Joe Biden has the opportunity to be an historic president. He is on the cusp of losing it. He is being whipsawed by his own Party and his voice is being eroded. The bipartisan infrastructure deal that he helped engineer and then undermined and then re-affirmed dramatizes the problem.

When Joe Biden raised his hand and took the oath there was a clear path to a glowing chapter in the history of White House occupants. Where should I begin?

Most fundamentally he had just beaten an incumbent that worked overtime to spread social distemper. Whose operational code was built around making people mad. If he didn’t start it, he didn’t like it. 

More importantly Joe Biden had beaten the so-called progressive wing of his party. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were beaten decisively in the final counts. He had obligations but as beginning Presidents go, not that many. He had accomplished what Hillary Clinton couldn’t—a significant majority of voters believed him.

Now I know the political center, as captured by President Biden, is defined in a number of ways. Academics parse policy stands. Pollsters look at demography and sociology. But, as a practical matter, the people who make up the center are hopeful but cautious. They certainly didn’t like many of Trump’s traits—the polls made that clear. But they also are intuitively wary of grand schemes that cost a lot of money. And not being on the extremes of either party they reveal their preference for order. On the hardest ends of the Right or Left the ideologues “do not take prisoners” and to hell with the consequences—order is not a concern.

So what does order mean? Preferring to avoid the abstract it certainly means safe streets and tightly regulated borders. Unfortunately, on the left of the President’s party, safe streets translates into more social workers, not more policemen and a border policy that bears any resemblance to Trump’s is evil.

And then along comes theory. 

Climate change is no longer theoretical. The need for much broader health coverage was made explicit by the pandemic. And the pandemic made clear, as if additional proof was needed, that more must be done to assure equal opportunity. 

But then theory was allowed to take over, at least enough to produce raw material for the political class. The theory was Critical Race Theory (CRT) and most who earnestly sought out its definition had a hard time understanding it. But, there was a simplified explanation that the loudest voices on the left promoted: “if you are white, you are a racist.” President Biden’s reactions were equivocal.

Theory is not needed. Prejudice is human; try as we might we develop and carry some prejudices throughout life. When it comes to racial prejudices, they have existed for millennia, on every continent. Perhaps the most vivid example in modern history was white on white—recall the Holocaust. Find a continent, short of Antarctica, where it doesn’t exist today. Prejudice has and is being confronted in America; that is one thing that makes America special.

All this makes me sad. I want President Biden to succeed. We all have our differences with Presidents, but as Americans we should want America’s most important leader to succeed. Global competition is unrelenting and we need to hope our President is equal to the contest.

I know that under the best of circumstances the road ahead is difficult. We live in a disruptive age and disruptions challenge the best leaders. Why make it more difficult? Why choose the divisive force of complexity and accusation when history offers an unparalleled opportunity? The center elected you Mr. President, what don’t you understand?

America needs effective governance from the Center. It needs consequential bi-partisanship. It needs leadership that will respond to today’s needs with understandable and affordable answers.

What it does not need is omnibus (vast and disparate) splurges. There is absolutely no way that X trillions of dollars chasing hundreds of real or perceived problems can be fruitfully spent. Or, I should add, that can be other than a brutal tax on future generations. We right now owe $25T.

And to the Republicans who served up this opportunity to President Biden, spell out what you would do. Spell out how you would pay for it. Spell out why you believe the wages of labor should be taxed at a higher rate than the return on capital. Sure, at this point Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC’s Squad, make counterattack easy, but if you believe you were elected to do something beyond defend Trump spell it out.

And let me be even more specific. The pandemic revealed in a way that dull statistics cannot the need for everybody who lives in the United States to have affordable access to health care. Recall if you will the words of Donald Trump in a March 9, 2020 tweet: “Despite what you hear in the press, health care is coming along great. We are talking to many groups and it will end in a beautiful picture!” The former President was talking about a plan, it was never revealed. 

President Biden has used healing language. Gone are the calls to “lock up” opponents. Hopefully as this scrum of over-the-top budget requests plays out President Biden will find a new voice, his voice, and this time it will be informed by people who are in search of better answers not Omnibus Utopia. 

