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.

What do Neil Gorsuch and I have in common?

Nothing you may say.

Wrong.

Both of us have been confirmed by “The Senate.”

In Gorsuch’s case, it obviously was the high-profile and tense confirmation by the U.S. Senate for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. It took the “nuclear option” for him to be confirmed.

In my case, I appeared before the Oregon Senate Rules Committee in response to my nomination by by Governor Kate Brown to serve on the nine-member Oregon State Government Ethics Commission (OGEC).

It is an honor for me to be asked to serve, as a volunteer, on this important state commission.

But, to put a point on it, my confirmation gained none of the notoriety attached to Gorsuch’s path through the U.S. Senate.   My appearance before Oregon Senate Rules lasted all of three minutes.

But the appearance did give me a brief forum to make a couple points. One is that I believe that ethics, at its base, is a matter of personal commitment and behavior. It’s who you are and how you behave.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

I reached this conclusion after working for state government for 15 years, then serving as a private sector lobbyist for 23 years. During that time, I watched ethical persons behave in an honest, forthright way.  Unfortunately, I also saw the reverse.

The latter is why the Ethics Commission provides a very important function for state government. That’s the second point I made to Senate Rules.

Living up to a clear set of standards – accountability standards in law and rule – is important for legislators, for public officials, and, yes, for lobbyists like myself before my retirement two years ago. It is the OGEC that manages and enforces those ethical standards.

The OGEC was created by vote of the people in 1974. The measure passed with 70 per cent of the votes. One reason was that the proposal made it to the ballot in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal when citizens across the country began calling for greater accountability from those in government.

In response, Oregon was one of the first states to open government to greater scrutiny by creating a commission with authority to hold elected officials, other public officials and lobbyist to high ethical standards.

So, I look forward to joining this important commission. I will do so after confirmation by the full Oregon Senate and, assuming a positive vote there, after taking an oath of office (which, interestingly enough in this technology age, can be done on-line).

Thus, before long, I’ll join Neil Gorsuch in being able to say that I have been confirmed by “The Senate.”

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 Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is open again – and I am the director with full and complete authority over which quotes to cite.

There will be no bi-partisanship here, just as there appears to be not much of the same in Congress or the Oregon Legislature.

This department is one of two I manage alone. The other is the Department of Pet Peeves. It is closed now, but will open soon.

So, here are the quotes, with comments from me.

Wall Street Journal editorial: “Amid these passing controversies—and ode to joy, there will be more—Congress ought to ponder how to better use the power of the purse. Most of the government has been on autopilot since 2010, lurching from one short-term funding bill to the next. The author of this dysfunction was the unlamented former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who shut down regular budget order to shield Senate Democrats from having to make spending choices. He carried the practice into the minority after 2014.”

Comment: Good riddance to Reid, one of the master manipulators of what should be a better democratic process in the U.S. Senate. He is gone, thank goodness, but, sad to say, his obstructionist policies remain in place.

William McGurn in the Wall Street Journal: “Let us stipulate that Medicaid reform and corporate tax cuts are both excellent initiatives. Done properly, each would offer Americans, including those at the lower end of the income scale, a better deal than they have now. Unfortunately, pitching health-care reform as the way to help ‘pay for’ corporate tax cuts undermines the best arguments for both.”

Comment: It appears that expanding Medicaid is the means to expand the provision of health insurance to many citizens, which means, to me, that we continue to be on the way toward a single payer system – with government as the payer.

Gerald Seib in the Wall Street Journal: “Imagine this new president had a given a different kind of inaugural address one in which he didn’t accuse the capital’s political leaders of flourishing at the expense of its citizens, but rather sketched out a vision of a new way of working with those leaders.

“This presidency wouldn’t have started with polarizing issues guaranteed to back both parties further into their corners: Aiming to repeal the Democrats’ signature health care law and imposing a ban on travel from a set of Muslim-majority countries as the first step in fighting terrorism. Rather, it would have opened with two big initiatives in which at least a few Democrats would have been willing – maybe even eager – to cooperate: Rebuilding U.S. infrastructure and changing the nation’s inefficient tax code.”

