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 the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering opens again today – remember, I am its director – I focus this time on quotes from one my favorite columnists Peggy Noonan who writes for the Wall Street Journal.

She has an ability, with well-chosen words, to capture the moods of the country better than mosst prognosticators today.

Today, in the first quote, Noonan is again exactly on point in her reflections on the failure of Congress to do anything about ObamaCare.  Once an entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to do anything about it.

If the debate initially was about creating an entitlement, then so be it.  But it was not.  It was about health care reform.  The trouble was that Democrats initially passed ObamaCare about seven years ago with so much federal money involved that it is now impossible to make any change.

From Noonan:  “It is true that a central dynamic of the failure was the truism that once people are given an entitlement, they aren’t keen to see it taken away.”

More from Noonan:  “As for Mr. Trump, the first six months of his presidency suggest many things, including that what made him is thwarting him.

“He is a man alone, independent and ungoverned. He freelances, not because circumstances dictate it, but because he is by nature a freelancer. He doesn’t want to be enmeshed in an institution, he doesn’t want to have to bolster and defend it and see to its life. He wants to preserve his freedom—to tweet, to pop off, to play it this way or that.

“One of the interesting things about his New York Times interview this week was that he met with the reporters alone save for his aide Hope Hicks. Afterward members of his own White House reportedly had to scramble to get tapes so they’d know what the boss said.

“But presidential leadership involves being to some degree an institution man, upholding not only a presidency but a government, even its other branches. He doesn’t understand this. In any case he doesn’t do it. It is all a personal drama. This aspect of his nature will probably make further legislative failures inevitable. In time, though no one in the White House seems to fear this, it will lead to his diminished support. His supporters will likely never hate him, and won’t be severely disillusioned because they weren’t all that illusioned.

“They’ll probably always appreciate him for blasting open the system and saving them from normality—i.e., the dumb, going-through-the-motions cynicism of Washington. They are sympathetic because of everything he is up against—every established power center in Washington—with no one behind him but his original supporters.”

Comment: In a few words, Noonan captures President Donald Trump, the person who believes everything revolves around him and insatiable ego. It appears he cares about no one but himself – not his staff, not those who elected him, not Republicans who might want to support him and, of course, Democrats who want to impeach him.

Still more from Noonan:  “As for health care, Senator John McCain, recovering from surgery, had it right: ‘One of the major problems with Obamacare was that it was written on a strict party-line basis and driven through Congress without a single Republican vote. As this law continues to crumble in Arizona and states across the country, we must not repeat the original mistakes that led to Obamacare’s failure.’

“Congress, he said, must return to regular order, hold hearings, work across party lines, ‘and heed the recommendations of our nation’s governors.’

“Is there any legitimate hope of a bi-partisan solution? It can be fairly argued, as Jim Geraghty does in National Review, that a Democratic Party that relentlessly lied to pass ObamaCare—you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, premiums will go down—is unlikely to consider conservative reform ideas in good faith.

Comment: Health care reform proposals with a chance to pass must come from both sides out of a commitment by those involved to sit down, across the room from each other, and hammer out what has so far not been possible – a middle ground compromise. To date, both Democrats and Republicans deserve criticism for their failure to do the deed of reform.

Not one side. Both sides.

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.

Campaigning for office is not the same as governing once in office.

Often, this notion for me has focused on the tendency toward the permanent campaign. Members of Congress, as well as Oregon legislators, appear always to be running for election. Nearly every action they take results in a news release touting their credentials with an eye toward the next election.

They don’t spend nearly as much time or effort governing.

The same can be said as Republicans in Congress have announced defeat of their bid to repeal and replace ObamaCare after pledging to do so for so long on the campaign trail in the last seven years.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal’s William Galston put it in a column that ran in the WSJ yesterday:

“Campaigning is one thing, governing another. Opposing is not the same as legislating. Republicans had seven years to coalesce around a replacement for Obama Care, and they wasted them. The bill they passed in 2015 was for show; they knew that President Obama would veto it and that they would not have to take responsibility for its consequences. Republicans are a majority party, but they have yet to prove that they are a governing party.”

