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 I have written previously in this space, one of my favorite quotes can be attributed to then-presidential candidate Colin Powell when he said he would not run for president because “he bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Powell’s assessment would be even prevalent today than when he uttered the phrase more than 10 years ago.

I came across the word again this week in a column by one of my favorite writers these days, Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:

“Why blame Maxine Waters ?

“The combustible, tenured congresswoman from California is being run through the tut-tut wringer for calling down her version of jihad on an elected president.

“’If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station,’ Representative Waters said in her normal habit of discourse—a shout—‘you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them.’

“This isn’t an original thought. Ever since the election returns unexpectedly said Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton, the left hasn’t needed marching orders from Maxine Waters. The American left is always cocked, locked and ready to go into the streets, shout someone down, confront, harass and punish.

Henninger says “the media is calling this ‘the civility feud,’ though the word “civility,” he adds, “looks quaint and innocent among this crowd.”

History suggests that centrist and independent American voters become uncomfortable when the news is dominated, as increasingly it is now, by the left pushing politics by uncomfortable means. Voters in the past have turned rightward for solutions.

One case involved Richard Nixon — in my view one of the worst presidents in U.S. history – who rode the “law and order” issue into the White House during a publicly disordered time. Ronald Reagan ran on order, too, though, clearly, history reflects far more credit on Reagan than on Nixon.

Eventually, Democrats saw they would continue to lose elections if they nominated left-wing presidential candidates like George McGovern or Walter Mondale, and so they turned to centrist Southern governors such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Henninger says “the X-factor for the Democrat path back to national power is Donald Trump. The always-whirling Trump is capable of spinning himself off his gyroscope. What he has going for himself is that his opponents are crazed. Trump knows this, because he keeps feeding their mania.

“The Trump opposition justifies what it says and does — such as equating the border actions with Auschwitz — as a moral imperative.

“Classical conservatives, including the Founders, have warned that a society too far gone on political obsessions and animosities would put its ability to function at risk. We’re just about there, unable or not even willing to let political normality exist.

“When the right tips over, it mostly gets grouchy, spending its energies defining people out of conservatism. The problem for the Democrat Party is that its left wing’s frenzies can turn ugly. If politics doesn’t go their way, they go into the streets, or invade a restaurant to shriek at a cabinet secretary.”

As evidence, Henninger pointed to examples in Oregon where two activist groups — Occupy ICE PDX and Direct Action Alliance — shut down the federal immigration-service building in Portland. “If they arrest us on federal property,” said one organizer, “we’ll shut the roads down. You can’t stop us.”

Henninger concludes that, if the choice ends up being between two brands of incivility, the Democrat far left and the Republican far right, the Republicans will win, though neither extreme is worthy of praise.

For my part, my fond hope – call me Pollyanna – is that the choice would not come down to two brands of incivility. What we need is civility in politics where one side sees the other side and decides, yes, there should be a smart middle. Then, they agree to find it.

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 conversation with friends the other day left me in an uncertain mood.

They said they felt the country was headed in the same direction as before the Civil War broke out.

I took the statement, at least initially, as a bit of an overstatement. But, upon reflection, even if not the character of pre-Civil War days, the state of the country is in disarray. And, the sides – let’s call them the far left and the far right – seemingly would just as soon shoot each other as try to find agreement.

It’s certainly true in politics, where I spent the majority of my career, as indicated in the preamble to this blog. Like General Colin Powell said several years ago, I bemoan the loss of civility in politics.

Worse, compromise, the real nature of politics, has become a dirty word.

All of this came back to me this weekend as I read a column by Barton Swaim in the Washington Post. The headline was as follows:

Politics: Postcards From a ‘Collapsing Country’

To every man his own take on why voters are angry and the nation is in free fall.

Swain went on to write this:

“If you write about politics these days, you’ve got to write at least one book or article explaining the 2016 election, and in particular why voters were so angry. The proof that they were angry, of course, is that they elected Donald Trump —only I can’t recall a presidential election when we weren’t told that voters were angry. Bear in mind, too, that the candidate who won the most votes did so by embracing the status quo with all her might. Let’s accept the premise, though, and ask: Why the anger?”