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.  

News should inform opinion, opinion should not inform news.

There was a moment, ancient as it seems, when communication options were few. The telephone was, well, just the telephone, not a small computer that you carried around. Smart TVs—huh? 

The reason we have a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to manage a scarcity of radio-frequency based channels—in the “public interest”. The legislative act that originated the FCC was passed in 1934; scarcity has disappeared.

Aging myself as I write, in 1986 I headed to Washington where I eventually chaired the FCC. Then most TV viewers watched one of three networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC) and a public one, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 

Most critics, and it seemed to me there were an infinite number, wanted more choice. We succeeded. My predecessors and I, in a sense, collaborated with technology, capital and human drive to produce what became a tidal wave of choice. 

And our mission worked, at least the hard science part. Social and political divisions that might develop were not subjects that were considered.

Given dramatic changes in technologies we can now choose our own island and view only what caters to our preferences. Masterpiece Theater? Cat training videos? Poker as a sport or food and drink as an obsession? 

It used to be said that TV viewing brought people together. That we would talk over the proverbial “water cooler” about the latest episode of Hill Street Blues or Seinfeld, for example. Or earlier, share observations about Walter Cronkite’s CBS Nightly News. Or later, Dan Rather. Today news is like an ice cream shop, what flavor do you want?

I have friends across the spectrum of political thought. None of them are friends because of politics, but most enjoy a round of discussion on the latest development or as it is today, “BREAKING NEWS”. It is easy, as discussion unfolds, to discern their chosen channels of news.

What I increasingly find is that Americans risk being victimized by propaganda. Many choose the propaganda flavor that appeals to them and receive news shaped by opinion. Walter Cronkite was not perfect. I am sure there was some bias in his interpretations and if he made you mad enough you could watch Huntley and Brinkley on NBC or Howard K. Smith on ABC. 

Somewhat later you could watch Jim Lehrer on PBS. I got to know Jim and appreciated his efforts to lead with well researched journalism. I was especially impressed that he seemed to always be chosen to moderate presidential debates because both Party candidates found him of moderate temperament and honest inquiry.

Perversely, virtually unlimited choice often works against that sacred FCC covenant—the public interest. Back in the day viewers were “forced” to choose among a handful of news sources, which meant the networks tried to appeal to everybody. 

The business model has been turned on its head. In the highly fragmented world of today, news executives operate with smaller budgets because they attract smaller audiences. Rather than appeal broadly, they appeal narrowly. Rather than putting a premium on good journalism, they put a premium on agile tongues, polemics and visual magnetism. 

Public opinion is down the road from sources of information and its interpretation. Polemics in news inevitably produce polarization. Worse, hard-edged commentary turns neighbors against each other. Politicize Covid 19 and you have fights on airplanes over masks. 

The abrupt and dramatic changes in communication technologies have overwhelmed us. Tribal causes pushed by unrelenting electronic stimuli have divided a nation made great by unity—“out of many, one.” We now gather around color coded water coolers.

In Robert Putnam’s prophetic book “Bowling Alone”, he lamented the loss of social capital which he defined as “the connections among individuals’ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” John C. Danforth, a former US Senator, observed an especially problematic dynamic, “…..the most ideologically pure person tends to become the standard setter for group thinking, the pole to which other members of the group gravitate.”

In the last eighteen months we have been urged to stay apart. What we really need is the motivation to get together with our neighbors. True understanding and related empathy will not come from the digital divide no matter how many Facebook friends we have.

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

“We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.” Representative Ilhan Omar

Countries, all of them, have their myths and narratives. They are hard-wired and deeply felt. Like all myths many of them were shaped by the winners of military and political battles.

America’s overarching story begins with brave people crossing a vast ocean to escape religious persecution and to find opportunities freed from the over-lords of society and commerce in the countries they left. As the stories of America unfolded, it became clear this was not a timid group.

Over time, battles and wars were fought, first with the indigenous people and then the colonial powers, to seize and hold land and to escape the British over-lords. The Revolutionary War was crucial and won and its creative aftermath was profound.

