PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of the aspirations that motivated me in my life as a lobbyist was to find what I called “the smart middle ground.”

What I meant was the ability – potentially resident in both public officials and lobbyists – to work toward the art of compromise. That is the definition of politics in the first place.

To say that’s missing from today’s political discourse is an understatement.

Consider a development earlier this year, the nomination by President Barack Obama of D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Whatever you think of Obama and his Administration, the choice merits consideration, given Garland’s legal jurisprudence record, including as the chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the fact that he has been confirmed two previous times by bi-partisan majorities in the Senate.

Many Republicans have stuck to their position that the Senate should not grant Garland a hearing, much less an up or down vote, because they want the next President to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Of course, they also hope that the President will be a Republican.

A reading of Garland’s record as a jurist indicates that, for Republican tastes, he may have sided too often with the bureaucracy, especially in Washington, D.C. where the Court on which he now sits handles many administrative matters. But, rather than just say “no” to him, why not give him a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and probe the rationale for his decisions?

One reason is that Senate Republican leaders are retaliating for the behavior of Democrats when Democrats ran the Senate. So, the axiom appears to be “one bad turn deserves another.”

Where is the middle ground? Nowhere.

It’s just the latest in a series of all-or-nothing positions held by politicians in Washington, D.C., as well as in Salem.

Consider the February short session of the Oregon Legislature.

Democrats used their near super-majority status to push through major issues that many observers said didn’t belong in a short, 35-day legislative session that, as originally proposed, was supposed to deal only with emergency issues, such as new problems with the state budget.

Rather than negotiate with minority Republicans on so-called environmental legislation, Democrats pushed through a bill making Oregon, as the Associated Press put it, “the first state to eradicate coal from its power supply through legislation and boast some of the most stringent demands for renewable energy among its state peers.”

The new law will wipe out coal-generated energy in phases through 2030 and requires utilities to provide half of customers’ power with renewable sources by 2040, doubling the state’s previous standard.

Senate Republican leader Ted Ferrioli said this, again according to the AP: “Today, Governor Brown gave her stamp of approval to a new renewable energy mandate that will cost residential electricity customers in Oregon $190 more each year until 2040.” He also argued the law “lines the pockets of the green energy industry at the expense of working Oregonians who get nothing in return.”

Again, where is the middle ground? Nowhere.

It also didn’t show up in Democrats’ action in the short legislative session to adopt the highest minimum wage in the country, again over Republican objections.

At one point, it appeared Democrats, including Governor Kate Brown, were open to working on a compromise. In the end, compromise didn’t fly, though Democrats may say they recognized differences between urban and rural Oregon by approving a lower minimum wage in rural areas.

Republicans didn’t buy it. According to the Oregonian, Senator Alan Olsen, R-Canby, said this: “We turn around and hurt everybody — everybody — by doing this. As you say on the left, we want progress. This isn’t progression. This is the government intruding into our businesses and saying ‘you will pay.'”

Jason Brandt, president and CEO of the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, added that the increase “will kill jobs, harm consumers, force school and government service cuts and hurt Oregon farms and small businesses.”

Labor leader Tom Chamberlain, wasn’t impressed by Republican opposition, contending that the increase “marks a recognition that no matter where you live, Oregon’s current minimum wage is not enough to live on.” Several Democrat legislators also recognized the price small businesses might pay for the increase and said they didn’t care.

Where is the middle ground? Nowhere.

My perspective on government action may not fly in today’s politics where criticizing opponents is the order of the day. My wish is two-fold: (1) That we elect officials with the ability to lead disparate interests toward the smart middle ground, and (2) that, as those who watch or participate in public policy, we have the courage to follow smart leaders toward that middle ground.