What is it about reality? Have many of us have lost our capacity to discern fact from fiction? Or, does right or wrong follow an indelible path imprinted by our ethnicity or political party or some loudmouth performative liar? Or some wayward professor whose education has seldom ventured beyond polemicists portrayed as intellectuals?

I am gobsmacked by those who can find anything redeeming about Hamas. Or Russia under Putin. Or the Ayatollah’s Iran. Evil exists. And for geopolitical and economic reasons, evil can find allies among arms sellers, a variety of terrorist groups and ultimate pragmatists like Turkey’s Recep Erdogan or Hungary’s Victor Orban. Or Xi’s China. Maybe they consider war to be ugly, but business is business.

Most alarming, if you believe in the fertile soil of freedom and opportunity, can America actually be led by someone who says they just want America to be left alone? I wonder what happens when you have chosen to be left alone and then find yourself in need.

Can you say that if America closets itself between the Atlantic and Pacific we can command enough strength to live peacefully and prosperously? If you see isolation as a benign condition, then you skipped History 101. Then there is 21st Century technology which can convert what appears to be local threats into international threats to humanity.

We live in the 21st Century. While at its most basic it is a number; it’s also a condition of opportunity and threat. The time in which we now live makes isolation a daft dream. Integrated production is international. Satellites track our movements. Networks store what we do and say. Propaganda is now ubiquitous, seeping into everything. Armaments, well, evil intent underwrites their propagation. North Korea and Iran’s export goods—weapons.

Perhaps retreat from this maelstrom on an individual level is possible, but collectively it is not. A principled and coherent foundation is a must and enlightened leadership is not optional. A schizophrenic national posture will steadily erode our strength.

Americans have a rich inheritance. We are mostly a free people, served by a prosperous economy on a foundation articulated by farsighted founders and secured by freedom—loving patriots. But then each generation has to decide and act to protect our legacy.

Should we be worried? Has modernity left too much behind? Are there departures from traditions that undermine us? I like to believe that millions are looking for something else, a fabric of belief that will result in revitalization of our founding principles.

In a democracy revitalization is conditioned on citizens—animate not inanimate ones. But maybe it’s too early to reverse the slide because incumbents don’t give up power and its benefits without a fight. And maybe America’s 21st Century leadership is at least five years away. It seems so, as millions look for new leadership while tens of millions seem content with what one writer calls “an unpopularity contest.” Yes, our dominant political parties seem insistent on replaying yesterday’s political insults—2016’s hits.

Democrats dismiss Donald Trump as a soon to be convicted criminal. Republicans dismiss Joe Biden as a daft oldster. In my view they are both showing alarming signs of age’s unyielding nature. Unsteadiness would be my layman’s description. This view seems to be baked into Biden’s poll numbers, but I would suggest that Trump should not get a pass. He has recently said he can settle the Ukraine war in 24 hours. Really?

We have one President at a time. And even though breathless commentators make it seem like the next Presidential race is just months away, President Biden has over 13 months remaining in office. The question to be answered in November, 2024, is who is ready to provide America with gifted leadership in 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028. Think about those cascading twelve month increments. Is there somebody who can unite us or at least unite a majority? Is there somebody who can understand the opportunities and threats of Artificial Intelligence because by 2029 most of the patterns and rules will have been written? Is there somebody who can lead America toward fiscal sanity? In short, is there somebody who can lead?

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. 

“He Gets Us” is what I call the Jesus campaign. Its creators noted: “One of the interesting things that happened while we were producing this was the casting. We wanted to use people that we thought would immediately elicit judgment from others.” They used art (casting) to further their mission, a modernization of the Second Commandment.

We, humans, are susceptible. We react to one or another artistic expression each day and sometimes our attitudes shift. And since the media of the day have torn down mass communication barriers the opportunity to spread influence is quite extraordinary. And not infrequently controversial. Beyond commercial art, which is ever present, we no longer need to go to a museum or gallery to be moved by artistic expression.

“He Gets Us” is a notable campaign which uses Jesus and his spiritual expressions as a modern day influencer. The artists take Jesus out of ancient times and put him in our time.

So what about Frederick Douglass? And what about new images of Douglass? An image created by the artist Adam Himoff and given life in Easton on the wall facing the restaurant Out of the Fire on Washington Street?