In my view, both Democrats and Republicans deserve criticism for the way they have handled health care policy issues.

First, seven years ago, Democrats, with Barack Obama in office as president, jammed what came to called ObamaCare down the throats of minority Republicans. ObamaCare did not get one Republican vote.

At least you could say Democrats had their act together enough to pass a bill. Now, Republicans, for all their talk on various campaign trails, have failed to do the “repeal and replace” deed in Congress.

Is there a way forward now? The easiest answer may be no because it appears Republicans and Democrats hate each other so much they cannot even be in the same room to hash out compromise on any issue. In “one bad turn deserves another,” compromise is anathema to most Members of Congress.

The WSJ’s Galston still holds out hope.

“There is a way forward, and Mr. McConnell (Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader) has pointed to it. Republicans and Democrats could sit down together to negotiate much-needed fixes to ObamaCare’s troubled health-insurance exchanges. With even a modicum of goodwill on both sides, this would not be “Mission: Impossible.”

“Along with bipartisanship, Mr. McConnell should do what he promised—return the Senate to regular order. Explaining his decision to deliver the coup de grâce to the McConnell bill, Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran criticized the ‘closed-door process’ that had produced the bill and called on his party’s leaders to ‘start fresh with an open legislative process.’ I suspect the American people would welcome this shift.”

In all of this, I submit two things are true. First, it is almost impossible to repeal an entitlement once it is in place. Almost every media story or comment from elected officials relates sad stories about who will lose benefits. Policy doesn’t matter. Financial deficits don’t matter.

Second, a single payer system could be on the horizon for the United States, especially if Democrats re-take either the House or the Senate in the mid-term elections. Of course, if they do, they’ll still have to reckon with President Donald Trump, but he probably will be diverted by trying to save his own job because impeachment will be on the minds of many Democrats.

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.

Long-time political commentator Fred Barnes posited the notion in the headline in a column written for the Wall Street Journal as he analyzed the tussle in Congress to repeal and/or replace ObamaCare.

He said, “Republicans are playing it (politics) poorly. They have one more chance in the Senate to repeal and replace ObamaCare —possibly their last hope for a victory.”

On the other side, he suggested that “Democrats are performing like a well-coached team. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has all 48 members of his caucus on board with saving ObamaCare at all cost. It’s been a successful strategy.”

Barnes may be right.

Republicans ran in several elections on a pledge to get rid of ObamaCare, which is mostly a new federal entitlement with all that implies in the difficult to make any changes. There is always someone who will lose federal largesse.

Then, with it comes to the repeal and replace deed, Republicans look disorganized, which used to be a charge leveled at Democrats.

To buttress his team analogy, Barnes writes this:

“This is an example of why legislative success depends on operating as a team. You don’t abandon your team just because you don’t get everything you want (or want left out). You hold your nose and vote for an imperfect measure, sometimes merely because it’s politically beneficial and better than the alternative.

“This is especially true in dumping ObamaCare. The Republican alternative is a more free-market health-care system in which people can buy the insurance they want, not what government requires.

“Sticking with the team makes that possible. But too many Republicans aren’t comfortable as team players. To them, it’s shady and unprincipled to vote for something about which you have serious doubts. Democrats are more realistic and less persnickety, so they’re better at uniting.”

Consider these examples of Republicans going their own way, not the team way:

* Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky opposes the Senate bill because it leaves too much of ObamaCare in place. But the alternative is to leave all of it in place.

* Senator Dean Heller of Nevada feels the bill’s Medicaid reforms would hurt thousands of his state’s residents and jeopardize his re-election in 2018. But preserving ObamaCare would hurt millions nationwide, not to mention his prospects for winning a second term.

* Senator Susan Collins of Maine says the bill won’t “fix the flaws” in ObamaCare. But the alternative would lock those flaws in place, probably forever.

