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.

A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal starts with this brief sentence:

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing.”

I agree.

The piece, by Drexel University dean and English professor Paula Marantz Cohen, goes on to describe an example of students with very different views getting together, not to chide each other for those views, but, as I like to say, “to agree to disagree agreeably.”

The virtue of the piece leads me to reprint sections of it today in my own blog – as well as to cite a recent example in Congress, perish the thought, of “civil discourse.”

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing,” the Cohen piece says. “I cannot recall a period during my own life when people felt such unmitigated anger at each other—when so much outrage seemed to be directed across party lines. The word ‘liberal’ can summon up an outpouring of ire from one person, while the name ‘Trump’ can throw another into a fit.

“As a university dean and professor, I think it is my duty to encourage conversation, as opposed to vituperative name-calling. This is easier said than done. Yet, I am pleased to report a recent positive experience.

“I hold monthly gatherings with students in my office. I call them Dean’s Teas, though little tea is drunk. My goal, as the group discusses a controversial issue or current event, is to allow different points of view to emerge. This isn’t always successful. Sometimes everyone present is of the same mind, and we end up reinforcing each other’s opinions. Sometimes an unpleasant stalemate emerges. Last month, however, we had a discussion that I think epitomized civil discourse across different points of view.

“It began with an innocuous topic. Since our local football team, the Philadelphia Eagles, had recently won the Super Bowl, I proposed discussing the subsequent fanfare: both the celebration directly after the game and the parade held a few days later. Seven students offered stories of what they did and saw after the victory. We all initially agreed that it was a glorious time for our city, with goodwill emanating from everyone.

“We were basking in civic pride when a latecomer to the group mentioned his sense that an alcohol-fueled crowd, no matter how happy, is a pretty scary thing. He noted that the Super Bowl celebrations eventually devolved into chaos and a certain amount of violence. This observation changed the tenor of the discussion. The students now acknowledged that their experience after the game was not absolutely positive. Several said they eventually went home to avoid the unruly crowds. One admitted she had felt afraid. Others reported seeing destruction and police who were helpless in the face of a deluge of drunken people.

“From there we moved into a discussion of groupthink, which we admitted had been our initial tendency in discussing the Eagles’ victory. This led to a conversation about party politics. It turned out there were a range of viewpoints represented: An engineering student who backed President Trump as a voice for the unheard, a political-science major who had left the Republican Party and become an ardent Democrat after a tour of duty with the U.S. Marines in Iraq, a Republican business student who was focused on economic policy, an education major and strong Christian whose politics were unclear, a digital-media student with libertarian views, a biology major whose family had voted for Mr. Trump but who had opposed him because of his crudeness and sexism, a psychology major who missed President Obama and wished he had done more. (These were my impressions; I don’t know if the students would say I am characterizing them correctly.)

“Although the students had differing perspectives, they felt free to speak their minds with openness and respect toward one another. Perhaps because we had just revised our view of a noncontroversial subject, the Super Bowl celebration, we could see how serious issues might have multiple angles as well. At the end, we all agreed that though we were opposed to some of the opinions voiced in the group, we understood better where they were coming from and didn’t feel the welling of anger that we might have otherwise felt.

“This strikes me as a significant breakthrough. The most destructive aspect of our current politics, I am convinced, is not the position that the other side holds but the anger that this generates in those with different views. That anger is corrosive and dehumanizing. It is the force tearing America apart.”

It is not easy to express equanimity when we are convinced that the other side is profoundly wrong. But moving away from anger and recognizing the multifaceted nature of how people act and express themselves can provide an opening for sympathy, empathy and even compromise.

Those often are considered to be dirty words in today’s destructive arena of politics. If you compromise or show empathy to the other side in a debate, you are considered to have left your senses. The expectation in politics is that you will hew unalterably to your views, even if you get nothing but the satisfaction of, figuratively, standing on a street corner yelling at the top of your lungs.

If you want compromise, as I do, look only to the recent action in Congress to approve a budget bill to avert another government shutdown. It was compromise.

I hesitate to quote Senator Chuck Schumer, almost never an advocate for middle ground, but here is what he said about the budget deal after President Donald Trump threatened to veto it, then signed it.

“It (the bill) certainly doesn’t have everything Democrats want, and it does contain several things Democrats are not thrilled about. The same is true for our Republican friends. That is true of all good compromises.”

One hopes that Schumer’s comment can end up being another example of civil discourse, somewhat like the Drexel University class. But, frankly, in relation to Congress, I am not holding my breath.

Neither was General Colin Powell several years ago when he decided not to run for president as he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”  I share his sentiment…without holding my breath.