Douglass, at least in his initial home town of Talbot County, Maryland, where he was enslaved, is from time to time given honored recognition. But overall it is my guess that few people know the Douglass of history and his monumental accomplishments.

Himoff’s portrayal has sparked controversy. Good. Hopefully the controversy has provoked curiosity. For example, how many know that Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were contemporaries and met several times before Lincoln was dispatched by an assassins bullet?

Lincoln and Douglass had their differences. At the risk of too much brevity, Douglass thought Lincoln was going too slow in ending inequality in pay for black and white Union soldiers. Lincoln believed that if he was too aggressive—radical—he would lose support for his efforts at unity. Their differences and admiration for each other are history. History that should be read and understood as we are the ones to carry the burden of “building a better union.”

Returning to the present, many artists push beyond societal lines to call attention to their works and implicit attitude. Recall Andres Serrano, the photographer and his 1987 work, Piss Christ. Serrano submerged a crucifix in a bottle of his own urine, photographed it and then displayed it. Offense is too mild a word to describe the reaction.

The Douglass mural we can see in person or virtually is interpretive and the artist is respectful, although that conclusion is necessarily a subjective one. It opens a new window on Douglass and I hope provokes more discussion of this remarkable son of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I believe Douglass would be honored by the portrayal and the discussion that has followed . As he noted “if there is not struggle there is no progress.”

If it takes controversy and criticism to provoke curiosity and ultimately understanding, bring it on.

If you are curious about the “He Gets Us” campaign, here is a sample using the most advanced technology, illustratively.

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. 

“Well you have seen me and according to general experience you have seen less than you expected.” Lincoln at Hanover Junction, Pennsylvania.

Hanover Junction was a train stop on the way to Gettysburg. Lincoln was traveling there to dedicate the Soldiers National Cemetery. The address was delivered 160 years ago on November 19, 1863. Unity was the theme; 271 words was the length.

Today the image is the show and introductions often take more than 271 words. And the audience, for whatever politician, is frequently fed poll tested talking points to reinforce their prejudices. Performative politics pairs image with emotion and aims at division. The politician’s calculus is that “against” is more powerful than “for”.  The problem: when sharp division wins the country loses.

At Gettysburg Lincoln called “for the living to dedicate their lives to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” Is it even possible to conclude that today’s government is of, by and for the people? Is it, to use the most glaring failure, possible to accumulate almost 34 Trillion dollars of debt to be passed on to the next generation and conclude that today is about the future?

Much time is spent arguing about free speech. Today’s argument often surrounds what elite universities suppress. And that certainly is an important subject. But what about our nation’s finances; a subject that goes well beyond the episodic hyper-emotional subjects of the day.

I would argue that few, if any, of our media stand-ins are even able to intelligently probe beyond verbal shadowboxing. It is much easier to grill politicians and their stand-ins on the emotional issue of the day. In the recent off-year elections abortion policy was said to be the determinant.

At the risk of going well beyond 271 words let me close with these final thoughts.

Of, by and for the people—the refrain from both the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address lingers, but only faintly. Politicians, aided by an incurious or ill-prepared press, have shifted the battleground, as facts are drowned out by opinions often wrapped in rhetorical excess.

“You have seen less than you expected”. Abraham Lincoln, who led the Union in war and then began to lead the nation in peace before being assassinated, was singular. The times will not allow another. But as we, the people, exercise our rights we should keep in mind TS Eliot’s poetic lines: “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them.”

Our national debt and its inescapable trajectory are a disgrace. Not just harmful, but a disgrace.

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. 

When we think big purchases, most probably we think about cars. And we know that finding value is important in making this expensive purchase. Various publications have consumer value as their editorial mission.  Consumer Reports and Good Housekeeping come to mind. And there are a number of online ratings on where to eat or stay—think Yelp and Trip Advisor.

Paying too much for too little occupies our mind. And you don’t want to suffer through a bad meal. But what about news and information? Does it nourish, distract, or mislead. 

In 1897, Adolph S. Ochs, the owner of The New York Times (NYT), created the famous slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” which still appears on the NYT masthead. 

Most recently it headlined a story which picked up the Hamas line that Israel had bombed a hospital in Gaza killing hundreds of people. It’s competitor the New York Post followed up: “The New York Times has admitted it “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas.” 

