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.

Just after I posted a blog this morning – one indicating my disgust with President Barack Obama and his Administration – I read the following piece in the Wall Street Journal written columnist by Bret Stephens.

It does a more complete job than I did in outlining the failed Obama Administration, especially internationally. Therefore, I am posting it to make sure others get to read it.

********

Obama’s Fitting Finish

In the list of low points in U.S. foreign policy, the betrayal of Israel ranks high.

By Bret Stephens

Dec. 26, 2016 6:36 p.m. ET

Barack Obama’s decision to abstain from, and therefore allow, last week’s vote to censure Israel at the U.N. Security Council is a fitting capstone for what’s left of his foreign policy. Strategic half-measures, underhanded tactics and moralizing gestures have been the president’s style from the beginning. Israelis aren’t the only people to feel betrayed by the results.

Also betrayed: Iranians, whose 2009 Green Revolution in heroic protest of a stolen election Mr. Obama conspicuously failed to endorse for fear of offending the ruling theocracy.

Iraqis, who were assured of a diplomatic surge to consolidate the gains of the military surge, but who ceased to be of any interest to Mr. Obama the moment U.S. troops were withdrawn, and only concerned him again when ISIS neared the gates of Baghdad.

Syrians, whose initially peaceful uprising against anti-American dictator Bashar Assad Mr. Obama refused to embrace, and whose initially moderate-led uprising Mr. Obama failed to support, and whose sarin- and chlorine-gassed children Mr. Obama refused to rescue, his own red lines notwithstanding.

Ukrainians, who gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 with formal U.S. assurances that their “existing borders” would be guaranteed, only to see Mr. Obama refuse to supply them with defensive weapons when Vladimir Putin invaded their territory 20 years later.

Pro-American Arab leaders, who expected better than to be given ultimatums from Washington to step down, and who didn’t anticipate the administration’s tilt toward the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political opposition, and toward Tehran as a responsible negotiating partner.

Most betrayed: Americans.

Mr. Obama promised a responsible end to the war in Iraq. We are again fighting in Iraq. He promised victory in Afghanistan. The Taliban are winning. He promised a reset with Russia. We are enemies again. He promised the containment of Iran. We are witnessing its ascendancy in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. He promised a world free of nuclear weapons. We are stumbling into another age of nuclear proliferation. He promised al Qaeda on a path to defeat. Jihad has never been so rampant and deadly.

These are the results. They would be easier to forgive if they hadn’t so often been reached by disingenuous and dishonorable means.

The administration was deceptive about the motives for the 2012 Benghazi attack. It was deceptive about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s service record, and the considerations that led it to exchange five Taliban leaders for his freedom. It was deceptive about when it began nuclear negotiations with Iran. It was deceptive about the terms of the deal. It continues to be deceptive about the fundamental aim of the agreement, which has less to do with curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions than with aligning Washington’s interests with Tehran’s.

Now the administration is likely being deceptive about last week’s U.N. vote, claiming it did not promote, craft or orchestrate a resolution that treats the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City as a settlement in illegally occupied territory. Yet in November, John Kerry had a long talk on the subject with the foreign minister of New Zealand, one of the resolution’s sponsors.

“One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict,” the New Zealand Herald reported last month. “‘It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we’ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the U.S. might go on this,’” the paper added, quoting Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

The Israelis claim to have more evidence along these lines. If so, it means the administration no longer bothers to lie convincingly.

Even this might be excusable, if Mr. Obama at least had the courage of his mistaken convictions, or if his deception were in the service of a worthier end. Instead, we have the spectacle of the U.S. government hiding behind the skirts of the foreign minister of New Zealand—along with eminent co-sponsors, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal—in order to embarrass and endanger a democratic ally in a forum where that ally is already isolated and bullied. In the catalog of low points in American diplomacy, this one ranks high.

After the Carter administration pulled a similar stunt against Israel at the Security Council in December 1980, the Washington Post published an editorial that does the paper honor today.

“It cannot be denied,” the editors wrote, “that there is a pack and that it hounds Israel shamelessly and that this makes it very serious when the United States joins it.” The editorial was titled “Joining the Jackals.”

Unlike Mr. Carter, Mr. Obama hasn’t joined the jackals. He has merely opened the door wide to them, whether at the U.N. or in the skies over Syria or in the killing fields in Ukraine. The United States abstains: What a fitting finish to this ruinous presidency.

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.

While I was shocked at Donald Trump’s election victory, I did feel that it was time for a change from the Obama Administration.

