It is too early to assess the way forward after last night’s assassination attempt. But explosive events have the potential to blow up all the plans.

Going back, way back to the 1970s and 80s and my time as a campaign manager/consultant. I still recall vividly efforts to help candidates gain attention so their message could be heard. It was much easier than it is today. There were few channels of television and while more, there were not that many radio stations. And Internet based media—well it didn’t exist.

Money, as I recall, was more limited. Most candidates could not raise enough money to sustain an advertising campaign more than a few weeks. Political operatives tore into polling results to find themes that would be impactful and then filmmakers crafted 30 and 60 second commercials hoping to cut through the noise. Importantly, except for absentee ballots, we all voted on the same day.

Noise? Today the noise is deafening; to cut through it politicians take hyperbole to new levels. What, they ask, will awaken the public to my appeal? How can I get my arguments across?

How, an operative might ask, can I make President Biden or Former President Trump near-Satanic? Toxic? And, of course, the other side faces the same obstacles and proceeds in kind. Political fever swells and the weakest get caught up in a feverish response.

Biden, Trump and the other candidate of note, Robert F Kennedy Jr., are simply human beings. For sure they are not saints, but then who is? They want to do good, leave a mark, but the path often eludes them. We are left to parse speeches, platforms and declarations of all sorts but few do.

Candidates search for the weaknesses and load them with explosives. Mostly voters respond along a spectrum but then a very few turn to violence. In the meantime the political operatives keep searching the polls for what messages are working. The polls have become elections within an election. Which messages are breaking through? How, they ask, can we cut through the campaign noise? Harsh words and images to follow. The musical background dark. Vociferous allies even more vociferous. And because many States encourage early voting the drum beat starts early.

The assassination attempt on the former President failed. It’s now the new clay for campaign operatives and ultimately their candidates. It will have a profound impact on the political narrative.  I suspect it will help the assassins target. How, many will ask, can an elite protective organization fail to protect? Does memory fail; this is certainly not the first time a shooter turned on a candidate. Yet, not a good look for the Biden administration. But honesty requires a simple answer: clean hands do not exist. It can be said that Trump is a victim of his more explosive campaign tactics.

Is there anything we can do—the voters? Sure, but will we? Doubtful. Because what we can do is turn to content. What are the policies of the candidates? What combination appeals to me? Beyond the campaign rhetoric, who are the candidates? What character or temperament can I trust? For example, can I trust somebody who demonizes his opponents? The answer is no.

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. 

Funerals are hard. Especially if you loved the deceased. They can also be revealing in a way that replenishes the living.

My sister-in-law Cay Sikes died recently. Her death came quickly as cancer metastasized. It left those who loved her stunned; especially my brother Steve and her children and grandchildren.  We came together, we cried and laughed as memories flooded our minds.

Most insightfully Cay left us a sublime gift. Cay, an Episcopalian, scripted her service. Thematically the Priest talked of her love of nature and how nature’s wonders led to an understanding of God and life. The biblical readings were thematically inspired as were the hymns.

Cay spoke from the other side. She was persuasive—love was the centerpiece. Her thoughts, her one-act play if you will, was absent of artifice. It was not abstract; it was personal, heart felt and thoroughly representative of a life beautifully-lived.

The church, filled with friends and family, became a theater. Unlike a play, we could follow along with a carefully framed program. We could take it with us. And we were actors as we sang along or repeated readings led by the Priest. Cay didn’t choose death, but as its contours became evident she went to work drawing on a lifetime of experiences and divine revelations.

We all try to script some part of our lives. As students we are asked to compose and recite. As prospects in the job market we prepare resumes, often boastfully. And on and on. We want to look good, sound good and want the accompanying photos to look good. And now with the wonders of social media many carefully curate their images and enthusiastically share them.

Many however, give little thought to why we do things. And if asked to script a send-off just ahead of death, many would fruitlessly search for a beginning and end. Indeed the word death has been newly translated; we now speak in terms of passing. Do we pass through our brief episode in eternity without any real thought to our part in life’s play?

So thank you Cay. I suspect those who came to the church to honor and reflect on your life were appreciative and considered what they might want to say about their life. And maybe, just maybe, wondered about the other side—the passage to it. We are better when we think beyond ourselves.

