Friends and Family

Many of us have seen friendships and even family relations fracture due to political differences. As David French pointed out in a recent commentary, we have very little influence on what happens in national politics. Our one vote or even active outreach for one side or the other rarely makes a difference. On the other hand, we can make a huge and positive difference in our families and circles of friends.

Sure, I write from time to time about politics and consider public affairs in a democracy important, but from decades of experience I am convinced we should value relationships much more than debating points.

Contrarians of the Year

My nature is to ask why so many are moving in the same direction. Is it truth or credulity that is the propellant? Characteristic then are my year end salutes.

On the Republican side are Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Both turned away from tribal insistence and former President Trump’s persistent disparagement and are probing for truth in the investigation of the January 6th assault on the Capitol.

On the Democrat side are Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Both turned away from costly entitlements buried in omnibus legislation. Withstanding immense pressure, they saved the nation trillions of dollars of new entitlements fiscally sold as time-limited expenditures. Would that President Biden would have shared their insight.

Questions for 2022

I have been and remain dubious about Donald Trump winning his Party’s 2024 nomination. Perhaps it is my contrarian nature serving up a false premise. But I persist. 2022 will not be a good year for the former President. The big reveal will persist with decline in those who would be willing to vote for him to again occupy the Oval Office. It is possible that Republicans will renominate somebody who cannot win, but I doubt it.

And, to that same point, Democrats will begin to look beyond President Biden and Vice-President Harris to find its nominee. Neither, for different reasons, will have the necessary pulling power projected to November of 2024.

The importance of 2022 is that the midterms offer up a fresh lens and often spotlight the persuasive power of emerging political leaders.

Best bet, however: being a hotelier in Iowa or New Hampshire where the presidential nominating process will begin.

2022 will not be framed by Covid but by Hybrid. We will learn to live with whatever mutation. Covid has had an enormous influence over how we live and some level of angst will persist. Or let me put it another way. Stung by Covid and now inflation, efficiency in how we live will enjoy a star turn.

I also believe step-back analyses of the nation’s response to Covid will show that we burdened too many and failed to target effectively those who were especially vulnerable. And I hope that the spotlight on public health and its leadership will attract a new and improved generation of public health leadership.

2022 will feature another public health spotlight. We will increasingly learn about our role in the new media business model—the near complete loss of our privacy. Increasingly stories are focusing on not just the loss of privacy, but how our individual profiles are being exploited.

Humanity has weak spots. We are all vulnerable to spending or borrowing too much and the business model at its foundation is aimed at just that. Temptation has always been an important element in advertising. Every sense from smell to taste to hormonal urges and much more are the stimulants. But the advertising in the past has been aimed at demographics, not persons. Now we and often our weaknesses are the target! We will push back more aggressively in 2022.

Pursued at 74

Chris Wallace just signed what I suspect is a lucrative contract with CNN at age 74. So, what is it about Wallace?

I would suggest the offer was for sustained integrity. Integrity that demanded hard to answer questions. Questions that often-revealed deception and/or hypocrisy.

Chris Wallace occupied an office at one of the biased cable networks (Fox in his case) without harming his reputation. Both Biden and Trump accepted him as the moderator of one of the presidential debates. Wallace took on viewpoint journalism and won.

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 much to learn or at least remind ourselves—we should not anesthetize revealing moments. So let me begin my annual year-end column by wishing you a Merry Christmas. But, let me add that as other important moments of religious observance occur, we should pause and reflect on the events and messages as well.

Or to put it another way, the noise of the world is always with us. We are continually told what to believe, promote, buy and borrow. We shouldn’t be surprised then when an important moment of reflection is turned into a commercial affair. 

There are eleven federal holidays. A few celebrate a turning of the calendar, some are paired with events and almost all are underscored with commercialism. Three are more personal as we celebrate George Washington, Martin Luther King and Christopher Columbus—each giant figures in our history, but also quite human in their ambitions and patterns of living. 

President Washington, following his election as our first President, began a tour that concluded with his inaugural in New York. He visited the Mid-Atlantic and New England states—states of the new union.