“Messrs. Paul and Heller and Ms. Collins are playing politics as if it’s an individual sport, like golf, boxing or gymnastics,” Barnes says. “In the Senate, only a team can win.”

Now, a critic of this team proposition could say that forceing members to play as a team means they would have to eschew their own, individual values and accept a consensus. Yes, but if, in this case, that’s what it takes to make good on a clear campaign promise – getting rid of a federal entitlement, ObamaCare – I say, play like a team.

Accept the good and the possible instead of angling only for the perfect.

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.

It’s always difficult to rate a regular session of the Oregon Legislature, especially in the immediate aftermath of a sometimes-controversial six-month run in Salem.

Plus, how one feels about a session may depend, at least in part, on where you stand on the political spectrum.

In the case of the 2017 session, which just ended Friday, Democrats were in charge in both the House and Senate, so, predictably, they lauded their achievements.

Republicans, from their position in the minority, not surprisingly, were less positive.

Consider these quick comments after adjournment:

Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem: “The first session of the 79^th Legislature has ended. It has not been easy. Things have been said and done that will leave wounds. That is sad. There are the times when working together is not favored. Beating the other guys is all that matters it seems.”

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day: “Republicans have a great deal to be upset with this session, but we should be proud we were able to stop not only the hidden sales tax, but also the illegal 41 percent tax hike on small businesses, even those with less than ten employees.”

House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, a member of the Legislature since 2011, said this year was the “most political, partisan and divisive session I’ve ever been through.” This was a session of, he said, of missed opportunities to save money and what he called Democrats’ “faked commitments” to fiscal prudence.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland: “Looking back on one of the most challenging sessions in recent memory, I am proud that we were able to accomplish some monumental tasks. We balanced the budget, in spite of a $1.4 billion shortfall between available resources and the amount it would take to maintain the current service levels.”

From my place in the cheap seats and based on a 25-year run as a state lobbyist that ended more than two years ago, I do not owe allegiance to either side, nor did I work the Capitol for the past six months. So, I come up with what I have the lack of modesty to label a “dispassionate rating,” which is more art than science.

I give the legislative session a B-.

Part of the context for giving a B- grade is what I learned from my boss, Fred Miller, at the Oregon Executive Department more than 20 years ago. Fred said that one of the easiest things to do is criticize or even be cynical about the legislature. Don’t do it, he advised.

What if you had 90 friends and had them sequestered in one building in town, then asked them to make tough decisions? It wouldn’t always look pretty, nor would all of the decisions be made in a timely fashion.

The same is true of the 90 persons we elected to represent us in the legislature, plus the governor and for other statewide office holders (Attorney General, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Labor Commissioner).

Still, with all of this in mind, I provide the following rationale for my B- rating.

On the positive side, the most noteworthy achievement was passing a $5.3 billion compromise transportation-funding package that will help to fix roads and bridges, as well as finance mass transit. In such a package, a true compromise, many observers will find aspects to like and aspects to hate. But, Democrats and Republicans came together, finally, to fund transportation improvements.

On the negative side, legislators were unable to find middle ground on an admittedly tough issue – finding the balance between cutting the underfunded Public Employee Retirement System on one hand and imposing higher taxes on Oregon corporations on the other hand.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. Under the leadership of Portland area Democrat Mark Hass, legislators tried for months to find a way through the thicket. In the end, they failed. Critics say they only postponed the inevitable.

Depending on your view, another development, while critical, could be either positive or negative. It is a continuation of taxes on hospitals and health insurers, which produces money in state “general fund coffers.” In turn, that money is used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid and the money comes home to Oregon.

It will be used to keep funding the costs of thousands of low-income citizens on Medicaid rolls.

But, as I have said in previous posts, there is no way to ensure that all of the money goes to health care programs. Some of it could be diverted to other purposes, such as K-12 education.

For those assessing the 2017 legislative session, the reality of not being able to guarantee health care investments, plus the questionable policy of taxing a narrow band of payers to fund a societal responsibility, could push the health care tax deal into the negative category.

