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 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.

We are in for substantial changes in the way health care operates in this country.

That much is clear with President-elect Donald Trump’s pending appointment of Representative Tom Price of Georgia to be Health and Human Services cabinet secretary.

Trump made the announcement of Price’s appointment earlier this week, but, of course, as with most other high-level appointments in the new Trump Administration, Price’s elevation is subject to Senate confirmation.

Price won plaudits from some quarters in Congress when, as a representative, he proposed the “Empowering Patients First Act.”

According to the New York Times:

“His proposal would take health care in a fundamentally different direction, away from mandated coverage and care and toward a free-market approach, with fewer consumer protections and more freedoms for doctors.”

Senate Republican Mitch McConnell said “I can tell you where we’re going to start: With a process to repeal and replace ObamaCare.”

The “repeal and replace” language is noteworthy because it is viewed by congressional leaders to be easier to repeal ObamaCare, then replace it, than it would be simply to change ObamaCare. The point is that Americans, if Trump and Republicans have their way, would be left with a new health care plan, not nothing

Here is a list of key changes Price’s proposal would make:

1. The requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions would be available, not to everyone, but only to persons who have maintained coverage in the past, for example moving to the individual market from an employer’s health care plan.

2. The mandate for Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty would be eliminated, as would the requirement for larger employers to offer coverage.

3. Instead, the Price proposal would offer tax credits for purchasing individual and family health insurance policies and also would use other tax breaks to coax more people into using personal health savings accounts.

4. The bill would make it easier for doctors to defend themselves against medical malpractice lawsuits, especially if doctors followed clinical guidelines for treating medical conditions.

5. The bill would make it easier for doctors to enter into private contracts with Medicare beneficiaries, thus opting out of federal Medicare structures.

6. The bill would eliminate the federal health insurance exchanges, though states could contract with private entities to provide information – but only information, not enrollment – on prices and benefits offered by insurers.

7. The bill would offer federal grants to states to form high-risk pools to subsidize insurance for low-income persons who otherwise might have difficulty finding insurance on the open market.

8. The bill would allow insurers licensed in one state to sell policies to residents of other states.

There is more to the Price proposals than this list, but here’s hoping that the “Empowering Patients First Act” becomes a starting point for a larger, bi-partisan discussion of how to reform health care so it works better than ObamaCare.

It should not be the end and, with Democrats sure to be involved, it won’t be.

One of the huge problems with ObamaCare was that it was imposed by Democrats. It was not a product of a bi-partisan debate and decision. Therefore, its good points – and there are a number of them – were obscured by the “one size fits all” solution.

If Price and other Administration officials are smart, they will focus on replacing ObamaCare, not just repealing it.

And, if cooler heads prevail – a tough challenge in the emotionally-tinged political environment we have just survived – the result will be a better health care policy for all Americans.

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 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.

As Americans, do we need to give Donald Trump a chance?

As in the headline on this blog, I say yes, though a bit hesitantly because I never know which Trump will emerge – the one on the campaign trail who, with almost unimaginable rhetoric, criticized everyone, or the one in his president-elect mode who appears to be reasonable and friendly.

The New York Times covered this point the other day in a column by Nicholas Kristoff. It sparked comments in letters to the editor, such as these two:

• From Greenwich, Connecticut: “I didn’t want either candidate, but will give Donald Trump a chance because Hillary Clinton wanted us to, because I respect the process and because I have faith in a government framework intended to disseminate power.”

• From Windermere, Florida: “It will not be helpful to the country if those on the left or anyone with serious concerns becomes just as extreme as those on the far right. I agree fully with Mr. Kristof on this point: Let’s grit our teeth, give him a chance and hold him strictly to account.”

If you voted for Hillary Clinton or, at least did not vote for Trump, gritting your teeth may be a predictable reaction. But, to state the obvious, there are winners and losers in politics and, if democracy means anything, then it should mean that winners win with grace and the losers lose with the same trait.

For my part, here on the West Coast, far removed from the two East Coast letter writers, I say, too, give Trump a chance. Look at what he does, not just at what he says, via Twitter and other new-age forms of communication. Consider how he transfers from a campaign mode to a governing mode because, in the end, he will have to govern.

