Predictably much of the reporting on President-Elect Trump’s formation of a new administration is relatively negative. On a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the most negative I’d call the analysis part of news coverage an 8. And it appears that Trump is okay with that. His statements and actions beginning with what I will call the Matt Gaetz affair have been antagonistic toward mainstream news and analysis. And that is too bad.

Most people who gain these top jobs are not known and much of the advise and consent process, the constitutional prerogative of the United States Senate, is political. Few Senators are prepared to step outside the Party line. I supported Larry Hogan because he had time after time demonstrated his independence.

Since I often write about public affairs and the politics of it, I try to double check my own drafts for fairness. Fairness is in part subjective so to some degree my general antipathy toward the President-Elect can’t be precluded but I’ll continue to try. So here is my take.

There is a worrying element in all of this. Some years ago I ended up at lunch with a fellow who said he didn’t get his news from newspapers but only from what at the time was called Twitter. He was much younger than me and I concluded it was generational and that to some degree it reflected a disdain for left of center bias.

Left of center bias is endemic. Journalism and related journalistic tracks tend to draw from those who want to “change the world” or at least record it as they see it. Many believe that if more digging or editorial emphasis is directed to how the government can achieve their preferences, outcomes can be improved. I long ago, to one degree or another, used a discount filter. This was especially true on business reporting.

Polls of course affirm this bias. Few reporters, for example, are Republicans or identify with right of center points of view. And Donald Trump plays that bias with improvisational glee. When he saw Twitter as biased he started Truth Social.

And then his buddy Elon Musk bought Twitter. Musk declared that truth in news coverage would only be available on the newly named X because it would assure free speech. In short if you want to find out the truth in the news, X is the place to go.

Well to begin with Musk knows as much about the best practices of journalism as I know about catching rockets returning from space. Some who post on X actually have some depth of knowledge. They are almost all posters with a day job at one or another news gathering organization. I, for example, follow the Institute for the Study of War. I get informed on timely news about the Middle Eastern and Ukraine wars. I also see a steady stream of diverse opinions although fewer from left of center orientation because many have chosen to boycott X.

X is indeed a positive development in the news and information segment. But it is mainly a headline service, not a news one. If Musk wants X to become a more valuable news source, he is going to have to spend millions annually to actually provide news. Real news is the fruit of digging pushed along by principled editors whose first principle is truth. Providing accurate news is not an inexpensive pursuit and the financial incentive to do so has largely disappeared.

Opinion is rarely truth. Opinion tends to be an information layer and truth is many layered. It is, regarding many subjects, even hard to define how you find out the truth. Inquiries in search of truth recalls the blind man concluding that an elephant’s trunk was a snake. We all have our blind sides.

Back to Musk and Truth and Trump’s version of X called “Truth Social.” The latter is  propaganda—the world as Trump wants others to see it. And X is just a pass it along machine. X is not a many layered effort to find truth but a pipe, if you will, that delivers information and opinion and leaves it up to you to decide.

President-Elect Trump has heralded a momentous time in the governance of the United States of America. Indeed. And in a democracy we should all assess next steps forward while looking out for the snakes. If I had one piece of practical advice, it would be to make sure at least one of your sources of news makes you uncomfortable.

Enduring Reform

The notion that November’s election was a landslide is bunk. The most representative political institution is the House of Representatives and it is split almost down the middle—Republican’s control 220 seats and Democrats 215.

Generally in human affairs humility attaches to evenly divided opinions, in this case demonstrated through actual elections. Hubris should be avoided.

President-Elect Trump has promised to take on the “deep state” and has already begun to set up an efficiency apparatus (Department of Government Efficiency-DOGE) led by Elon Musk as part of that effort. I imagine some good ideas will result from that work. Some of the ideas might be actionable through Presidential orders while others, and especially those involving expenditures, will have to move through Congress.

