Judgment

Al Sikes

In the summer of 1989 I was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Several weeks later, as I was making the rounds of U.S. Senators on the Commerce Committee, I learned that my confirmation would be opposed by the Rev. Don Wildmon, of the American Family Association. His testimony was sponsored by then–Senator Al Gore, who was a senior Democrat on the Committee.

Rev. Wildmon in his testimony said I had worked in the “libertarian administration” of President Reagan and could not be counted on to enforce FCC rules against “indecent broadcasting.” Wildmon had not talked to me. I was confirmed, although Gore—in a non-Nobel moment—put an anonymous hold on my confirmation until Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell told him to go public with his hold or take it off.

My time in government and my own interests cause me to be drawn frequently into discussions on the suitability of today’s candidates for President. Those discussions often focus on cultural issues with moral content, and what is troubling is the absolute assumptions about candidate suitability that frame the conversations.

Most public figures with broad executive responsibility concentrate their talent and thought on issues of national security, economic policy, and responses to unwelcome surprises like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. In recent elections, however, all candidates have found themselves increasingly tested and often dictated to by single-issue groups. Are you pro or con the orthodoxy of the National Rifle Association (NRA) or National Education Association (NEA)? Are you for or against abortion or gay rights or affirmative action? The single-issue groups, whether secular or motivated by religious attitudes, then work overtime to persuade their kindred spirits to pivot on the responses.

The risks confronting a democracy whose fulcrum is single-issue groups are quite significant. The scale and scope of the questions facing our nation and its global role are enormously challenging. We need leaders who are equal to this challenge; leadership failure inevitably results in a toxic cynicism. Unfortunately the nature of the single-issue groups is that they are funded and animated by the most zealous, leaving no room for disagreement regardless of how talented the candidate might be.

Flawed humans are universal. We are all sinners and the sins of Type A political leaders are typically writ large. We all stumble along the way; few prayers leave my lips that don’t include a request for forgiveness. And the sins I am talking about are all within the law (especially since I am unlikely to ask forgiveness when I drive over 55 mph). The law’s protection, while important, falls well short of assuring a sublime society.

Most Christians I know (although certainly not all) are pro-life. Increasingly many are also drawn to the serious implications of bio-engineering and the difficult questions posed by the artificial extension of life. Questions on abortion, bio-engineering, and euthanasia should be a part of every debate and a candidate’s position on life issues should be a part of the voting equation. But, absent detached or thoughtless answers, we should not disengage.

We should not forget that by many of today’s tests some of the most revered figures in biblical—and even American—history would be summarily rejected. Further, taking a scorched-earth position assures that when the President calls together people to help with public policy issues on life, a great deal of passion and thought will not be at the table. If the political equation results in secularists exclusively shaping public policies on life, America’s social fabric will no longer be the envy of much of the world.

I remember vividly a sermon by Tim Keller, senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York. Tim, using the story of Jacob wrestling with God to his ultimate spiritual benefit, contrasted personal faith with cultural or psychological—or, what I might by extension call political—faith. We worship or associate with people in a particular place or of a particular point of view, and over time the association, not a personal relationship with God (necessarily humbling), begins to define our faith. When that association pulls us into politics, political dynamics often lead us into a polemical posture. Writ large, this dynamic currently and perversely animates much of the Middle East. And faith has over the centuries been used as a vehicle for power even by those who professed to be Christians. Only Christ’s divinity held us together when Christianity was abused in this way.

In 1989 Rev. Don Wildmon did not seek me out. His attitude seemed to be that the Reagan Administration had disappointed him, I had worked in that Administration, and therefore he should oppose my confirmation. Leadership then and today requires a more discerning approach.

We in the U.S. are a year away from electing a new President. Hopefully this journal might from time to time be used to thoughtfully help shape a post-election agenda that encourages people of faith to seek common ground with all fellow citizens and to foster respectful conversation when we differ.  

Al Sikes is the Chairman of the Board of The Trinity Forum. A former chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, he is a consultant to the Hearst Corporation and the founder of the Reading Excellence and Discovery Foundation.

1 Responses (comments are closed) • Provocations, Leadership, Public Square, Thu 15 Nov 2007