And, obviously, there would be a change after Obama’s two terms; it just appeared to many voters that Hillary Clinton would be the change, perhaps Obama 3, a result voters could not tolerate.

While Obama appears to be a good man who cared for his family and wanted to do what he felt was right for the country, he also seemed, at times, to me, to be in over his head as the nation’s chief executive.

I remember when he came into office after a remarkable campaign. He would be the first Black president and I suppose some voters selected him because of that fact. I didn’t. He campaigned on the slogan “Hope and Change,” and it was persuasive to many Americans, including me. I remember his appearance in Chicago just after his election. The fact that more one million Americans attended that celebration illustrated the fact that hope for change had gripped the country.

The next eight years tended to deflate that slogan. While coming across as a good man, Obama could not deliver on the promise.

Trying to come to terms with Trump’s pending presidency, I have been giving some thought to Obama Administration failures, which is presumptuous, perhaps, because I did not have any occasion to see Obama up close and personal. Nor, obviously, do I have any real, first-hand knowledge of what it means to be president, a job so difficult and complex that it almost defies understanding.

Still, I wanted to have something to say when friends and colleagues asked me why I had problems with Obama. Here, for me, are a few summaries of his failures.

• First, Obama’s view appeared, at all times, to be that government had a solution for every It did not appear that a key question was asked – is there a role for government in responding to this problem and, if there is, what should that role be and how should it be defined?

• Second, Obama came into office on a pledge to change the culture of Washington, D.C. by working with all sides on issues and challenges. He never was able to make good on that pledge. Some will fault Republicans in Congress for opposing Obama at every turn and, to be sure, they deserve some of the blame. But a test for every president is the ability to persuade a reluctant Congress to find compromise the fulfills at least part of presidential priorities.

• Third, Obama at least allowed, if not encouraged, several agencies in his Cabinet to act beyond the law. Chief among them was the Internal Revenue Service, which, beyond collecting taxes, used its power to intimidate conservative non-profit organizations.

• Fourth, Obama established a number of “red lines” in the Middle East or other international fronts, then failed to enforce them, a reality that made him a difficult-to-be counted-on president.

• Fifth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama independently enacted 560 major regulations during his first seven years in office—nearly 50 per cent more than during the two terms of the George W. Bush Administration. The Supreme Court has repudiated or questioned some of Obama’s efforts to circumvent Congress, including his immigration orders, which the court effectively blocked by a 4-4 vote last June.

Even in his last days in office, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel reports that Obama is engaging in a “midnight express” of new regulations in the apparent belief that President Trump will have difficulty getting rid of all of them.

• Sixth, these paragraphs from a column by the brother of Washington Post columnist Maureen Dowd strike me as a solid commentary on Obama, perhaps a bit overstated at times, but still worth considering.

“The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: His fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his non-support of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms.

“Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

“The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that it was not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

“Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.”

So, Obama is now in his final days in office as all of us contemplate a future with Donald Trump at the helm.

My hope is that Trump, with all his baggage, will be judged on the merits or demerits of what he does, not on the merits or demerits of what he says because, at the moment, there is more of the latter than the former – more of the demerits of what he says, I mean.

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 that headline strikes you as a bit presumptuous, good. It is.

I have no business thinking I will ever be in charge of government, either at the state or federal levels and either by appointment or election. Plus, I am retired. But I do have a few prescriptions for what should constitute good government.

So, here goes.

1. Good government should be marked by asking one important question: Is there a role for government in regard to this problem and, if there is, how should a government response be designed to achieve the desired result.

Too often, this question is not asked, much less answered. Thus, we have a pay for government solutions to every problem. Does government have a role in some cases? By all means. But not all cases.

Asking this hard question and providing a fact-based answer is the first step toward good government.

2. Good government should be about promises kept, not just promises made.

Making promises is easy. Keeping them is hard. But if promises are just talk, then why listen? Make promises, then keep them.

Let me add one clarification here. If a candidate makes a promise on the campaign trail or an agency head makes a promise in running a program, then finds out he or she cannot fulfill it, tell the public the truth. In straightforward facts, describe why a promise cannot be kept. That builds credibility.

3. Good government should be about achieving results, not just proposing them.

In his Wonder Land column, Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Henninger put it this way about Donald Trump’s recent election:

“…..Democrats disconsolate since the election about the loss of hope in American politics leave the impression they believe that giving people the rhetoric of hope, lifting them with words, is more important than delivering results, which some might call change.”