While political differences today are often fought with severe language, I would suggest turning the heat down on the work of DOGE so that enduring reforms might outlast political tides. In the case of the President-Elect, he will then get credit for victory not just making political 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. 

Donald J Trump knows and is moving fast.  He understands power’s cycles and the underlying conditions that gain or lose momentum. Yet, even the most insightful cannot account for what can’t be predicted and its influence on the rise and fall of political power. But, lets take a look at what we do know.

As our new President quickly assembles his senior leadership, coalitions of convenience are being shaped. And the quantity of “strange bedfellows” will exceed Washington’s supply of hotel rooms. Government employees might be staying away from their work stations but those with government privileges to be defended, they will be thick at the hotel bars.

People and their organizations, business, and not-for-profits alike, do not give up benefits without a fight. And the United States federal government is obese with allocations, set-asides, tax advantages, regulatory benefits, direct and indirect grants, and more. Most of us are affected.

Each of these government advantages have their constituencies and at the risk of overstatement Members of Congress who are politically indebted.  Members do not want their military base closed, or their local employer to lose its tax credits or for that matter any changes that cost their District money.

As I think about the President-Elect, the most interesting and potentially beneficial dimension is disruption. We read about the differences between Trump and Biden on Ukraine or NATO or North Korea and those will play out. But internationally, the US is one of many. Stronger, but its strength is inevitably diluted as some level of cooperation is not discretionary.

Domestically the White House has immense advantages. Over time the Executive Branch of government has accrued power. The power has come from weaknesses in the representative branch, the Congress. Presidents increasingly issue Executive Orders and if the President’s party controls the Congress few will be blocked and it takes Court challenges a long time to reach closure.

Enter Elon Musk on a wave of extraordinary new technology; technology that is already changing the face of much of what we do. Technology that makes the previously unthinkable thinkable. As I write it appears that the President-Elect is prepared to cede power to Musk and why not.

I chaired the Federal Communications Commission when President George H W Bush was President. He was preoccupied with generational developments in the Soviet Union and deservedly spent much of his time on foreign policy. And you might recall that President Bush assembled the coalition that kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

When it came to domestic policy most agency heads did not feel shadowed by the White House. If President-Elect Trump wants to make generational changes in the bureaucracy, putting Musk in charge of a Commission to draft Presidential Executive Orders to reform the government is a deft move. There will certainly be conflicts and especially with Congressional backers of one benefit or another, but if the Trump/Musk collaboration persists it will be initially traumatic but eventually might help heal our gaping wound, the budget gap.

I left Washington for New York in 1993 and became immersed in the new economy—the digital one. In those early years our venture capital investments funded disruption (first investment—Netscape) and the disruption put extraordinary pressure on what we started calling legacy media. Newspaper, magazine, and broadcast media all declined and some precipitously. Much of government is controlled by legacy systems.

The disruption that Trump/Musk promise will necessarily be different. If it is carried out effectively, it will reduce the central government’s workforce and promote efficiency without bankruptcies. Most of the bloated organizations are statutorily authorized making dissolution of whole agencies virtually impossible. Hopefully Congress will help by repealing statutory status but don’t count on it.

Trying to stay out of the weeds, I’ll close with this observation. While the President-Elect has played fast and loose with many traditional Republican positions, tax reduction remains a central promise. If this disruptive period fails to change the trajectory on budget deficits, it will be a failure. And if government revenues do not change, then the numbers on the financial statements will have moved around but the net effect will simply be a different line-up of winners and losers. The cynics hanging around the hotel bars are betting on that outcome. History will only honor the opposite.

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. 

Okay, I get it. I am too old to understand what is going on today. So, a warning: if you are under seventy years of age, you will probably wonder at my context. If you think it too out of touch, ask your father or mother to interpret. If you care.

My first fight was at a summer camp. After almost throwing up in the ring, I decided boxing was not my thing. Several decades later I travelled to St. Louis to watch a real boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier on a giant (at the time) movie screen. It was the fight Frazier won, although Ali was more enjoyable to watch.