Washington’s fame bordered on the mythic. He led the Continental army which defeated the British. And then was elected the United States first head of State. At several of his stops young boys were heard to exclaim, with surprise, “He is just a man.” 

Historians continue to dig and each new narrative angle generally contains information revealing the leaders humanness. Perfection is not only elusive, it is out-of-reach. Before long we are left asking whether glorifying a person is a sensible thing to do.

Ironically there are “culture influencers” who attempt to erase Jesus Christ from Christmas. Their preferred greeting is “Happy Holidays”. Yet, across virtually the entire spectrum of the faith community Jesus is revered. His teachings are inspirational and aspirational. The world, our world, is often dark; we should welcome the light each December. 

Miroslav Volf, Founding Director, Yale Center for Faith & Culture, extends 1 John 4:20 in a telling expression: “Since God is invisible, love for God is invisible as well; unlike God, though, the neighbor is visible, and love for neighbor is visible as well. Since the love for neighbor and for God is one, “those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen”.

While all of us can agree that too often religion is used to elevate humans and their ambitions, we should look beyond the noise. We should encourage the visible affirmations of faith. 

Charles Dickens revisited the seasons light in The Christmas Carol. As Scrooge re-visited Christmas pasts he was able to defeat a lifetime of selfishness to become a new man with an entirely new outlook of life. Scrooge was touched and then transformed.

I hope for you that this Christmas is filled with love. Merry Christmas!

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 are early signs of a second stage of the Republican revolution started by Donald Trump in 2016. Looking forward essays are being written about its future that deal less with grievance and more with definition.

The revolution’s beginning pivoted on the past. Former President Trump, in pungent terms, captured frustration in a constituency that had been a crucial part of the Democrat Party calculus. This constituency—often referred to as “blue collar workers”—had been traumatized by global trade, technology disruption and social upheaval. And the only color in this constituency is the presumed color of the work shirt.

Trump was elected, grievance succeeded. Covid then exacerbated the political disharmony; oxygen was given to conspiracy theories and people who write about politics and the culture for a living gorged on controversy and provocation.

One data point that has forced open a window of deeper examination is revealed in an Axios-Ipsos poll which found that just 37% of Independents say they have confidence in the wisdom of the Party’s choices on Election Day.  And 44% of Americans, according to Gallup, identify as Independents—a formidable force.

So even though hard-core partisans frequently determine which presidential candidates emerge in the primaries, the most farsighted candidates try to remain acceptable to Independents. So what is the conservative script for this constituency?

There is no shortage of copy about conservatism and the Republican Party. And, having served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration, I’m certainly familiar with how his keepers-of-the-flame guarded it. But what was it?

In President Reagan’s days, it was tightening the fiscal valve on domestic spending, but opening it for military strength. President Reagan generally embraced free trade and certainly low taxes and minimal regulation.

In many ways, the most pronounced conservative philosophy shaped judicial nominees. Roe v Wade (decision creating a Constitutional right to an abortion) was, for a number of reasons, the epicenter of the outcry. The constant: find justices who will not reinterpret words and phrases with their own policy preferences.

Today conservatism is harder to define; plus for it to be a dynamic that voters will find compelling, it must reveal itself open to innovation and adaptation. Being against what the other side is doing is not sufficient. So, let me go upstream from the day-to-day issues.

Before and after my Washington time I was in business. Reality, discovered competitively, was informative. The constant test: does it work? Maybe that should be the new business agenda in politics.

Renewal in a technological age is only available through conceptual thinking, proof of concept actions and then the election of politicians who can reject laws, methods and appropriations that are not working. 

And if America’s future is going to be bright, conservatives must insist that Congress resume working. We have three branches of government—one is barely functioning, one is going beyond its constitutional power and the final one, the judiciary, has become the decider. The President orders, the Congress fumes and the Supreme Court decide if the order is constitutional; we might call it the power of ten. At the risk of only slight overstatement, America is a messy autocracy at the Federal level. And this is at a time when Independents believe the Parties do not serve up good candidates. 