In the aftermath of the NYT’s initial coverage hundreds of thousands worldwide took to the streets chanting “death to Israel”. This circumstance begs the ever-present question: who are we to believe. And when? Does the virtual world with its first mover advantage and legal shield enlarge the risk? In a capitalistic economy that values political freedom each day’s decisions pivot on who or what we should believe. The better we are at those conclusions the better our nation.

Most of today’s information hubs simply pass along what they think will attract attention and retain users. Since most don’t charge a fee for use, their business model is built around selling ads and a variety of side hustles. And many of the social media sites are little more than links to another site.

It is of course easy to say “buyer beware” and indeed we should. We don’t want to pay for bad food or a car with defects or a vacation that doesn’t live up to the visuals and so most do their research.

Yet when it comes to who we believe or elect, research is compromised by this rather simple declaration on the responsibility of Internet publishers: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. 47 U.S.C. Section 230© (1). 

In short, since the publisher is not the publisher there is little responsibility. The NYT knew it was responsible. Its masthead said “All the news that is fit to print”. It ultimately corrected its initial coverage and took a hit on its credibility.

But consider, it has been speculated that up to 90% of all videos on the Internet are fake and that many are concocted by our enemies. I have no idea whether that percentage is correct but my background tells me that is in the ballpark. While some are paid to report the news, millions worldwide earn their living distorting it.  US economic and security power make US citizens a target, if not the target.  And, gone are the days when at least hours separated thought and publication.

So, what do we do? If a provider of Internet services is to escape the responsibilities of a “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” they should have a concurrent duty. They should be required to set up a filtering or editorial system that can help them make a considered decision not just one to build a click inventory for sale.

The law should provide a “best practices” protection. Screening for manipulative practices will never be perfect but there should be a framework to block domestic and international predators searching for carrion. 

Russian, Chinese and North Korean propogandists are clever; it is not always possible to detect their content manipulations. And, of course, those and other attacks on truth will be constantly changing. Should Internet publishers have no responsibility for policing their site? When publishers see no evil, they are merely useful idiots.

Now there will be an outcry. It will be said that this will suppress speech and that more speech can reveal lies. It will also be said that this legal change will work to the advantage of the large sites as they can afford this protective step while the little guys cannot.

But, come on, we live in a world where artificial intelligence (AI) is being used to accomplish tasks that used to require scores of workers doing intricate research. The world has moved. Protective algorithmic schemes are just as possible as the exploitative ones.  Publishers should now be required to be what they are, publishers not merely repeaters. Feeding the credulous and excitable lies should not be protected.

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. 

 

 

Winding down. I am almost finished going through things that have been out of sight for years if not decades. The Sikes family is on the move from farm to neighborhood.

The most ancient newspaper clipping, as I was rifling through my files, was from my high school years. High? The picture was of the members of the Thespian Society; it appeared in the local newspaper in the late 1950s. Looking back as a 21st Century survivor I wish it had been as a member of the Math Club.  Yet. 

We live in performative times even though the future of the world is expressed in quantum physics—the science of tiny elements that underpin our world. But I digress before really getting started. Thespians are actors and I must admit to being enamored with imagination. But then I am brought up short—way short, by imagination animated by science. Who thought up all these things? And what did they study in school?

My various papers and clippings and assorted memory media are now either “ancient history” and/or obsolete. Records, tapes, discs, and their playback devices are now mostly in the bags to go to the landfill. A few pivotal memories have been transformed—they are now on a memory stick. What will replace the stick? Indeed, how does the stick, slight in size, hold so much?

In short, much of my stuff points inescapably to the future. Over time obsolescence changed my angle of view.  So, while I spent hours in high school practicing a play with my fellow actors perhaps I should have been in a cubicle studying math and science. 

Interestingly, we Americans have been on the leading edge of an emerging reality for some time—the educational gap. Students in Japan and somewhat later China and India were studying math to the exclusion of what during my school years were called “social studies”. They were studying themselves out of their torpor while a fair number of American students were preparing for a post-industrial world. Our emerging overseas competitors were working to succeed in a changing world while many of us were studying to treat the pathologies of success.

