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 often wish I had a job suggesting names for cars, hotels and other businesses.

Who has that job anyway?

Who suggested that it would be a good idea for the car company, Mercedes Benz, to come out this year with a car called AMG?

Who decides which letters – or numbers – go well enough together to earn the right to be used? Who advised that some Acura cars should go by the initials, TSX?

Or, as I was in North Seattle over the weekend, who decided that Microsoft would be a good name for a company that has grown, in only a few short years, to be an international behemoth? Or, Apple, with a picture with a bite out of an apple, for a mark?

Or, Facebook even as we anticipate another appearance before a Congressional committee by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Without much previous experience, most observers thought Zuckerberg survived his first day yesterday with mostly flying colors, including in the performance of his company’s stock.

But, back to the name issue – Facebook works well, in part because a made-up name, Facebook, existed long enough and is popular enough to gain huge brand awareness.

I answer again, who knows how company or brand names are decided?

All of this leads me to the story about how the company I co-founded more than 25 years ago, with two partners, got its name. There was no outside research involved; we just thought about the question ourselves.

One of the partners thought a good name for our lobbying and public relations company would be “talisman.”

Here is the dictionary definition of a term that, frankly, is not used much in normal human discourse:

“Anything whose presence exercises a remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions.”

Well, I guess that definition would have worked for a company like ours. But I also thought the word conjured up some kind of magic to do our work, which could not have been farther from the on-the-ground truth.

Our role was not “to exercise remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions,” in much the same way as a magician would do. Rather, it was to work hard to represent our clients and to help them put their best foot forward.

So, with “talisman” in the rear-view mirror, at least my thoughts turned to other options.

For me, there were several:

• Pinnacle, a name that would signal our commitment to reach the top of our business for the benefit of our clients.
• Promontory, another word that would signal the same aspiration.
• Summit,
• On Target, a name that would signal our commitment to work in ways that would be “on target” with the desires and wishes of our clients.
• Or, my favorite, Cornerstone, a name that would signal that our efforts would provide a basis – the foundation cornerstone, if you will – for our clients to move forward.

What did we choose?

None of the above.

Eventually, we landed on using our own partner last names – Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick. All of us had produced, in years before our start in 1990, track records of solid performance in previous jobs.

Perhaps a bit presumptuously, we thought our good work – and our name familiarity – would work well to cement our start in a lobbying and public relations business.

It worked.

Often, the name Conkling Fiskum & McCormick (yes, I was trapped in the middle!) was shortened to CFM, initials which are still used today and which have gained notice for the quality of our work in Oregon and regionally, as well as in our federal lobbying office in Washington, D.C.

When one of the original founding partners – Pat McCormick – retired from CFM a few years ago to start a public relations form with his daughter, we retained the initials, though gave up the name McCormick.

And, in a nod to a specific commitment in our work, we added the word “strategic” to our title, which indicated that we intended to offer strategic, not just tactical, services. Strategy is a big word, connoting a commitment to establishing over-arching goals and objectives before engaging in tactics.

So, we became CFM Strategic Communications. And, for my part, I continue to like the name because it, in fact, underlines the professional perspective we take to our work.

What’s in a name? Not much on its own, but, if you use the name to build brand awareness and credibility, a name can mean a lot. For us, at CFM Strategic Communications, our name has served us well.

**********

Footnote: As the intro to this blog notes, I have retired from CFM Strategic Communications, but I retain the title “emeritus partner” and continue to participate in CFM work as an informal advisor.

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.

The headline in this blog appeared in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor this week. It was followed by this sub-head:

The bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians.

As a former state government manager, I am not opposed to government workers in general as is the case with some on the far right, including one who wrote the letter.  Here are excerpts.

“J.T. Young’s “How to Dig Into the Deep State” (Op-Ed, March 27) is on target in tracing the dangers of an unaccountable, bloated bureaucracy to the balanced powers of the three branches of government designed by our Founders. His observations are not limited to the federal government but extend to state, county and municipal authorities, dramatically swelling the numbers and influence of unelected civil servants. Secondly, these bureaucrats largely serve with little oversight and impunity principally due to the clout of their civil-service unions.