****

FOOTNOTE:  Even as I wrote this, recounts were being requested in several Rust Belt states, recounts demanded first by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, but later joined by the Hillary Clinton campaign, which, obviously, already has conceded the election.  I suspect these recounts will not amount to much.

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 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.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius wrote an interesting column the other day in which he expressed thanks for Donald Trump’s insincerity, which he called “bait and switch.”

To bait Americans on the campaign trail, Trump accused absolutely everybody of being less wonderful than he himself, “The Donald.” Then, after his election, he switched many of his off-the wall-campaign promises.

Here’s the way Ignatius described the changes:

“Perhaps we should be thankful this week for Donald Trump’s insincerity. In a breathtaking fortnight of flip-flopping, he has reversed many of his most reckless and damaging campaign positions.

“The new Trump professes sympathy for people and ideas he disdained during the ‘vicious’ campaign. He now admires President Obama, doesn’t want to harm (let alone lock up) Hillary Clinton, is waffling on climate change, and thinks waterboarding might not work. Maybe he’ll even decide that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a great trade deal.”

If this means that Trump actually wants to get about the business of healing the great divides in America, good. He’ll have a lot more work to do and there is no doubt that he won’t be able to convince many Americans of his better self, given the way he conducted himself on the campaign trail.

Think back to when Barack Obama came into office about eight years ago. He promised to lead a bi-partisan America. He did not. He actually pushed bi-partisanship to the side to exert his own will as chief executive through regulations that circumvented Congress.

Many of his supporters would say he did so because of a recalcitrant Congress that wouldn’t do his bidding.

One test of any president is the ability to convince those in Congress – as well as the American people – of the worth of his ideas. If that means compromise with Congress, so be it because the best ideas often are found in the middle anyway and not on either extreme.

Trump’s election was one of the most divisive in American history. Here’s hoping his presidency will work to heal the divisions. Or, to use the Ignatius analogy, the Trump presidency actually will practice bait and switch bait from over-wrought campaign rhetoric to actual governing positions.

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 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.

If I was in charge of federal care reform – never fear, I won’t be assigned that unenviable task, nor would I take it – there is one foundation plank that would be in my platform.

Using the example of car insurance, it is this: You have to have coverage. If you don’t and have a “health care accident,” you would pay a penalty, just as you do with car insurance.

It’s a simple concept really, but, of course, the devil would be in the details in such areas as what happens to people who are so poor they cannot buy health insurance. No doubt there would have to be subsidies.

Also, how do you handle such issues as a ban on not covering pre-existing conditions? One key there would to make sure everyone had coverage, so the entire pool would be supporting insurance for all, which is a key spread-the-risk tenet for insurance generally.

Those who designed ObamaCare, only Democrats, faced those same questions and, by all accounts, did a bad job of providing answers. So much so that there is an emerging consensus that ObamaCare must be replaced with something smarter. Not repeal. Replaced.

It appears that even President-Elect Donald Trump – that title, by the way, does not fall easily off the lips – gets it. When he met with President Obama shortly after his stunning win, he came away, he said, with a belief that at least two ObamaCare concepts ought to be retained – a ban on insurers not covering pre-existing conditions and allowing “children” to remain on their parents coverage until age 26.

As for the “you have to have it mandate,” there was no talk about it early on in the Trump Transition, perhaps because, as its base, government mandates are anathema to Republicans, now in charge of the White House, as well as both houses of Congress.

Before the national elections, Republicans got a head start on various policy issues for consideration if they remained in charge of Congress in the nation’s Capitol. They called it “A Better Way.” Here is a summary of four key principles in the health care section:

More choices and lower costs.

• Our plan gives you more control and more choices so that you can pick the plan that meets your needs—not Washington’s mandates.

Real protections and peace of mind.

• Our plan makes sure that you never have to worry about being turned away or having your coverage taken away—regardless of age, income, medical conditions, or circumstances.

Cutting-edge cures and treatments.

• Our plan clears out the bureaucracy to accelerate the development of life-saving devices and therapies.

A stronger Medicare.

• Our plan protects Medicare for today’s seniors and preserves the program for future generations.

To be sure, these are just words on paper so far. They need to be fleshed into real concepts that have the potential to pass muster in Congress, as well as with the American people.

As I followed the recent election campaigns, a comment I heard a lot was that, if America is one of the leading nations in the free world, then it should be able to design a health care coverage program that works well for its citizens.