In 1987 I was in a job at the US Commerce Department that resulted in an invitation to speak at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Shock and then anxiety preceded a written talk—I had to be careful. I spoke about the need to leapfrog analog communications in imaging in favor of digital. I momentarily had the power to influence the selection of a High-Definition Television (HDTV) broadcast standard so my voice was amplified. After faking my way through a question/answer period, I was taken for a tour of the imaging laboratory. The tour was led by a Caucasian but the explanations were largely offered by either Asian Americans or Asians on a student visa. 

I am now a generation older and live in a country that is far too susceptible to performance. For example, “According to the U.S. Travel Association, the likely economic impact of the 20 domestic stops of Ms. Swift’s tour has already exceeded $10 billion.” Taylor Swift of course. A decent singer; an outstanding performer. 

But we cannot escape the truth: math cum science is central to many of the challenges we face. Fortunately, capitalism still stirs the mind and the potential rewards are motivational. 

The world wants into the US market. We have been privileged to have the kind of market that offers us the best from around the world. For example, we don’t worry about hurting US automobile manufacturers when we buy foreign brands. And I think we know, although we are reluctant to admit, that when we shut others out of our market the closure is like a narcotic. Protected markets invite sub-par products and higher prices.

Anyway, I am long past depending on my studies. But my detritus tells me that today’s challenges, and especially if we are going to pay our debts and defend democracy around the world, will require a lot of people to rethink the ways and means of education. Public leaders need to recognize the importance of some level of educational choice and the resulting competition to be the best provider. Students who are, situationally challenged, are in particular in need of choices.

And schools in these performative times need to find ways to tempt students to learn the hard skills required in international competition. 

I suspect the beginning paragraphs were thought to be a prologue to a whimsical essay. Sorry for going off the anticipated script. I couldn’t help it. 

By the Way

The third most important, I would argue second most important job in Washington, is Speaker of the House. At the very least it should be held by somebody whose service does not embrace a lie. An election denier should be voted off the island that is the Capitol of the United States.

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. 

 

Dear Mom,

If I recall it was the Today Show on NBC that you frequently watched in the morning. Well, there is a retrospective video series called The Morning Show (TMS) now streaming (don’t ask) that takes you behind the scene. 

The morning show you watched was broadcast from the TV station in Paducah, Kentucky and provided a splashy head-line driven version of overnight news and a lot of friendly talk about the weather, social trends and personal health. What I am talking about is an Apple TV+ series about morning shows called The Morning Show. The morning show was and I guess is still a big deal. Some things at least remain the same. 

The owner of TMS is Apple; TV funded by the phone. Apple has so much money I suspect the broadcast networks avoid program rights auctions that Apple chooses to enter. Times have really changed. 

The Apple version of TMS your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are watching stars Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon (big stars) as co-anchors of a fictitious morning show on a fictious network called UBA. Its narrative pitch: join us and we will give you an intimate look at what goes on as maniacal egos clash while underlings fight to move a step up the career ladder. I presume overstated; drama requires it.

Sorry Mom, but let me give it to you straight, the resulting clash is a f—ing one. Indeed, in its most demeaning segments the f-word erases linguistic art and is used so repetitively that it even loses whatever emphasis might be imagined. 

The F-word is used as noun, adjective and verb. One critic noted, after giving credit to the actors and dramatic events, that “the language in this is very strong. Virtually every other sentence contains a variation on the F word. Even if this is how co-workers talk to each other in NYC or Hollywood, the constant barrage of profanity detracted from the actual story telling.” 

 Now let me join you on the altar of youth. I suspect even my daughters would say of me, “you don’t get it”. But maybe the writers and various layers of producers and distributors don’t get the irony. When the F word is, The Word, you cannot escape the down-draft pulling at civilization and at civility.  Societies civilization, our civilization!

Anytime I write about language I think of you Mom. You were my critic and when I showed you my school papers, my editor. You had the final word. I wonder who has the final word today. Perhaps it should be the newest technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI). Yes, we are being replaced.

So, here is the question and answer I put to this robotic guide to all things:

Does language matter?

ChatGPT

Absolutely, language is incredibly important. It’s the primary tool we use to communicate, convey ideas, express emotions, and share information. Language shapes our thoughts, influences our relationships, and plays a critical role in our societies and cultures. It can bridge gaps or create barriers, foster understanding or confusion, and even shape perceptions and beliefs. The way we use language can have profound effects on individuals and communities.