“Finally, the bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians, who repay with overly generous benefit packages and endless backing of a greater bureaucracy. Want to guess which party is privileged by the bureaucratic state?”

I have often thought about what appears to me to an often-unholy alliance between Democrats in power – such as in the Oregon Legislature – and public employee unions that fund that power.

It works like this.

Public employee unions deduct money from worker dues to create huge political contribution funds. Then, they donate the vast majority, if not every dollar, of the funds to Democrats. Then, the Democrats in power strain to provide benefits for those who put them there.

In the extreme, this is a toxic transaction that works against reasonable, middle ground decisions in public policy.

What’s the solution?

Who knows? It is unconstitutional to bar contributions from public employee unions – it is called “free speech” – just as it is unconstitutional to bar contributions from businesses – it also is “free speech.”

My notion is that both sides – public employee unions and business – should devote their political contribution resources to helping to fund the campaigns of those who will do the best job once they win election. And, by the “best job,” I mean finding solutions in the middle, which is often where the best decisions are anyway.

Contributions should not just be based on party affiliation.

Too much to expect? Yes.

But, still there is place for positive aspirations. If there wasn’t, I would stop paying attention to politics.

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.

The headline of this blog also was the headline in a major story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the day before Easter.

Here are excerpts from the article:

“How did this happen? How did a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world become such a dominant force in just two and a half centuries? The historical sociology of this extraordinary phenomenon has been explored by Rodney Stark of Baylor University, who argues that Christianity modeled a nobler way of life than what was on offer elsewhere in the rather brutal society of the day.

“In Christianity, women were respected as they weren’t in classical culture and played a critical role in bringing men to the faith and attracting converts. In an age of plagues, the readiness of Christians to care for all the sick, not just their own, was a factor, as was the impressive witness to faith of countless martyrs. Christianity also grew from within because Christians had larger families, a by-product of their faith’s prohibition of contraception, abortion and infanticide.

“For theologians who like to think that arguments won the day for the Christian faith, this sort of historical reconstruction is not particularly gratifying, but it makes a lot of human sense. Professor Stark’s analysis still leaves us with a question, though: How did all that modeling of a compelling, alternative way of life get started? And that, in turn, brings us back to that gaggle of nobodies in the early first century A.D. and what happened to them.

“What happened to them was the Easter Effect.

“There is no accounting for the rise of Christianity without weighing the revolutionary effect on those nobodies of what they called “the Resurrection”: their encounter with the one whom they embraced as the Risen Lord, whom they first knew as the itinerant Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and who died an agonizing and shameful death on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem. As N.T. Wright, one of the Anglosphere’s pre-eminent biblical scholars, makes clear, that first generation answered the question of why they were Christians with a straightforward answer: because Jesus was raised from the dead.”

Consider the basic proposition in the article.

What is labeled “a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world” became a dominate force in the world in just two and half centuries based on a other-worldly reality: Jesus was raised from the dead.

All of this was driven home to me as my wife and I attended an Easter service at our church, Salem Alliance. For me, it is always one of the most uplifting services of the year because it attests to the reality that infuses our lives with purpose and commitment: Jesus was raised from the dead.

Frankly, the service this year was a little less upbeat than in some past years. Not sure why.

Of course, there was still an emphasis on the reality of the resurrection, but, as an expression of personal priority, I would have been happier if an important hymn would have been sung: Up from Grave He Arose.

Here are the words of the refrain, which still resonate with me nearly every day.

Up from the grave He arose;
with a mighty triumph o’er his foes;
He arose a victor from the dark domain,
and He lives forever, with his saints to reign.
He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Great words – and true ones!

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.

Washington Post writer James Hohmann has an excellent column this week outlining failures of the Trump Administration. He points to six important deficits, which helps to get past the daily dose of Trump tweets and end up with a bigger-picture list of troubles.

Without appropriate attribution, I repeat Hohmann’s list here.