I believe China is on a debilitating path because the societal disruption that every nation is facing cannot be dialed up or down successfully by an autocrat and his minions. What about America?

Finally, my list of questions for thinkers and politicians who self-define as conservative:

1. Where is basic education working? Why? How can the successful models be implemented in every public school?
2. Should China’s aggression in the Pacific and beyond cause the US government to reopen negotiations to join the Trans Pacific Partnership?
3. What laws, if any, are necessary to protect humanity as we know it from being re-engineered by the manipulation of genes?
4. What laws, if any, are necessary to protect privacy from a media business model underwritten by our personal information paired with artificial intelligence?
5. What does conservation of the earth’s resources mean to a conservative?
6. Is it possible to pull together our immense health care resources in a more efficient and just combination?

Okay, I get it. This is a wish list that borders on the delusional. Where, marketers ask, is the nifty slogan? What about an insistent theme? Will voters pay any attention?

We all have our lists and that is my point. Wouldn’t it be better to actually debate and then answer questions that will determine our peace and tranquility? For example, should the billions of dollars targeting climate change solutions be hidden in two enormous omnibus bills? 

And finally, what is conservative conduct? Are conservatives preternaturally cautious, modest, likely to believe that each person is a child of God? I simply ask the questions. I don’t know. 

But what I do know is that if interparty relationships are correctly characterized by the Left and Right of cable news, America is in trouble.

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. 

This column is adapted from a recent talk at Washington College’s Institute for Religion, Politics and Culture.

Culture Leads Leaders Follow, a book I wrote, was published in 2015. This is an excerpt from the Foreword written by Chelsea Horvath who was then a Trinity Forum Academy Fellow.

“Culture Leads, Leaders Follow is an edgy and pointed assessment that critically addresses free markets, media, technology, faith in the Public Square, and fatherhood.” She goes on to say the book is, “for today’s young leaders who are attempting to creatively navigate the legacy of a convoluted culture left by previous generations, despite the temptation to submit to its unchallenged flow.” 

But, and this is my coda to Chelsea’s comments, it is a book about culture and leadership and in particular the force fields of both. I am reminded of Peter Drucker, the leadership guru of my generation’s quip: “Culture eats strategy for lunch.”

Over and over journalists, columnists, talk show hosts, even academics begin some expression with a sigh of relief: “I am certainly glad that I don’t have to raise my children in today’s world.”

The overarching question is how today’s world became what it is. Who pushed the buttons or maneuvered the levers? Was it political figures? The Church? Educators? Courts? I can make a case that each one played some role and often an unfortunate one.

In my lifetime I have seen dramatic swings. Sunday has been taken over by sports. Tobacco was once cool; now it is not. When the push began for same-sex marriage then US Senate candidate Barack Obama said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” 

Or what about the swing in civility? Societal cleavages are deep; unity is really hard. As “critical race theory” deepens conflicts, recall the words of Martin Luther King Jr. from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial: “I have a dream that my four 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.”  

But let me do a hard pivot to Washington College’s Institute for Religion, Politics, and Culture. I am especially intrigued about the intersection of the sectarian and secular. And am particularly saddened by the diminished cultural influence of the sectarian.

Church and State are, wisely, separated but what about church and culture? When, for example, was the last time Proverbs was cited in articles about morality or ethics? Or for that matter any biblical verse. My guess: it was in a sectarian publication. 

Turning to politics the most abrupt and vivid lesson for me on the ways of power politics came from then Secretary of Commerce, in the Reagan administration, Malcolm Baldrige. The White House wanted to nominate me to head the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the Commerce Department but the nomination would only go forward with Secretary Baldrige’s approval.

As I entered the Secretary’s office on a cold December day in 1986 I quickly took in the elegant setting complete with a fire in the fireplace. Baldrige motioned for me to sit in a chair opposite his desk. There was a large horse saddle to his left. Baldrige was still at age 64 competing in rodeos.

