Al Sikes

Tall Cotton by Al Sikes

January 20, 2020 by Al Sikes Leave a Comment

Is there a top? There has to be if there is an “over the top.” If there is an “over”, what is its definition? The dictionary says “excessive.”

At the risk of abstraction, let me push this inquiry a bit further.

My Dad used the phrase “tall cotton”. He meant better than should be expected, as in “son, you are in tall cotton” when I went to work in New York City. He was right.

New Yorkers are always looking for an experience that exceeds their expectations. But then how do you beat The Sound of Music on Broadway or a jazz set at the Village Vanguard featuring Wynton Marsalis? The truth is you shouldn’t expect it. Great effort, creativity and at least some luck might, just might, draw even.

The ambition to exceed is often debilitating and that is where much of the world finds itself today. In the media, which I know best, exceeding often translates to copying the original but throwing in something outrageous.

Kim Kardashian, the new Marilyn Monroe? Let’s see what iPhone number are we on? Can the Snickers bar get any longer to justify another price increase?

Marketing is awash in “over the top.” As is life; better abs, sex, looks, relationships! The travel Ads write of “unspeakable beauty” and then after hours of unnerving travel you find yourself among the hordes taking selfies to show they have been there. I take no selfies amidst unspeakable beauty or for that matter any time.

Speaking of life, is stability possible? Jobs? Relationships? Family? Books, Ads and Apps are always promising yet more excitement or satisfaction just up the road. Doesn’t seem to be working, as the real growth is about a longing that is often both desperate and elusive?

We certainly know there is growth in new diets for both ourselves and the climate. Both suffer from “over the top.” And we know there is continuing deterioration in civic cohesion and church attendance. What is the cause and effect? Do we spend enough time working toward the answer?

Sometimes when the cotton is tall it is, well, too tall—too much plant, not enough cotton. As the new decade begins, I am looking for understatement and over-delivery. I, we, will have to look hard and not get our hopes up too high. If we find that sublime moment, it is likely to be close to home and with friends and family.

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.

Harm and Probability by Al Sikes

January 13, 2020 by Al Sikes 1 Comment

Rising sea levels—resulting inundations. Extinctions—a serious blow to bio-diversity. Arctic ice melting releasing more carbon dioxide. And on and on.

It is important to keep in mind that these are not ideological theories but scientific ones supported by the analysis and trajectory of past and current data. The next time a politician minimizes the risks of climate change ask him/her whether they favor de-funding the scientific work done by the National Space and Aeronautics Administrations (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Climate change forecasts and consequences are not few in number. Yet, another kind of heat, political, often causes a quick thumbs up or down of a given study, chart or essay depending on the source. So here are readable summaries of key findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from which we all get our weather forecasts. https://www.climate.gov/climate-and-energy-topics/climate-projections-0

Devastated forests, acidic oceans, tidal inundation and, and; well I don’t want to roll the dice for my children, grandchildren and beyond. Which, of course, brings me again to the question of probability.

With apologies to the forgotten source, this analogy makes sense to me. A doctor can diagnose an illness just as NOAA can accurately predict the weather for several days. A doctor can also predict troubles ahead if his/her patient is overweight and sedentary. Global choices of production, transportation, energy use and the like have altered atmospheric gasses in perilous ways. We, yes the global we, are overweight and sedentary.

Paris Climate Agreement

So, what should we do? Here again the literature is not sparse. There is no end of scientific journals, government agency studies and the like that point to ways we can mitigate the threat. And, of course, there is the Paris Climate Agreement that points to specific targets. There must be targets and initiatives that achieve their ends. The internationally agreed upon target of limiting global temperature increase to no more than a 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit is the result of careful analysis. America should be an active member of the Convention which led to the Agreement and use its targets.

Markets

The United States knows the power of markets. There is a carbon credits market—we should be a part of it. At its simplest, carbon emitters (for simplicity sake companies) are assigned acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Companies that emit less receive credits that they can sell to companies that exceed the limit. The force of financial rewards or penalties works.