Donald Trump, just days after being elected President, went to Madison Square Garden (MSG) to watch a cage match presented by the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).

Fights are preceded by a hate blitz. The fighters in these promoted spectacles, rarely real ones, are provided with a vocabulary of the worst possible names to call their opponents. Apparently a large number of people are magnetized by these bouts of name-calling and pay real money to become not so much a spectator as an essential part of the production.

I would guess after a campaign to be President there is a necessary primal scream. Just days before the President-Elect headed off to MSG his primal scream, the indicated nomination of Congressman Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General, was announced.

Now to be fair to Trump the Department of Justice that Gaetz has been nominated to head has aggressively pursued Trump’s prosecution. This was not just name-calling stuff. I will leave it to others to debate the fairness of what Justice’s Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith did, but I can’t help but comment on the President’s primal scream because Gaetz is not only not qualified to be Attorney General, if he gets confirmed it will be a precipitous step toward the undoing of Trump’s second term in the White House. We should care, after all when the election is over the winner is our President, the term four years.

First, almost nobody, Republican and Democrat alike, who has spent sixty seconds thinking about this offered nomination, believes it is a good thing. Horrible is the adjective. It would have been better if the President-Elect had been inspired by Mike Tyson’s late-in-life trip to the boxing ring and taken out his anger on, well, anybody.

The co-founder of the conservative The Federalist news site, Benjamin Domenech, lit into Representative Matt Gaetz Thursday, calling him a “sex trafficking drug addicted piece of s —-t”, warning senators that “they will have to live with themselves if they confirm him as Attorney General.” Domenech went on to say “the man is absolutely vile. There are pools of vomit with more to offer the earth than this STD-riddled testament to the failure of fallen masculinity”, New York Post. First word to mind, Wow! And if you are put off by my citing a single quote, do your own research.

Finally, I would ask whether integrity, “the quality of being honest” plays any role in a confirmation hearing? Or in the job to be done? Beyond experience, reputation and testimony what should the US Senate’s inquiry cover? Should we want the pursuit of truth to precede decisions?

Senators have been elected to be the deciders. They get to decide whether a person is qualified to lead a cabinet office. This needs to be understood as an important job. It should be done carefully.

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. 

Magic will not work. Its future is not like the stock market—retreat, retreat, and then go on a tear. Institutional renewal is hard work and has to be intentional and led by those with an eye on history, on the fundamentals; not just the next skirmish on TV’s new shows or leading podcasts.

This is not a “thrust and parry” game. Maybe it is a game, but the consequences of losing are catastrophic. At least to any kind of meaningful democracy. The institution: The Congress of the United States.

I still miss him. We would have a go at elections but, more importantly, at what was going on in Congress. He had been a Congressional Page in 1954 when there was an attack on Congress by Puerto Rican terrorists. His path started with a Boy Scout magazine that included an article on the opportunity to be a Page.

We went to Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) together, and then he headed off to Washington. The pull was inexorable. Then almost two dozen years later he called me and said he was coming back to Southeast Missouri and running for the Congressional seat occupied by a Democrat. What else? This was a District in the Southeast part of the State that was solidly Democratic. Or so the politicians said.

After drawing a breath or two I said, “are you crazy?” He wasn’t; we worked together, and then he went to Washington as a new Member of the House of Representatives. His name: Bill Emerson.

Bill died in 1996 and his wife JoAnne took his place. His District’s voters were pleased with the Emersons. He was an institutionalist and would be outraged to learn that among American institutions the Congress had shrunk to only a 16% approval. Gallup in 2024 reported that 77% disapproved, 12% approved and 7% had no opinion.

16%? Any institution or business not embedded in the Constitution and funded by the taxpayers with that approval level would be history. And, its leaders that preceded its virtual bankruptcy would be outcasts. Shame would be splashed around and few would avoid it.