After a quick “hello” Baldrige said and I quote, “Al, Washington is a god-damned tough town. Everybody is after a piece of your ass. How do you rate yourself for aggressiveness?”

Politics at the highest level should not be understood as an invitation. The ambition of politicians is to hold power and not lose it. Does that sound like Caesar? 

Sure, there are political or judicial moves that disappoint or even inflame the faithful. They should be considered when we play our role as citizens in a democracy. But, the faithful have a larger role to play and the Gospel, in my tradition, writes the script. If it doesn’t what does?

In 1954, while still working on his dissertation, Martin Luther King Jr. became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama. King was only 25 years old.

In December of 1955, he became the leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott to end segregated public transit. He acted locally and became the leader of the most important cultural and then legal changes in my lifetime. The only way the faithful succeed is by changing the culture and the best place to start is where you live. Power politics is not only not biblical it often entangles the most well-intentioned. 

David French, who is an evangelical Christian, author and commentator recently wrote: 

“Why do I so often repeat verses like Micah 6:8 (“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God”)? Or Luke 6:28 (“bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you”)? French explains his citations: “I know there’s a very good chance that someone reading my work is hearing those verses and concepts for the very first time in their lives, even if they identify as Christian.” He was commenting about polling data that show a significant percentage of people identify as evangelical but do not attend church.

French goes on to say: “The transformation of white Evangelicalism into a primarily political movement is a cause for deep and profound concern.” As Baldrige noted, “everybody is after a piece of your ass.”

If Christians reshape the culture in significant ways it will start, and I hope has started, in communities across the nation. King’s movement started in Montgomery, Alabama where he was a pastor; his leadership reshaped the national culture.

Relatedly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was founded in 1980, by Candace Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunk driver. According to Wikipedia there is at least one MADD office in every state of the United States and at least one in each province of Canada. Statistics show an approximate 50% reduction in drunk driving deaths since the founding of MADD and the enactment of more punitive penalties.  

I could go on but will stop there. My point is simple: culture leads, leaders follow. 

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. 

The name Winsome took me back quite a few decades to those magic moments when my wife, Marty, was pregnant. Driving trips in particular were absorbed in discussions about naming. And this was a time, before ultrasounds, when the sex had not been revealed. This made for a more expansive exploration.

Vaguely, but somewhat vividly, I recall those conversations. We would talk about family names. We would talk about who would be thrilled and who would be deflated. We would sound out names looking for harmony, rhythm and maybe a bit of melody.

William Shakespeare in a telling exchange revealed the naming dilemma. Spoken by Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Juliet was defiant. She was not allowed to fall in love with Romeo because he is a Montague. 

What’s in a name? Nothing and everything. The newly elected Lieutenant Governor of Virginia is named Winsome Sears. And she, to the cast of Virginia Senators in their ornately appointed chamber, will be called Madame President. Not bad for a woman, a Jamaican-American who grew up in the projects.

And her election has consequences. One of the most important is to introduce Virginians and beyond to the word “winsome”. I am sure I was well into my third decade before becoming familiar with its meaning: “attractive or appealing in appearance or character.” Better that we learn its meaning earlier and most importantly its import. 

Georgetown professor Michael Dyson in the aftermath of her election said of her: “There is a black mouth moving but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue of a figure who justifies and legitimizes the white supremacist practices.” He apparently hadn’t read she is also a Marine. 

I would ask Professor Dyson: when does polarization become a winning strategy? Never is the answer. Polarization is an element that in its interplay with other elements virtually always finishes out of the money. Polarizing as a tactic can win short-term victories but in the long-term, in a democracy, action turns on some level of unification. Dyson, of course, is not running for anything; Sears did and was elected in a State not especially welcoming to Republicans in recent years. 

The hardened polarizers on the Left demean the Lieutenant-Governor-Elect while on the Right those Republican in the Congress who came to an acceptable understanding on a compromise bill funding infrastructure investments are said to be turncoats. Unity as treason?

Most people do not like polarization—the “us against them” of the human condition. When people are intensely inflexible in their point of view they want to let you know and before long you don’t want to hear more.