Nuclear

I am all in favor of alternative energy incentives, but to meet ambitious goals we will need to use zero-carbon emission nuclear energy. It has always been passing strange to me that America has a nuclear navy but now resists civilian nuclear power generation. Since the Navy is well organized to manage a widespread nuclear program, I would be happy to put them in charge of a civilian one, a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) if you will. TVA is the nation’s largest government-owned power provider and among other things sells electricity to local power companies.

One thing to keep in mind, the worst power plant accidents in the United States were hydroelectric ones. Climate change threats, if taken seriously, need a comprehensive response.

Transportation

Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gasses and increasingly we buy things that are brought to our houses by trucks. China is already using drones for rural delivery. We should be doing the same.

Plus, all fossil fuel subsidies should be phased out. It will need to be done over some period of time so as to not drive up fuel prices rapidly with the likelihood of severe political backlash.

These thoughts are in no way exhaustive. Progress is being made in greenhouse gas recycling and sequestration, for example. What I do know is that if incentives are created for technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, American ingenuity will find solutions and build companies that cannot be currently imagined. Related investment, business start-ups and jobs will provide a significant economic boost.

But here is my fear. We are in the middle of a political brawl. Too many Republicans dismiss science as somehow a part of the other side’s playlist. And, too many Democrats suffer from Three Mile Island syndrome, notwithstanding minimal health effects and noted precautionary improvements since the accident.

Final Thought

A friend of mine recently used the word Staycation. I asked that it be repeated. I learned that it means a stay at home vacation. Maybe we need to think more about the wonders of our own backyards and the power of we.

We is a powerful pronoun, The power of we or if you prefer, concerted action, can move mountains. We have spent much of our energy seeking to dominate nature. We need a campaign to live with it.

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.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

What Do We Comprehend? By Al Sikes

January 6, 2020 by Al Sikes Leave a Comment

One of my obligatory visits after becoming Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was to Alaskan villages that were being transformed by communications technology. I can remember going into a very remote village store and seeing videocassette movies straight from Hollywood. More than just communications was being transformed.

Alaska’s subsistence farmers and fishermen were in nature’s loop—overfish or hunt or plant and nature’s bounty will disappear. The next generation was losing its connection.

In the “lower 48”, as Alaskans say, most people lost their organic connection to nature decades ago. The intersecting lines of production, storage, transportation and distribution and their effect on nature is barely understood.

Yet, if we turn to our human-made infrastructure, the story is different. In 2018 Gallup reported that, “Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support: in addition to winning broad national support, infrastructure renewal sparked majority support from both major parties last year.”

As this political consensus translates into another trillion dollar package, can we afford to compartmentalize the importance of nature’s infrastructure? What about the disappearance of pollinators and birds? When we abolish natural settings they disappear. And what happens when the plant life which helps to balance atmospheric gasses is largely replaced by the plow, chemicals or some version of concrete or hard metals?

Ultimately, the integrity of nature is often a neighborhood question. Governments can seek to regulate, but day-to-day attitudes are extremely important. And, they ultimately translate into who we elect.

One easy attitude test is litter. Survey the rights-of-way before and after the “Do Not Litter” signs for attitude. And when you are driving or walking along streams, creeks, ditches and the like do you see tree rows? Trees are a first line defense against pollutants while providing an important CO2 sink and shade for the waterway. And, take a look at the larger water basin. Basins are plant nurseries. Do they exist or are they constrained by some form of engineered compaction?

Collectively we watched as the Cuyahoga River southeast of Cleveland actually caught fire. Yes, human actions or inactions caused water to burn. We learned causality in high school chemistry as chemical elements were altered. I recall guys loved to cause minor explosions.

If attitude and individual approaches toward how we live our lives are important, our concerted action can be pivotal.

Ducks Unlimited (DU) is a good example of neighborhood attitudes writ large. It is also proof that individuals sharing a common goal can have an enormous impact on nature.

A New York Times article in September of 2018, The Crisis for Birds Is a Crisis for Us All began its review of a comprehensive study by scientists covering the United States and Canada with this preface: “Nearly one-third of the wild birds in the United States and Canada have vanished since 1970, a staggering loss that suggests the very fabric of North America’s ecosystem is unraveling.”