At the national level only the Congress can make new laws, declare war, regulate commerce and control taxing and spending policies. There is a lot under that hood, so don’t stop with my few words in discovering its written but badly compromised authority. What it is really good at is hosting verbal wars in dug-in trenches.

At the risk of overdoing it, 77% of Americans disapprove of the institution that has the most expansive authority over its citizens. Maybe in the next election campaign that begins on January 4th, after they are sworn in the day before, questions should be asked. Here a few to start the conversation.

Why has the approval of Congress shrunk so low? Why would you work for an employer with such a bad reputation?

What can you do to improve it?

Who is in control of Congress? The President? Large campaign contributors? Both?

Or, the next time you get a survey or donation request from your Member, ask them some variation on the questions above. If Congress persists in deferring to the President, not passing funding bills on time, and allowing wars to persist without its authority, the ratings will not improve, and then what? Kick the proverbial ball down the field.

I’m reminded of the old and said to be true story about the frog in the pot of water. If the water is boiling the frog quickly jumps out. But, if the water is brought to a boil slowly, by the time the frog discovers its peril it is too late to exit. This session, indeed in every session of Congress, the health of the institution should be front and center. Right now Congressional approval is underwater. We need way more Bill Emersons. Persons who prefer an employer with an improving reputation.

Postscript.  The United States Senate can begin its show of institutional integrity by carefully scrutinizing President-Elect Trump’s middle finger; just exposed. It is hard to consider the stated nomination of Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General differently. Scrutinize, scrutinize, scrutinize.

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. 

It is interesting, and then not, to read election postmortems. In this case, Democrats, with some success on their resumes, earn calls from people who do postmortems. Read on, I am only going to cite one as prologue.

Axios AM ended its summary of all that went wrong for the Democrats with this: “In a 50-50 country, how do they articulate a theory of the case to win back voters and power?” Pardon my repetition of a word salad suggesting a failing statistics grade.

James Carville, the Democrat’s uber-political operative, is colorful. Colorful enough to be a candidate and not just an operative. He noted in the Bill Clinton days, “It’s the economy stupid,” and then more recently, “It’s winning stupid”. Carville’s anecdotes, pithy remarks and irreverences have even been converted to a movie. It’s title: “Winning Is Everything Stupid”. Persons who hunger for the White House should first talk to Sir James (my elevation).

My takeaway from the campaign, and to borrow from Carville, is, “It Is The Voter Stupid.” All voters. We all or at least most of us suffer from inflation. We all have to figure out and pay for the assimilation of millions of people who come across our southern border. We all have to pay for our excesses—whoops, we don’t because our excesses are funded by debt. Take a look at our $37 trillion dollar gap. Of course, ultimately, all of our children will have to shoulder that outrage.

In other words, the operative word in my political vocabulary is ALL. Sure, demographers tell us about economic, ethnic, and gender differences and on and on, but when the Democrat Party transitioned to the Identitarian one, it found that promising one group something to win their allegiance often angered other groups. Assembling a majority out of promises to an array of demographic targets is hard math.

Many, including me, thought the President-Elect had lost Evangelical Christians some number of times. And it is certain he lost some. But, his appeal on the issues that crossed many lines resulted in this sub-group remaining mostly loyal. Even as he waffled on what is thought to be their defining social issue, abortion, he remained relatively popular. My guess is that most people of faith found the President-Elect far from an admirable person but then concluded that certain character traits are extinct in the ambitious regions of politics.

I am also sure the Democrat pathologists, as they study the body politic, find it almost inexplicable that significant numbers of the stupidly called “people of color” seem to be moving to the Republican Party. People of color are so varied that the thought they are a homogeneous group is laughable.

Again, identitarian strategies are largely a losing proposition. ALL is the constituency. If you look at a United States map colored in Red or Blue it is awash in Red. I would suggest a postmortem in the Dakotas. Those who probe for opinions in South and North Dakota will find that a small state senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, does not capture what they expect from the ultimate government leader. While I am giving geographical advice take the convention to Kansas City.