I hope this robotic response gives you some optimism. We need it. Love! Your Son.

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 English use the word “moot” to put forward an idea for discussion. So let me share, or moot, an idea to escape the stale and now taken for granted narratives about next year’s elections. As we all know, the pundits take it for granted (or almost so) that the race for President will be between President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump.

There are two facts that have had me looking for potential variations on “the race is fixed” proposition. My love of jazz often nudges me toward improvisation.

The first fact is that younger voters by huge margins don’t like either candidate and history show they are often late to tell a pollster what they actually intend to do. The other is that all voters by something around 70% do not want this rematch. And I am in the 70% so my bias favors dynamism. 

So, I moot that soon it will be apparent that Former Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is Trump’s principal challenger. The assumed number two has been, for months, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, but his approval numbers have been in a tail spin. The momentum of subtraction is hard to reverse.

Haley has enjoyed good debate reviews and a doubling or more of poll support. She is, according to the Real Clear Politics average in the crucially important State of New Hampshire, running ahead of Governor DeSantis. Importantly she has begun to attract those people and organizations that write big checks. This monetary poll is almost as important as the approval/disapproval ones. A bad balance sheet in national politics is terminal.

Haley’s deserved debating reviews show that she is able to go beyond talking points. It is always evident when candidates speak in poll tested sentences or clever marketing lines. Voters know that leadership does not come in shrink-wrapped packaging. In the two debates she has quickly and deftly pushed back without turning sour or predatory.

So, I moot that Trump and potentially Biden will have to include Haley in their calculations. Both are a generation older. Neither are as able on the debate stage. Trump, in particular, has more trouble with female challengers and voters. Notably Haley has drawn a Trump sobriquet; he now calls her Birdbrain. Haley’s energy and deftness on the debate stage will be telling if she faces Trump or Biden—a Birdbrain she is not.

Finally, the short game is winning the next and next polls. Do not expect in the Republican Party primary non-Trump candidates to do well in that game until after the New Hampshire or South Carolina votes have been cast.

The long game is consolidating assets and then using them to change the narrative and momentum. Trump’s peril is he is way ahead—he is bumping into his support ceiling. Haley’s momentum, if she can sustain it, would be transformative.

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 should all step back and understand what is going on in our most important expression of self-governance. A democracy gives us the right to select our most important leader. The leader who will have directly or indirectly effect or influence every instrument of government and who has the power to subordinate the institutions that protect us.

Courts decide who wins or loses disputes. Our legislature (Congress) can act by majority rule unless the President vetoes their actions. The President, as well, has broad executive authority and enjoys what President Theodore Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit”. 

These powers need to be used cautiously. And, more often than not, my preference has been to act at the State level—distributed power. These principles, at least in normal times, brand me as a conservative. But now a movement called populism has overtaken the conservative party. But I would call it by a different name: Selfism.

In the last 30 days Donald J Trump has displayed Selfism in ways that leave no doubt. He has called Courts corrupt. He urged the Republicans to shut down the government if they don’t get everything they want. He has called prosecutors lunatics and President Biden the worst President in history. In short, disagreements with him result from corruption (the courts), treason (General Milley) or severe mental illness (lunatic prosecutors). 

The Wall Street Journal on the matter of General Milley noted: “Here was part of Mr. Trump’s send-off for Mr. Milley, who’s finishing his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: “This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”

The message is clear—if I don’t like the outcome then the institutions of government are corrupt. Not just wrong, treasonous.

Selfism is a radical version of sanctimony. We have all experienced it. It is that worst of all dinner conversations when somebody must always be right. Morally superior as the definition goes. It is I, I, I. 

I can’t think of a more toxic combination: power and Selfism. Laughingly Trump calls Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis, DeSanctimonious. 

Presumptively we all have some measure of sanctimony. I suspect there are very few who don’t think one or more of their opinions are morally superior. Paradoxically, those who insist that all principles are relative are the most sanctimonious. 

One feature of The Spy is that the reader can tell the writer to “take a hike” or worse. I have been asked why I don’t respond to criticism. I welcome criticism. Afterall, I have been given the privilege of expressing my view first.

In a much, much larger context we rely on our court processes to settle disputes and know there are several layers of appeal from the initial decision. Yet, Donald Trump has reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the Courts and its procedures.

