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.