David Brooks, in his New York Times column summing up, noted: “There’s something off about an educated class that looks in the mirror of society and only sees itself.” Brooks was politely noting the class divide. And,  assuming the educated mostly voted for the Vice-President.

Yes, America is awash in people that do not need to worry about inflation. It is awash in people who have protected and lucrative sinecures, there are also  people who have figured out how to live off of government support systems. But, even if a good job is done turning out the self-satisfied, the sum of them will not defeat those who worry from paycheck to paycheck regardless of their class position or ethnic grouping. Or, education; take a look at the number of young people with sterling credentials who find this job market baffling or fear losing their jobs to artificial intelligence.

As noted before, I am an independent. I am not a member of a political party although I was a Republican for some decades. I would like to have more political choice. America’s two parties have passed so many laws to protect their political duopoly that it is hard for other points of view to organize and get voter traction. Robert Kennedy Jr, who started with a great last name, spent millions to start a third party, then gave up and joined Donald Trump.   

America is a citadel of diversity, but diversity of opinion has to be filtered and presented by one of two all-powerful political groups. Too bad! When the Federal Trade Commission finds two companies dominating a market they sue.

Finally, another word on the Red/Blue state dichotomy. Those on the Left should be worried that most States are Red, especially in a country of mobility. And that the chances of changing the way we elect a President through the electoral college, not the popular vote, is in the class of things that won’t be changed.

Andy Kim, New Jersey’s new Democrat Senator after winning on Tuesday, held a probing session with voters. He found a deep disgust in politics while noting that “there was a clear belief that Trump was different.” So even though Vice-President Harris was much more persuasive with billionaires and raised a great deal more money than Trump, he won.

I am fortunate. When I began being active in politics, I lived in Missouri. It was, in many ways, still Harry Truman’s Missouri. Democrats were elected to statewide offices. But Truman was right when he and all Missourians took pride in citing the State’s motto: “Show Me.” And because the emerging Republican Party led by John C Danforth was prepared to do just that, we began winning. Danforth’s motto was “I Dare You.”

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. 

Thankfully, I didn’t write a piece about who would win the presidency. My gut was undecided. I felt like a debater who can easily advocate the pro and con of an issue but can’t make a conclusive case either way.

I had no trouble finding things that appalled me about President-Elect Trump, but Vice President Kamala Harris remained a mystery to me right up to yesterday. Her unfavorables were high.  President Biden’s too. How was she going to get out of the hole?

The Democrat party had gone too far. It’s presumed sympathy for people who have been dealt a tough hand caused it not to take the border restraints seriously. Then, at the last minute, they did, but it was too late.

The Afghanistan debacle made the default reaction to President Biden disabling. When trends and reality (like inflation) turned south, default goodwill did not minimize the political downside.

And vanity caused the President, against almost universal doubt, to insist he could run and win again. And, lead the Country for another four years. Regardless of great progress in elder care, four more years was a Biden dream and certainly not a national wish. Forced to step down, one presumes his operatives engineered a Harris elevation. Operatives don’t lead; they advise, and those that are too many to count in Washington often have tin ears.

So what does President-Elect Trump do? Does he treat this as a popular mandate? Does he act as if there is no Congress? As if there are not restraining laws that the Courts will enforce? Or does he take his victory as a chance to write a better final chapter in a (admit it) remarkable political career?

If the oddsmakers take a coffee break from the latest sports betting, they will probably all concur that the President-Elect, with his cadre of malcontents, will overplay his hand. Yeah, like the Democrats for the last three years. Thank you Bernie Sanders.

Maybe just maybe Trump has figured out that he has a historic opportunity. An opportunity to convert a populist movement into something that will outlast him. That will eventually be known for principles more than rallies. But, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Can We Be Serious?