And let’s not forget that for over four years he was the appointing authority for the federal court judges. While perfect balance in the judiciary is elusive, alternating political authority is about as close as we humans can get. And when a candidate who wants that power is the candidate of the Selfism Party, we should look elsewhere. 

Now before laying down the pen, I would offer that Selfism’s convergence with Populism is when a candidate exploits populist views to achieve his ultimate ambition. Getting elected must be a first step.

Donald Trump betrayed his true intoxication when he said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” This was a revealing moment when he essentially said he could depart from civility and conservative thought without losing voters.

The final test for the Republican Party will occur after Trump is no longer its head. Will Populists with much less electoral weight than Trump, like Senators JD Vance and Josh Hawley, prevail over Governors and Senators whose views and actions are more representative of, say, Former President Ronald Reagan? I, of course, hope the test will come sooner.

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. 

West Virginia University (WVU), uncomfortably, has given us a sneak preview of what America has in its future.

A Wall Street Journal story on cuts to the University’s offerings reported that, “Dozens of faculty, students and alums, as well as a Morgantown, W.Va., city councilman, addressed the board Thursday during a three-hour public comment period, aiming to halt the remaining cuts.” 

“Many speakers, their voices trembling with emotion or rising in anger, donned red shirts and bandannas in a nod to the labor movement and solidarity with the faculty. Some spoke of the opportunities West Virginia University provided them as low-income, first-generation college students. Others expressed concern that future graduates will struggle in the workplace without access to programs like Arabic language or public administration, and that the cuts would lead to an exodus of talent from the state.” 

“This is a school and not a business, and these proposals that rip educational opportunities from students, and jobs from faculty and staff, will only weaken this institution,” said Christian Rowe, a graduate student in history. He said that cuts would make structural issues worse, and students would be deterred by “WVU’s lack of course offerings and respect for its community’s voices.”

“This is a school and not a business…” Every organization that has financial needs will be measured by money in, money out. If WVU cannot meet revenue needs then it has to reduce costs. Or, increase tuition or fees. Unlike our national government, West Virgina does not have a perpetual credit card.

But then if perpetual is definitional neither does the United States. It is this fact which frames the annual fiscal face-off over budgets and appropriations. A face-off that looks increasingly rabid.

America is not invulnerable. As our debt goes up our credit risk goes up and with it the cost of borrowing—a debilitating circle. Do we want more taxes? Higher rates? And if you say tax wealth then what will the rate have to be to catch up and combined with other taxes produce a balance? And crucially, how do you keep wealth from seeking more advantageous tax jurisdictions?

Or, do we want less of government and if so, what should we cut? And ultimately how much debt are we comfortable passing on to our children and grandchildren?

Right now, politics is mostly being fought along tribal lines. Barely civilized language is the patois as we talk about Trump’s outrages and Biden’s age and infirmities. And, it is hard to have a civil conversation about public affairs.

What we should be doing is what WVU is being forced to do. Its leadership now must ask, what courses should be dropped? What majors should be eliminated? And what about spending on extracurricular activities? This parade of questions needs to march through our federal government’s budget. And through our election cycle with its debates and interviews.

Biden and Trump and the range of wannabes need to be asked. Do not give them the easy out of squabbling about our latest emotional outburst. Make them answer our questions. The hard ones! Because we are in the middle of a national scandal—an assault on our children and grandchildren. And circumstantially we are infantilizing those who have been elected to make decisions that will preserve and protect the union. We hope.

Meet the Press, Joe

Kristen Welker, the newly minted moderator of Meet the Press, began her first show last Sunday with a long interview of former President Donald Trump. While he physically shows a few more years, he sounds like 2016. He was engaged and has even upped his game as he talks through accusatory questions. He has certainly had a lot of practice. 

The takeaways from the interview were then discussed by a panel of three who said the expected. They noted inconsistencies, “falsehoods” and spent time talking about his ducking and dodging around whether abortion policy should be re-federalized. 

But this panel of worthies failed on the central takeaway. He was engaged. He spoke quickly. The Donald Trump I watched will not win my vote, but neither will President Joe Biden. Unfortunately, Joe Biden cannot engage in the political repartee that is a feature of Presidential politics. And, international diplomacy. In the last election Covid was the cover to stay at home. It is unlikely to be an acceptable excuse in 2024.

