Economic Ups and Downs are embedded with threats. Threats to ideas, policies and ultimately power. Up or down reports say theories be damned this is how it is. These are the facts.

Because up and down is important—essential—we try to measure it. Measurements are sometimes irritants. We search for the words to explain them, no explain them away unless they are our allies. Politicians in particular want their own facts.

Populist programs don’t go broke, for example. If it is popular it is right. Populist dynamics lead the most effective populists to specialize in performance. Theatrics as attraction or distraction—emotion as a weapon.

And what about Progressives?  If you are a Progressive you simply find the money you need to fund your utopian theories and when the theories are disproven you make up new ones. Capitalism fails is foundational. And, you certainly don’t spend much time worrying about more government debt, capitalists will fund it.

In fact, and it is proven in today’s politics, neither Populists or Progressives spend any unforced time talking about debt.

Populists and Progressives also don’t spend any unforced time on numbers, period. Statistics are often irritants. So when President Donald Trump woke up to bad labor numbers, ones that disputed his many claims, he fired the messenger. The firing got everybody’s attention, which is to say those who pay much attention to public affairs.

This act made the Jeffrey Epstein affair go away for several news cycles. Of course, prurient stuff never really goes away. Goodness knows how many books are being written right now about the Epstein affair.

Trump must secretly revel in the tools of the Presidency. When his casino and hotel businesses in Atlantic City did not generate enough cash flow to service the debt, he used bankruptcy laws as leverage. He exclaimed to Newsweek in 2011, “I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they’re very good for me.”

In Washington Trump has supported raising the debt ceiling so that Treasury Notes can fund massive shortfalls between what is collected and spent. Isn’t this marvelous? “I have a printing machine.” No, those are not his words, but mine.

Maybe we won’t have to worry in the short term about inconvenient facts. Maybe the White House press operation will take on a new job—filtering government agency statistics and findings. Wonder about health statistics or crime data or gross national product or whatever, well White House minions will tell you what you need to know. Are there any real statisticians that will put up with that?

Yep, I know, I am being polemical. I must admit to being allergic to true believers. My faith in humankind does not stretch that far. I want the facts and I say that, knowing that it is damnably hard to get them straight. The statisticians and processes have to be scrubbed and re-scrubbed by scrupulous people. It is time for Congress to act to design just such a process and protections. There are a few patriots left; they should get together.

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 much-honored sportswriter, Roger Angel, writing in 1972 about baseball, while reflecting on sports, said, “Sports are too much with us. Late and soon sitting and watching—mostly watching on television—we lay waste our powers of identification and enthusiasm and, in time, attention as more and more closing rallies and crucial putts and late field goals and final playoffs and sudden deaths and world records and world championships unreel themselves ceaselessly before our half-lidded eyes. Professional leagues expand like bubble gum, ever larger and thinner, and the extended sporting seasons, now bunching and overlapping at the ends, conclude in exhaustion and the wrong weather.”

Fifty years later, Angel’s 1972 lament is especially biting.  I recall it for the millions who play inside rather than outside. As Angel’s “time thinned product” invites boredom, today’s owners have spent billions on their boyhood fantasy, cynically pushing their captive audiences to buy more, pay more, and now bet more. It is said the all-in cost of an NFL game is $350-$600 for two persons, for example. The all-in cost of gambling is unknowable.

Bob Costas, a 29-time Emmy Award winner, and recognized as the National Sportscaster of the Year eight times, in a recent interview on sports gambling by his father said there was “a lot of trauma in our family life because he had a volatile temper and the mortgage was often riding on how his bets went….. he didn’t bet on, you know, cards or poker games or crap games or go to the racetrack. He bet on baseball, football, and basketball games.”

There was a time in the early 1970s when I played poker with five or six guys. During football season, we would meet at a friend’s business, and he would give us the Sunday football betting card. It was done quietly—betting on sports was illegal.

And there were the bets with my Dad. We would always bet on the Army-Navy game—he had been in the Army, so I always had Navy. The numbers were digestible; as I recall $10 tops (1950s dollars). I come to this topic initiated, but boy, how times have changed. Too often, stimulation has become the game.