Results matter. Measure those who serve you in elected or appointed office by the results they achieve, not the results they promise and don’t achieve.

4. Good government should be about the search for middle ground, not extremes in public policy.

Too often, government these days is about the ability to win at all costs. Call the other side stupid. Impose your will.

Consider the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called ObamaCare. It was, in fact, an apt moniker. The program was imposed by Obama and his Democrat supporters in Congress without one Republican vote – and this was not because Republicans were just opposed to Obama. It was because the Act was an over-the-top, one-size-fits-all prescription for health care in America.

Was it all bad? Of course not. Millions of Americas got health coverage as part of new government spending, but at what cost? A huge spike upward in health premiums, both for those newly on a government program, as well as those in the private sector.

The better answer, one the Republicans in charge should now consider, is to legislate from the middle. Work with reasonable Democrats – yes, there are some, just as there are some reasonable Republicans – to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something that works better.

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” document would be a good place to start in the effort to do what good Americans and their representatives should be able to do, with is find a middle ground solution to health care.

5. Good government should be about ethical and honest behavior, not bending the truth.

This seems far from the case today. A government by and for the people should be honest in its approach to these “people” – us.

Conclusion: These prescriptions might not make good sound bites. But they’d make good government.

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.

There is a huge question facing the business community after it banded together as never before to kill Ballot Measure 97 by a wide margin, 58 to 41 per cent. That question is in the form of two parts:

1. Should the business community head to Salem quickly to offer potential compromise solutions to political leaders in Salem, all of whom are Democrats – Governor Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney, not to mention the Republican leaders, Representative Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, and Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day? [Note: Two of them, Brown and Kotek, endorsed Measure 97.]

Or:

2. Should the business community hold its own counsels in private about possible revenue issues for the State of Oregon, revenue issues that might be acceptable to the business community if those issues were part of a larger, bi-partisan plan? This assumes the business community would avoid heading to Salem until or unless the Democrat leaders ask for help.

According to multiple sources in and around the Capitol, a wild card in all of this is the large underfunding problem in the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). The business community believes that solving the PERS problem should be part of the plan, but that might be difficult for Democrat leaders, given public employee union support for PERS, even though anyone involved in budget-making in Salem has to reckon with PERS.

My vote is for #2 above. The rationale:

• The business community coalesced in a way not seen recently in Oregon to kill Measure 97. It raised nearly $30 million to do the deed because the governor and legislative leaders were not able to craft a compromise proposal that would pass muster at the legislature and/or with voters. Nor were the leaders able to convince public employee unions to stand down from offering a poorly-drafted and poorly-conceived measure.

• This is not the time to cash in the influence of the coalition quickly in favor of some kind of alternative.

• Let the leading Democrats in Salem come to the business community to ask for help to craft a compromise measure that will help the state fund important priorities – K-12 education, higher education, cops and prisons, and health care…plus the elephant in the room, the PERS problem.

• Instead of heading off to Salem, business representatives should meet behind closed doors to discuss whether there are tax alternatives, which could be advocated, and be prepared to advocate for those alternatives if there is a compromise process.

• Waiting is a better strategy at the moment because public employee unions, which lost the Measure 97 battle, already are advocating a major, new tax measure at the Capitol, one that even goes beyond Measure 97. If the D leaders respond to that kind of one-sided proposal, it will only mean another damaging campaign at the polls.

• Plus, it is important for the business community not to isolate Republican leaders in Salem who stuck with business in the Measure 97 campaign. Those leaders should be involved in any attempt to craft a solution.

The new legislature in Salem won’t be gathering at the Capitol until early January, then will begin meeting in earnest in February.

For the leaders, it is not too early to be mapping a strategy to do the tough work in the session, which is to balance the budget in a bi-partisan fashion. That will be a major test of legislative success in 2017.

And a footnote:  By position, the only political leader with the moxie to bring disparate interests together is Governor Kate Brown.  Her background in the legislature, where she dealt with business leaders, put her in a good position now to ask for help…if the “ask” involves all interests with something at stake.  So far, she has not taken up the challenge, but there is still time.

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.

It’s hard to realize that we have just come through a very controversial election and are moving on soon to a new set of issues in Washington, D.C

But, amidst all of those issues, many of which will fester as the incoming Trump Administration plots it course, there is one that has caught my attention. It is the relationship between politics and religion.