Former President Trump was, in my lifetime, the most polarizing figure in politics. He is the most polarizing not because he is wrong but because he insists that everybody who doesn’t share his view is wrong. And he often does so by insulting them. His loss resulted from transgressive behavior; the behavior and numbers do not lie. 

There is also a false narrative that I have certainly heard more than once. When I am with somebody who supported Trump and often still does it will be said that I helped to elect Biden. Recently I responded to this by saying “I did not vote for either”. I was then told that there are only two choices and you must choose between the offerings of the dominant Parties. One of the prevailing principles in a democracy is you get to choose, I did.

I have no idea why Winsome’s parents choose her name. But my own experience tells me it was a considered decision. Maybe it was because they understood that winsome approaches to life’s many challenges are more likely to succeed. They couldn’t have known that their daughter would one day campaign for the second highest office in Virginia, but as immigrants, they did know that their lives and America’s promise, “out of many one” would be better served by harmony not division. All Americans should take note.

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. 

The case against Glenn Youngkin, the Governor-Elect of Virginia: he didn’t denounce Trump. The case for: he didn’t denounce Trump. I would make the latter case. Perhaps a strange position for me; I certainly didn’t support Donald J Trump.

Candidates for the future have to get to the future. Republican candidates who denounce Trump, for the predictable future, will be footnotes. Trump’s populist edge still cuts.

Youngkin is the kind of candidate that can help rebuild the Republican Party, a personality cult Party is weak. His Wikipedia profile does not start with election to some political office. And, he has not, as have so many Republican office holders, felt a need to lavish praise on Trump. While not denouncing him, he kept him at arm’s length.

And unlike former Governor Terry McAuliffe he campaigned on Virginia issues. McAuliffe, forgetting that the Republican Party is the conservative one, not simply the one former Democrat Trump affixed his name to, condescended. He essentially told Virginians that you should trust me because the other guy is in Trump’s pocket.

In my experience most races for Governor turn on state not national issues. McAuliffe, failing to nationalize the campaign lost. Virginians, like Marylanders when they turned to Republican Larry Hogan, will get a more representative government. States that are dominated by a single Party get less and less representative government. Hoorah for two-party governance.

Glenn Youngkin succeeded in business and his first outing as a candidate was a good one. Now, can he be a successful Governor? Given his meteoric beginning, if he is successful his appeal will be nationalized. Best, however, that his focus stay at home.

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. 

My wife and I recently came back from a road trip in Missouri to visit friends and family. As much as I like back roads we did travel some on Interstates 44 and 70 and that is where this column began. We saw billboard sign after sign promoting medical marijuana (M&M). And, at the risk of understatement, billboards are a strange medical information medium. These boards were often paired with a number of others targeting, shall we say, trucker’s hormones.

One of the friends we visited has an investment in a “medical marijuana” dispensary. I asked whether I could walk in and buy some gummy bears laced with THC (short for tetrahydrocannabinol) the main psychoactive compound in marijuana that produces a “high” sensation. He said the dispensary would put me in touch with a doctor who would have me fill out a form and that qualifying to receive a medical marijuana card was a “no-brainer” (my favorite).

Several weeks before, I had seen similar signs in both New York and Pennsylvania. Maybe Covid 19 vaccine advice has relegated this new therapeutic to the outskirts of media advertising. I suspect the dispensaries like it there.

On reflection I found myself wondering why, with the proliferation of drugstores, we need new dispensaries to dispense marijuana (a product derived from the plant Cannabis sativa) in medical form. Wouldn’t it be better to take advantage of a trained pharmacist to advise prospective patients if more conventional doctors are going to be circumvented? Keep in mind, M&M (not to be confused with the chocolate candy) comes in many shapes, sizes and doses.

Perhaps the different treatment is to be found, in part, in a seductive description. Eighteen States and the District of Columbia have legalized “recreational marijuana”. Recreational?  Should it be added to YMCA activities? We certainly don’t go to drugstores to buy recreational drugs. 