Now my loyal ChatGPT assistant reports that “Online gambling is undergoing rapid, double-digit annual growth—driven by expansion in the U.S., mobile-first strategies, and immersive technology adoption.”

I suspect some of the growth momentum is caused by the micro-bet. Major League Baseball is investigating two specific pitches that Cleveland Guardian pitcher Luis Ortiz threw. Both pitches had a higher-than-usual number of bets placed on them — action that was flagged by a betting integrity firm.

Yes, there are essentially an infinite number of ways you can bet on sports these days. One of them is a micro-bet about what the first pitch of a given inning might be: ball, strike, swinging strike—well use your imagination.

As we “lay waste our powers of identification and enthusiasm,” our ultimate animal spirit object, money, has become the stimulus. The game becomes ours. We either win or lose; who cares who wins the game on the field or in the gym? We get to play regardless of how inanimate we choose to be.

Oh well, the cynical win. The new owners with their billions on the roulette wheel of life. They are the games rights holders; the networks ultimately deal with them. The rights holders mostly own monopolies. Viewers might find an off-brand football league, but of course want to watch their NFL team.

And then there are the middlemen who handle the transactions and the State agencies that provide the gambling licenses—they get a cut too. Maybe we should throw in that part of the health care community that intercedes with the addicted. Maybe that is the final cut.

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. 

Shabang! The world’s richest man declares that he is going to start a new political party—America. Thoughts, from a registered Independent.

America’s prosperity, its root, is competition. We don’t want just one seller—we call that a monopoly. Or even two; pejoratively, we call that a duopoly. In short, we want a quick drive away, multiple grocers, service stations, or whatever.

Now with the Internet having been trained by Amazon, a veritable bonanza is a click away. But, not in politics. Those whose occupation is ruling others write laws that block others. Sort of, “if you don’t like what I’m selling that’s just too bad.”

If we retreat into history or political philosophy, we find the excuses, often voiced in the United States. Some will say that laws in Europe, for example, result in too many Parties and confusion. Or splinter Parties that are embarrassing. Or, power is too diffused. Yes, many European countries make it easier to qualify for the ballot.

In the United States, it is damnably expensive to begin and ultimately qualify a third party and gain recognition on the ballot in a large number of States. Our two dominant Parties disagree about much, but together they block competition and both overspend—the arrogance of concentrated power.

Physics told Musk that catching a rocket returning from space so it can be used again would be exceedingly difficult, but possible. He did it. Making billions of dollars is certainly not easy—he did it. And accumulating supporters and detractors by the millions is not easy, but he has also managed to do that. We all know there are ceilings in human affairs; Musk likes to defy them and sometimes proves us wrong.

In announcing the formation of a new Party, America, Musk said:  “I am generally hopeful because I believe there are millions of voters who want a third choice. Who want to go beyond the Right and Left hardcores. Who wants, on the conservative side, to get beyond the shifting sensibilities of Donald Trump and on the more liberal side, not to have its values hijacked by AOC” (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).

But, politics and Elon Musk have not been a harmonious pairing. He was all for Donald Trump and now he is adamantly against him.  He views policy positions as either true or false. Most often they are not. Politics is not physics. It is messy because trying to create some level of cohesion in the midst of clashing points of view is really hard.

Where do you compromise on abortion? Or the shifting views on the importance of immigration given incendiary rhetoric? Or committing our troops to at least the appearance of being ready to fight for principles? Or, perhaps most importantly, which programs should we eliminate or downsize even though supported by strong lobbies and well-positioned Members of Congress?

Or how do you find personalities that are both compelling and comfortable with diffused power? Is it possible to be both? Or do we need versions of out-sized personalities whose North Star is the unilateral use of power?

If the word moderate is frequently used in third-party arguments, and it is, what does it mean? Is moderation defined by what a Party or candidate is against or can moderates pull together logic, needs and wants into an actual platform? Or, do they just want more or less than the dominant Parties?

