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 ask the question in the headline as someone who was involved in politics for some 40 years, first as a state government manager for 15 years, then as a private sector lobbyist for 25 years.

During that time, I saw – and, in fact, was a part of – many processes where the goal was to find the smart middle ground on tough public policy issues. I’ll recount a few of the cases below.

But, for now, let me, as General Colin Powell said when he decided not to run for president, “bemoan the loss of civility in politics.”

It seems that everyone is out to get everyone else. The objective is not to find the best policy solution that would benefit the public. The objective appears to win at all costs and the other side(s) be damned.

Nowhere has all this been more true than in Congress. Seven years ago, Republicans balked at being involved at all in what came to be called ObamaCare.. If they would have involved themselves, the result would have been better.

Now, seven years later, Democrats boycotted the process in Congress that produced the first major tax reform since the Reagan years. Again, the result would have been better as a bi-partisan achievement.

In Oregon, things are different than they are in Washington, D.C. Democrats are in charge everywhere here with the exception of the Secretary of State’s office, which is in Republican hands for the first time in 30 years.

Democrats hold nearly super-majority margins of control in both the House and Senate and most prognosticators expect Democrats to widen their margins in the next election. So, the Ds don’t need Republicans, even centrist ones, to do what they want to do

Democrats also have held the Governor’s Office for more than 35 years. I had the privilege of working for the last Republican, Vic Atiyeh, but, since Atiyeh, no one has put together the ability to keep Democrats out of the central office at the Capitol.

Now, on to issues where, at least in the past, legislators in Salem have managed to find middle ground.

Workers’ comp: This is one of the best examples in Oregon of a move to the center. A number of years ago, then Governor Neil Goldschmidt (who has since been banished for illicit sexual activity) called labor and business to the governor’s residence, Mahonia Hall, to try to find a fix for workers’ comp rates, which had been high enough to constrain business activity in Oregon.

The group produced a result – one that helped business invest, as well as protected workers injured on the job.

Columbia River Channel deepening: About 12 years ago, the length – not to mention the depth – of the Columbia River channel had created an economic dilemma for Oregon. Deeper-draft ships could not ply their way inland to the Port of Portland and other near-Portland ports.

The solution? Dig a deeper channel, with the costs to be borne collaboratively by the states of Oregon and Washington, as well as by the federal government.

It took multiple biennial budget periods for the deed to be done and, along the way, environmental interests had to be convinced that Columbia River sand – environmentalists called the sand “spoils” – could be placed on land in a way that would not create damage. Plus, the sand had value, so could be purchased by business interests to defray at least part of the cost of dredging.

Implementing Oregon’s assisted suicide law: After the law passed in Oregon by a wide margin — 60 to 40 – questions arose about the adequacy of the “immunities clause” in the law, which had been drafted quickly and poorly.

What could be done to allow major health care providers in Oregon – including my client, Providence Health System – to comply with the law while exercising religious commitments?

The solution occurred when a stalwart legislator, then Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, called a group together to try to work out a fix. His leadership worked and the fix for Providence went like this: The system could bar assisted suicide from being done on its property, by its employees, or by its contractors “within the course and scope of their contracts.”

In return, Providence had to accept an obligation to refer those who wanted assisted suicide out to other reputable providers. It was tough for Providence to accept the referral requirement, but it did as part of the compromise deal.

Balancing the state budget: This occurs every two years in Oregon state government and always is an example of finding middle ground. The reason? By law, the budget must be in balance – that is, expected revenues must equal expected expenditures over the two-year budget period.

This, of course, is a far cry from what happens in Washington, D.C. when money is simply printed to “balance” the budget.

In Oregon, the requirement to be in balance forces both sides – Democrats and Republicans – to seek and find middle ground.

Overall, these examples are meant to show that middle ground still exists. It may be hard to find in a political environment that often emphasizes winning and losing. But it is still worth the effort despite the hurdles.