This matters to me because of my service, for 12 years, as chair of the Governing Board of Elders at Salem Alliance Church in Salem. It seemed to be a fairly large church as we joined it when we moved to Salem in 1979, but since then it has grown to nearly 5,000 participants.

As chair of the Board, my position, as well as that of the Board, was that politics and religion should not mix. Persons who have convictions as followers of Christ – I am one of those – cannot be characterized by such labels as Republican or Democrat, or liberal or conservative or anything. Each individual is a single person with personal convictions and priorities.

We avoided politics from the pulpit, as well as other places in the church. The only caveat was that, if the senior pastor felt led of God to make a comment about an issue – for example, abortion – then he should consult with Governing Board members before making comments. And, with that advice in hand, he could make the comments God led him to make. By the way, that did not include telling persons in the audience how to vote.

All of this strikes home to me even more today, especially because of this headline in a recent Wall Street Journal article:

Breaking Up With Your Church Over Politics

The contentious election is a ripe topic for sermons but is sending some churchgoers to the doors

The newspaper went on to report the case of Brandi Miller, a campus minister at the University of Oregon:

“The election is over and so is Brandi Miller’s religious affiliation. ‘On Nov. 8, white evangelical Christianity and I called it quits,’ she wrote in a message posted on Facebook. Evangelicals have decided who and with what they will associate. It’s not me.

“Church is often the place where people seek comfort and community in unsettling times, but the contentiousness of this election has filtered into the pews. In a sign of lingering partisanship, some people have looked for another place to worship, having split with their pastor over politics. Others are staying but feel estranged, wondering how a person a pew away backed a pro-choice candidate, for instance, or supported someone who demeaned immigrants.

“We have a lot of fingers pointed at each other saying ‘You are not Christian,’ ” says Megan Sutker, who was ordained in the United Church of Christ, works as an interfaith minister and belongs to the Episcopal Church. She worries the split will exacerbate disillusionment with organized religion, at a time when mainstream churches are already experiencing declines. Even messages from the pulpit urging unity can be loaded, with some people feeling it diminishes their concerns.”

My view is that persons of any political persuasion should feel welcome at our church because, for one reason, we don’t deal with politics. We deal with issues of a person’s relationship to Christ.

The point is that churches, if there are to be what I call “seeker friendly,” as well as being welcome places for their members, should avoid taking sides on political issues.

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.

The New York Times carried a story today that reports a lament about the loss of compromise in Washington, D.C., a lament I share for Oregon.

It was a piece on the retirement of R. Bruce Josten, who had been the lead lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for years on such issues as trade, tax and energy.

He was called the master of the “inside game,” another way of putting in shorthand his ability to work both sides of the aisle to help produce middle ground compromise.

The story used a headline to which I don’t subscribe, saying that Josten mourned the loss of the “smoke-filled backroom.” For me, I don’t like the image of the smoke-filled room, but the point holds: To produce compromise, you often have to head into a room out of the glare of cameras and notepads and do the hard work of finding compromise among disparate interests.

After all, compromise is the actual definition of the word politics.

Here are a few good excerpts from the NY Times article:

• He had to “watch his specialty — sophisticated legislative give-and-take — become less prized in a polarized capital. Washington has become an ‘I win, you lose’ town rather than a ‘how do we get this done’ town where those skilled in what he calls the ‘art of the back room’ can have a big effect.’”
• “I like to be able to negotiate and go back and forth,” said Mr. Josten, recounting how he would shuttle proposals between congressional players on big bills. “That is what I did. It was a big part of closing a deal to get it out of committee, to get it to an actual floor vote to passage. And that doesn’t happen anymore. I actually do miss the smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear,” said Mr. Josten, and not just because he quit smoking after a health scare three years ago. “Because you got a lot done.”
• Josten is more concerned with the trend toward one party going it alone legislatively, using its power to impose its priorities on the other as the Democrats did with the health care law and Republicans are threatening to do by repealing it. That approach is not sustainable in the long run, he said. “If you want durability and lasting law, the only way to really achieve it is to engage both sides of the aisle and reach an outcome that the president, regardless of party, will sign because of the product itself,” he said.
• “He sees a current political and legislative climate marked by a certain inflexibility and intransigence that is not conducive to compromise and ends with little being accomplished. From time to time, you work with your adversaries,” said Mr. Josten, who became the chamber’s chief lobbyist in 1994, as the organization faced a membership revolt over the chamber’s initial endorsement of key elements of the Clinton administration’s health care proposal. “You’ve got to be able to separate certain things at certain times and do what is right for your constituents. I think it just became harder and harder for the politicians to do that and I think that has had an impact on all of us in town.”
• With Republicans about to assert themselves, Mr. Josten fears they will not learn from the mistakes made by Democrats when they had control of the White House and Congress and will “ram them and jam them” on taxes and health care. He suggests another course for Republicans who think there is but one alternative. “Why don’t you try it the old-fashioned way would be my recommendation,” Mr. Josten said. “Let’s have a real give and take.” “I always felt it shouldn’t be really easy to legislate,” he said. “It should be a bit of a challenge. You should have to work at it.”