And considering the name of his new Party, can America be hijacked as the name?  And if so should the Party go back to the founding documents and attempt to animate the principles in specific programs? As compelling as the flag and patriotic music are, they do not spell out the terms of governing.

And, can Elon allow others to share the spotlight?  Can he raise money with the necessary funds to outline philosophy and programs? Or is this just one more solo act in an orchestral setting?

Now this is the point where various commentators begin to handicap the potential of success. Most are negative. I’m not ready to say that Musk will fail because others have. His company, SpaceX, caught a descending rocket going 17,000 miles per hour. Not bad. However, achieving sustained viability for a third party will be exceedingly difficult and require actual collaboration. If this is a Musk-dominated initiative, it will fail.

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 hard for me to fathom. When did the White House and all the honor that goes with it become insufficient? Why would a President be selling things using his historic title and its symbolism conferred by the voters?

In case you are unaware of President Trump’s merchandising job, please take a look: https://gettrumpfragrances.com/. Or go further and check out his offerings on Amazon. Artificial intelligence reports that he has 54 offers of branded products for sale.

And let me recall as prologue the 33rd President Harry Truman who left the White House in 1953 for his family home in Independence, Missouri. The home was his principal asset. Trump, in contrast, was said by Forbes to be worth approximately seven billion dollars in 2024.

Truman, after leaving the White House, was offered high-paying corporate board positions among other ways to increase his wealth. History recalls his response:

“You don’t want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale,”

Yep, that is a long time ago. But isn’t that where humanity goes to discover the base-line of morality? And if that is too big a word, what about honor? Or decency? Should we worry that generations following ours will regard service as one more financial transaction?

Going back a much shorter time recall Colonel (honorific) Tom Parker who managed Elvis Presley and then marketed him after his death. He even sold “I Hate Elvis” pins to profit from both sides.

I think Trump’s merchandising activity should be put to a vote to test the question—see if the people (voters) support the exploitation of the revered White House symbolism. An up or down vote on a resolution. We want a sense of the Congress as the public’s representatives.

The resolution, if it is kept simple, might be: “We, in the 119th United States Congress, knowing of the merchandising of the White House and its principal occupant, state our disapproval.” (Examples follow).

Now I know the language is sparse so undoubtedly drafts will replace drafts and maybe draw in President Donald J Trump’s wordsmiths. Almost regardless of the eventual outcome, Members of Congress will have to go on record. The President’s heretical departure from tradition will be tested. As will our Members of Congress.

Perhaps all lines of decorum have been erased. Maybe devotion to an individual requires submission. I doubt it, but a straight up test of the White House as a merchandising wing of the Presidency should be put to those who vote on our behalf.

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 I reflected on a dinner several nights ago, a simple fact was recalled: I had not talked about my earliest jobs, well, forever. But in dinner conversation new friends seemed interested. So let me put my reflections in context.

I was a 13-year-old cotton picker. I picked cotton before most farmers could afford a  machine that did it. By the way this was a Saturday morning job—leisure time cancelled. Video games—not around. However, sweat unlimited.

Plowing out boxcars came next and this was before the Grain Haulers of America union protected its workers from wheat dust.

Both jobs were humbling. I was working between school terms with young guys whose technique was much better than mine. I didn’t cost the grain elevator much which made the job possible. Today, companies are forced to pay the minimum wage. In New York it is trending by government mandate toward $30 an hour—productivity be damned.

In the cotton fields, beyond endurance, women with very small children were on their knees (you walked on your knees at plant level while picking) and then retreated to the cotton wagon to nurse their babies.

And I will never forget day three: plowing out rail box cars at the local grain elevator. “Plowing out” refers to getting every last kernel of grain out of a railcar filled with wheat from Oklahoma and Kansas. The wheat dust was thick.

On day three I was at the doctor’s office with a respiratory illness due to breathing in the dust. I had refused to use a face mask because the regulars didn’t wear one. My next day back at work I was masked. When I would change the filter (soft cotton) the other guys could see the moist black coating. The filter was a proxy for our lungs. By the next week many had bought a mask and showed up looking like me.