For me, though, if I had been elected to the legislature – perish the thought — I would have pointed out the questionable public policy aspects of the tax, then voted for it. It was a compromise worth supporting.

Finally, it’s too early to tell for sure if there will be bruised feelings after this session. In a way, there always are, but, often, those feelings evaporate with the passage of time.

Still, there was one bad sign at the end of the session – bad with respect to traditional protocols. Usually, the House and the Senate open their double doors at the back of their chambers before the final gavels fall and do the deed together, watching from the east and west of the “People’s Building.”

This time, fed up with the alleged lack of movement in the House (which some said was a reflection of tension between Senate President Courtney and House Speaker Kotek), the Senate left about three or four hours before the House gaveled down. Observers hadn’t seen such a breach of protocol for many years.

That leaves the question: Will the tension continue or will it lesson with the passage of time? Those who want middle ground policy achievements should hope for the latter.

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 have thought a lot about this issue lately as we have watched dysfunction and disagreeability mark our national and state public policy debates.

Perhaps this is one effect of having elected an immature, dysfunctional person, Donald Trump, as president. During his campaign and his election, political debate has done nothing but degenerate into personal attack.

We no longer expect public policy results. We expect dysfunction.

While we watch the national political system slide into mediocrity, Democrats and Republicans at the State Capitol in Oregon have done better than their “colleagues” in the Nation’s Capitol, but still appear to dislike each other personally, a fact that has blocked a number of otherwise-attainable public policy achievements 

So, perish the thought, but if I was ever elected to public office, here are traits I would hope would mark my service and, if you read them closely, you will note that, in some ways at least, they use different words to make the same point.

Put simply, we need mature leaders who will work for the public good, not their own aggrandizement, especially not just their own next election.

• The ability to work to find middle ground

This ability is too often missing in our political system. Persons get elected to espouse their own principles, which is understandable and appropriate on one hand, but which can get out of hand on the other.

If standing on principle means there is no middle ground, that is a prescription for what we have seen — stalemate and dysfunction. It’s like folks yelling on a street corner just to make sure their own views are known; they don’t care about others.

It takes a special person to espouse middle ground. And, it even takes more supreme qualities to be a person who can lead others to middle ground solutions.

It should be added that, despite apparent dislike for each other, Democrats and Republicans in the Oregon Legislature found way toward middle ground on a few issues in the still-current legislative session. However, they could not do so on the biggest issue – a balance between budget cuts, especially with regard to the Public Employee Retirement System, and increased corporate taxes.

On the positive front, legislators appear poised to pass a transportation funding package. It is a compromise, so no one will like all parts of it, but it does the job of providing new resources to fix roads and bridges, and fund mass transit.

• The ability to assure that your word is your bond

If this is not true, you are sunk as an elected official. So, mean what you say. And say what you mean.

If you say something once, then have to change your mind based on new information, report the change, an action which will buttress your own credibility.

I found this to be true during my career as a lobbyist and it should also be true for elected officials.

• The ability to disagree agreeably

This used to be a phrase to describe the Oregon Legislature. It was a “citizen legislature” – still is, I suppose – where elected officials with lives outside the Capitol knew how to stand for something, but avoid denigrating those on other sides.

In many ways, the phrase these days could be “the ability to disagree disagreeably.”

[As Donald Trump might tweet, astride his habit of using only small words, often inexactly, “Not nice.”]

• The ability to emphasize your own principles without denigrating others

This is another way of making a similar point, but I include this to indicate that there is nothing wrong with having principles and standing by them if you are an elected official. But, standing on principle should not be the last word. It should be a means to the end of finding agreement with others in order to make progress on achieving public good.

This is, put simply, the ability to see issues from other perspectives, not just your own.

• The ability to handle the public responsibility with an air of humility, not exalted ego

It’s not possible to write about this point without confirming that Donald Trump is the antithesis of this trait. To him, everything is personal. It seems he cannot operate without taking offense.

