[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to provide an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to enable use of an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

********************

As I reflect back on nearly 40 years of dealing with the Oregon Legislature, 25 of them as a private sector lobbyist, I have become more and more interested in what often is a missing ingredient in the public policy process – the ability to find what I call the “smart middle ground.”

Think about it for a minute. Politics, by definition, is supposed to be the “art of compromise.” But, today, more often than not, politics is the ability to get your own way and ridicule those who disagree with you.

There are a few reasons for this in my judgment.

VOTER ATTITUDES: First, as voters, we often don’t consider the ability to find the middle as a credible reason to vote for a candidate. We often want the candidate to agree with us. If someone were to run on a platform such as this – “Vote for me…when I get to Salem (or Washington, D.C.), I will work to find compromise on the issues we face” – voters probably would turn the other way.

So, if we want the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress to work better, we should turn to ourselves as voters to take the first step by electing representatives who say they will work hard to solve problems, not representatives with whom we may agree on this or that issue – or representatives who are always campaigning for office rather than governing.

This about it this way. In real life, many of us find it hard to compromise. We want to get our way and argue with those who don’t agree with us. So, it should come as no surprise that, in politics, we find the same trait. It’s time to call and work for something greater.

THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN: Two authors – Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson, Alfred North Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy at Harvard University – suggest that “political compromise is difficult in American democracy even though no one doubts it is necessary because of the incursion of campaigning into governing in American democracy.” They call this the so “permanent campaign” which encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult.

They continue: “ These constitute what we call the uncompromising mindset, characterized by politicians’ standing on principle and mistrusting opponents. This mindset is conducive to campaigning, but not to governing, because it stands in the way of necessary change and thereby biases the democratic process in favor of the status quo. The uncompromising mindset can be kept in check by an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments — the compromising mindset that inclines politicians to adapt their principles and respect their opponents. This mindset is more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognize and act on opportunities for desirable compromise.”

I couldn’t have said or written it better.

Over my years at the Capitol in Salem, I have seen legislators structure what they do and how they act in relation to the next campaign, not in the best interests of solving pressing public policy problems. They appear to be interested in the next headline rather than the next piece of public policy.

THE DEARTH OF MIDDLE GROUND LEADERS: A third factor is that there are fewer and fewer legislators who have the ability to lead disparate interests – yes, including lobbyists for various interests – to find middle ground.

Let me cite just one example. Former senator Neil Bryant, a Republican from Bend, had a special ability to lead toward the smart middle. He was often turned to as the senator to take on difficult, controversial assignments.

After Oregonians adopted an assisted suicide ballot measure by a 60-40 vote, Bryant and others at the Capitol, me included, noted that the “immunities clause” in the new law was poorly drafted.

So, even in the aftermath of the strong, affirmative public vote, Bryant convened a group of interests to work toward crafting better immunities language. I was there as a representative of Providence Health System, a large health care provider in Oregon that has an affiliation with the Catholic Church. Representatives of the assisted suicide advocacy group, Right to Die, were there, as well. We even sat next to each other.

In a decision made by Bryant, a representative of the Catholic Church was not allowed to participate because his client, the Church, could not compromise on such an issue as assisted suicide. The church’s view was that compromise was unethical, so the lobbyist was left on the outside.

After several weeks of meetings, under Bryant’s leadership, the group crafted a middle ground position – with far superior language to what had been approved at the polls and, again with Bryant’s leadership, the bill became law. [The Catholic Church, by the way, had every opportunity to testify in opposition to the compromise before it became law.]

In this venture, I had to compromise as Providence’s representative and I won’t spend time or words outlining all of the specific compromise language, but one thing is clear – middle ground was found on a tough issue due to a top-level leader and a group willing to work together despite differences.

Another example of finding the smart middle ground occurred a number of years ago when then-Governor Neil Goldschmidt (pardon me for mentioning his name here, given the discredit he has earned) called management and labor leaders to the Governor’s Residence and led them to adopt a series of workers’ compensation reforms that, in general, still work today to hold down business costs while assuring that injured workers get needed medical care.

To me, the work still stands as one of the highest-profile efforts to find middle ground in recent history.

IDENTIFYING MIDDLE GROUND FOLLOWERS: Finding middle ground requires, not only leaders with the skills to knock heads to produce compromise, but followers who have, to use the term coined by the two authors above, “a mindset open to compromise.”

If someone wants only to get their way and tell others to take the highway, leaders cannot do much to find the smart middle.

CONCLUSION: For government to work, I believe everyone must get back to the best definition of politics – the “art of compromise” – or, in my words, “finding the smart middle.”

To be sure, those holding elective office must consider the next campaign, but that doesn’t mean they have to be involved in a permanent campaign. They – and those of us who elect them – should be heavily invested in the process of governing.