The study found an important outlier: “Fortunately, it’s not all bad news. Populations of North American ducks and geese have grown by 56 percent since 1970, according to the Science paper, and this is not an accident. During the first half of the 20th century, hunters became deeply concerned about declines in duck populations every bit as severe as those we’re witnessing among common songbirds today. The United States and Canada responded with laws to protect wetlands and collaborated with Mexico to safeguard migrating waterfowl. Conservation management became increasingly driven by science. Private philanthropy, especially by Ducks Unlimited, generated significant financial support for wetlands acquisitions. Millions of additional acres of wetlands were restored and protected by the federal and state governments. The result: Waterfowl populations are booming today.”

DU has protected or restored 14 million acres of wetland. And DU Canada reports: “Canada’s wetlands store approximately 150 billion tons of carbon. That’s equivalent to the emissions of roughly six billion cars over 20 years.”

If we turn to farmland use it is now mostly under the corporate plow, owned by entities seeking to maximize return. Iowa State University Farmland Value Survey reports a 346% increase in cost per acre since 1981. It further noted that the investors “..…favor conventional agriculture—the kind that uses the agro-chemicals, mono-cropping, and extensive tilling that continue to degrade American farmland. For financial investors, commodity crops are king, and it’s hard to imagine that they will change their minds anytime soon.”

As I turn back to my own neighborhood, the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, I am encouraged by the leadership of ShoreRivers, the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage and the splendid work they are doing to restore and protect. Among other initiatives, they work with the farm community to filter runoff, create buffers and convert farmland to natural habitats.

Nature’s gifts are expressed in many ways. Poets, lyricists, and, most especially visual artists enliven our understanding and imagination. One way to appreciate nature is to understand it the way a subsistence forager in Alaska must.

After-note: It is not possible to assess the challenges to biodiversity and climate with a column or two. I have reached this point by pairing what I know through personal experience with what is projected or recommended by others. The next columns will be even more specific.

A healthy earth requires us to both comprehend our role and take action. As to comprehension, let me suggest: The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, by E.O. Wilson.

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.

Is America’s Leadership Optional? By Al Sikes

December 30, 2019 by Al Sikes Leave a Comment

We have lost confidence in ourselves as America. Our collective expression is no longer government; it is politics—often hard-edged. We are too often marginalized as a national expression by a collection of very well organized and clever single interest groups. Life is simple for them; complex for us.

John F. Kennedy’s rallying cry — “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” is only faintly remembered. President Reagan’s call for the Soviets to “tear down this wall” (separating East and West Berlin) might well apply to today’s politics.

America ended the 20th Century prosperous. We had built and built and built, but too often we had taken the path of least resistance. And then twenty-one months into the new century we were attacked.

I remember, several hours after the twin towers fell to exploding planes, walking into Mt. Sinai hospital to give blood. There were so many of us wanting to give that the only type they would take was type O negative which is universally accepted.

America then fought two wars; well a few of us did. And to fight the wars we borrowed money. America was poised to sacrifice. Our political leadership decided to delegate our response to a few brave young men and women and bankers.

America has extraordinary strength; our political leadership is weak. And nowhere is this more apparent than in our response to the environmental threat of climate change—politics has overthrown science.

In recent decades Americans have led in virtually every expression of personal industry and resolve, but have rarely come together to lead as a nation. Recall an earlier time.

On July 20, 1969, American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin became the first humans ever to land on the moon. As he took his first step, Armstrong famously said, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Armstrong’s expression became inspirational; when we faced challenges it was often said “if we can land on the moon we can ___________”.

It is increasingly clear, in small and large ways that our collective attention and strength need to focus on the space between the moon and earth – specifically the atmosphere. And, if you just dropped into this series on environmental damage, I would invite you to read the columns beginning with “The Issue of Our Times.”

To begin, America needs a President who believes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We have expended a sizable amount of our national treasure on understanding space – to reject its clear findings on climate change is, to say the least, irresponsible.