Comment: Good reflection by Seib on why the Trump Administration’s first 100 days – admittedly an arbitrary marker – has been fraught with peril.

Oregon union leader on legislature’s budget cut proposal: “Unions wasted no time in rebuking the proposals. Steve Demarest, SEIU 503 president, called the cutbacks “outrageous,” noting that the majority of the proposals are directed at public employees. This is an effort to scapegoat people who have dedicated their lives to public service,” he said. He called for lawmakers to solve the state’s budget shortfall by increasing taxes on corporations.”

Comment: No surprise here as public employee union leaders decry any budget cuts.

Oregon business leader on legislature’s budget cut proposal: “The business community praised the proposals. Patrick Criteser, chair of the Oregon Business Plan coalition, said the group supports ‘an approach that slows the runaway growth in state spending, especially one that tackles long-term spending. Once the business community has ‘assurance that costs will be addressed,’ Criteser said, businesses will be open to paying higher taxes to support education funding.”

Comment: Criteser’s comment underscores the long-standing reality for business – cuts must precede tax increases, especially in light of the union-inspired Ballot Measure 97 business tax increases that went down to a major defeat last November.

Republican McInturff in the Wall Street Journal: “If Trump is for it, a Democrat has to be against it. There is no middle left.”

Comment: McInturff is right on. There is no smart middle on much of anything these days.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek on prospects for as budget deal in the legislature: “It’s not enough to cobble together a budget that merely avoids the worst cuts for a couple of years. We need real cost-containment, real revenue reform, and real statesmanship to do right by the people who elected us to wrestle with these difficult issues.”

Comment: Kotek and other legislative leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle will have to get their act together if a compromise is to emerge before the end of the session in late June or early July.

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, unlike many of my friends, like my steak well-done.

Call me weird, if you will, but, still, I think fully-cooked meat – make it brown or black – is far better than red.

Better for you, too.

Here is the way a story in the Wall Street Journal – yes, the Journal, usually pre-occupied with major affairs of state and the economy — got around to a story with this headline:

***********

Well-Done Steak Without Shame

Diners who prefer well-done meat know what

***********

The writer went on:

“On a recent visit to a steakhouse in Omaha, Neb., Caroline Zaayer Kaufman went through a song and dance that may be familiar to anyone who always orders their steak well-done.

“The server, incredulous, asked if she was sure. (She was.) ‘So that means it’ll be cooked all the way through.’ (Yes.) ‘No pink in the middle?’ (Correct.) ‘The chef will probably need to butterfly it.’ (That’s fine.) ‘Your entrees will take longer to come out.’ (That’s OK.) ‘You know, you could just eat a hockey puck covered in blue cheese instead of wasting a steak.’”

For me, it was a bit disquieting to learn that President Donald Trump orders his steak well-done, but that apparent reality has drawn attention to the long-suffering portion of the population – including me — who like their meat bloodless.

The Wall Street Journal reports that about 19 per cent of diners prefer their meat well-done or very well-done, according to a 2014 study by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. The Journal goes on:

“Many in the well-done camp have grown accustomed to deep resistance—even condemnation—from restaurant staff. They also expect a second helping of scorn from tablemates.

“’There is definitely a feeling of shame that comes with ordering your steak well-done,’ says New Yorker Tom Gesimondo, owner of business brokerage firm Transworld Business Advisors of Brooklyn West.

“I am so tired of apologetically ordering my filet mignon and offering ‘the chef can butterfly it if he wants’, and having the wait staff accept my offer like they’re embarrassed for me,’ he says.

“Butterflying—slicing a thick cut of meat into two thinner cuts attached at the center—allows a steak to cook through faster. But it also lets out more natural juices and can lead to a drier end result.

“For that and myriad other reasons, most chefs resent it when customers ask for well-done.”

Well-doners like me have various reasons for the choice. Some say they’re concerned about possible bacteria in what they see as undercooked meat. Others say red beef juice makes them squeamish. Still others say they prefer a firm texture or the flavor of char.

But, for me, it’s just the way I like it – which is and should be enough! So, if you’re with me at a steak restaurant, prepare for the phrase, “very well-done please.”