I found this quote on the Internet the other day:

“Our country was founded on the principle that the ultimate power of government rests in the people. The lesson is clear. Elected officials are not important people. What is important is that they represent the people.

For just a minute, think about that. If those who represent us conducted themselves as if they were serving us – yes, representing us – consider how much better our government would be.

The elected official who best illustrated this humble trait was the last Republican governor of Oregon, Vic Atiyeh, for whom I had the honor of working. One of his favorite sayings, was this: “The issue is not who gets the credit for doing good work. It is doing the good work itself.”

To Victor – he allowed those of us who worked for him to call him by that name, though I usually resorted to just calling him “governor” – this was critical. He led Oregon during tough times economically and he did so with an unusual combination of skill and humility, not worrying about who got the credit.

My reciting of the marks of good public officials tends to add up to one point: We need mature and reasoned public officials who will lead us and make solid decisions in our behalf. And, when we see the good traits, we ought to admire them and keep those good folks in office working for ALL of us.

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.

Last Sunday was as good day, a day apart from worrying about what President Trump was going to do next, whether Congress would adopt a new health care plan, or when the Oregon Legislature would adjourn.

It was a day to walk along the Metolius River in Central Oregon, one of Oregon’s great treasures.

During my career as a state lobbyist, all I had to do to hear about the Metrolius was get time with Senator Betsy Johnson, a Democrat from Scappoose. She was raised in Central Oregon and had then and has now a sacred spot in her heart for the Metolius. You could hear thje cracks in her voice as she talked about the area that was a special part of her childhood.

From our vacation home in Black Butte, it is only about five miles to Camp Sherman, a small town along the Metolius, which is marked by a general store, an iconic church, small cabins, and a great restaurant, the Kokanee Café.

When we arrived at Camp Sherman, our first stop was near a small bridge over the Metrolius where, on occasion, you can see several kinds of trout swimming by, though it’s difficult because their color blends in with the rocks in the water.

Across the bridge, we then took a river-side trail that heads north for about a mile. Along the way, my wife, Nancy, stopped every few feet to take photos of wild flowers, of which there appeared to be more than 15 varieties.

On the trail, we didn’t see one person fishing, which is interesting, given that the Metolius is known as as a great trout fishing stream. Still, in the area where we were, the fishing has not been great in recent years, perhaps because it is pretty accessible, a standard most veteran fisherman eschew because they want more remote areas where they might have the only line in the water.

Along the way, we came across two meadows, resplendent in a cacophony of color. Like a well-trained symphony, the grass kept time with the beat of music we almost could hear. Even the weeds marked the beat.

We thought might see a deer or two in those meadows, but the graceful, beautiful animals remained behind the scenes, perhaps lying around in the shade to escape the 80 degree sun.

As we walked, we marveled at creation. And that was after listening the day before to a recording of a sermon preached many years ago by my wife’s late father, Neil Fraser. In that sermon, delivered at the church where I grew up in Portland, Neil said one of the best evidences for God is creation itself.

It is easier to believe that God created the marvelous panoply of flowers, water, sky and wildlife than to suggest that it all happened by chance.

As an aside, through the marvel of recordings, it was good to hear Neil prove again that he was very good at describing God and scripture in such a compelling way. A great man ahead of his time!

Well, after a couple hours along the Metolius, we arrived back at our car and drove the few miles to Black Butte for another great evening under the sun in Central Oregon.

Here, drawn from the Internet, is a little more history on the Metolius.

It is a tributary of the Deschutes River which flows north from springs near Black Butte then turns sharply east, descending through a series of gorges before ending in the western end of the Lake Billy Chinook. The unincorporated community of Camp Sherman lies astride the southern end of the river, a fact we knew well as we walked that river-side trail.

The Metolius River is fed by numerous springs and creeks along its route.

The headwaters of the river are art Metolius Springs where the river emerges from two clusters of springs at the base of Black Butte. Water flows to these springs from the drainage basin around Black Butte Ranch.