Which brings me to America and its constantly shifting realities. The grain elevator’s union made sure in its next negotiation that the workers were provided masks by the company—labor defeated capital. And in the case of cotton picking, machinery was soon to take over. Free markets do not quit spinning.

All this was my Dad’s plan; I am sure with Mom’s counsel. Later he made it possible for me to drive to Alaska and work on a maintenance crew at Elmendorf Air Force Base. I look back on these experiences—thank you Dad. Mom and Dad were instrumental. And, I was also getting my first lesson in the effectiveness of collective action.

Increasingly it is said artificial intelligence (AI) will cause the youthful job market to shift to making and doing things because AI will replace a lot of the “white collar” jobs. My Dad was not concerned with AI, but he did want me to understand sweat and the importance of learning how to do things correctly.  I was particularly conscious of the latter but maybe moved more decisively by the former.

The old days are not going to come back. But if I still had a teenager in the house, he/she would be bothered by lessons from my Mom and Dad. The 20th Century helping to instruct the 21st.

In reality few are going to earn a living playing some version of sport, yet today many youth spend much of their summer at camps that teach the next rung up the ladder. Or, an upper-class family summer might be spent in overseas travel. Or an internship with a friend of the family.

My parents wanted me to understand the world I was going to live in. My Mom, for example, made me take typing with the girls; it turned out to be useful as I typed email while many of my peers dictated to their secretaries.

The world today is changing much more rapidly. Along with changes we all talk about, privilege is being downgraded. Distinctive talent is in demand. Productivity has become an even more essential part of a business plan. Up and coming companies must compete with the scale of the big ones; big companies have less cost in their inventory.

Life happens. Markets spin. Intelligence is aggregated; algorithms analyze it. The answers do not yield to our desires. It is best to have a 360-degree understanding of how life works. Maybe Harvard should add a trade school.

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. 

Several days ago New York City’s dominant political party—Democrat—selected Zohran Mamdani to be its candidate in the general election for Mayor. Many were startled anticipating the much blemished Andrew Cuomo the likely winner. He, after all, had the support of big wigs including Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg.

Mamdani by most accounts is charismatic. He identifies as a Shia Muslim. He ran as a Socialist. He called for making busses “fast and free”, for a million new housing units and to have the City get into the grocery business so prices would be lower.

Mamdani’s selection followed a week of news about the upcoming marriage of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez in Venice, Italy. The stories were filled with excess the couple will purchase with millions of dollars.

The selection of Mamdani and the Venice marriage are heavy with cultural dissonance. I can easily imagine quite a few people who voted for Donald Trump being aghast at the wedding extravaganza, while being shocked and dismayed by Mamdani’s victory.

It will be said by strict devotees of capitalism that Bezos earned his right to be extravagant. Certainly Amazon, the company he founded, is enormously successful. So too Berkshire-Hathaway, the company Warren Buffet built. Buffet’s lifestyle is said to be modest and frugal. Is this generational? Or just personal?

Presumably, President Donald Trump’s success is some sort of composite.  His residences: Mar a Lago and the White House (the house George Washington built). And regardless of what he is called—right winger, populist, pragmatist—he is certainly transactional. If you worship at his rhetorical altar, you are a winner.

America can be confusing. And politics often sends conflicting messages. And one of today’s conflicts encircles truth. A quick analysis (today’s preferred format) had Iran’s nuclear work sites we bombed devastated. Interestingly the Pentagon said not so quick—the setback was months not years. I suspect default bias will have Trump supporters choosing his description. History would say give us a few years.

And I suspect more conservative voters will say of Mamdani’s success—“it could only happen in New York”. My take: we have entered a new generation of what the Hollywood scriptwriter’s muse blasted: “I’m mad as hell and can’t take it anymore.” The movie Network and the muse Howard Beale.