It is, of course, human nature to overlook or understate the predatory nature of victories or commercial successes. Winston Churchill, looking back, said of his time as Prime Minister: “For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.” Churchill was, among other things, a historian.

In America, something remarkable occurred. Among the winners were a few who had superb minds and could write and lead. They were not perfect men, but created the most profound and hopeful set of founding documents in the history of the world. They wrote the future; most importantly the end of human slavery and more generally human subjugation. While the Civil War was still decades away, it was inevitable as was the civil rights movement, one hundred years after Appomattox. Most regrettably, slavery existed, and Americans took way too long to right the wrong.

Knowing imperfection in humanity and in their own lives the Founders aspired to break free—to write a set of statements and rules that would lead to a better nation. Briefly, and incompletely, the documents included the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the conclusion of The Federalist Papers in 1787 and in that same year our Constitution. I must add the Bill of Rights, which was added to the Constitution in 1791.

As with all things human there has been push back. The Founders have been attacked—their imperfections used to criticize their creation. Yet, it is not possible to attack the creators without attacking their creation and ultimately the nation’s stories. It must be remembered that political battles and the trade-offs they always require had to be won for the thirteen states, fundamentally different in many ways, to form a union in the first place.

I use words like myth and stories because when we choose to glorify people and their accomplishments the default position is to edit out the errant moments. Those devoted to America’s story, for example, do not want George Washington or the second founder, Abraham Lincoln, cut down to size.

History, of course, begs to be re-visited. After all, if much of history is at least influenced by the winners, seeds of skepticism are organic. So, reexamine we should.

But, as we read stories of Thomas Jefferson’s slaveholding or Alexander Hamilton’s pride dying in a duel or Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans, we need to keep at least one thing in mind; the best of us are human and humans are imperfect.

Today America’s overarching story, the one that materializes in speeches, parades, songs and a flag, is being attacked. The creation that guaranteed that a free people could engage in the messy business of governance is said to be wanting. Implicit in these attacks is that there is an alternative, a utopia, if we can just subordinate this or that group of people. Explicit is that our deep division is ammunition; foreign enemies use our unrelenting attacks on each other as a part of sophisticated propaganda machinery.

As those who have internalized America’s narrative are attacked, they of course, counter-attack. This is the state of politics at any time and especially today. Dystopia not utopia comes to mind.

The Left in America sees political opportunity. One of its flawed assumptions is that once people of color (POC) are in the majority a new utopia can be built. They should keep in mind that a large share of POCs came to America or chose to stay here not to cancel its culture but to thrive in it.

The Right, more likely to resist re-visiting history, is schizophrenic. The hero of the moment, to many, Donald Trump, bears no resemblance to the heroes of America’s most creative and constructive moments. At any given moment, in a democratic republic, bridging differences is necessary, hard work, and can only succeed with a modicum of humility and reciprocal good will.

So here we are, in a century that offers artificial intelligence and robots to get things right and to do so quickly. Maybe we should step aside; replace our inadequacies with robots. But then somebody is going to have to write the software.

Utopians all, let me suggest a better way forward. Why don’t we quit screaming at each other and recognize the utter futility of lasting success while digging rhetorical trenches.

Finally, if I had that handy “magic wand” often featured in children’s stories, I would use it on the election process. The foundational stone in America’s cathedral is democracy—a belief in the ultimate wisdom of a majority of the servants, not the over-lords. There is much work to do to make our every two year expression at the polls better informed. Yes, better informed.
_______________________________

In earlier columns I have alluded to the possibility that “rank choice voting” has the potential to improve the outcomes of our election process. And even the staging.

This form of voting, ranked choice voting, is now used in Alaska and Maine and will soon receive a fiery baptism in the Mayoral primaries in New York City. The New York City test will be daunting given the number of candidates, complexities and rivalries and still existing Covid restrictions on political gatherings. Regardless, trial and error and adaptation have always been central to America’s progress. We should pay attention.

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. 

What holds us together? When our nation endures a bad time, what holds us together?

I was five years old as WWII ended. Our nation had done heroic work—our nation, most everybody. We, along with the few allies left standing after Fascism’s initial brutality, fought back and won. Democracy as clumsy as it can be, won.

