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.