The River flows 28.6 miles from Metolius Springs through the Deschutes National Forest emptying into Lake Billy Chinook and ultimately the Deschutes.  The upper 11.5 miles of the river are popular for catch-and-release fishing, waterwater rafting, picknicking and camping. The lower 17 miles are on the boundary of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and flow by “a primitive area where motorized vehicles are not allowed.”

The Metolius River was officially designated a National Wild and Scenic River in 1988.

But, don’t take my word for all of this. Make your own trek to Central Oregon and see the Metolius for yourself.  It’s worth the trip to see one of God’s beautiful creations.

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.

Two of my favorite columnists – Michael Gerson from the Washington Post and Peggy Noonan from the Wall Street Journal – got me thinking about a fanciful notion.

It is this. Republicans and Democrats in the nation’s capitol could work together to produce a better health care fix than either could do on their own.

If it were to happen, call it good government.

If it does not happen, call it bad government.

Here’s the way Noonan put it in a column that ran over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal:

“Here again is our big wish: that both parties join together and produce a fix. It would no doubt be ungainly and imperfect, but it would be better than the failing thing we have. And Americans, being practical, will settle, for now, for better.

“The GOP’s donor class would likely hate the eventual bill, as the Democratic Party’s nihilist left, which wants no compromise, would hate it. But their opposition would suggest to everyone else the bill must be pretty good.”

Noonan also skewered former President Barack Obama for getting this country into the ObamaCare mess.

“Every president until Barack Obama knew this (the need for bi-partisan action). He bullied through ObamaCare with no Republican support, and he did it devilishly, too, in that he created a bill so deal-laden, so intricate, so embedding-of-its-tentacles into the insurance and health systems, that it would be almost impossible to undo. He was maximalist. His party got a maximal black eye, losing the House and eventually the Senate over the bill, which also contributed to its loss of the presidency.”

Noonan makes a point I have made before, which is that, once a government entitlement is in place, it is almost impossible to remove it. The Rs are trying now, but every media story focuses on who will lose with the reform.

So, has the time come for Democrats to work with Republicans on a fix? And for Republicans to work with Democrats. I say yes.

Democrats would have to tamp down their egos to say, yes, ObamaCare doesn’t work and we know we need to work with Republicans to put in place a better health care system.

Republicans would have to demonstrate real leadership, not the kind that holds sway by telling the Ds to get lost and wait for the Rs to do the deed that they think needs to be done. In other words, shed egos and lead.

Mr. Gerson got it right the other day when he wrote about three traits that should be hallmarks of a democracy – civility, compromise and moderation.

“Civility is not weakness. It is the native tongue of a successful democracy. What Stephen Carter calls “civil listening” allows people who are opponents to avoid becoming enemies. Civility prevents dehumanization.

“Compromise is not surrender. It is the lubricant of a successful democracy. What Jonathan Rauch calls “a cardinal virtue” allows for incremental progress on difficult issues such as health care. It is a moral principle that elevates progress on the common good above ideological purity.

“Moderation is not indecision or centrism (as important as political centrism may be). It is the mode or mood of a successful democracy. What Aurelian Craiutu calls a “difficult virtue for courageous minds” puts an emphasis on reasonableness, prudence and balance. It is a principle rooted in epistemological modesty — a recognition that no one possesses the whole truth.”

Consider that last phrase. No one possesses the whole truth. If elected leaders would have that kind of self-effacing attitude, imagine what could be done. The issue would be developing solid policy, not worrying about who gets the credit or the debit.

Too, many of us, as voters, would have to change the way we view those who are elected. No longer would we be able to judge them by a selfish standard – “what can they do for me” or “how well do they stand by their guns and tell the other side to get lost.”

We would judge them by the standards of civility, compromise and moderation.

In that way, we would not have to join former presidential candidate and military general Colin Powell who, when he thought about running for president, said that he would not do so because “he bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

It would be possible actually to trumpet the virtue of civility.