I could write similar statements about the loss of the ability to find compromise at the State Capitol in Salem. Too often, it is a “I win, you lose” mentality, which does not usually produce good policy for Oregon.

Most of the real solutions to tax, energy, health care, education and transportation lie somewhere in the middle.

The trick in Washington, D.C. and Salem is finding those sweet spots.

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.

There was an interesting development last week in Oregon that gives pause to those of us who believe there could be or should be middle ground in a battle over how money state government should have.

The only leader with the credentials and moxie to bring parties together is the governor, Kate Brown. She has not acted so far, but her background holds promise that she could play the leadership role.

Even after getting killed at the ballot in November – Ballot Measure 97, a tax on sales, not profits, lost by 19 points – advocates for higher taxes on business are upping the ante. They call themselves “Better Oregon,” an ironic name for a coalition of Our Oregon, unions and advocacy groups, which may, in fact, not be working for a better Oregon.

Incredibly, the group is claiming victory at the polls despite the overwhelming result the other way.

Our Oregon executive director Ben Unger, who appears to have no idea about what Oregonians really want or, perhaps, doesn’t care, contends the campaign in support of Measure 97 did nothing wrong.

As the Portland Tribune put it, “Unger says the main thing his side failed in was to match the opposition’s checkbook.”

So, instead of coming to the Capitol in Salem prepared to work to cut a deal with business about funding – and, to be sure, business leaders believe there should be more funding, especially for K-12 schools and higher education — Unger and his cronies just want more money.

Thus, they are proposing a new $5 billion tax on business, which they hope legislators will consider as they gather in Salem after the first of the year.

Even Tim Nesbitt, past president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, said he thinks the pro-tax side spent a lot of money on a flawed measure (the Measure 97 measure) while missing an opportunity to capitalize on the voters’ mood.

“There was an opportunity here to seize a populist moment and make some long-awaited progress on business tax support for services,” he told the Portland Tribune. “But it had to be well-designed and well-calibrated for it to succeed.”

Nesbitt said Measure 97 was neither.

What Oregon needs now is a leader with the moxie to bring disparate interests together to find middle-ground and way to fill what is estimated to be a $1.7 billion hole in the 2017-19 state budget. Get opponents in the same room. Knock heads for a real “better Oregon.”

Governor Brown could do it.

But, in an early sour note, she appeared at the recent Business Summit to lecture business leaders that they needed to come to Salem with more money on their own. So soon after the Measure 97 defeat, it came across a little like asking the winning team to forfeit its victory.

Legislative sessions carry at least two challenges. First, they represent an opportunity for leaders to emerge to develop compromises that serve the future of Oregon. Second, they can devolve into contention, pitted rhetoric and disagreement.

The question for Oregon? Which purpose will be served this time around. Early signals are not positive, but there is a lot of time between now and the end of the legislative session next June and that is time Governor Brown could use to display her leadership credentials.

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.

My friend, Bentley Gilbert, responded to my post yesterday on political middle ground with these words:

“I think the problem lies with ad hominem charges directed at one another rather than giving reasoned disagreements with one another’s ideas. However, this, has been a problem since the beginning of the Republic, the beginning of democracy or the beginning of speech. The only rhetoric I can control is my own.”

Bentley is exactly right.

In the past, Bentley represented different sides in public employee union disputes in Oregon — he for the unions and me for management.  But, as I remember our duels in comments with the media, we always stayed away from personal attacks.  It was enough to discuss the different viewpoints on a union contract.

So, I hope all of us can take Bentley’s advice — watch your words in political issue because “the only rhetoric you can control is your own.”

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 ask this question about the middle ground in politics, which has been a hallmark for me, given what we’ve all been through in the last election.

I have always thought that the middle ground was a good place to be — not liberal, not conservative, but, instead, interested in what could be labeled the smart center.

But it may not exist today.