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. 

Fact: President Joe Biden has all the appearances of a lame duck. When a person of authority is unlikely to succeed himself there is a palpable loss of power.

Unless. The perception and hopefully the reality of a continuation of a strong Alliance compensates for the status of its leading figure. In capability, the United States is the leading member of the Alliance, that is, with Ukraine, fighting Russia. What we now need is an assertion from Former President Donald Trump that the U.S. will remain a stalwart member of the Alliance. A failure to do that will weaken Trump if he is president again.

The Alliance operationally is the Ukraine Contact Group (It is called the Ramstein Group because it meets at the U.S. Ramstein Air Force base in Germany) and it contains 57 member nations. The Group currently is led by the United States. The documented support of this Alliance assures that Ukraine will ultimately have a strong position at the negotiating table.

In every foreign conflict there are first and last years—provocation and settlement. The first year of the Alliance for a free Ukraine is, of course, long past. Knowing what we now know should we have engaged? My view, an unalterable yes. Regardless, we are engaged and the Congressional leaders of both Parties have been supportive.

The resulting war has seriously weakened Russia. It lost the semi-neutrality it had with Finland and Sweden. Russia borders Finland for 833 miles, now 833 miles with the NATO alliance.

It has dissipated wealth and talent as a large number of its most talented left Russia early in the war. It has also dissipated whatever goodwill might have existed in Ukraine for the Russians. And now its only unqualified supporters overseas tend to be North Korea and Iran. They are principally motivated by a hatred of our country. Neither provide Russia strong trade partnerships.

Imagine: The Ramstein Group of 57 nations is in one way or another fighting Russia, Iran and North Korea (active Russians allies). Relatedly the stronger the Ramstein Group, the more wary the Chinese about accelerating its support for Russia or invading Taiwan.

But, back to the first and last. America’s strength abroad and its internal strength for international alliances received a serious set back as the Afghanistan war resulted in an embarrassing retreat. We left and the Taliban took over. As the Ukraine war enters the third year we must have a tight understanding of what victory is. Eventually, Ukraine and its allies will get out of the war. Hopefully the end will be a favorable boundary map for Ukraine along with a positive trajectory toward membership in NATO.

Donald Trump knows how to conduct successful negotiations. His business career assured that at any given point he was involved in some sort of buy or sell negotiation. We are told that he was “a tough customer”. And he knows, but probably won’t admit, that a loss to Russia will cause severe friction in NATO and weaken the Alliance for the next time around. And there will be a next time around and especially if the Ramstein Group and Ukraine together fold.

Recall Kenny Rogers’ admonition to the young gambler “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em—Know when to fold ‘em—Know when to walk away”. In war the strong do not walk away. The strong make sure the last year is worthy of the first.

Fact Checking

Article after article regarding last week’s debate mentioned the need for fact checkers and a somewhat instantaneous posting. Presumably by the debate host.

Fact checking is important, but my sense of a gifted debater is that he/she know the facts so the pushback can be immediate. Most of the questions and their contexts can be anticipated; the debaters need to be able to correct the record. While the media can fact check over the next few hours; the debaters need to do it with confidence at the time.

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

It is now clear. What is thought to be the Donald Trump movement is largely an “I’m not going to take it anymore” rebellion. Trump, while not a cheese sandwich, is to some degree irrelevant but fortunate. His political timing enables his political success. Recall, he was expected to lose in 2016.

The ideological and political forces that make up the Far Left are largely spent, both literally and figuratively. Identity politics is its latest fashion.

To some degree, and the degree is elusive, it is not clear whether Trump helps or hurts the rebellious cause. I believe he hurts it. There is a considerable volume of Center-Right voters who will not vote for him.

People who write and edit legacy media throw around the phrase “Far Right” as an epithet. Rarely do we encounter the phrase “Far Left.” And since “Far Right” branding is thought to be injurious to conservative candidates, all but Centrists are said to be “Far Right”.

Current branding is easy to find in European politics. While most people in America do not pay much attention to European politics, the “Far Right” (as it is called) is doing so well electorally that some commentators on the Left feel compelled to warn of incipient Nazism. If every far-left movement recalled Stalin, that would at least even the score. But certainly if there is evidence of Nazism the harshest light should target it.