We had every right to be proud even while humbled by the bravery of those who fought. Pride and humility; not a bad combination. When pride is not leavened by humility, trouble is ahead. 

I am sure by now many of you are asking, “Why are you writing this, Memorial Day has come and gone?” We celebrate it and then move on. I wonder how many of us celebrated, if that is even the right word, by going to a memorial or cemetery in which the fallen were honored and then interred. Is Memorial Day just one more calendar moment valued not for its content but for the day off?

Back then Americans were told we were special. And, we were. Americans became internationalists. They laid down their lives for freedom and then helped Europe and Japan rebuild. Now we are told that back then we talked about equality, but often failed to follow through at home. That is certainly true. 

America at any given point is urged to be perfect but we are not; nor will we ever be. But, and this is our history: America, both constitutionally and practically, has always been open to truth-seeking and when we find ourselves, individually or collectively wanting, we have often worked unashamedly to make things right. By the way, this process is always messy. 

Of course, “right”, in a sense, is over organized.  Rights about guns and birth and academics and gender are often word weapons aimed at those with different views. Noise calls attention to the cause and severity in words and images is used to raise money. Estrangement often results and social media becomes, well, certainly not social.

Recently, critical race theory (CRT) has been urged by some academics and activists as an answer that will lead to a better answer. The theory requires believing that America is systemically racist—all of us (or, at least those who are white) and our institutions. It is a theory that divides. It is a theory that refuses to treat us as individuals, regardless of motivation or actions. 

Ironically, the CRT theorists cite evidence of ancient confederate trumpets brought to life now over 150 years after the Civil War as proof of racism. The Confederate cause (right to enslave) has never been right. And, when calls for State’s rights are barely concealed attempts to discriminate a valuable power-sharing asset is compromised and oxygen is given to CRT activists.

We need to do a better job making sure opportunity is available to all and that will require more outreach to those who have fallen behind. But when we look for thoughtful leadership on issues of race we need to draw on Martin Luther King Jr. Recall Dr. King’s dream: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  We need to embrace inclusion, not exclusion and work on our national character.

The Greatest Generation was not perfect. But, they gave us a chance to build a more perfect union. And that is where we should always be aiming. But, as we continue working on the scaffolding for a better union, take a look at world history and be proud to be an American and humbly understand we can always be better.

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. 

“His blood is on the Eastern Shore.” Indeed.

The comments were heartfelt and at times poetic. The occasion, honoring Jeff Horstman, the newest Chesapeake Bay Ambassador. Jeff recently retired as executive head of ShoreRivers. I suspect his retirement will not go well. He is not by nature, retiring. 

Jeff Horstman

Ann Swanson, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, summed up Jeff’s devotion to our rivers, bays and land. Her coda spoke of blood and the passions it stirs—and stirs in Jeff.

I had the good fortune of serving with Jeff on the Boards, yes plural. At the beginning we served on the board of Midshore Riverkeepers Conservancy, which was founded by Tim Junkin in 2009. ShoreRivers, the organization Jeff led until recently, includes the now merged Chester River Association which was founded in 1986 and the Sassafras River Association, founded in 2004.  

Absent Jeff’s leadership this merger would not have happened. Today ShoreRivers is the steward of the Choptank, Miles, Wye, Chester and Sassafras rivers.

Yes, I know organizational moves can be mind-numbing in the recounting. But, and this is the ultimate accomplishment: Jeff brought together a disparate combination of leaders who were devoutly focused on their watersheds and plans into a crucial regional mission which enjoys far-reaching synergy.

There were, of course, many principals in what was a rapidly moving and often inspiring narrative. But, there was one whose passion, focus, and measured efforts led to ShoreRivers.

Congratulations Ambassador Jeff Horstman.

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 acronym RINO has always seemed to me an exercise in subtraction. One of its early uses in the 1990s in California branded Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan (a Republican) a RINO. Today the Republican Party in California bears no resemblance to the successful one that helped elevate Ronald Reagan to the Governorship. 