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 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

That question in that headline is on many minds these days as all of us are adjusting to an unpredictable and difficult-to-fathom reality: Donald Trump is the president-elect.

As president, will he be the same self-centered buffoon, misogynist and critic of all but himself that he was on the year-long campaign trail?

Or, will he come across as interpersonally skilled, humble, and compassionate as he done since his stunning election win, including in his victory speech, as well as on his visit with President Obama at the White House.

Only time will tell.

But, a foreboding thought is that Trump’s campaign style is so instinctive that he may not be able to contain himself when he comes under pressure in the Oval Office.

Witness these stark contrasts:

• On the campaign trail, he criticized his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton in the strongest possible terms, even threatening to throw her in jail. But, in his victory speech, he lauded Clinton’s contributions, contending that she had worked very hard and deserved gratitude from the country.

• On the campaign trail, he continued to bring up the Obama “birther issue,” contending that the president should not have been allowed to serve in the nation’s highest political office because he was not born in the U.S. But, as he met Obama at the White House after his victory, Trump complimented the country’s current chief executive.

• On the campaign trail, he criticized Senator John McCain because he was captured during his service in the Vietnam War, and slammed the parents of the serviceman killed in Iraq. Yet, as he prepared his Transition, he made commitments to beef up America’s military might.

• On the campaign trail, he conducted himself as one who objectified women, in the worst sense of that phrase, including an incredible list of sexual conquests, about which he boasted. But, in victory, Trump was glad to count a number of women around the country as staunch supporters.

The best speech I heard Trump give in more than a year was the one to underline his victory. He complimented Clinton and appeared gracious and humble as he contemplated his rise to the top. I wish he could have come across as the same individual in the campaign, but, then, I guess, he would not have been able to capitalize on the anger and emotion resident in the U.S.

As the New York Times put in it a major piece on November 11:

“Mr. Trump’s trip (to the White House) was surreal for many Republicans and Democrats in Washington who never expected to see the real estate executive and reality television star in an Oval Office meeting to begin preparations to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Mr. Trump, whose campaign drew support from white supremacist groups, sat just in front of a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Oval Office.”

My aspiration is the same as the Times wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“As a candidate, Mr. Trump could get away with ignoring racist and sexist abuse by his supporters (or, I add, by himself). But, as the president-elect, he has the moral duty to reject it in the most aggressive terms. There should be no space in American political discourse for violent or abusive behavior. In a little more than two months, Donald Trump will take charge of a country of more than 320 million people all races, ethnicities and religions. Every one of them deserves to live in safety, with dignity.”

Living in safety, with dignity, should be the hope of all Americans.

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 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.

I wrote the other day that one test of the most recent election – and any election, for that matter – is whether those who won can get about the business of governing rather than just campaigning some more.

Another test: Can the winners avoid overplaying their hand?

After all if you, then to the victor go the spoils, right?  Well, yes, to a certain extent, but any attempt at governing will require — should require — a balance between the majority and minority.

In the Nation’s Capitol, this means can the new Trump Administration find a way to operate in a more rationale way rather than just giving those on the right all of the action. Early indications, at least reported by some national media, is that the Trump group is off to a decent start, with a gracious victory speech by Trump, a decent meeting with President Barack Obama, an indication that the new team will focus on a small short list of priorities, and an openness expressed by Trump himself to reform ObamaCare, not trash it.

In Oregon, not overplaying their hand applies to Democrats who, again, will control the Governor’s Office, the House, the Senate, the Treasurer’s Office, and the Attorney General’s Office. The only statewide office they don’t hold is Secretary of State where Republican Dennis Richardson carved out a surprising win, the first by a Republican in a statewide office in many years.

In particular, will the re-elected governor, Kate Brown, the House Speaker Tina Kotek and the Senate President Peter Courtney reach out to Republicans to help govern? And, if they reach out, will Republicans respond with moves toward the smart middle rather than just play the opposition?

For one thing, Democrats will not operate with super-majorities in either the House or the Senate, so, if tax increases are an issue in the aftermath of the defeat of Ballot Measure, they will have to work with Republicans to hammer out a deal.

In the past in Oregon, those in charge have tended to overplay their hand. They seek to shove their agendas down the throats of the other side. That problem has happened with both Democrats and Republicans.