Author Steven Brill, who wrote “Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall—and Those Fighting to Reverse It,” says “respect for basic institutions, especially the government, are far below the levels of a half century ago, and in many cases have reached historic lows. So deep is the estrangement that 46.1 per cent of American voters were so disgusted with the status quo that in 2016 they chose to put Donald Trump in the White House.”

“Since the middle of the previous century,” Brill writes, “America and its elite institutions, mainly of the nation’s most prestigious prep schools, Ivy League universities, and top-tier banks and law firms, have increasingly prided themselves on their meritocratic principles: Who you are and where you come from matter less than what your gifts and discipline enable you to do. A meritocratic society places the best and brightest at the top, and the best and brightest are very good at protecting their gains and positions.

“The most talented, driven Americans,” Brill continues, “chased the American dream—and won it for themselves. Then, in a way unprecedented in history, they were able to consolidate their winnings, outsmart and co-opt the government that might have reined them in, and pull up the ladder so more could not share in their success or challenge their primacy.”

American meritocrats, he contends, then become aristocrats by creating systems of laws and regulations that protect their wealth and status and ensure that others can’t rise or compete.

That may be a decent analysis of where we are as a country today. But there may be many other factors that produce the tension between the left and the right. One is the tendency to believe that you are right and the other side is wrong, so there is no alternative but, figuratively, to stand on the street corner and yell at the top of your voice.

My wish is that we would find a way to bridge our differences – especially in politics – and reach agreement on a range of tough issues. One way is to practice this old saw – to realize “that what you see depends on where you sit and that others may sit elsewhere and see things differently.”

So, remember that different viewpoints are the reality and, if you recognize them respecting the right to disagree, so much the better. Perhaps. I, for one, refuse to yield to the instinct that a new civil war is the only option.

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.

Late-night TV host Jimmy Fallon asked a good question the other night as he started his monologue.

“Before we begin,” Fallon said, ‘I just want to give a shout out to our show’s No. 1 fan: the president of the United States!’

“The audience laughed appreciatively. ‘As you may have heard, last night, the president of the United States went after me on Twitter,’ Fallon said. ‘So Melania, if you’re watching, I don’t think your anti-bullying campaign is working.’

“When I saw that Trump insulted me on Twitter, I was gonna tweet back immediately, but I thought, ‘I have more important things to do.’ Then I thought, ‘Wait, shouldn’t he have more important things to do? He’s the president! What are you doing? You’re the president! Why are you tweeting at me?!’”

I agree.

With immigration issues flying around, with trade threats harming U.S. relations around the world, with those trade wars roiling the U.S. economy, you would think Trump would find more important actions to take than to send a tweet berating a late-night TV host.

No.

He heads off to flout Fallon for an interview a number of years ago in which Fallon took his hands to Trump’s hair.

Speaking of trade war surprises, consider this – even though, when I started to write this blog, it was going to be only about Trump tweets.

Trump expressed shock late this week when Harley Davidson, Inc. decided to move some of its motorcycle plant operations overseas because of trade war threats from the European Union.

“In February 2017, Trump welcomed Harley executives and workers to the White House, where he celebrated the company’s success and predicted more to come. ‘Thank you, Harley-Davidson, for building things in America,’ the president said then. ‘And I think you’re going to even expand.’”

Well, Trump, expansion now is occurring overseas!

All of this is more Trump than we should be able to tolerate. We should expect better things from the president, no matter who that person is.

For one thing, I say take Trump’s twitter machine away from him and force him to focus on the process and product of U.S. actions (to use a phrase from one of my previous blogs).

Then, expect him to be more careful about his trade war threats, which, even if it is possible the outcome down the road turns out to be positive, they hurt U.S. business interests in the interim. Just ask Harley Davidson.