Europe is now deep in a political cycle with America not far behind. In America, if the nomination to be the Democrat nominee was still open I suspect Democrats would be trying to find their Center. But they have decided to stand pat. Warning: four years ago Biden seemed to have some Centrist credentials; not anymore.

So what is the fuel for a resurgent move to the Right? My headline words are: Immigration, Inflation, Gender and Abortion. I’ll repeat one word: Immigration.

Historically, there has been an underlying assumption that the United States government controlled its borders with other countries and that newly arriving immigrants would go through a step-by-step qualifying procedure. Most voters now assume we have lost control and that the loss is dangerous. Biden and Kamala Harris are perceived to be at fault. If you have the top jobs, the burden of disruption is yours. Shouldering the burden requires timely and effective action.

Moving on, people have assumed gender continuity to the extent it has been thought about at all. But, let me be specific, the razor edge in politics refers to gender fluidity, men transitioning to women and competing in women’s sports has led to outrage. The upcoming Olympics will keep this story topical. And many are also startled and angry that surgical procedures are being used at relatively early ages to affirm a youth’s perception of his/her sex.

Next, the reversal of Roe v Wade brought abortion back to the front page. Inevitably it also caused politics in religion to spike. This development bites. Trump, notwithstanding conduct the church would presumably find abhorrent, finds himself favored by a majority of those who wear comfortably the Evangelical Christian designation. Trump is perceived to be more pro-life than Biden and is aided by the Left pulling Biden toward the extreme—the right to an abortion just before delivery.

Inflation. This is a non-partisan issue. Steep price increases hurt whoever occupies the White House. And control of inflation is not ripe for quick solutions as its underlying forces are not easy to influence, much less control.

As noted, Trump is the beneficiary of much of the societal angst. Biden, well he is a bit like a kite. When the winds are conflicting he seems weak.

Afghanistan was particularly harmful. The wind favored a withdrawal but no one favored withdrawal at any cost and that is what we got. It was indelibly attached to our brain by excruciating images. The damaging images cannot be reversed. I suspect we will see them over and over in political advertising.

The other irreversible issue is age. Biden’s age and infirmities are easily assessed. We all assess the drag age has in our own lives. And the more youthful voters see this as they look at the older generations in their own families.

So here is the wager. Democrats seem to be wagering that Trump’s immorality will result in his defeat. I wouldn’t bet the house on that outcome. A strong wind is in charge, not weak candidates.

Recollection

Pardon this short aside provoked by recalling the early 1980s and tax reform.

The next successful convergence of ideas needs to confront our financial mess—national revenues way behind costs. The convergence must provide new sources of revenue and not on the back of American workers. Perhaps the challenge will draw leaders from both political parties as happened when Jack Kemp (R) worked successfully with Bill Bradley (D) and Dick Gephardt (D) on tax reform.

These Members were not post-partisan. All three ran for President. I believe the two athletes recognized that some degree of team play was essential to victory. And, so my younger readers do not have to go to Wikipedia—Jack Kemp was for many years the successful quarterback of the Buffalo Bills and Bill Bradley was an All-Star forward for the New York Knicks.

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. 

 

 

Age is a loaded word after it escapes the dictionary. At the upper reaches is sixty years of age old? I would say not but my friends who are on the verge do not welcome this turn of the calendar.  I am a generation older so certainly regard the later Baby Boomers as relatively young.

I come to this loaded word because politics has magnetized it. Perhaps I can use the measure without the bias a younger writer inevitably feels. So let me get personal and then go on.

In 1972 I ran the campaign for Kit Bond to become Governor of Missouri. He won and I joined his cabinet. We were both 34. Recalling the campaign the Democrat’s nominee attacked Bond for being too young and after he won called his aides the “kiddie corp.” Kit Bond was very bright and had served as Missouri’s State Auditor prior to this election. That experience and an otherworldly energy offset most age-related disadvantages. At least that is my conclusion, even if a somewhat personal one.