Organizations that rail against how much money the Federal government spends beyond what it raises need to remove the accountants and dreamers and become a down and dirty political force. We are now at $35,886,323,865,905 trillion dollars in debt (national debt clock at 9:35 am on November 6th). At that moment, the debt per person was calculated to be $106,453.

If this excess cannot be converted into a potent political issue it is because politics and its so-called leaders have no imagination. Or, that we the American electorate, have lost the capacity to be serious.

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, and I type these words on Sunday, thoughts of Sunday’s past filled my mind. My wife and I were watching a baptism. Proud parents, family and friends all at the altar with an especially calm baby. He was going to leave everybody thinking about the ceremony and the communal pledges. Not an unruly nature.

We were in a parish church and with the priest “rejoicing at this baptism” and reciting “you are now a pilgrim with us.” We, the congregation were taking on a special responsibility in nurturing this young child.

America was like this in the beginning. Small churches, parishes—communities caring for each other. Well, of course, America is now outsized and a decreasing number of people are looked after by the parish church or any church.

Writ large our census tells us we are now a nation of mostly big cities. We are also very mobile. Fortunately for my wife and me mobility is accepted at Holy Trinity. The parish holds.

Now you can quarrel with my romanticism. Actually, the word parish denotes a sub-division in a larger church. I like to think people make the parish, not the lines on a map. But then I like to think the word united goes beyond a description of a land mass; as in United States of America.

And given that our quadrennial election is less than 48 hours away and united is very much at risk, I go back to the Priest’s words: “you are now a pilgrim with us.” Is there a “with us”? As we look around life’s fences do we see friends or divisions?

Campaigns are never pretty but sometimes they resolve for at least a few years our disagreements. Or maybe at least mute the fierce attacks. But, is that possible this time around? Is that possible for the former President? Will he attempt to lead as he has campaigned? If so, the parish writ large will remain deeply fractured. If he disdains in thought, word and deed those he takes to be his enemy, if he is elected, he will become a lame duck in January, just after being sworn in.

Obviously, telescoping a small parish into larger and larger units of government is dreaming, but if we are going to take guidance from the constitutional words of our founders, we might also look at the spiritual world of the founding.

The parish service ended in song. We sang “America”. It had been a long time since the words of that song left my lips. But one phrase in particular lingered:

“God bless America; land that I love
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with the light from above”

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. 

Divide and then inaugurate—Inaugurate: “A ceremony to mark the beginning of something.”  We certainly know the first part, “divide”; every four years we argue over the “Something” which is the essence of our every four year election and then inauguration.

Mostly, since the nation’s laws and its constitutional underpinnings stabilize us, the division is over more minor things. If, for example, we  divide over whether there should be free or censored speech that would be a big thing. The Constitution has taken care of that although the courts have to interpret its application.

So like it or not much of what guides us day-to-day is both culturally and politically established. But our constitutional underpinnings do not resolve in any final way our foreign adventures. At least in theory the Congress is supposed to resolve the ultimate adventure, whether we should go to war, and it is supposed to guide our preparations for war or defense through the appropriations process.

Our most adventurous domestic affairs have to be authorized and funded by the Congress and we would supposedly be disciplined by the availability of debt capital at an acceptable cost since we are way over spending the money our taxes collect. A headline in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal was foreboding: “Deficit Threats Drive Bond Yields Higher”. Simply stated, as our nation’s debt increases the costs of funding it increases and pushes our debt higher. To summarize: in most regards our most powerful institution, by almost all standards, would get failing grades,

So here we are engaged in the politics of angst (“deep anxiety or dread”). It is not pretty. Well, most politics is not pretty, but this time around it is seriously demeaning. I can imagine the propagandists of our enemies feasting on a treasure trove of our words to throw back at us. They too believe in free speech as long as it comes from us. They will stoke further angst and raise the temperature well above a healthy level. Damaging attacks by Americans aimed at Americans is much cheaper than missiles and attendant explosives.

