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 a former deputy director of Oregon’s Economic Development Department – now called Business Oregon – President-elect Donald Trump’s action to get involved in the “Carrier issue” set off positive notions, as well as alarm bells.

More applaud than alarm, however, because saving jobs for the U.S. is what leading political figures should be doing. President Barack Obama sat on his hands. President-elect Trump jumped into the fray.

Saving jobs in the nation’s Rust Belt is just what Trump said he would do when he ran for election. And the fact that he inserted himself in the issue produced a solid result, at least in public relations terms. About 800 jobs remain in the U.S., which otherwise would have headed south.

Important to note here that Trump had a huge resource in Indiana where the Carrier jobs were located: His vice-president-elect, Mike Pence, is governor of that state and it was relatively easy for him to vote for and gain approval for the incentives Carrier won to keep the jobs in Indiana.

If – or, more likely, when – Trump inserts himself in other states, he won’t have Pence. But he will have the bully pulpit of the Oval Office.

Many are questioning what Trump had to do to keep the Carrier jobs and whether he will be able to keep up the intervention. Some have said that there are not enough incentive dollars around to grant awards to all the companies considering re-locating manufacturing operations to Mexico or other countries where wages are far lower. And others have commented that Trump’s action were in no way conservative, which means there should have been no government intervention in private business.

Here is how my friend Ron Eachus wrote about the subject in the Salem Statesman-Journal where he is an editorial columnist:

“He got involved. He intervened. He pressured them and got a small, but symbolically important win. Whatever else one might think of his persona or proposed policies, he demonstrated why so many in the Rust Belt saw him as the best choice when it came to protecting their manufacturing jobs from globalization and international trade.

“It was a personal, hands-on approach they’d been hoping for. And for the time being, a success. But such a victory in an early skirmish comes with a siren call — an alluring appeal to entice one to ignore or disregard the inherent danger of the course taken.

“The president-elect, now negotiator-in-chief, says he’s going to do this all over the country, using threats of public humiliation and imposition of tariffs and promises of really big corporate tax cuts and regulatory relief to cut deals. But private individual deal making with companies lacks transparency and will inevitably lead to an inconsistent and inequitable treatment of companies that could further undermine the economy and faith in the political process.

“Duplicating Carrier isn’t going to be that easy. It helped that vice president-elect Mike Pence was also still governor of Indiana, thus chairman of the board of the state agency that granted $7 million worth of public dollar incentives to Carrier. Getting similar concessions for other companies in other states might not go as quickly or smoothly.”

Ron is right. It won’t be easy for Trump to duplicate his Carrier success.

But my view, one honed during my days at Oregon’s Economic Development Department, can be summed up in one phrase: Every job counts.

If a president or a governor acts to save, not just one job, but 800 jobs, so much the better. Especially for those whose jobs are saved.

Even recognizing all of the political pros and cons here – disparate views about the role of government in saving or helping to create jobs – it always has been a mystery to me why “the jobs issue” ranks so low on many political priority lists.

It should be higher.

Those with the saved jobs have the benefit of the jobs. They support their families. They pay taxes.  They know the worth of working.

So, at least for a time, let’s set aside the debate about whether government should act. Just save the jobs.