Our national leadership, understanding the enormous power of economic incentives, needs to focus a part of our capitalist mind on reducing C02 in the atmosphere. There is a coherent set of options that will in the long run strengthen us both environmentally and economically. If we lead the world, our enterprise and technology will create vast new opportunities. Efficacy of response is the overarching question; it will be determined if we can generate the same resolve that led us to the moon.

And our leadership, with the diplomatic respect demanded of international engagement, must help lead globally. I am all in favor of fair trade with China and India, but we also need to work toward environmental reciprocity. If improving the air and water and climate globally is too big a challenge for a would-be President, he or she shouldn’t occupy the White House. And, to risk the obvious, we can’t lead internationally if we don’t understand what we need to do in our backyard.

I was struck by the author, Sebastian Junger’s lament in his book, Tribe: “How do you become an adult in a society that doesn’t ask for sacrifice?” We, Americans, need to comprehend our role and lead. What we buy, what we drive, how we produce and so much more impinge on nature’s infrastructure. Tens of millions of small steps day-by-day can make an extraordinary difference.

Let me end by drawing on the universal language, music. Tempo, rhythm and harmony are essential elements. Yet, it is often said that the lyrics make the song. In truth the music and lyrics must work together. And so it is with concerted action. Are there any good songwriters working the political beat?

Even the phrase “climate change” sends a variety of verbal warriors to their respective corners. Interests and conflicts swirl, producing very disagreeable music. We need outreach. We need a leader and then leaders who can inspire while working the halls of opinion – domestically and internationally – for end results. And, we need an upbeat tempo.

Will we be called on to sacrifice? Sure. Indeed one very understandable and public test will hinge on the word sacrifice. If none is called for, the plan will not work.

Now a final word; the politics of environmental stewardship is changing. The online publication Grist reports: “A new poll suggests that Republicans and Democrats between 18 and 38 might as well be in the same party. Any red-vs-blue difference between them “virtually disappears,” according to the survey from Ipsos and Newsy.”

Before this series of columns comes to a close, I will share some thoughts about how we, on a more individual level, can do more. But, unifying leadership will be crucially important – without it the weather’s temperature will inexorably increase and the political temperature will reach boiling.

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.

Too Often, Blinded By Inertia by Al Sikes

December 23, 2019 by Al Sikes 1 Comment

Human re-shaping of our natural infrastructure has confronted us with existential issues. This column is one in a series that began with, The Issue of Our Time.

September 11, 2001, remains a searing event in my memory. My wife and I were living in Manhattan on that day and were intensely interested in investigations that followed. Who knew what? When? And, how diligent were the authorities in investigative follow-through?

An informal view that resonated with me concluded that it is hard, if not impossible; to prevent what cannot be imagined. Commandeering passenger planes and flying them into buildings seemed the stuff of movies. Intelligence officials and their elected bosses failed to process evidence of a potential attack to a timely and logical conclusion and preventive actions.

The threats as a consequence of climate change face a similar obstacle. The threat is even more troubling as the attackers are us, 7.5 billions of us. Generations of actions have created the risks; yet, we are told that society must be reordered, now!

And, we all know the overriding incentive that leads to self-denial. We continue behaviors that are proven to be harmful because they give us pleasure.

I grew up several miles from a farm my grandparents owned. I know what “hoeing cotton” means. Farmhands, using hoes, chopped the weeds that were competing with the cotton plants. As I would ride with my Grandfather to the farm, rows of workers were evident as they, to use another long gone phrase, were “chopping cotton”. Given the time and costs associated with this labor intensive effort, “poor land” was not planted.

The unplanted spaces were in tree rows with grasses and bushy plant life on either side. Today it might be called a pollinator or wildlife corridor.

What displaced these labor intensive practices in agricultural were chemicals that kill plants, generational improvements in farm machinery and government subsidies; they combined to eliminate wildlife corridors. There was certainly not a plan of action to eliminate the bees and butterflies or to release more CO2 in the atmosphere, but there was a plan of action to scale-up to maximize profit. Scaling up is capital intensive and turned into an invitation for intense commercialization. Return on investment is the dominant principle.