We face a pitted environment where people on either side appear to hate each other and engage in hate-filled speech. The mantra appears to be — if you don’t agree with me, then you are wrong and I’ll prove it by calling you a liar and a cheat.

Whether nationally or in a state like Oregon, advocating for middle ground – the smart or sensible center – cannot be easily translated into a sound bite that works in a TV or radio ad or in social media, the latter of which is becoming the go-to place to “make news.”

Another reason why middle ground is so difficult to find relates to what two authors call “the permanent campaign.” 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 America, even though no one doubts it is necessary, because of the incursion of campaigning into governing in American democracy.”

They add that the “permanent campaign” encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult.

“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.”

Over my years as a lobbyist 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.

Another factor is that there are fewer and fewer legislators – or, for that matter, governors — who have the ability to lead disparate interests to find middle ground. You only have to look at Governor Kate Brown who, with an opportunity to invite business and labor to a negotiating table in the aftermath of the defeat of Ballot Measure 97 (a tax on profits, not sales), chooses instead to up the ante on her side of the ledger, more taxes.

Let me cite just one example from the past where a political leader led an effort to find middle – the past which doesn’t have many prologues to the current or future. 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 any issue — 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.

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 was and 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.

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.

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, the sensible center.”

To be sure, those holding elective office will have to 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.

We need leaders who will lead and followers who will follow.

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 is making the rounds of news offices these days, given the proclivity of the nation’s incoming president, Donald Trump, to turn to the social media site, Twitter, at the drop of, well, a hat such as the baseball cap he often wears to keep his hair in place.

The basic answer from responsible media figures today appears to be “yes.”

Even though there is concern about the character of the president-elect’s tweets, media experts believe they cannot ignore what the nation’s political leader says, including on social media. Good reporters will spend some time and effort trying to put into context what Trump tweets, but ignore them – no.

Since election day, Trump, via tweets, has proposed a U-turn in American diplomatic relations with Cuba, boasted about negotiations with a major manufacturer (Carrier), trumpeted (pardon the play on words) false claims about millions of illegal votes, and hinted that he might upend current free speech laws by banning flag burning.

All, as the New York Times put it, “in 140 characters or less.”

Thus, editors are grappling with how to cover a president-elect who appears to have a new idea about presidency-media relations. Less access. Fewer, if any, press conferences. More White House press room reporters sitting on their hands. More social media, even at unpredictable times, such as at about 12:15 a.m. when Trump tweeted to criticize Alec Baldwin’s impersonation of him on Saturday Night Live.

“Anything that a president would say – even if it was libelous or scandalous – it’s the president talking, and I think you report it,” according to Chris Wallace, the host of the Fox News Sunday broadcast. “Under any definition, it’s news, whether it’s sensible or not, factual or not, productive or not.”

A Washington Post editor was quoted in the New York Times as saying that, if Trump tweets, it is much like what presidents have said on the walk to a helicopter ride away from the White House. “In this post-election period, anything he (Trump) says, in any way, you have to consider it, and you have weigh whether it deserves a story.”

Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) President Steve Bass – the news operation at OPB reports to him – said much the same thing in a meeting earlier this week. He said it was not right to ignore tweets, but also said it was important for reporters and editors – including those at OPB — to provide context for them.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger, in a piece this week, went farther by labeling Trump a “performance artist.”

“He is challenging what we think is normal—first for a presidential campaign and now for the presidency.

“He’s Andy Warhol silk-screening nine Jackie Kennedys. You can’t do that. Oh yes he can. Currently Donald Trump is silk-screening American corporations: Ford, Carrier, Rexnord, Boeing.

“Lady Gaga once talked about the doubters in an interview: ‘They would say, ‘This is too racy, too dance-oriented, too underground. It’s not marketable.’ And I would say, ‘My name is Lady Gaga, I’ve been on the music scene for years, and I’m telling you, this is what’s next.’ And look . . . I was right.’”

“Who does that sound like?

“In ‘The Art of the Deal,’ Donald Trump described what he was up to: ‘I play to people’s fantasies.’

“Anti-Trumpers will say: Precisely. We can’t have a performance artist as president of the United States.

“That’s irrelevant now.”

Reporters and editors would do well to keep the performance artist image in mind as they work to determine how to cover this new, mercurial president.

A footnote: At least at the moment, it appears that we do not have political leaders in Oregon who try to make news via tweets and other social media outlets. Good. I say make news the regular way by doing good public policy and work with reporters and editors to write about the process and the results.