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 read this blog, you know that I am advocate for finding middle ground in political debates, not just trying to get your way at all costs.

Call it the “art of compromise.”

But compromise is, as the word implies, difficult. It requires both sides – or all sides – to give up something to get something. It’s tough stuff and no one necessarily likes the outcome. Plus, the lack of purity makes it easier for anyone to criticize the result.

Consider two recent examples, both in the area of health care policy.

In Oregon, legislators and the governor, driving toward the finish line in the current legislative session (which occurs, by law, on July 10), found a compromise on health care. It was not a new compromise; in a way, it had been in effect since 2003, but it had to be re-enacted.

The “it” was to impose taxes on hospitals and commercial health insurers, get the revenue into state coffers, and use the money to garner increased federal matching funds under Medicaid, the program which used to be targeted toward low income single women and children, but now has been expanded to include “the working poor.”

The taxes suffer from several public policy deficits, the main one of which is that, once all of the money (both special taxes and federal matching funds) arrives in state coffers, there is no way to assure that it ends up funding health care programs. Some of it is diverted to other programs, especially K-12 education.

Could I prove that? No. But no one can prove the reverse either.

What was passed in Salem is actually the definition of compromise. It is the best that could be done under the circumstances and, thus, I would have tempered my concern about bad policy and voted for it anyway — if, perish the thought, I had been elected to the legislature.

As for the second example, consider the ObamaCare health care replacement proposal set for a vote soon in the U.S. Senate.

Here’s an excerpt of what Wall Journal editorial writers published:

“The bill is an imperfect compromise between moderate and conservative Republicans, and it makes pains to accommodate different interests and the Americans, states and businesses that have adapted to ObamaCare over the years. The center-right nature of the details means the Senate won’t be ushering in some free-market utopia. But the reform is a major improvement over the U.S. health-care status quo that will worsen if the bill fails.

“Republicans have campaigned across four elections against ObamaCare, and now Americans will see if they have the courage of their professed convictions. Conservatives must determine if progress that is politically feasible is preferable to impossible ideological purity, and moderates must defend policy substance from the distortions of critics.

“The Senate bill is imperfect, but it includes many conservative policy victories that have long been Republican goals. It’s not too much to say this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans fail, the next stop is single payer.”

Note the question: “Is progress that is politically feasible preferable to impossible ideological purity?”

I answer yes.

If elected officials in Salem and Washington, D.C. would adopt this approach to political decisions – settle for the imperfect instead of bidding against all odds for the pure — we’d all be better for it.

This would require that we, as voters, credit those who represent us for finding middle ground. That’s tough because, these days, many Americans prefer purity and then take it on elected officials when they don’t get what they want.

Plus, the fact is policy decisions from the middle would be better than extremes on either the conservative or liberal ends of the spectrum.

And this footnote: As I have argued with a colleague about health care issues, I have focused on the legislative process that produced both ObamaCare several years ago and the Republican replacements. Both occurred behind closed doors and the drafts were circulated only days before a voting deadline. Neither was – or is – a testament to solid public policy ma