What about the politics of resentment? How come the opposing teams meet at mid-field and shake hands? In sports the handshakes are important. They represent standards—this is a game not a war. And who knows, the players say, maybe we will be on the same team next year.

And, what happens when political campaigns feature loudmouth speakers spewing crude biases? Archie Bunker would be embarrassed at some of the words spoken. For my younger readers watch the reruns of “All In The Family”; the humor is razor sharp and you will get to know Archie.

The problem is simple. The concluding political campaigns have stoked hatred. Disagreement is fair game. We should, in a nation that honors free speech and competitive elections, encourage free speech. Government policies should not be assigned to public policy academics and pressure groups. But when the words and sometimes the theatricality devolve into hateful zones, the benefits of democracy recede. And the real threat of violence increases.

I have voted and as I was waiting for my ballot my impulse was to believe I should be voting with everybody on Election Day or Election weekend. Voting should be a collective celebration and should await the end of the campaign so that all of us go to the polls with the same information. Keep in mind, the signature events of the major party candidates, Donald Trump’s event at Madison Square Garden and Kamala Harris’ event on the national mall have just been concluded.

My generation is largely spent. I know that some of my musings reflect a different time and set of attitudes. How to translate? So, Millennials and Generation X,  take over and right this ship of state. It’s quite wobbly right now. And do so with our national motto in mind: “Out of Many One.” Democracy demands what capitalism demands—a competition of ideas and leadership talents and attitudes. And in both cases we are the demand side of the market and in both cases we should not fall victim to shoddy goods.

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. 

Autumn comes—pumpkins arrive. Beyond those that decorate our houses, every four years, elaborately decorated pumpkins are featured in an intensely competitive race to be THE BIG PUMPKIN. The kind of gargantuan pumpkin that wins national prizes. In this case, the ultimate prize.

As the big pumpkin race comes to a conclusion maybe there will be some unforeseen event that will upend the race, but I doubt it. My advice to the pollsters who breathlessly weigh in or to the oddsmakers, be careful because the last few percent that make up their minds do so as they queue up at the polling place. As well, turnout can be a game changer.

As I think about the choice, it is who he was versus who she might be. Donald J. Trump’s biggest hurdle is his inability to admit that he lost the last election. Had he done that, he would not be tied, according to the polls. And, of course, he should acknowledge that he was not a January pumpkin when his supporters began marching toward the Capitol to accost his Vice President. He was still in the White House.

Kamala Harris faces the hurdles of border negligence, the Afghanistan debacle, and inflation. Since her primary credential is being in the room where the decisions were made, she cannot escape the consequences. This is fundamentally unfair because Joe Biden was the decision maker, but the only way she can emphasize that fact is by claiming to have been a piece of furniture.

There are two things that are, in my mind, of major importance beyond electing a new President. How does the world’s largest democracy conduct itself when electing a new leader? Our world standing has been shaken by Trump’s decision to verbally bomb the scaffolding of democracy. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I believe the work on election processes and security will seal the outcome on November 4th. Or, whenever the last votes are certified.

We will, of course, be voting for new Congressional leadership. A few hundred rather anonymous characters, in a very important play, will take the oath of office in January. Most of these will be notable for their newsletters and retirement. In Maryland the Democratic power structure has focused not so much on Angela Alsobrook’s credentials for the Senate but on Senator Mitchell McConnell. Their insistent claim is that a vote for former Governor Larry Hogan is a vote for a McConnell-led Senate.

First of all McConnell is not standing for reelection. But much more importantly America, yes America, needs at least a handful of new leaders whose attitudes and proven experiences point well beyond the demands of the political party caucus.   We need Members of Congress who understand the self-serving characteristics of most politicians and will stand up alone, if necessary when America’s future is up for grabs.