In summary, Hohmann says “Trump is either woefully uninformed or intentionally misleading the American people” about his Administration. As an example, Hohmann points to Trump’s conduct on the DACA issue.

With a trio of temperamental tweets on Easter Sunday and three follow-ups on the next day, Trump announced there will be no deal to save the 700,000 “dreamers” whose futures he put in peril by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Trump also called on Republicans to change the rules of the Senate to pass anti-immigration legislation with a simple majority and threatened to kill the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico does not step up border security.

The president then falsely claimed that there are “big flows of people” who are sneaking into the United States “because they want to take advantage of DACA.”

In truth, to be eligible for the program created by former president Barack Obama, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. Anyone who came after does not qualify.

That leads Hohmann to his summary of huge problems with the Trump presidency.

• This is the improvisational presidency. There is no strategy. There is no message discipline. There is no process. Every modern White House plans out policies it wants to roll out months in advance. There is no calendar now.
• Trump does not understand how Congress works. He’s demanding that Senate Republicans use the “Nuclear Option” to pass his preferred immigration legislation with 51 votes, instead of 60. In February, though, only 36 of the 51 GOP members voted for the bill that reflected his demands.

Anyone with a sense of history who has thought through the institutional dynamics at play recognizes that ending the filibuster would, over the long-term, benefit liberals dramatically more than conservatives. The left wants bigger government and further-reaching laws than the right, and making it easier to pass new laws would enable that.

If only 51 votes are needed to pass bills, Democrats could raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban assault weapons and create single-payer health care next time they get the majority. Mitch McConnell, who got elected to the Senate in 1984, understands this. Trump does not.

• The president does not think through the second- and third-order consequences of his decisions. He’s undeniably motivated by a desire for instant gratification. Trump often appears to be thinking more about the next move than the end game. He also seems, especially on Twitter, more focused on scoring short-term political points than worrying about possible costs down the road.

Just like he does not care that ending the filibuster would hurt his adopted party when Republicans inevitably lose control of the Senate in the future, his provocations toward Mexico are generating ripple effects that could eventually make America less safe.

• Proximity is power in Trump’s White House. Most aides spent Easter with their families, including White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. But Trump was accompanied for the past four days at Mar-a-Lago by senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

The former spokesman for Jeff Sessions in the Senate is the leading advocate for nativist policies in the president’s orbit. More than anyone else, he’s torpedoed the prospect of a bi-partisan breakthrough on immigration by encouraging Trump’s base instincts.

Because Trump lacks many core convictions, he’s often swayed by the last person he speaks with before making decisions. That’s one reason staffers are even more eager to travel with him and be around the Oval Office than during a more traditional presidency.

• He’s heavily influenced by cable news punditry. Trump’s tweets refer to a so-called “caravan” of immigrants who are heading to the United States. He appears to have gotten this formulation from a segment that aired on “Fox & Friends” early Sunday morning, which was based on a BuzzFeed story from Friday about more than a thousand Central Americans – primarily from Honduras – who are on a month-long trip toward the U.S. border.
• Trump is not a reliable negotiating partner because he moves the goal posts. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill find the president difficult to work with because he’s inconsistent about what he wants. He threatened to veto the omnibus spending bill the week before last, after saying he supported it, because there was not enough money for a border wall.

Then he signed it anyway. Trump promised to show “great heart” for the dreamers. At one point, he said he’d protect the DACA kids in exchange for wall money. Democrats reluctantly agreed. Then he changed his demands, insisting that they also go along with massive reductions in levels of legal immigration. Now he tweets: “NO MORE DACA DEAL.”

“Time and time again, the president has walked away from bi-partisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for,” complained Nancy Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

For my part, I think Trump wins support in some quarters for exactly reasons such as those listed above. He doesn’t come across as a political figure who understands how to get things done in a complicated organization – the U.S. government. Rather, he succeeds in the minds of supporters, at least some of the time, exactly because he doesn’t understand government.

He thinks that just because he says it, it is true – and his views should drive the decisions without anyone else’s perspective.