I’m not sure at the Presidential level where the safe zone starts and stops. At the earliest perhaps 40. At the latest perhaps 75. If my intuition is correct, both likely nominees President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump are in the danger zone. And in the case of Biden, since he acts as President each day, 81 is a real danger zone. He cannot avoid the camera. Polls confirm this problem.

I know I am better informed today than I was in my 40s, but not as energetic. And it seems to me that energy is an important measure. While I didn’t work in the White House, I was there enough to know the unrelenting pressure and demands.

By now at least some of you are getting angry because I have personalized my scribbling. But inevitably, since age is relative, you take personal measure of age’s downsides through day-to-day experiences. That is what the public is doing and it is reflected in the polls. Policy positions, while important, do not have the potency of a shrinking Rolodex; I know mine  is filled with friends that are no longer at the end of a call.

Politics rarely, if ever, measures up to what is thought to be ideal. And when it comes to Presidential candidates, each candidate in the final vote-off employs dozens of people to make them look better. It seems to me both candidates should pay them less.

In Biden’s case he is now so protected that the protection has become an issue. Should, for example, the recordings of his interview on the possession of classified documents be released to the public?

Moving to the Right (?), Trump is better protected because aside from physical attributes his outspokenness creates a maze of impressions. If asked to assess the way his persona is perceived by the public, I would be at a loss. I would  have to jump over a very high ethical bias to arrive at an objective view. Just let me say that he is four years younger than Biden and he too shows wear and tear. In a sense they form a co-dependency; neither could defeat a strong competitor.

Reflecting back on my age and decades of experience in politics and business, I think presidential power is overstated in many ways. Economic measures—inflation, jobs, pay and the like are always at the top of voter concerns. Glib references say this is the Biden economy. In fact this economy is a very complicated mix of private and public decisions and is influenced by way more than domestic politics. We live in an international economy and if that was not true America would be the loser.

Returning to the issue of age and considering the Presidential term bracket from January 2025 to January 2029, how many of us are optimistic that term-length satisfactory service is likely from either?

A friend took the age issue far enough to opine that this race will be Vice-President against Vice-President in the minds of many. If that is the case, then the next card will be played by Trump; I wouldn’t bet against him.

Final thought. The Presidency is not overstated in one quite important way. Symbolism is important and is often influential beyond its weight. Inevitably the person who is chosen as the leader of our country will enjoy international influence and his morality and ethical standards will be of at least some importance (hopefully not too much). But regardless of who wins, his influence will begin to erode shortly after the inauguration. He will be a lame duck.

Hopefully, other influential people will step up in active defense of America and its foundational promises. We need good examples. Fortunately, the recent D-Day celebrations have undoubtedly humbled us while providing extraordinary inspiration. World-wide!

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. 

 

I was once a radioman. First station, KLGT, Breckenridge, Colorado. KLGT, “The Light At The Summit” was not just a radio station, it was also the town crier.

Yes, we played music; it was day parted. We spun records for adults until school was out and then pivoted to 1980s rock.

We did news. Everything that was not local came from the Associated Press (AP). There were no Rush Limbaugh types. News was straight up and our audience relied on local information and news.

We also monitored Citizen radio bands. There were young people living in the mountains and they used amateur radio bands to try and reach their families. It might be: “This is John, living northeast of Breckenridge. Please let my mother know that I will be home for Christmas in St. Louis.” We relayed the message and then friends would hear it and send it on. I don’t recall any need to edit the messages.

Weather was really important and we bought the best weather services available and again took calls within our broadcast range and relayed “weather on the ground.” Ski conditions led the list. We were local, local, local. People talked about KLGT. Our on-air personalities were small-town celebrities.

On my first trip to KLGT after gaining Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to complete the purchase, I noticed quite a few skis leaning against the several studio and sales office walls. Those weren’t around during my initial due diligence. KLGT had traded with the Breckenridge Ski Corporation advertisements for lift tickets. When I questioned the practice, I was warned off. It was a much-valued perk; even then, lift tickets were expensive. So I just concluded that skiers were better employees.

Now, too often, our news comes from elsewhere brought to us by people who live elsewhere. And now mostly there aren’t local newspapers either. And if there are they are, as we would say, “paper-thin”.

We are not going to reverse the loss of local without ingenuity and commitment. The Spy is a leader in ingenuity. Mostly it is local information, news, and opinions brought to us by people who “live around the corner.”