As the farmers, now mostly corporate, were maximizing profit, so too were the chemical and machinery industries. Reshaping nature was not explicit and that is a part of the problem—the formula: all reward no risks. Commodity production was the goal—traditional farm economics and environmental risks were overwhelmed.

Damming rivers also became an aggressive intrusion on nature’s balance during my lifetime. A cluster of special interests began an insistent campaign for more lakes. While flood control of river basins was said to be the reason, recreation was often the motivating force. My Dad’s business had several hundred square feet devoted to fishing and hunting equipment. Bass Pro Shop’s retail stores today are thousands of square feet and its catalog is thicker than many dictionaries.

Technology helped serve our pleasure with lower commodity prices and new ways to spend our discretionary dollars. We went along for the ride—only our out-of-pocket costs were influential. Environmental costs were mostly not considered.

As earlier noted my wife and I live on a farm called Nature’s Reach and over several years we have given nature some help by re-creating wetlands, meadows and a tree grove.

We also started beekeeping with several colonies of honey bees and have become fascinated by their activities. But, more important than our honey bees, are the thousands of pollinators that now make Nature’s Reach their home. I should add: our garden flourishes.

My point is not to extoll obsolete and labor-intensive farming or what we have done at Nature’s Reach, but simply to point out what big feet humans have and how nature responds. Unfortunately we, for our own comfort, have often chosen to be imperious Kings and Queens of nature, not stewards.

Much of what we value we count. We know about our own dollars and cents and the news media tell us each day whether the stock market is up or down. But, if I asked about the comparative population of pollinators in say 1960 and 2018, a satisfactory answer could not be found. Indeed only scientists would even attempt an answer. Fortunately I do not need to rely on computer models; I can see the dramatic changes on my farm.

I use pollinators illustratively, because of my personal experiences. Much more importantly, pollinators are as essential as clean water and air. They are keystones of nature’s balance. Our failure to protect them is a systemic failure—likewise climate change.

As I wrap this up, let me return to the central narrative—humans make a huge difference and those who have an intense interest in continuing to do things without due regard for the environmental consequences are quite good as my Dad would say, at “selling us a bill of goods.”

We need to comprehend our role in damaging nature’s profound balance and take the lead both at home and globally to reverse damaging trends.

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.

The Controversy Thickens by Al Sikes

December 16, 2019 by Al Sikes 4 Comments

Human re-shaping of our natural infrastructure has confronted us with existential issues. This column is one in a series that began with, The Issue of Our Time.

Climate change! What am I to think? What should I do? How can a non-scientist navigate the claims and counter-claims? Scientists themselves argue about whether the threat we face should be called an emergency.

Regardless of what one thinks it is not too difficult to reach an unsettling conclusion—“what I do or don’t do is not going to really move the dial on the threats of climate change.” After all there are over 7.5 billion people on the earth and we are measuring atmospheric carbon in parts per million—global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 407.4 ± 0.1 ppm in 2018.

As those data spin around in our heads, many I suspect feel a bit like Peggy Lee’s refrain in the song “Is That All There Is.” With an upbeat but bluesy inflection she sang, “If that’s all there are my friends, then let’s keep dancing, Let’s break out the booze and have a ball.” And that is the problem—how do you break down a massive challenge into constituent parts, answers, plans and motivations? Or for that matter even understand how the challenge might be met?

Denial is a not unexpected response. It is not a studied denial; it is a thoroughly human one. Climate projections, after all, result from scientific modeling, are fully understood by a miniscule number of humans and inevitably they too have their biases.

Martin Weitzman, a Harvard professor specializing in environmental economics, died recently. In reflecting on his legacy, The Economist said he tried to avoid testifying in Washington because “how could an economist ever make a precise recommendation in such a complex world.”

So we ask, can computer models produce truth when we know that accuracy depends on who is in charge of the model—the inputs and the analytics?

If those in charge of the model are perceived to have ulterior motives, there is a breakdown of trust. And truth and trust have an inescapable relationship. The one, trust, produces confidence in the other. Untrustworthy sources have difficulty delivering truth—real or perceived. If I were a climate scientist invited to testify before a Congressional Committee I would ask that the invitation come from the Committee leaders of both Parties.