So what about the medical version? Are we so entangled in the cultural context that we are unable to rationalize the laws on the books?

If you are as confused as I am, here is what the federal government says about marijuana: “Marijuana is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 

Yet, as the Wall Street Journal reported “The FDA has approved a cannabinoid derived drug for the treatment of certain seizure disorders and cannabis-related medications for the treatment of weight loss in people with AIDs or nausea due to cancer treatment.”

While I have an aversion to studying chemical compounds, this approved drug seems to derive some of its therapeutic qualities from CBD, an active element in the cannabis plant that “significantly reduces the frequency and severity of seizures. It also reduces or even eliminates nausea associated with several conditions…..”

So stay with me for a minute. What about new laws? How about a law that recognizes the potential of marijuana or cannabis extracts to be used therapeutically? What about a law that breaks down any barriers to drugstores distributing medical marijuana?

And should the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) look into pairing the use of marijuana with the word recreation. Is this truth in labeling? Or does marijuana interfere with recreation? I suspect the marijuana lobby will make sure this doesn’t make the FTC docket.

In short, let’s concede that what now populates highway billboards and is branded for recreational use deserves our serious attention. And, if marijuana is to occupy our imagination as somehow paired with recreation, we need to better understand the consequences.

But, back to medical claims. The federal government spends billions of dollars on drug research. I would suggest that Congressman/doctor Andy Harris find a sliver of what is spent, to conclude more definitive studies on this plant with it’s over 400 chemical properties and sort out, legally, its marketing and distribution. 

We have a Food and Drug Administration, a Center for Disease Control and a Federal Trade Commission. Should they be leading discovery and direction on how marijuana is used and marketed? Science, law and law enforcement are relatively clear about extracts from Poppies (opioids). We need much more clarity on extracts from the Cannabis/Marijuana plant. If there are legitimate uses for these drugs, should they be relegated to billboards? 

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. 

 

As a child I built little dams along ditches that channeled runoff from rain and then watched as the water built up behind my sticks and stones until it pushed through. Later I became aware of impervious levees along the Mississippi River—home water. The water flow often resulted in flooding downstream. Nature as an enemy is a losing war.

And so it is with climate. Atmospheric science informed by extensive research dating back centuries demonstrates that greenhouse gasses build up in a manner that interrupts natural systems. Humans can do a lot, but nature is one of those irrepressible forces. Our climate is now wheezing and there are no quick fix pills.

Human’s desire for comfort is another of those irrepressible forces. The comfort force will prevail at the ballot box unless people are moved by clarity and given time to adjust.

Global politics compounds the risks, plans and actions. Every political leader whether democrat or autocrat will be looking over his/her shoulders. People have patterns of living derived from what is largely a fossil fuels economy. Asking people to reshape their lives to comply with the Paris Climate Accord or any other multilateral guidance is a high-risk venture. Most politicians are risk-averse. 

Political leaders and their affinity groups need to lead in practical ways. First, we need a plan that stages our withdrawal from the economy as we know it today. And the planners have to be insightful to gain and hold a political majority. Attempts to re-engineer functioning systems that, for an agreeable price, heat, cool, propel, make and the like overnight, will result in failure. Climate change deniers will find an unwitting ally if the activists make temperature more important than people.

Staging a greener future also calls for resilience planning. Unfortunately many climate activists regard resilience planning as giving aid to the enemy.  The real calamity will occur if we fail to stage our reduction of greenhouse gasses, adding to the toxicity of politics. Even the autocratic China has recently revived coal output and usage.

Since much of the climate change agenda is being pushed by those who regard nuclear power as unacceptable, an important tool is removed. It is like saying “you can get by without a wrench, just use a pair of pliers.” Those who block 21st Century nuclear power are mired in 20th Century thought. 

After Germany pulled back from nuclear power, coal replaced it, note: “Germany until March 2011 obtained one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The figure is now about 10% from six reactors, while 35-40% of electricity comes from coal, the majority of that from lignite.” Consumers give little thought to energy sources, but they give a lot of thought to interruptions and price increases. 