Generally the negative reference has been reserved for those thought to be too liberal by the ruling conservatives. In 2015 some branded Donald Trump a RINO because he had rather recently been a Democrat and was thoroughly pragmatic. 

I understand movements but what I struggle to understand are suicidal ones—movements that revolve around a savior, not underlying principles. In the Republican Party today there is a whiff of Argentina—remember Juan Peron. Today Trump wants aspiring candidates to kiss his ring or be canceled. He is working to cancel Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s leadership position in the House Republican Caucus because she says that insistence that Trump won the 2020 election is “a poison in the bloodstreams of our democracy.” 

President Biden understands the dynamic of the political “cancel culture.” His political jujitsu has been impressive. NPR summed up the fusion of Biden politics with Senator Bernie Sander’s socialist philosophy: “The goals of the task force were to move the Biden campaign into as progressive a direction as possible, and I think we did that,” Sanders told NPR. 

At the outset former President Donald Trump attacked members of the Republican caucus in the US Senate especially John McCain and Jeff Flake, representing Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee. Arizona now has two Democratic senators. More recently he attacked Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger because he didn’t win the Georgia vote for President. Several months later the two Georgia Senate seats were won by Democrats. The Republican nominees, both incumbents, had unfailingly embraced Trump.

Trump is clever and not. He understood the frustration with Washington and successfully leveraged his reality star turn on TV to the White House. But he has often treated the Republican Party like Mar De Lago, his private enclave. Exclusivity does not work; mathematics requires leaders, like former President Ronald Reagan, who can sell their ideas and are comfortable with disagreement.

Get mad, get angry is not an alternative path to our infinite adventure that we call America. Regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity, America has been a symbol for improved lives. Any worthy adventure on collective living is how best to do it. And we have to look back and forward for insights. America has been magnetic—freedom is infectious—people from every continent, of every color have created one of the longest lines in history. “Please, accept my immigration papers; I want to live in America.”

The reality is that many of those in the customs queue are there because their national governments have ordered their lives to conform to prejudice—the prejudice of ethnicity, rigid orthodoxy, geography, cronyism.

My question: How do today’s Republicans want to participate in this most human desire? What would a Republican government do?

So let me close with a few thoughts from a RINO. Joe Biden has clearly gone too far left for me. His stance on the national debt, his exploitative use of the pandemic, and his, at least implied, attack on America being systemically racist is a road way too far for me.

But the Republican Party today is also on a road too far for me. Grievance politics is embittering. And the attack on the results of the Presidential election is not conservative, but a radical attack on our constitutional structure of checks and balances. Elections are disputed in courts and America’s courts uniformly rejected a blizzard of claims that would have reversed the 2020 outcome. Many of the lawsuits were dismissed by judges appointed by Trump.

The Republican Party is in the early stages of finding new leadership. It should look forward and offer inclusivity to all those who want to continue the American adventure but who want to do it in the right-of-center lane.

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. 

Axios, in its April 23rd edition wraps up President Biden’s climate summit with the following headline: “The Biden Climate Doctrine Emerges at Summit.” This sequence is, at best, anti-democratic. The President should get in touch with the American people before making pledges to other heads of state.

Ben Geman and Andrew Freeman wrote the Axios piece and noted, “Congress barely surfaces in the detailed new pledge to cut U.S. emissions in half by 2030. Squint and you’ll find references, for instance, to “incentives,” which is code for tax policy — but overall it largely avoids acknowledging reliance on lawmakers.”

James Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist, was more pointed. In an interview with Vox.com, he accused his Party of practicing “faculty politics” when it came to climate change.  He said there was no emotion in the campaign, “We don’t have it because with faculty politics what you do is appeal to reason. You don’t need the sloganeering and sound bites. That’s for simple people. All you need are those timetables and temperature charts, and from that, everyone will just get it.”

We all know, that is those of a certain age, that the weather is different now than it was in our youth. Many simply conclude that is the weather being the weather.

Yet, we now face a discernable pattern and a plausible scientific explanation for a heating globe. I expect most of us, noting a traceable pattern of weather in our own lives, pay some attention to those who translate physics into more understandable conclusions. But then many of the conclusions are theories and weather has a nasty habit of throwing curve balls.