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 you know me, it won’t be a surprise that a Top 10 List of My Favorite Places in the World includes a few golf courses.

But I leave those courses for the last half of the list in favor of more general favorites.

So, here’s the list:

My home in Salem, Oregon: My wife Nancy and I have created a great place to live in Oregon’s capitol, Salem. Nancy deserves much of the credit for creating a welcome “nest.” We live a few houses away from our son and his family, have a great church which has been “home” for us for more than 30 years, have created great work places for those years, have a lot of friends, and love the community.

To use a trite phrase, great “when your home can be your castle.”

St. Andrews, Scotland: We have been in St. Andrews several times and it always is a great experience. One reason, of course, is the golf, which features the Old Course, plus several other venues that are part of the St. Andrews Links Trust (see below).

On sunny days – yes, there are such days in Scotland – the beach adjacent to the Old Course, as well as the course itself, accommodates walkers and waders because the course is closed. Plus, the town itself, with the St. Andrews University and many shops downtown, is a great place to walk, including seeing the coffee shop where Wills proposed to his bride.

The Plaza at the old La Quinta Hotel: We have been going to La Quinta in the California desert for many years and, on a couple of our trips, stayed at the old hotel. We fell in love with it. One of the main reasons is the absolutely incredible array of colorful flowers in the Old Hotel Plaza that creates vistas for the senses, including sight and smell.

Having a drink at The Plaza always is a great pleasure with the flowers as your guardian. Music provided by the Inca Kings adds to the pleasure.

Black Butte, Oregon: Back in Oregon, we have been heading over to Black Butte in Central Oregon for more than 30 years. A two-hour trip east from Salem, we always find a sense of rest and relaxation when we arrive at the front gate.

Great vistas with six or seven mountains standing guard over the central meadow. Great bike paths. Great weather – usually. Great relaxation.

Kapalua, Hawaii: The West End of the Island of Maui is one of our favorite places to visit. We have proved it for many years. One of the reasons is there are great golf courses in the area. They are not only good for golf, but also for vistas of the blue Pacific looking across to Lanai.

Often, you are able to see whales breaching in the ocean.

One of our favorite restaurants in the world is the Gazebo, which offers a great array of macadamia nut pancakes. We can’t miss this restaurant when we are in Maui, but, to get a table in the small establishment, you have to arrive early.

The same with Merriman’s at a point where you can watch the sun set with a cold glass of white wine and a great look across to Lanai.

Illahe Hills Golf Course in Salem, Oregon: Okay, now for golf. My home course in Salem is a great venue for the sport.

We have been members for more than 30 years and playing the course never gets old. Our kids grew up with access to golf, tennis and swimming, plus the camaraderie of a private country club where they made many friends.

The Palms Golf Course in La Quinta, California: I also have been fortunate enough to be able to join this golf course, which brands itself as being “for golf purists.” It was designed by pro golfer Fred Couples, along with pro, J.D. Ebersberger, who remains the director golf and chief operating officer at The Palms.

If you play The Palms, you must complete 18 holes in 3 hours and 50 minutes. Plus, there are no tee times there; the pros are very good at working you in to play the great 18-hole track, which is marked by greens with undulations and elevations that make them very challenging.

The Old Course in St. Andrews, Scotland: While in St. Andrews, there is no better experience than to play the Old Course, which is familiar to many Americans, at least based on television viewing. It is a links-style course in true Scottish tradition.

The last time we arrived in St. Andrews, we did so on a Sunday when, as noted above, the Old Course becomes a park where citizens and visitors walk hard by the North Sea, which borders the course. You also are able to walk across the famous Swilcan Bridge, taking the “required” photos to capture the moment of a lifetime.

On our last trip, we were not able to secure a tee time before we arrived, so, on that Sunday, we participated in what’s called “the ballot,” which essentially is a lottery to determine who gets a limited number of available tee times during the week.

Wonder of wonders, as my daughter, Lissy, and son-in-law, Tim, and I were playing the New Course – it dates to the 1860s – my wife, Nancy, got a call saying that we would have a time on the Old Course the following day.