New Yorkers were fed up with Andrew Como and the debilitating cost of living. And joining New Yorkers, most are fed up with the extravagance embedded in the celebrity marriage. And Donald Trump?

America was founded on principles; we should all periodically refresh our memories of the founding documents. Maybe many who attended the “No Kings” rallies were fed up in our departure from the founding principles.

Yet today in Washington and elsewhere transactionalism is dominant. Regardless of the dramatic fiscal chasm Mamdani’s programs would create, he knew how to tap the “mad as hell” voter. And in Washington the President is counting on political transactionalism to deliver the “big beautiful bill”. If you are a Republican member of Congress and vote no Trump will come after you. Fiscal principle: be damned.

A culture shaped by winning regardless of principle produces celebrities not heroes. Recall in an interview Trump said of John McCain, who was a Vietnam war hero: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you.”

As commentators frequently say: here is my take. John McCain was a hero. Celebrity billionaires are undermining capitalism. And our lack of fiscal discipline will result and I hope soon, in a voter backlash or, as Donald Trump might say “the biggest backlash ever.” Our excesses will demand it.

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 moment was vivid. I have written about it before, so apologies if this is your second time through.

The year, 1986. The President: Ronald Reagan. On the other side of the table, Secretary of Commerce, Malcom  Baldrige. Me, well I was talking to the Secretary about coming to work for him heading the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (they didn’t get advice from a naming consultant).

The first question from Secretary Baldrige: “Al, Washington is a god-damn tough town. Everybody is after a piece of your ass. How do you rate yourself for aggressiveness?” Over time I learned what he meant, but this is about a condition in our capitol city, not me.

There is a finality to government. Sure you can appeal a decision but if your appeal is through the courts check your bank and patience accounts and if it is a legislative solution you are seeking, good luck with that. Laws with national reach are a big deal.

One of the laughable characteristics of the white hot feud between President Donald J Trump and Elon Musk is that for months they have been playing each others cheerleader. And the praise can be summarized with this word: GREATEST! So here we are, in a brief period of time they went from greatest to worst. From “Greatest of All Time” (GOAT) to “Terrible on Any Day” (TOAD).

President Trump has proved to have an uncanny sense of timing and themes. Make America Great Again (MAGA) wins the theme contest moving ahead of The New Frontier and New Deal. And generally Republicans have not done well with political themes. In the case of Ronald Reagan he was the theme riding in from his ranch to catch the bad guys.

In the case of Donald Trump his political life began on an escalator not a horse or maybe as the all-knowing judge of talent on The Apprentice. Regardless, he is in his second term—as politics go that is a winner. And now the Democrats are trying to figure out their future.

Had I engaged in this kind of urine contest both my grandparents and parents would have sent me to my room. I use this generational reference point as both Trump and Musk are acting like how Trump is said to have characterized Musk (50% genius and 50% boy). Both are acting like teenage boys.

My difficulty with the Trump/Musk partnership is simple: conflict of interest. It is said that Musk has given Trump something over $250 million to chase his political ambitions, and some of Musk’s businesses’ biggest clients are government agencies.

As I type, people who make money writing columns and the like are choosing winners and losers in this contest of invectives. Let me join in. The loser is the United States of America and its position in the world. We are making democracy look like a fractious car auction.

But of course, the game is which of the two will come out better. The overwhelming answer is Trump. Certainly, Musk has a lot to lose. For example his Tesla stock lost 14% of its value on Thursday. Although it appears by the end of Friday’s trading day that most, if not all, of the loss will be recovered. Reuters attributes the bounce back to the cooling of the dispute.

Indeed, maybe that is a useful measure—the market value of a stock. Or the polling numbers of a politician. Maybe that is where our democracy is at the current moment.

So here is my short-term take. Musk is the loser as his favored status as a businessman close to the President has taken a hit. The President in that limited sense comes out better but as time goes on maybe he loses support as a percentage of supporters wonder about his judgment in letting Musk roam through the White House as if he was the First Lady.

Back ever so briefly to Secretary Malcolm Baldrige. He would be aghast; he was a real patriot.

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.