Is It Possible To Change The Political Equation? By Al Sikes

Top down is damnably difficult. Very few organizations of any size begin with a founder pronouncing an intent to build a national or global organization to do whatever and succeed. Most successful founders begin with an idea, a realistic ambition and incrementally prove the value of the idea operationally. The operational phase is crucial as the old adage “ideas are a dime a dozen” is true.

In the commercial world, for example, take Amazon and Apple. The ambitions of both founders were audacious, but they had to raise immense amounts of capital and battle large, deeply embedded incumbent companies to grow and succeed. The incumbent’s flaws — corporate complacency and a failure to understand the power of new media.

Political challenges are both easier and more difficult. The short life of No Labels is instructive. It intended to mount a third Party to challenge the political duopoly (Democrat and Republican Parties). No Labels did not begin with a galvanizing issue; mostly organizational issues do not stir the emotions. Second, there was not a leader whose energy and persuasiveness could animate the shell of a movement. Basically, the organization was led by former leaders who lacked insights into the challenges of political entrepreneurship.

The last successful political start up was the Republican Party in 1854. The Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whig Party. Its galvanizing issue: slavery. Its ultimate leader: Abraham Lincoln.

The first Republican was elected in 1854 after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that opened the two States to slavery. He was Kingsley Bingham elected Governor of Michigan. Bingham strongly opposed the expansion of slavery—the galvanizing issue.

Reverting back briefly to business, Amazon and Apple’s directions were indeed galvanizing. Looking back from today their successes are extraordinary. And in the case of Amazon it was started by a financial guy, Jeff Bezos, while Apple was led by Steve Jobs whose principal post- secondary education was in graphic arts. Both were driven and in for the long term. Election cycles didn’t constrain their vision or drive.

Which of the No Labels leaders were of a similar profile—relatively young and fired with the passion of a true believer? Can you even turn moderation, their stated political aim, into a real political movement?

Is there a galvanizing political issue not covered by the duopoly? I would argue there is, but that a much better job must be done in persuading voters that the issue should be a major influence on their political preferences. The issue: our national debt and its trajectory. Or, the radical misalignment of promises, their future costs and our expectations. The person or persons who will lead on this issue will need to convince the electorate that debt financing will not be perpetually available at sustainable rates.

But, if this issue is the spark, it will have to be humanized. Human loss abounds in nations that do not have our seemingly unlimited credit card. So, human misery is not hard to find, but convincing voters that at some point the credit window for US debt will close or be priced out of our reach will be more difficult. But consider, the annual cost of servicing our national debt crossed the $1 trillion dollar line in 2023.

I am going to move on as getting into the weeds on fiscal matters causes eyes to glaze over rather quickly. But, if we are unable to constrain our appetites and/or pay for them, the world’s most successful democracy will fail.

Let me close by looking ahead to 2026. Nikki Haley, the only candidate outside the co-dependency of President Biden and former President Trump, to gain traction, at times campaigned on our country’s enormous fiscal deficit. She even advocated increasing the retirement age for future entitlement recipients while protecting all those 40 years of age or over. She also referred to the need for an accountant in the White House. She is one.

The next election in her home state of South Carolina for the US Senate is in 2026—Senator Lindsay Graham’s seat is up. Rather than gearing up for the 2028 presidential election, I would suggest she run against Graham and run as the leader of a new Party emphasizing the need for fiscal leadership in Washington and a companion imperative: putting the bite back into casting a ballot.

On what I will call the bite imperative consider: the two established Parties have been taken over by an enormous amount of cash being given to the duopoly candidates. Power flowing to power. The Cook Political Report estimates that there are only thirty-eight highly competitive Congressional districts in which neither Party has a clear advantage. Thirty-eight out of four hundred and thirty-five Members. Members of Congress specialize in cashography (a toxic mix of money and contorted Congressional district lines).

Haley, as a former South Carolina governor, should have no problem meeting the new Party formation requirements in her State. Plus, emotionally and statistically, it is easy to make the case that the established Parties special interests will preclude their leadership on this generational issue. There is not a tax break, subsidy or appropriation without an organized constituency to protect it.

If Haley succeeds in 2026, she has a new beginning and the nation, potentially, has a new and energized political Party. Importantly one that will draw on political ambitions in state after state until it is truly a national Party. And I would add, founding a new national Party would earn more than a historical footnote.

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.