It was a supreme experience, again which will be remembered for a lifetime, including on the first tee when many visitors to St. Andrews line up to watch whomever is hitting. It makes for a few jitters on that tee, but the good news is that first fairway joins the 18^th, so there is a lot of fairway ground.

Royal Dornoch Golf Course in Dornoch, Scotland: Other than my home track in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills, my favorite golf course in all the world is Royal Dornoch located in the small town of Dornoch in far north Scotland.

It was the setting for one of my favorite golf books, A Season in Dornoch, by Lorne Rubenstein.   It chronicled his four-month stay in Dornoch to write a book, which captured very well the captivating nature of this place.

In one section of the book, Rubenstein wrote about what it felt like to play the course alone in the late afternoon, noting with typical writing skill, the sounds and feel of his footfalls on the venerable track.

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 I write this, it is Monday after Easter weekend. But the reality of what Easter means to those of us who are Christians does not recede even as the “holiday” does.

Easter means that Christ has risen from the dead to give us a chance for a relationship with God the Father.

Think of it this way using THE CROSS as a guide. The fact that Christ died for us on that cross, as the song lyrics go, “creates a bridge to cross the great divide,” and, in a fascinating turn of phrase, “creates a cross to bridge the great divide.”

In effect, we are taken across the horizontal beam of that cross to a new life with Christ.

One of my favorite columnists, Michael Gerson, captured these real themes well in what he wrote to commemorate Good Friday. I give him full credit for excellent words and thoughts.

“The story of Good Friday — the garden, the bloody sweat, the sleeping friends, the torch-carrying crowd, the kiss, the slash of a sword, the questioning, the scourging, the mocking, the beam, the nails, the despair of a good man — is an invitation to cynicism. Nearly every human institution is revealed at its worst.

“Government certainly comes off poorly, giving Jesus the bureaucratic shuffle, with no one wanting to take responsibility, until a weak leader gives in to the crowd in the name of keeping the peace. “What is truth?” asks Pilate, with a sneer typical of politics to this day.

“Professional men of religion do not appear in their best light. They are violently sectarian, judgmental and turn to the state to enforce their beliefs.

“The crowd does not acquit itself well, turning hostile and cruel as quickly as an internet mob, first putting palms beneath his feet, then thorns upon his brow.

“Even friendship comes in for a beating. The men closest to Jesus slept while his enemies are fully awake. There is betrayal by a close, disgruntled associate. And then Peter’s spastic violence and cowardly denials. The women — all the assorted Marys — come off far better in the narrative. But Jesus is essentially abandoned to face his long, suffocating death alone.

“And, for a moment, even God seems to fail, vanishing into a shocking silence. ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ says Jesus, in words that many of his followers would want to erase from the Bible. How could the Son of God be subject to despair?

“Consider how the world appeared at the finish of Good Friday. It would have seemed that every source of order, justice and comfort — politics, institutional religion, the community, friendship — had been discredited. It was the cynic’s finest hour. And God Himself seemed absent or unmoved, turning cynicism toward nihilism. Every ember of human hope was cold. And there was nothing to be done about it.

“Then something happened. There was disagreement at the time, as now, on what that something was. According to the story, Pilate posted a guard at the tomb with the instruction: ‘Make it as secure as you can.’ Then the cynics somehow lost control of the narrative. There was an empty tomb and wild reports of angels and ghosts. And the claim of resurrection.

“Even those who believe the body was moved must confront certain facts. Faith in the figure Rome executed has far outlasted the Roman Empire. The cowardly friends became bold missionaries, most dying torturous deaths (according to tradition) for the sake of a figure they had once betrayed in their sleep. The faith thus founded has given the mob — all of us, even the ones who mock, especially the ones who mock — the hope of pardon and peace.

“For believers, the complete story of Good Friday and Easter legitimizes both despair and faith. Nearly every life features less-than-good Fridays. We grow tired of our own company and travel a descending path of depression. We experience lonely pain, unearned suffering or stinging injustice. We are rejected or betrayed by a friend. And then there are the unspeakable things — the death of a child, the diagnosis of an aggressive cancer, the steady advance of a disease that will take our minds and dignity. We look into the abyss of self-murder. And given the example of Christ, we are permitted to feel God-forsaken.