Control in nearly every major office does not often translate to middle-ground compromise, which is where the best solutions lie anyway.

Speaking of compromise, one of the best legislative sessions to see it in Oregon occurred in 2011. At least that was true in the Oregon House. There, there were 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans. That meant legislators had no choice but to work together to do anything, including the only action that any legislature has to accomplish, which is to produce a balanced budget for the next two years.

It is rare that elections produce equal Republican-Democrat results, but when they do, you can watch democracy in action without any tendency for one party to overplay their hand.

Footnotes on the national election campaign: Based on national media coverage over the last few days, it appeared that at least three factors were at work in Donald Trump’s stunning win. One was that Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who had trouble imparting a vision for her presidency. A second factor was that it always is difficult for one party to hold the White House for a third term and that’s how Clinton came across – Obama 3. A third factor was Trump himself who did not run a conventional campaign and that factor alone appeared to endear him to a lot voters, including those skeptical of the expansive role of government in their lives.

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 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 test of every election, including the stunning one that just occurred in this country, is whether those who won can get about the business of governing.

Apparently, it’s not easy because, too often, the end of one campaign simply signals the start of another.  Those who won immediately begin planning for the next campaign, including trying to generate positive headlines — either in the mass or social media — or working to put their potential opponents in a bad light.

There has been talk of a “continual campaign” for a long time, evidenced, for one thing, by a book in 2012 by two professors, Amy Gutmann, then president of the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson, a professor of philosophy at Harvard.

Their contention:

“The problem of compromise in American democracy has always been challenging.  It becomes harder still with the rise of the permanent campaign.  The relentless pressures of campaigning, which call for an uncompromising mindset, are overtaking the demands of governing, which depend on a compromising mindset.

Given the most unpredictable of results — Donald Trump is the president-elect — most eyes are on Washington, D.C. as Trump prepares to assume power in the nation’s highest political office. Will he in his ascension to the top job, as has been the case over the last several days or will he revert to his over-the-top campaign style

There are issues, as well, in Oregon where most election results were predictable.

Here are questions for Oregon’s current political leaders — Governor Kate Brown, who won her own two-years in office after taking over from John Kitzhaber; Representative Tina Kotek, D-Portland, who very likely will remain as House Speaker; and Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, who was not up for election this time, but is looking ahead to what might be his last two years in office:

*  How will these leaders navigate the shoals of the major defeat for Ballot Measure 97, which, by taxing business, would have produced $3 billion a year for state government?  Brown and Kotek endorsed the measure; Courtney did not.  But all three, with their allies, will have to figure out how to balance the budget for 2017-19, a tall task politically with risks for K-12, higher education, cops and prisons, health care and the elephant in the room — a major funding gap for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS).

*  When and, if so how, will these and other leaders reach out to the business community in Oregon, a typically disparate group which came together to raise almost $30 million to kill Measure 97?  Some business leaders want to respond immediately with potential compromise tax increases that could pass muster in the legislature and, if necessary, at the polls.  Others want to bide their time until legislators reach out to them to ask for participation in finding a middle ground solution.

*   Democrats retained control of both the House and Senate in Salem, but not with super-majorities, and the question is how those in charge will play their leadership hand.  Will they reach out to Republicans to find middle ground?  Will they try to entice one Republican in each chamber to sign up for tax increases if, that is, the leaders can keep all Democrats in line in favor of taxes?

*  How will Republicans continue to play their minority role?  In the recent past, they appear to have been mostly content to oppose Democrats.  In the 2017 session, will they work across party lines to forge compromise?

No one yet knows the answers to these and other questions. Legislators don’t return to Salem until January when they will hold opening ceremonies before beginning to meet in earnest as of February 1.

There are huge issues on the horizon — balancing the state budget, dealing with a big hole in the state’s Medicaid budget, honing a transportation funding package, dealing with the PERS funding gap, finding a way to boost funding for higher education (as advocated last week in a letter signed by 18 legislators). Most of them, if they are solved at all, will be solved somewhere in the middle.

As Gutmann and Thompson contend, such compromise will require laying down the cudgels of campaigning to get about the business of governing.

We’ll see whether this occurs in Oregon in the new year.

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 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.