Weather patterns have become threatening enough that they attracted the ultimate Nerd/Businessman Bill Gates, who recently wrote a book called “How to Avoid a Climate Catastrophe”. Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft is a very rich man and, to the benefit of mankind, a very good philanthropist. 

Jumping over pages of analysis Gates notes the incontrovertible, which is to say, precisely measured greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that, like a greenhouse, trap heat. He further notes that the science is clear: greenhouse gasses persist century over century; he likens those gases to water in a bathtub.

“The climate is like a bathtub that’s slowly filling up with water. Even if we slow the flow of water to a trickle, the tub will eventually fill up and water will come spilling out onto the floor.”

If this analogy was easily translated into human activity, we would keep buying bigger bathtubs or siphoning our bathtub water to an atmospheric reservoir. But, we can’t reengineer the atmosphere in any permanent way. 

 I recently read Gates’ book and would recommend it. He does a good job translating the physics and associated computer modeling into the understandable. And, in my view, he doesn’t sow confusion as so many of the extrapolators do who push the theoretical into the territory of the certain and then light a rhetorical fuse—screaming headlines.

Gates, ever the nerd, has been eager to fully understand the climate phenomenon but with humility notes: “The climate is mind-blowingly complex, and there’s a lot we don’t understand about things like how clouds affect warming…………….” He goes on however; to tick off things we do know. “The earth is warming, it’s warming because of human activity, and the impact is bad and will get much worse.” He believes, as the title denotes, that it could mean catastrophe for our grandchildren and beyond.

My conclusion about all this is I cannot independently analyze my way to a conclusion. I must rely on somebody else and preferably a lot of somebody else’s. Dramatic policy changes require at least majoritarian consensus and that results from a number of points of view coalescing around solutions. 

Turning to a just released book by Steven Koonin, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, the Wall Street Journal writer Homan Jenkins commented: “Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.” Mr Koonin was President Obama’s Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy.

Jenkins continues: “Mr. Koonin hopes that “a graceful out for everybody” will be to see the impulse for global climate regulation “morph into much more impactful local environmental action: smog, plastic, green jobs. Forget the global aspect of this.”

I have spent a lifetime doing things the hard way because I didn’t think I could afford to hire someone who could do it quick and right. So when it comes to climate change and, knowing my limitations, I look for independent-minded intermediaries that help us translate complexity. And I look for relatable experiences and circumstances.

For example, each day serves up humanity trying to avoid or elude nature. Recent headlines: a huge ship runs aground in a narrow canal (Suez Canal) and a wastewater pond in Florida leaking toxic water. Environmental threats or disasters that are human made or assisted are weekly events.

The reality: Consumerism pushes and pushes and we have been indoctrinated to not worry about the cost side. Common sense tells us there is no free lunch. So let me turn to the cost side.

In skating and gymnastics, athletes get better scores if they can master the most difficult techniques. Zero net greenhouse emissions as a 2050 goal, is beyond difficult. And the costs are estimated in the trillions. Yet even the scientists who are skeptical of the hot rhetoric point to the need for appreciable and measurable reductions. Organizations that do not set goals are rarely better than mediocre. 

There are thousands of organizations—some public, most private—that work every day to make the environment better. Many are acting to reduce greenhouse gases even though that is not their principal mission.

Oil companies are investing in alternate energy sources to diversify their businesses. Innovation is serving as an incubator for new businesses that offer innovative methods of carbon reduction. Utility companies are beginning to buy solar-powered electricity from homeowners.

Additionally and importantly, thousands of individuals and non-profit organizations are working to support nature in its tug-of-war with development at any cost. A wide range of organizations either protect trees or plant them; mangrove reforestation is especially important. On their way to enhancing habitat for birds, Ducks Unlimited and Audubon reduce greenhouse emissions. We need to capture the energy of these movements to do more to reduce greenhouse gases.

The regulatory side of the equation is much more likely to embrace command and control. Incentives, the carrot if you prefer, have a much better track record. 