“And yet … eventually … or so we trust … or so we try to trust: God is forever on the side of those who suffer. God is forever on the side of life. God is forever on the side of hope.

“If the resurrection is real, death’s hold is broken. There is a truth and human existence that cannot be contained in a tomb. It is possible to live lightly, even in the face of death — not by becoming hard and strong, but through a confident perseverance. Because cynicism is the failure of patience. Because Good Friday does not have the final word.”

Well written, Mr. Gerson, my friend.

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.

During a career in politics – not as an elected official, but as a lobbyist – I often bemoaned the loss of middle ground in politics. Now, in retirement, I have had more time to reflect on the loss of that ideal – compromise — and believe it still is receding, almost, I fear, to be lost forever.

It seems that one side is always pitting itself against the other and the usual motive is revenge. Then, the other side does the same. The result is revenge after revenge resulting in acrimony and gridlock.

One of the main reasons for this falls on us, the voters. We don’t favor middle ground. Someone who runs on that platform won’t get our vote. Instead, we want someone who agrees with us and will go to Salem or Washington, D.C. and carry a purity banner for our views.

Middle ground or compromise? No.

Advocating purity? Yes.

So, why, with America’s history as a democracy, is middle ground evaporating? I posit several reasons:

1. If you hold office, you have to hew to one side or the other or face opposition designed to oust you.

To illustrate this, I point to the example several years ago of Oregon Representative Greg MacPherson, a centrist Republican from the Portland suburbs. Because he was one of the smartest legislators in the Oregon House, plus a very accomplished public speaker, he was asked to take on a very tough issue: Cutting funding for Oregon’s pension program, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), which, to this day, remains almost hopelessly underfunded.

When MacPherson accepted the task, he did not fully succeed, but he did yeoman work to try to control PERS.

Public employee unions, with their huge reliance on PERS, bolted. Read, revolted.

In the next election, they went after MacPherson, allocated thousands of dollars to his opponent, and kicked MacPherson out of office as a penalty for his good work.

To his credit, he did the good work and took the result in decent spirits, but Oregon lost a valuable legislator in the process who many felt could have risen to be Attorney General.

2. Many office-holders know how to campaign, but do not know how to govern.

The skills are different and most who run, then win, have difficulty focusing on governing.

Two authors – 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 – make this point very well. They have suggested: “Political compromise is difficult in American democracy, even though no one doubts it is necessary, because of the incursion of campaigning into governing…” They call this the “permanent campaign,” which encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult.

They continue: “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.”

3. Finally, most legislators don’t arrive in Salem or Washington, D.C. with the skills or personal instincts to lead disparate interests toward the smart middle.

This is perhaps a result of the campaigning vs. governing point made above.

One of the best examples of a leader willing to find the smart middle occurred in Oregon nearly 20 years ago. In the immediate aftermath of voters supporting assisted suicide, then-Senator Neil Bryant showed up in Salem willing to consider an improvement in the new assisted suicide law, even after voters had approved it by a wide margin.

Tinkering with the “will of the people” is often a prescription for failure. But, Bryant persisted.

Motivated by Providence Health System, which I represented as a lobbyist, Bryant knew the “immunities” section of the law was poorly drafted. He moderated an effort including all sides, from supporters such as Oregon Right to Die to questioners such as Providence Health System, to produce better law. Then, he led the legislature to approve it.

Without Bryant, the change would not have happened.

But, to put a point on it, there are not many Bryants around any longer. Most of those who get elected come to Salem with a personal commitment to support one side or the other, not to find middle ground.

So, in all of this, if you want to point fingers at those who cannot find the smart middle ground, don’t do it. Instead, look in the mirror. Adherence to supposed purist principles won’t end – the gridlock of current government in this country won’t end – until all of us expect those we elect to govern, not continue campaigning.

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.

To say there is an arcane rule in the U.S. Senate allowing a “filibuster” is to give the process a compliment.