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 read a story recently in the Wall Street Journal which reported that a Member of Congress was considering holding his vote on President Trump’s administrative nominees until the president relents on his intentional trade conflicts, especially with China.

The issue in question involved Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake who said, “I think myself and a number of senators, at least a few of us, will stand up and say, let’s not move any more judges until we get a vote, for example, on tariffs.”

According to multiple media reports Flake might just be successful as he contemplates “retiring” from the Senate and running against Trump in 2020.

A key question is this: Is it appropriate to mix issues, holding a vote on one hostage until you get what you want on another?

As vexing as the answer may be to some, the answer is yes. And I say that after my career as a state lobbyist in the public and private sectors for about 40 years.

I know some will say, the answer should be no. Let each issue be decided on its own merits.

I understand the contention, but let me provide an example of how combining issues worked when I was a state lobbyist.

I represented Providence Health & Services, one of the state’s largest employers and a major provider of health care services to Oregonians around the state. [It was a pleasure for our firm to represent Providence because of its credibility in providing health care services, including to Oregonians who could not do so on their own. High values always underscored Providence actions.]

Starting in 2003, the State of Oregon proposed what became a controversial issue then and now – taxing hospitals, taking the payments into state coffers, then using the larger supply of state general fund dollars to generate increased federal matching dollars under the joint state-federal Medicaid program.

On one hand, the deal made sense – increase the amount of money to fund health care services, good for all Oregonians. On another hand, the deal has fallen apart over time because there was no way to assure that the “new money” which came to Oregon could be devoted to health care programs. It often was siphoned off to fund other state programs.

But back to 2003 when hospital representatives – I was included in the group – negotiated terms of the deal with the Governor’s Office and the Department of Human Services.

We insisted on this aspect of the deal: In return for allowing hospitals to be taxed – we could have imposed the tax increase, which required a three-fifths vote to pass in both the House and the Senate – we contended that several other troubling and expensive hospital regulatory bills would have to die.  Our contention was that, if we had to accept higher taxes, we should not be subject to new, expensive regulations.

Regulators didn’t like our advocacy, but it clearly was in the best interest of hospitals which would have to agree to new, higher taxes, not to mention the likelihood that, once on the books, few taxes are removed.

I could point to a number of other case histories where merging issues occurred at the Capitol in Salem, just as they do in the Nation’s Capitol. On one hand, a purist could say, no, don’t let that happen. On the other hand, in the real world of considering legislation, merging issues is entirely appropriate.

If I was king for a day, I would place some kind of limit on the hostage-taking to avoid what appears to be under way in Congress, which is that hostage-taking rules the day apparently for ever, which means action is not likely to occur.

So, I say to Flake, just as I would say to others involved in merging issues in Salem or Washington, D.C., do your best, but find a way to take action, not just stalemate.

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.

One of my favorite sayings as I worked in and around government for more than 40 years was this:

Government should be involved in a process that produces a product.

Those in government should realize that process is not an end in itself. It should produce a product.  Note the twin aims — process and product.

Too often, that is not the case and government gets bogged down in process and goes no farther, at least in part because many in government know that they will survive the lack of producing much of anything.

For the many, the issue is not about what results can be produced; the issue is about bureaucratic survival.

But, this blog is about something else.

It relates to a column by Marc Fisher in the Washington Post, which contained these paragraphs:

“Trump is very different from other presidents in that he has no regard for process,” said Bruce Miroff, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Albany who studies presidential leadership. ‘So it’s unlikely that anything will reach him through the usual Washington process. He likes to make decisions by instinct, and that allows prominent celebrities to solicit him for their causes. He gets to play the regal role, issuing decisions from above them.’”

“As Trump entered the White House,” Fisher continues, “experts suggested that he’d have to shift gears from creating spectacles to the non-glamorous work of governing. But Trump thought that the same tactics that got him elected would serve him well in office.