I am also encouraged by my initial inspiration: radio. WHCP, 91.7, whose slogan is “The Voice of the Mid-Shore,” states that “We obsessively focus on local news, marine weather, non-profits, local businesses, and upcoming community events”. The new WHCP can also be streamed—go to WHCP.org for the application.

Yet, much of our news today is delivered by people and studio links that begin in big cities and seem to me light on common sense. When performance art leads, common sense rarely follows.

Yes, I know. I write and hear from you, the critics who think I am light on common sense. And that is just the way things should work.

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. 

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Thomas Jefferson, 1788

The trial is now over. My overwhelming reaction is sadness. Sadness for the country, for the rule of law, for the Trump family. And especially for our truest measure of justice, the courts. The effort to nullify the courts, will continue, indeed intensify and most regrettably have a long tail.

It has been said over and over by Donald Trump and his partisans in the media that he could not get a fair trial in New York City (NYC). Trump slammed the prosecutor, judge and jury daily. And he took his anger toward witnesses for the prosecution as far as humanly possible. What about the justice system as sentencing and appeals play out?

To begin we have layers of appeal courts to scrutinize the trial court and the actions of the prosecutor, judge, trial procedure and jury. If an appeal court finds error under the law the verdict will be reversed.

Now let me get out from under the verdict itself and the central elements of our justice system—the courts and its procedures.

Trump, the defendant, did everything he could to ridicule the promise of fairness under the law. He, personally aggrieved, did all he could to nullify the integrity of courts. Why else, for example, would he attack the sentencing judge? Or say repeatedly that the jurors were incapable of being fair. Outside of a desire to nullify, these attacks were insane.

Many of you will think that the NYC courts should be ridiculed. My wife and I both served on jury panels when we lived in NYC and both found the system well organized and directed. We were also inspired by an orientation film on our role as a potential juror in making America just.

Yes, I am sure Trump is not as popular in NYC as he might be in say Orlando, but he choose to live and work and form companies in the state of New York. He enjoyed the life of the rich, became a minor celebrity and then The Apprentice lifted him even further. I can recall his royal march into a restaurant with aides trailing behind.

Donald Trump has also spent more than three years attacking the 2020 election and in the last year has sought to undermine all court decisions as they pertain to him. Perhaps attacking the integrity of courts is fair game, although I don’t recall a moment when he has made any recommendations to reform the courts. Inaction can be instructive.

And he has also had plenty of success nullifying the integrity of the Republican Party. When he emerged in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of the Republican big wigs attacked him in harsh tones. As he succeeded, knees were bent—orthopedic therapy might be needed. Unfortunately politics has been monopolized and the ambitious make fools of themselves in their often slavish adherence to the most strident wing of their Party. President Biden has certainly bent a knee toward the hard-edged Left of his Party.

Elections. Courts. They are the best humans can design; not perfect but the best, honed over 200 years. Beyond that, they are foundational and those who choose to parrot Trump in demeaning our court system might consider where they would prefer to put their reputation and treasure on the line. And if you say, not in the state of New York, then you probably should avoid living and working there. The courts throughout the United States secure our rights; they do not serve individual litigants.

Early in my career I was frequently a trial lawyer in both civil and criminal cases. The law and its application are embedded with protections that favor the accused. In the case against Donald Trump, for example, the jury of seven men and five women were told that to convict they must find him guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And the jury was not twelve persons selected to be polled on their political preferences.

When Courts across the United States heard dozens of cases brought by Trump allies challenging the results of the 2020 Presidential election (I don’t recall any of those cases beginning in NYC) the courts uniformly affirmed the election result. Trump decided then that he would try to use his Vice-President, Mike Pence, as a tool to overturn the election. The Trump media followed suit. Thankfully Mike Pence stood firm under intense pressure to reverse the result as intense partisans and thugs attacked the Capitol.

In short, the former President that the Vice President got to know is not the one his most ardent supporters think they know.

Reality: in this country we strive to make sure no one is above the law. Next up, Hunter Biden.

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. 