It is time to do away permanently with this archaic formulation that was described this way in a Wall Street Journal piece last week:

“Arcane and opaque rules have allowed a minority to paralyze the Senate and prevent consideration of nominees, treaties and legislation. Democracy is too important to permit winks, nods and obstruction to be the order of the day.”

I agree. Paralysis and opacity.

The filibuster process has been generating headlines in recent days as Democrats in the Senate tried to use that tactic to avoid a vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch who is obviously qualified for a position on the nation’s highest court – and who, after an affirmative vote in the full Senate last week, was sworn in.

Democrats, led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, don’t like Gorsuch’s judicial history, which illustrates his tendency toward conservatism. Or, put differently, his commitment to look at the law and precedent, not political positions.

Democrats also want revenge for the action by Republicans not to consider Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

So, we’re back to one bad turn deserves another, which is, itself, an illustration of the gridlock and acrimony that binds Congress. And the blame, if there is blame to assign, falls on all sides.

Two authors of the Wall Street Journal article – John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, and Sai Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia – also provided a useful bit of history on the filibuster. They wrote:

“…Republicans have more than revenge on their side this time around; they have the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 creates no special vote threshold for nominees. By contrast, it explicitly requires “two thirds of the Senators present concur” to approve treaties.

“The Founders never constitutionalized the filibuster; the first one occurred in 1837. Congress managed to reach fundamental decisions—the creation of the first departments, the proposing of the Bill of Rights, the establishment of Hamilton’s national bank—without it. No filibuster was necessary then to secure a senatorial consensus. Nor, as the Gorsuch conflict demonstrates, can a filibuster today heal partisan polarization.

“A Senate minority can still filibuster legislation, though there has been talk of reforming that rule, too. As senators consider future steps, they shouldn’t pay much heed to concerns about the filibuster’s protection of the minority. The Senate’s very structure is minoritarian, giving small states a disproportionate share of legislative power. The least populous 25 states have less than one-sixth of the U.S. population but account for half the Senate’s members.

“Senators also should keep in mind that the filibuster has strayed far from its roots in promoting deliberation. As in the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” senators had to filibuster by physically delivering speeches to prevent the majority from calling for a vote. Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat from South Carolina, set the record by speaking for 24 hours against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

“But in 1917, senators adopted a procedure called ‘cloture’ under which a two-thirds vote would end debate and bring a measure to a vote. That threshold was reduced to 60 votes in 1975—but five years earlier Majority Leader Mike Mansfield had introduced the ‘two track’ system: If cloture couldn’t be achieved, senators simply accepted that a filibuster would continue and turned to other business, without requiring anyone to keep speaking.

“What had once been a rare showstopper that ground the Senate to a halt has become a cheap and easy way to increase the effective vote threshold for Senate action to 60 votes. Senators ‘extend’ debate by shrinking from it. Little wonder that filibusters are as common as broken campaign promises.”

For me, the arcane filibuster rules illustrate the inner workings of Congress that have become unintelligible to regular Americans.

It looks like what is, which is a way to avoid taking a position and voting.

As the two authors above point out, it used to be that a filibuster meant that a senator or senators had to stay on the Senate floor and keep talking. Senator Strom Thurmond holds the talking record – more than 24 hours.

The Senate’s action this week to stop filibusters and return to majority rule for Supreme Court nominations is not a bad thing:  It is a good thing and returns the Senate to simple majority rule, not “stop the voting” filibusters.

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 forgot to mention this in my recent blog on the Masters Golf Tournament, but it is worth reporting that, in Salem, I live on Augusta National Drive South.

That is a fitting reminder for me every day about the Masters, “a tradition unlike any other.”

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 golf addict, there are a number of highlights I could mention each year. One would be getting a hole-in-one, which I did recently for the sixth time in my golfing career.

But, regardless of that personal achievement, which, course I cite modestly, at or near the top in any list for me is watching the Masters Golf Tournament every year.

Golf commentator Steve Sands put it well when he said “these are hallowed grounds. There is a mystique about the Masters and Augusta National that does not exist anywhere else.”

TV host Jim Nantz has become famous for his quote every day he is on the air to coordinate Masters coverage: He says the Masters is “a tradition unlike any other.”

