us around on that cool crisp September morn we can recall uniting. My wife and I held hands in a mid-town Manhattan church with Christians, Jews and Muslims and we all sang God Bless America.

This last week a new King ascended in the United Kingdom, but the narrative was about his mother’s life (or, in our celebrity obsessed culture, about quarreling siblings). We, in the United States, for at least a few weeks have responded as if we are in the British Commonwealth. Queen Elizabeth wore her leadership role well. She counseled discreetly, shared her wisdom privately and publicly and her timing seemed impeccable. I am not a monarchist, but at this moment I wish we had a Queen—a maternal presence—who could temper vanity.

Finally, we have seen courage and perseverance pay off in Ukraine. Regardless of how the war continues to evolve, the story of Ukraine has a depth that seven months ago seemed unimaginable. We have re-learned an enduring lesson: tyrants always go too far. Volodymyr Zelensky imagined an independent Ukraine freed from Russian occupation and Ukrainian’s responded with a powerful message—sacrificial courage. Is it possible in America for the peace we enjoy to be used “to make a more perfect union”?

How is the United States doing in this world of disruption, destruction and sacrifice? Not so good. And talk about future leadership in our ceremonial House is as unimaginative as the latest version of Star Wars.

Various commentators lament a shallow bench of prospective political leaders in both Parties.

The dominant political Parties are like Coke and Pepsi. The brand leaders dominate the cola market and one reason they dominate is that capitalists won’t invest in an alternative cola regardless of how well it did in a taste test. Coke and Pepsi have market power; they are a duopoly (a situation in which two suppliers dominate the market for a commodity or service). Innovators not welcome.

We are also governed by a duopoly, but in this case the dominate suppliers are not very popular. Rightly. We too often are left to choose between uninspiring candidates or worse. Both Parties, and the institutions of government for which their rotating leaders are responsible, are in the polling dumpster (unlike Coke and Pepsi). Do we expect the duopoly to produce a gifted leader? Is that even possible?

Common sense and experience tell us that duopoly Parties weigh against leadership. They make demands. Their special interest groups have litmus tests. Can you imagine a Republican candidate having inventive policy positions on climate change? Or, a Democrat favoring school choice in the face of the monopolistic teacher’s union? Political Parties cancel leadership.

As an Independent, the field is wide open. An Independent candidate would face, in particular, two hurdles—the lack of Party apparatus and the public’s predisposition to choose from the familiar. Offsetting these obstacles is the fact polls show self-declared Independents to be more numerous than the voters of either political party. And today’s ubiquitous networks make organization immensely easier.

The path to the White House is a long game at best. But if the game is long, why not have some fun along the way. Steve Jobs fought long odds in his desire to better IBM and Microsoft. Jobs said: “At Apple, people are putting in 18-hour days. We attract a different type of person — a person who doesn’t want to wait five or 10 years to have someone take a giant risk on him or her. Someone who really wants to get in a little over his head and make a dent in the universe.”

America needs persons who see leadership beyond the pettiness and oppressiveness of our political duopoly. Unity needs a leader who is stronger than the forces of disunity—whose trustful stories will prevail. We need new Founders with the capacity to put “a dent in the universe.” Cynics need not apply.

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.