Gates, understandably, places great emphasis on research and development (R&D). Incentives to decarbonize through private actions and sweeping innovation should certainly be a centerpiece of American leadership.

If the climate change initiatives are to work, there will have to be an acceptable international organization to coordinate and monitor results. When I was in Washington I worked with the International Telecommunications Union as frequencies and satellites do not honor sovereign borders; nor do greenhouse gases. America needs to be part of a similar initiative on greenhouse gas emissions. America needs to lead in shaping the international effort. But, it is impossible to lead internationally if the American people don’t have your back.

So let me retreat briefly to James Carville’s criticism. If actions to stall and then attenuate a warming climate are to work, then the international “we” are going to have to spend more for transport, food, building materials and numerous other items until scale and innovation begin to reduce costs. This is not a result that can be manipulated by clever Executive Orders. 

Debates precede decisive actions and debates that turn on scientific findings are not easy. Claims are thrown around like javelins by people who would be paralyzed if required to go beyond their talking points. 

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about climate change assertions unless it smothers curiosity. Buy a copy of the Gates book; it is a good primer, an easily understood analysis, and a relatively quick read. Not a bad place to begin to sort out the claims and counterclaims and then join in what is a very important national debate.

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. 

Much of America exhaled. They saw Derrick Chauvin kill George Floyd but they had been told that police officers are not convicted—that there is at least an informal club that marches to one refrain: “we’ve got your back.” When the verdict was read “whew” was the response.

The truth is that a very high standard must be met in criminal cases. For a person to be convicted of homicide the evidence has to combine to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

In the case of police, who are charged with a crime at a crime scene, they have a ready-made defense. They are, after all, the front-line of protection and can claim that the State’s evidence, presented by a prosecutor, is simply one way of looking at the facts. A good defense attorney will explain that in threatening circumstances, where reaction to protect or defend is measured in split seconds, we should yield to the trained senses of our protectors—the police.

But, in the matter of George Floyd, the circumstances were not threatening; split second decisions were not needed and “take a look at the video.” Having prosecuted and defended a few cases, back in the day, I was always looking for a way to shape evidence into indisputable findings. In the Floyd case, there was indisputable evidence; it turned the public into jurors and the public nodded its approval when twelve of their number declared guilty.

There is, of course, much talk of police reform and I am sure some is needed. I would begin by emphasizing the use of weapons that disable, not kill. But, to those who want to defund the police I would say be careful what you wish for. Crime has spiked in recent months and the “defund the police” movement has certainly not helped.

But let me come back to the evidence. Video evidence has become more and more available as the possession of cell phone cameras is now ubiquitous. And for those on the front-line, require body cameras. This one step would lead to indisputable evidence increasingly facing off with “beyond a reasonable doubt”. 

Both before and after the trial ended politicians were camera-ready. They have public personas and narratives and constituents to please. But, I would be careful about using the White House bully pulpit, in particular, to accuse American institutions of systemic racism. Systemic is most often used in medicine, to denote that a disease is systemic, rather than localized. In a heterogeneous nation filled with wildly divergent circumstances and demographics, the word systemic might be best left to medicine.

I spent several years in law enforcement as an Assistant Attorney General in my home state of Missouri. My sense then and now is that the overwhelming population of policemen, prosecutors, defenders and judges are doing their best to live up to the image and creed of impartial justice. Plus, law enforcement agencies are much more diverse today than in my day. Thankfully.

Is their prejudice? Yes, humanity is guilty. Are there people who wear the badge who shouldn’t? Yes. Does the evidentiary standard in criminal cases result in some guilty people going free? Yes. All and more combine to make the job of law enforcement more difficult and at times indefensible.

Finally, for those who were watching and listening they got an education in real life challenges and possibilities. The trial of Derrick Chauvin was not a made for TV movie or series. It was a dogged display of justice at its best and a dramatic lesson in how the video moment can neuter the defense.

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. 

Mass shootings equal tragedy, a lot of talk and not much else. So let me make a radical suggestion. Go upstream, go to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Change it, don’t argue about what can be done to circumvent it. Too many politicians use the persistence of gun control as an issue, as a political tool to raise money and enhance their position with single-issue voters.