Democracies have a structural fault line that can prove fatal. Most politicians are prepared to go beyond sound decisions to make decisions they think will assure their reelection. This is a key problem and not a small one. In deficit terms, it amounts to $36 trillion.  I do not believe there is one candidate more likely to take courageous stands than former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan.

Finally, my start in politics was going door-to-door. I did that for my Dad who was running for city council. I like to think that is a first step in a healthy democracy.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is having a way more notable start. He is using his wealth, last report I saw it was $269 billion, and software assets to organize a political cadre that will answer to him. He is conducting a daily million dollar lottery in the swing states and is capturing the contact information of everybody who signs up. I would guess he is using artificial intelligence assets to complete a more personal profile—privacy be damned.

In short, Musk is taking a shortcut of sorts to become America’s leading Plutocrat. The use of his vast wealth and technology assets is wrong. As the Music Man would say, “with a capital W.”

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 it is, a phrase edited into a mixture of prayerful words. In religious speak, the words are called the Liturgy. It is an interesting continuum positioned to be instructive and impactful. The appeal is direct; its intent is not hidden. This last Sunday, its impact was topical. The words occurred at the end of the service: “Send us now into the world in peace, and grant us strength and courage to love and serve you with gladness and singleness of heart; through Christ our Lord.”

The essence of this phrase touches on timeless themes in philosophy, literature, and religion. It is not unique to Christianity. My quotation derives from a transcendent source, but I would guess that most of us have experienced this objective truth in a very personal way at some point in our lives—words and actions that have healed.

“Grant us strength and courage.” Too often, we use the words “strength and courage” to denote aggression or toughness—“never back down.” Popular culture insists that we can power through whatever resistance we face if we choose the right stance or combination of words or, in more extreme cases, weapons.

The overarching question is whether an aggressive offense or defense is strength or weakness. Is it the best way forward? Sometimes it is necessary but mostly not.

Now, I must have recited what I will call the peace fact hundreds of times but infrequently paused and thought of the words introspectively. This last Sunday, I paused. My mind was a jumble. How many times did I equate strength with love? How many times did I recognize humility, the opposite of self-love, to be shaped by courage?

At any given moment it is hard to know what cultural factors shape our attitudes. I do not know why the sub-culture we call politics has hardened and too often resulted in damage in recent years. I do know that poll after poll reports that we, most of us, are wary and weary.

We worry about what “social media” is doing to our children. Maybe we should ask what it is doing to our adults? And how the consequences of  not gathering with neighbors weekly and joining in a pledge is affecting our lives? I also wonder about the decline of churches that focus on a gospel of love.

What I do know is that large segments of our population either never knew or have forgotten whose leadership resulted in the most remarkable cultural change in the 20th Century. The answer, Martin Luther King. While the Black Panthers preached combat, Dr. King preached love. Yes, his peaceful engagement shortened his life, but better a consequential life than a long and bitter one.

Today from municipal to national politics we are frequently yelling at each other. In the long run toxic words and phrases weaken, they don’t strengthen. Courage is found not in anger but in love.

Recall the words of President Dwight Eisenhower, our leading General in World War II and two-term President: “Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim in the blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.”  British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the quintessential leader during WW II. “Arrogance is a wall. Humility is a bridge.”

But let me pause, I get it. Political warriors are impatient; they are filled with predispositions, dismissive of other points of view. Plus, social media invites instantaneous reactions. But even when you are right, yelling at people and trashing their views will simply intensify division and ultimately weaken our country. And to what effect?

Throughout history there have been gradations of a Right/Left divide in politics. This is especially true in democracies.  Now, in America, the ideological differences are often characterized in slanderous terms. Those on the left some claim are Communists and on the right, Fascists.

Generalizing people’s persona to hateful extremes is definitely a weakness. And exceedingly polarizing. It’s not that we shouldn’t debate, but our methods should recognize that after the debate we need to sit down for a drink as friends.

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.