President Biden’s allies spend much of their time targeting Trump or the possibility of a third Party that they claim will siphon more votes away from the President. They don’t get it. If Joe Biden is the nominee, Donald Trump has a good chance to win a second term.

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 poll is now live. Maybe we can find harmony of opinion for a change. Question: are you satisfied with talking to a machine and not a person?

I could bore you with the number of times I have talked to a machine this year; I won’t. Mostly it involved reservations to do this or that.

But recently I had a medical procedure that put me in touch with doctors or their offices. No, put me in touch with their machines. Machines and software are increasingly replacing those who used to understand the anxiety that comes with the need (real or perceived) to talk with a human. Or, at least those humans who at various stages of the engagement can converse with understanding and empathy. Or simply help you take the next step.

I spent much of my late career life with businesses that used machines and software. I headed a venture fund in new media and later had the pleasure of using new media to start a jazz festival in Easton. I understand the push for efficiency and pinpoint marketing and the corresponding motivation to work with machines that don’t talk back as employees are prone to do. But patients want somebody to talk back. And many patients are confused when caught up in software navigation prompts.

What I also understand is that companies like Amazon and Google (and there are dozens of them) make very large capital investments in what is for them the crucial customer interface. If it fails, their businesses fail—simplification is crucial.

Medicine is different. Customers are called patients. And doctors are trained to be patient and caring. Presumably they work with their staff to perform similarly. We know, for example, that nurses are often the most caring and similarly perceived. But to one degree or another there are giant walls of machines called the Cloud that stand between the patient and the caregivers. And unlike the Amazon or Google machines and software, my experience is they don’t work very well.

I presume the machines are also a key element in medicine’s economic consolidation. Scale it is called – rather than a handful of people that do administrative, testing and consultation work, there is a bank of machines that can handle the patient until he/she actually shows up at the office.

The end result is oligopoly medicine. In many places, mostly not here, individual medical practices and related centers for this and that are rolled up into one relatively large organization. Impersonal follows. While University of Maryland Shore Health is the dominant provider on the Eastern Shore, access to medicine is also provided by the Anne Arundel health care system. And, for highly specialized needs, Johns Hopkins is a relatively short drive away.

I too am fortunate because I lived here before the machines and consolidation took over. I have enjoyed the best of medicine and importantly, personal contact. I can compare and contrast. Without putting too fine a point on this narrative, I would suggest doctors, not software engineers, create best practices. I am certain that best practices will result in caring conversations at a quite early moment in the engagement between doctor and patients.

Post Script: I decided to share an early draft of this column with my friend and neighbor Dr. Harry Greenspun and ask him to add to my comments. This is his reply:

Regarding “Customers being called patients,” in the last 10-20 years that has evolved to thinking about patients as consumers, since they are only patients when under care. We now talk about Patient Experience (while under care), Consumer Experience (while selecting providers, practice loyalty, health choices, etc.), and Member Experience (dealing with your insurance company). Alongside that is Employee Experience, since overworked, undertrained staff won’t operate safely, courteously, or deliver high quality. Rather than take a holistic approach, health systems and medical practices (increasingly private equity-backed) often chase individual metrics of each, focusing on Net Promoter Scores or burnout in isolation. Sadly, most organizations take this “Whack-a-Mole” approach to what are systemic challenges.

In some ways your (sadly common) experience reflects that. Poorly implemented phone systems (theoretically deployed to streamline office operations) degraded your consumer experience, while poor employee experience degraded your patient experience. Most people equate their experience, not outcomes, with quality of care. Thus they would give up and find a new provider. Conversely, there are plenty of people who continue to go to a doctor or practice they love regardless of the quality of the care or outcomes.

Finally, you mentioned Johns Hopkins for “the most threatening conditions.” As someone who trained and practiced there, it is an extraordinary place. However, data frequently show that highly-regarded academic institutions (which may excel at complex and rare conditions) produce only average results for many common diagnoses, usually at a much higher cost. These run the gamut from knee replacements to bypass surgery. The (unofficial) slogan of one of Hopkins’ counterparts was “If you’re sick we’ll kill you, but if you’re dying, we’ll save you.” Patients/consumers often mistakenly equate a lofty reputation with high quality care, and suffer the consequences. Perhaps substitute “the most specialized care” for Hopkins.

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.