Those quotes are true and I report that from my own experience at the Masters in 2015 when, with my daughter, Lissy, and her husband, Tim, I was fortunate enough to be at Augusta National for the Wednesday practice round and par 3 contest, then also for the first round on Thursday. [We flew home in a hurry, if that is possible, to be able to watch the final rounds of the tournament on television.]

Those who run the Masters tournament – the members of the Augusta National Golf Club – have become, to use the word, “masters” of their own craft. For one thing, they get to do it every year at the same venue, so they can be committed to a worthy goal – improving the experience every year.

A few examples:

• For spectators – they are called “patrons” — running is not allowed on the course.

• If you are on a hillside looking at a golf hole, you have to be sitting, not lying down.

• If you are wearing a golf hat, you have to wear it right, not backwards.

Small things, you say.  Perhaps but for me, they illustrate a commitment to run a tournament on hallowed grounds.

This year, the organizers have done a great job of honoring the memory of golf icon, Arnold Palmer, who won the Masters four times, but passed away a few months ago. Special “Arnie’s Army” badges were printed to honor Palmer whose style and skill pushed the game of golf to higher levels. An empty chair was put on the first tee for the symbolic first tee shots by two other icons, Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus.

Though gone, the presence of Palmer was still there.

Some could contend that Masters organizers and Augusta National Club members are stuffy or thrilled with their own accomplishments. That way, they don’t have to listen to anyone else.

I view it differently. They are putting on one of the great sporting events in history, they do it every year, and those who set foot on the “hallowed grounds” feel privileged to do so. My daughter would say that attending the Masters was one of the great experiences of her life.

So would I.

So, for the next three days, we’ll be watching as new history is created. No matter who wins, it will be an experience – “a tradition unlike any other.”

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.

After a number of recent fiascos, you would think that rules officials in pro golf tournaments would have learned lessons.

But, no. There was another fiasco last weekend, one that many would say looks worse than its predecessors.

In this case, professional golfer Lexi Thompson was 12 holes into her final round of the ANA Inspiration Golf Tournament at Mission Hills in the California desert. She was four strokes ahead and looking like she would prevail in the first LPGA women’s major tournament of the year.

Then, from a golf perspective, the almost unthinkable happened.

Rules officials approached her on the course and said she would be assessed a four-stroke penalty. Someone watching on television called into say Thompson had marked her ball improperly on the green in the third round. She was two-third of her way through her fourth round.

• Never mind that, if a violation, it did not appear to be intentional and involved only a 12-inch putt.

• Never mind that her score had already been posted for the third round and she was two-thirds of the way through her fourth and final round.

• Never mind that a TV viewer had called in day late.

• Never mind that Thompson is one of the best American golfers and was in the lead, so she was on camera much of the time, in contrast to, say, someone who was not in the lead and, therefore, had escaped TV coverage.

It will be contended that the rules officials did what they had to do, which is to impose a penalty – two strokes for improperly marking the ball and two more strokes for posting an incorrect score from the third round. [By the way, a recent rules changes averted another incredible fiasco, which is that, by posting an incorrect score, Thompson would have disqualified immediately.  This time, it was “just” a four stroke penalty.]  What the rules officials should have done was say, no, it’s too late. The round is already in and, if there was a violation, it was so small and apparently unintentional as to be of no consequence.

To Thompson’s credit, despite the emotional toll of losing four strokes to push her out of the lead, she rebounded by posting two birdies and tying for the lead at the end of the fourth round. Then, unfortunately for me and many other golf fans, she lost to a birdie on the first hole of a playoff.

When asked about the altercation in his press conference at the Masters tournament which is under way this week, pro golfer Phil Mickelson got it right.  He said it was a stupid decision, that it should be reversed, and that Thompson should be given the trophy.

That won’t happen, but what will happen is that a proposal to “modernize” golf rules will include the fact that TV viewers cannot call in to become de facto rules officials.

About time.

Imagine if viewer calls were allowed for professional football, baseball, basketball or soccer. No one would ever win!

Golf has done itself another disservice by this episode. If the leaders of the industry are trying “to grow the game,” then they should make the rules change – no TV viewers as rules officials – immediately.