A look across the spectrum of audacious political goals demonstrates that there is a favorable tipping point in human attitudes when citizens become a part of the solution. Yet, today’s climate change plans are largely concentrated on trillion dollar investments and world conferences in faraway places. Back home, where the proverbial grass roots sprout, environmental actions on a number of fronts are impressive. America’s climate agenda leaders need to do a much better job translating climate threats into local plans and actions. 

Finally, a thought on resilience planning. If we can’t mitigate sources of damage to humans and their objects (rising tides, for example) then the humans that have chosen to live in harm’s way should bear most of the costs. Insurance is the market instrument for risk evaluation and pricing. The more risk assumed by the public the less resilience. But where there is collective risk, the appropriate authorities should be required to have the equivalent of a depreciation reserve to meet damages and required changes.

One more thing about markets. Incentives to mitigate climate risks through innovation should be a primary goal. It is timely to recall that Thomas Malthus predicted in 1798 that population growth would outstrip food production causing humans to be forced back into subsistence living. Extraordinary gains in knowledge led to innovations in “agriculture, energy, water use, manufacturing, disease control, information management, transport, communications,” that caused food production to meet the growth of population and then some. 

Climate change is real and comes with consequential threats. But, we need leaders who understand that human nature’s preference for comfort is also real. At some point technocratic plans will have to yield to democratic decisions.

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 lack the courage to take even the smallest step unless we can calculate its effect into the smallest detail.”
Angela Merkel

What an unappealing hash—Covid 19 in an age where too many seek glory in polemics and social media networks facilitate the spread of hearsay, rumor, buzz, gossip—well noise. 

Public health agencies, to successfully shoulder their burden, must cause the public to understand their limitations without dismissing their findings. Science is the tool of curiosity which must be continuous. At any given point science provides insights, but rarely certainty—“here is what we know but our studies will continue.”

We have all been paying some attention to scientific conclusions. This is not a foreign war about which most have long since lost interest. This is personal—death maybe. And this is a subject of opportunity; public health agencies and health care companies get to prove their mettle. The media gets to prove its usefulness. Obscure public health officials are suddenly given a star turn. 

Unfortunately at the beginning of the viral illness was politics. For Donald Trump it was the “Chinese flu” and the need to be front and center daily. He did, however, push a race to a vaccine—science. While the public health people were buffeted by what they couldn’t  know and the rip-tide of media-motivated politics, geneticists were leveraging what America does best—create, invest, adapt, make— swiftly.

The goal, simply stated, was a return to normalcy while saving the vulnerable along the way. If normalcy had been polled, it would have drawn only dissent from the people who make a living dissenting.

America’s preening politicians at times made the autocrats in Asia look good. And their camp followers found new microphones in social media. In seconds you could go from watching a news conference by the Center for Disease Control to posting your own opinion on Twitter or Facebook. 

As we learned, America, indeed the globe, needs more granular measurement. What is an individual’s risk of death or near-death? What circumstances raise or lower that risk? What public interventions in the high risk categories can move the dial in the right direction? In short, how can we live with the reality of a mutating coronavirus?

This is, of course, complicated stuff. As they say “way above my pay grade”, but the technology exists if the will and capability exist to do a lot better in public health.

Many are now predicting the public health policy will evolve to endemic not pandemic rules. Where, we will all want to know, will we be most likely to become infected? And who, at the personal level, is most likely to suffer a fatal or near fatal case? How can we live with it?

I have a close friend who is in his 90’s. Last January before going to a family gathering he got tested and discovered he had an asymptomatic case. Telling everybody from 65 years of age and up that they better avoid family gatherings undermines public confidence.

And how should the media deal with outlier events? We are told young people are very unlikely to have fatal or near-fatal reactions. Then a young person dies of Covid and the headlines make it seem as if you need to pull your child out of school.

We need the tools of risk assessment and discretion. Intuitively we know that immune-compromised persons are at greater risk, but what about people whose medical history is good? Should they shelter in place or go to school or a family gathering or to a concert? Education, families and the arts have often been pandemic fatalities.