If there is an agreement in the aftermath of this national election, it is this: The result was the most stunning in memory, if not in history.

Donald Trump rise to the most powerful position in the free world defied conventional wisdom and turned public opinion polling on its head.

But, if this result was stunning, think back to the 1948 election presidential election. On the evening I was born – so obviously I have no memory of the events – Thomas Dewey was predicted to defeat Harry Truman. Headline writers proclaimed that result in huge fonts, but had to eat their words.

Journalism has changed since 1948, so headline writers did not make the mistake this morning. Editions of the Salem Statesman-Journal were printed before the result was final, so the paper went with the word “Cliffhanger” on its front page.

Even the Wall Street Journal did not have final results on the morning after the election, so resorted to this non-committal headline, “Division Race Ends.” The paper didn’t say who won.

Even as the nation tries to adjust to the Trump win, I have focused mostly on Oregon races, coming up with several takeaways:

GOVERNOR KATE BROWN’S WIN: The question is what the re-elected governor, a Democrat, will do with her first elected term in office, albeit only two years to fill out the remainder of John Kitzhaber’s term.

She easily turned back a challenge from political newcomer, Salem oncologist Bud Pierce, even though various election watchers suggested that Brown had failed to impart a cohesive vision for her administration. She’ll now have a year or so to find her footing before having to run again – and she says will seek a full four-year term in 2018.

No one knows who Republicans will put up to oppose her, but one name making the rounds is Knute Buehler, who won re-election to a House seat from Bend.

BALLOT MEASURE 97 GOES DOWN: The measure went down by a wide margin, 58 to 41. The decision means legislators, who return to the Capitol in January, will have to look elsewhere for money for K-12, cops and prisons, higher education, and health care, plus the elephant in the room – a multiple million dollar Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) funding gap.

Observers wonder how Governor Brown and leaders of the legislature – House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem – will react to Measure 97’s demise. Brown and Kotek endorsed passage.

Businesses, often a disparate group in Oregon, raised nearly $30 million to kill the measure, which had been lofted without much detailed analysis by public employee unions.

There is a view among some of the winning businesses that they should head to Salem immediately to propose a tax increase that has chance to pass muster with legislators and voters. Another group of businesses are reported to believe that it would smarter to hold private counsels about alternatives, then wait for the governor and legislative leaders to ask for help.

I favor the latter. No need to rush to Salem after the governor and Democrat leaders at the Capitol failed to avoid the Measure 97 mishap, thus requiring business to pony up to defeat a flawed measure.

A NEW SECRETARY OF STATE: Southern Oregon Republican Dennis Richardson, a former legislator and candidate for governor last time around, defied conventional political wisdom in Oregon by winning his race.

He did so despite conservative social beliefs that do not resonate well with urban voters. But he had two advantages in the race, the first Republican win in a state constitutional race in more than 30 years. One advantage was that he focused heavily on the auditing function of the position, which enabled him to come down on the side of improving the effectiveness of state spending, a popular theme with voters.

Richardson’s second advantage was that his opponent, Democrat Brad Avakian, ran an over-the-top campaign where he tried to depict the Secretary of State position as one involved in social issues, as well as environmental protection.

While the job is next in line of succession to the governor, the position does focus on auditing, as well as running elections.

LEGISLATIVE CONTROL: Democrats retained control of both the House and Senate in Oregon, though not with super-majorities. That means Democrats cannot pass tax increases on their own without Republican help. And, in turn, that means one of two things – either Democrats have to find one Republican vote for tax increases assuming they can keep all Democrats in line, or they will have work to find middle ground on taxes without party-line votes.

For Republicans, the question is whether they will get leadership from Democrats that asks Republicans for their contributions, and, if they do, will they follow it.

Leadership requires leaders AND followers.

Observers of legislative processes hope for middle ground on major issues, including taxes, which may be more possible, frankly, with the defeat of Measure 97.

As is the case with all elections, one early question will be whether those who won can get about the business of governing without resorting immediately to laying the foundation for another campaign. The first official test in Oregon will come in the 2017 legislative session, which starts with opening ceremonies in early January, then begins meeting in earnest in February.

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 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.

As all of us adjust to the stunning reality of this election, my thoughts have gone to a long-standing topic for me – the difference between campaigning and governing and whether, after an election, those who win can turn their attention to governing.