That, of course, is stupid. No one wants a political figure without an agenda, someone who caters to every whim and caprice. But, what we do need is a leader with a sense of ethics, someone who acts with the interests of America in view rather just his own selfish, ill-informed ideas.

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.

This is a week I look forward to every year – the week when the Masters’ Golf Tournament is played on the iconic Augusta National golf course in Georgia.

For me, it’s mesmerizing to watch the tournament on TV. I have no difficulty watching every shot!

And that’s even more true since, in 2015, I had the good fortune to join my daughter, Lissy, and son-in-law, Tim, to attend the tournament in-person

What a great experience!

From Seattle (where my kids) live, we flew to Atlanta, then rented a car for the three-hour drive to Augusta.

There, we were scheduled to meet with a broker who, we hoped, had our Masters’ tickets. It was dark by the time we arrived and we managed to find the broker’s “office,” which actually was his house in Augusta.

He was there, sitting in his living room at his desk while, in the background, friends played pool while eating pizza.

Did he have the tickets? Yes.

My daughter had checked out the broker on-line and he appeared to be reputable. You’re never sure, however, given stories of brokers fleecing ticket buyers.

With our tickets in hand, we moved on to where we were staying, which was a La Quinta Motel about a mile from one of the Master’s tournament parking lots. My daughter checked on-line to learn that the normal, non-Masters’ tournament time price for the motel was $55 per night.

For us, it was $550, but we were glad to pay it to have a convenient place to stay. And, for my part, I don’t begrudge retailers in Augusta trying to make money one week every year.

A few more interesting highlights:

• Parking at the Masters is free. Incredible. Just think how much money the tournament loses by not charging for parking.
• But, then not charging is okay because, the tournament, which has been held at Augusta National for more than 80 years, makes enough money each year to offset the “loss” of parking revenue.
• If you are member of Augusta National, the club adds up its budget every year, whatever it is, then divides that total by the number of members and sends you your bill. Of course, you pay it without complaint.
• Speaking of not charging, or at least cheap prices, food at the Masters’ tournament is not expensive. Staff does a great job of handling long lines and not charging much for what you want, which probably includes a pimento sandwich. I had one – and one was enough!
• If you attend the Masters’ Tournament, you are called a “patron,” not a fan or a member of the crowd.
• Staff at the Masters’ enforce a few simple rules on the grounds, including:

+ You are not allowed to run

+ You are not allowed to wear your golf hat backwards

+ If you are watching on a hillside, you are not allowed to lie down

• Masters’ fans routinely observe qualities of good behavior. They cheer for good shots. They never audibly yell for bad shots.
• If you buy a Master’s chair – almost everyone does – you can place your chair on any hole, then leave to walk the course. While you are gone, another “patron” may use your chair for a time, but, then, when you return, he or she will readily give you back your chair. In that way, the tournament has a built-in set of extra bleachers.

By the way, Jordan Spieth won the tournament in 2015, leading wire-to-wire and shooting a record-tying 270 (−18) to win his first major at the age of 21. He was four strokes ahead of runners-up Phil Mickelson and Justin Rose, both previous major golf tournament champions.

We weren’t there for the finish. After watching parts of the par 3 tournament on Wednesday and the first round on Thursday, we hustled back to Atlanta for the flight home. Then, back in Seattle, we watched the weekend rounds to see Spieth’s win.

[At the par 3 tournament, we had great seats on the sixth hole about 15 yards behind the players. There, former U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza, an Augusta National Golf Club member was the host, welcoming players to the tee. As we watched shots on the sixth hole, we were about 150 yards or so from the fourth green where, at one point, we heard a huge roar. It was because the best golfer in history, Jack Nicklaus, had made a hole-in-one on the fourth green. Every golfer on the sixth green made the long walk to number 4 to congratulate Nicklaus on his feat!]

If Spieth’s win was one for the ages, as it had been described given his youth and wire-to-wire victory, so was our trip to the hallowed ground of Augusta National.

If my daughter were to list the Top 10 events of her life, the Masters’ would be on it. Same for me!