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.