Usually, they cannot, giving rise to what has been called “the continual campaign.”

But, as I began writing this blog, I came again to the realization that getting to the business of governing will require something more basic than political will. It will require a change of heart that will have to weave its way into politics and, indeed, into every area of life.

That is especially true now, with Donald Trump’s upset to take the presidency. His victory speech struck high notes missing from his campaign, but, given his over-the-top rhetoric during the campaign, will he be able to rally Americans to support him and to swallow their differences?

No one knows yet, even as everyone adjusts to his upset win.

[As an aside, if you have told me that a candidate could commit alleged sexual assault, ridicule those with physical disabilities, impugn all immigrants, compliment a Russian dictator, and indicate his narcissism by claiming that “he and only he” can solve all of the world’s problems, then win, I would have scoffed. Shows you what I know, right?]

For me, Washington Post opinion writer Michael Gerson prompted deeper thoughts than just politics with a very well-written piece in the Post. Who among our political leaders, he asked, “is calling for mutual understanding and practicing it? This would involve the concession of truth on both sides.”

Gerson went on to quote Judge Learned Hand who, in 1944, told newly minted citizens in New York’s Central Park:

“What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it. I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit that weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.”

Very early signs about the ability to govern, not just campaign, are not positive.

In the U.S. House and Senate, Republicans maintained control, an expected result in the House and a surprise in the Senate. But House Speaker Paul Ryan may have difficulty keeping his job…and who knows whether he wants it or not.

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“Mr. Ryan’s ability to govern will be significantly affected by both the composition and size of his majority. Some members of the Freedom Caucus, a group of sharply conservative House Republicans, already is suggesting they may try to make it harder for Mr. Ryan to be re-elected as speaker, arguing he is too willing to compromise with Democrats.”

So, at least for these right-wing wackos, compromise is out the window. And, for different reasons, left-wing wackos also oppose compromise, some of them in the Senate where they are threatening filibuster to stop Republican initiatives.

Going to the dictionary, politics is supposed “to be the art of compromise.” No longer, apparently. Politics has become the art of assuming your opponent is an idiot, then saying so in the most derogatory terms possible.

At one point in his life, Ben Franklin, who has been labeled by some as “America’s first diplomat,” decided that simply winning arguments was not very useful. A Wall Street Journal article said that, as Franklin grew into adulthood, his motto was: “Respecting other people led to goodwill. Continued cooperation was better than grudging consent.”

Franklin determined never to contradict other people’s statements in conversations, instead presenting his opinions modestly with due regard to others’ attitudes and feelings.”

Imagine what politics would be like if elected leaders followed these simple, but important, practices, including heeding Judge Hand’s commitment. Practice modesty. Consider the viewpoints of others. Don’t assume you have all the answers. Recognize the value of liberty.

So, I say to myself and others, go beyond Trump’s campaign phrase and “make America great again” in politics, as well as in areas of life.

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 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.

I attended regular Sunday services at our church earlier this month and came away with a thought-provoking contrast.

On one hand, in the back of my mind, there was Donald Trump with his diatribe against all immigrants in this country. Sorry to admit this thought crossed my mind in church; not a welcome thought at that place and at that time.

On the other hand, there were stories at our church – Salem Alliance Church in Salem Oregon – about our attempt to reach out to immigrants in our city, including a number of Syrian families in the throes of adjusting to a new culture, not to mention new freedoms.

In fact, our church is hiring a couple fresh from a missionary stint in the Middle East to lead an effort to help re-settle refugees in the Salem area. To be sure, there are not many compared to some other parts of the country, but there are some and they need help to make an adjustment to this country, an adjustment that may be a welcome one given their heritage in a war torn part of the world.

Without language, though, there are special challenges.

We heard a story about one couple from Syria who, now in Salem, took their child to school, then stayed in the hallway all day to make sure the child was safe. It was hard to explain to them that staying all day was not necessary.

Donald Trump has been making headway in this strangest of all political campaigns by impugning the integrity of anyone but himself. All immigrants are evil, he has said and, if elected, he will move to deport millions.

Yet, in our church, various individuals are working on a one-on-one basis to help immigrants succeed in their new country.

Choose which story you want to illustrate your point of view. Without hesitation, I take my church’s open and compassionate stance toward newcomers as the best policy for life in America.