Top down is damnably difficult. Very few organizations of any size begin with a founder pronouncing an intent to build a national or global organization to do whatever and succeed. Most successful founders begin with an idea, a realistic ambition and incrementally prove the value of the idea operationally. The operational phase is crucial as the old adage “ideas are a dime a dozen” is true.

In the commercial world, for example, take Amazon and Apple. The ambitions of both founders were audacious, but they had to raise immense amounts of capital and battle large, deeply embedded incumbent companies to grow and succeed. The incumbent’s flaws — corporate complacency and a failure to understand the power of new media.

Political challenges are both easier and more difficult. The short life of No Labels is instructive. It intended to mount a third Party to challenge the political duopoly (Democrat and Republican Parties). No Labels did not begin with a galvanizing issue; mostly organizational issues do not stir the emotions. Second, there was not a leader whose energy and persuasiveness could animate the shell of a movement. Basically, the organization was led by former leaders who lacked insights into the challenges of political entrepreneurship.

The last successful political start up was the Republican Party in 1854. The Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whig Party. Its galvanizing issue: slavery. Its ultimate leader: Abraham Lincoln.

The first Republican was elected in 1854 after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that opened the two States to slavery. He was Kingsley Bingham elected Governor of Michigan. Bingham strongly opposed the expansion of slavery—the galvanizing issue.

Reverting back briefly to business, Amazon and Apple’s directions were indeed galvanizing. Looking back from today their successes are extraordinary. And in the case of Amazon it was started by a financial guy, Jeff Bezos, while Apple was led by Steve Jobs whose principal post- secondary education was in graphic arts. Both were driven and in for the long term. Election cycles didn’t constrain their vision or drive.

Which of the No Labels leaders were of a similar profile—relatively young and fired with the passion of a true believer? Can you even turn moderation, their stated political aim, into a real political movement?

Is there a galvanizing political issue not covered by the duopoly? I would argue there is, but that a much better job must be done in persuading voters that the issue should be a major influence on their political preferences. The issue: our national debt and its trajectory. Or, the radical misalignment of promises, their future costs and our expectations. The person or persons who will lead on this issue will need to convince the electorate that debt financing will not be perpetually available at sustainable rates.

But, if this issue is the spark, it will have to be humanized. Human loss abounds in nations that do not have our seemingly unlimited credit card. So, human misery is not hard to find, but convincing voters that at some point the credit window for US debt will close or be priced out of our reach will be more difficult. But consider, the annual cost of servicing our national debt crossed the $1 trillion dollar line in 2023.

I am going to move on as getting into the weeds on fiscal matters causes eyes to glaze over rather quickly. But, if we are unable to constrain our appetites and/or pay for them, the world’s most successful democracy will fail.

Let me close by looking ahead to 2026. Nikki Haley, the only candidate outside the co-dependency of President Biden and former President Trump, to gain traction, at times campaigned on our country’s enormous fiscal deficit. She even advocated increasing the retirement age for future entitlement recipients while protecting all those 40 years of age or over. She also referred to the need for an accountant in the White House. She is one.

The next election in her home state of South Carolina for the US Senate is in 2026—Senator Lindsay Graham’s seat is up. Rather than gearing up for the 2028 presidential election, I would suggest she run against Graham and run as the leader of a new Party emphasizing the need for fiscal leadership in Washington and a companion imperative: putting the bite back into casting a ballot.

On what I will call the bite imperative consider: the two established Parties have been taken over by an enormous amount of cash being given to the duopoly candidates. Power flowing to power. The Cook Political Report estimates that there are only thirty-eight highly competitive Congressional districts in which neither Party has a clear advantage. Thirty-eight out of four hundred and thirty-five Members. Members of Congress specialize in cashography (a toxic mix of money and contorted Congressional district lines).

Haley, as a former South Carolina governor, should have no problem meeting the new Party formation requirements in her State. Plus, emotionally and statistically, it is easy to make the case that the established Parties special interests will preclude their leadership on this generational issue. There is not a tax break, subsidy or appropriation without an organized constituency to protect it.

If Haley succeeds in 2026, she has a new beginning and the nation, potentially, has a new and energized political Party. Importantly one that will draw on political ambitions in state after state until it is truly a national Party. And I would add, founding a new national Party would earn more than a historical footnote.

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.