And then you get to the hypocrisy of climate change advocates flying here and there urging people, who just get by, to pay much more for their gas to discourage the use of fossil fuels. Or, coming up with a political package that will cost trillions of dollars. It is no wonder that candidate Trump found it easy to campaign against the forces that want to take your car away or your hamburger or whatever.

It is why Emanuel Macron’s, France’s president, recommended tax on gasoline stoked the anger of the yellow jackets that brought Paris to its knees. Today the most oft cited reason for the mass demonstrations that have blossomed like the daffodils of spring is the forced increase in transportation costs.

The question is what can be done to bring the two in harmony? Can bold action to disrupt climate change align with the imperatives of politics? One thing is clear to me: if the advocates preach Armageddon unless we are carbon free by some relatively early date not enough will be accomplished.

Inevitably, claims of truth that foreshadow unwanted consequences carry a much higher burden of proof. And, as those who see themselves as the truth-tellers take on a messianic intensity, opposition becomes tribal. It’s my tribe’s story against your side’s version—the hell with truth.

In the weeks ahead I will weigh in on the toxic misalignment between climate and political sciences. Climate science often speaks the language of absolutes; political science deals with the art of the possible. Can they be aligned?

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.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Quick Take on an Important Moment by Al Sikes

December 4, 2019 by Al Sikes 1 Comment

In 1993 I had an insightful meeting with Michael Bloomberg. I had gone to work for the Hearst Corporation to build a digital business and one day was interviewed at Bloomberg News on the digital future.

At the beginning of the back and forth the reporter said that Michael wanted to visit after the interview. The interview ended and Michael came to escort me to his office for what turned out to be a twenty minute or so window into his leadership style.

Michael set the tone. He wanted to know about my political background with Jack Danforth and Kit Bond (then Missouri’s two United States Senators) and what I had gleaned from those experiences. He then turned to my job as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and inquired about the challenges faced in leading a government agency. And then the interview was over.

Absent were Midwestern pleasantries and there was certainly no invitation for me to quiz him about how he saw technology affecting his own business. I left his office, as I later told my wife, “feeling that I had been strip-mined.”

Bloomberg went on to become Mayor of New York City while we lived there and by almost all accounts did a good job. Not a perfect job, but a good one. Not bad when you consider that many felt New York was ungovernable and his adopted Party, Republican, was institutionally weak in the City.

Recently Bloomberg, after equivocating for some months, decided to run for the Presidential nomination of the Democrat Party. I was pleased.

The roll-out of his campaign gave journalists and columnists who write about politics a new target. While I have not consulted artificial intelligence for a word or phrase count, I would guess that the highest volume count would yield the following descriptors: “billionaire”, “too late”, “switched Parties”, “stop and frisk”, “too old”, “buying the election”. If you feel insufficiently informed about any of the above, do a Google search.

After being a bit startled at the efficiency of my visit with Bloomberg, I became an admirer. He did not, after all, build Bloomberg News on pleasantries. He did not become a billionaire on idle talk. He didn’t successfully make the transition from business to New York’s “best Mayor”, by spending words unnecessarily.

Maybe nostalgia requires me to remember a time when “accomplishment” was defining. Today the filter is much different. We strip mine a person’s life and then accentuate apparent mistakes as if humans cannot change. We apply sensitivity filters and woe be to the person who showed insufficient sensitivity regardless of the generational context. And if somebody is theatrically skillful, many translate such skill into a good White House fit.

So let me emulate Bloomberg’s efficient use of words. He is a man of rare accomplishment. He built a very impressive business and then effectively presided over America’s most complicated city.

Should he become the Democratic nominee? I’ll leave that to my Democrat friends to answer, but barring unforeseen developments, he would certainly get my vote.

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.

Profiles in Cowardice by Al Sikes

November 6, 2019 by Al Sikes 3 Comments

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.

Swamps, Fear and Impeachment by Al Sikes

October 21, 2019 by Al Sikes 2 Comments

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.

Follow Us