And what about being in an interior space with other people who have been vaccinated? Are those circumstances that lead to so-called “breakthrough cases”? And, how dangerous are those cases?

Let me step back. My questions are the tip of the iceberg. But what I think we all know is that scaring the public with generalized data is a losing strategy and one that undermines the progress that we have made. Today there is a dramatic gap between what public health officials say we should be doing and what we are doing. Watch a sporting event, for example, with people packed into stadiums yelling and screaming their enthusiasm. 

Michael Lewis’ new book Premonition features a lively and alarming view of public health. Essentially Lewis finds his heroes outside or on the periphery of government agencies. The outliers he featured used science as a tool to probe ceaselessly and act quickly.

Broadly speaking, the public health mission needs to become more urgent and present. It is hard to attract leaders into a career if adrenalin only pumps once every generation. It’s like guarding a building in a low crime neighborhood.

So here is a thought starter on a more diverse and urgent set of missions. Is crime a public health issue? What about advertising that preys on our weaknesses while undermining our health? What about more personal environmental conditions that lead to a lowering of life expectancy? 

Yes, I know, other agencies will fight any incursion on their turf but if violent deaths and debilitating environments persist, and they do, it seems to me we need some competition.

It is clear that co-morbidities are the hubs of vulnerability. Should public health agencies have a more active role in reducing human inflicted circumstances that weaken resistance? 

Finally, there are and will always be stubborn people who seem to relish the opportunity to say “hell no, I’m not going there.” America allows stubbornness; our Constitution guarantees it. Public health and its private partners need to be stars so that the “hell no” crowd is outmuscled at the ballot box. 

Heroes

Headlines in the last couple of weeks have featured recipients of Nobel Prizes. We celebrate creativity; that is a good thing. But, why aren’t we celebrating the scientific teams that in record time created vaccines.

When a sports team wins it all they come to the White House and are toasted by the President. President Biden, lead America in celebrating the extraordinary accomplishments of a handful of scientists and their historic accomplishment.

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’s rare for me to wake up in the morning thinking about a film I saw the night before. And that has never happened to me when the co-star was a beaver—yes that rather large furry rodent that builds dams and beaver ponds. And the only top of mind film that gave a lavish role to water, was Singing in the Rain.

The movie, Water’s Way: Thinking Like a Watershed was the first shown at the Chesapeake Film Festival as it opened last Friday at The Avalon Theater. Its script writers, photographers, directors and producers are a trio of talented storytellers: Tom Horton, Sandy Cannon Brown, and Dave Harp. 

Seldom has nature and nurture been so beautifully paired. The filmmakers joyfully paired their craft and passions. 

Water is often thought of as a commodity. We take it for granted; it fills our day and penchant for complacency. We worry about a variety of outcomes each day, but for the most part drinkable water is not one of them. We take it for granted and rarely think about its sources. Or its complexity. Or its treatment: “water from natural sources is treated for microorganisms, bacteria, toxic chemicals, viruses and fecal matter.” 

Before we humans sought to control water there were millions of beavers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that were our allies. They built their dams and ponds along the creeks and streams that fed the rivers that filled the Bay. The beavers slowed the water down and provided nature’s infrastructure that filtered out the impurities. Clarity resulted and its dependents, clams and crabs and grasses and rockfish, thrived. 

Water’s Way guides us along the streams and rivers and the streets and parking lots in a beguiling narrative. The film seduces us with beauty while helping us to understand how water gets started and taking us on its natural journey that for many of us ends in the Chesapeake Bay.

We now build treatment plants and use chemicals to clean up the water that is guided by ditches and culverts that channel water that becomes one with a variety of sediments and pollutants occupying our parking lots, highways and fertilized fields, when not buffered by trees and plant life.

But let me not detract from the 45 minute movie. Water is the star and beavers are co-stars; but we, the audience, are not just passive viewers. In the end we are given a chance to star. My final thought: go to the movies or in this case to the movie which can be viewed by streaming it here.

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.