“In New York, Trump had realized that his celebrity protected him from consequences for his affairs and corporate bankruptcies. Similarly, in the White House, he understands that the same excesses that made him steady tabloid fodder for decades exempt him from the standards usually applied to politicians. He is, instead, judged as sports and entertainment celebrities often are, permitted a range of behavior that would bring down a politician.”

Sounds like Trump, right?

He flies by the seat of his pants, without regard to normal government processes. In the case of, say, pardons, the products he produces are more related to meeting with Kim Kardashian than they are to displaying the normal acuity about deciding whether to issue a pardon.

Or, consider this from Dan Balz, one of the most experienced political observers in Washington, D.C. as he writes for the Washington Post:

“Not since the rollout of his original travel ban in the opening days of Trump’s presidency has a policy — two policies actually — been put in place with such haste and lack of planning. Put aside the contradictory and conflicting descriptions by administration officials (it was a deterrent; no, it was not a deterrent; it was policy; no, it was not policy). The decision to enforce ‘zero tolerance’ and then suddenly undo it provided a textbook example of how not to govern.

“The president has remained defiant and in denial throughout. He defended the policy without defending it, insisting that it was the fault of others, namely Democrats. He insisted that changing the policy was out of his hands, that it required legislation. Either he didn’t understand what his administration had done or chose to make his arguments in the face of contrary facts.

“He insisted and insisted that he was locked into the policy of zero tolerance that resulted in separating children, until even for him, the pressure became too much. Then he suddenly backed down — a rarity for an individual whose style and personality has long been to double down in the face of criticism, to fight harder and never admit error or mistakes.”

So, process that produces a product? With Trump, no. He ignores process and then often produces a policy based on defiance and ego, sometimes with celebrities in mind, which he, himself, believes he still is – a celebrity.

As Americans, we deserve better.

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 no idea how Trump Administration – there’s that word again, administration, which implies that Trump and his minions are organized rather than flying by the seat of their pants – can defend what it is doing with immigrants.

No matter how you cut it, separating children from parents at borders makes no sense. It is inhumane, as many photos have shown literally.

Of course, Trump, in his characteristic fashion, always blames someone else instead of taking responsibility for his own actions or for those who work for him.

No, it’s the Democrats he will say with a straight face. No, it’s the media he will add.

Never him!

In a late action, after a major hue and cry over the policy to separate children from their parents, Trump did sign an executive order to end the practice – at least theoretically. But, is it really the end? Sort of. What Trump is now doing is locking up children with their parents, marginally better, I guess.

Before the executive order, here is the way the Washington Post put it in its “fact checker” column:

“President Trump — a man already known for trafficking in mistruths and even outright lies — has been outdoing even himself with falsehoods in recent days, repeating and amplifying bogus claims on several of the most pressing controversies facing his presidency.

“Since Saturday, Trump has tweeted false or misleading information at least seven times on the topic of immigration and at least six times on a Justice Department inspector general report into the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. That’s more than a dozen obfuscations on just two central topics — a figure that does not include falsehoods on other issues, whether in tweets or public remarks.”

Some of the regular citizens to whom I spoke suggested they thought Trump was effecting – and should continue – the family separation practice in order to prod action out of Congress to get what he really wants, which is a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

If that is really true, I find that approach to be abhorrent – sacrificing children for a wall.

In the “Wonder Land” column by Wall Street Journal’s deputy editor of the editorial page, Daniel Henninger, he wrote this:

“For more than 30 years, our ‘solution’ to the illegal immigration problem has been to throw wave after wave of federal bureaucracies at it. What could go wrong? More accurately, how could it not get worse?

“Among the proposals to emerge from the Senate this week were . . . build more detention facilities and hire 375 more immigration judges. That’s the answer: More swamp!

“We have run the experiment on letting the federal bureaucracies solve the illegal-immigrant problem and have proved conclusively: They can’t. So why not give the market a chance to solve it?

“Give these adults work visas that let them enter and exit the country at legal entry points as the labor market requires. A reason they bring their children with them is that if they leave the U.S. now, there is no legal way to re-enter for work.

“Yes, there are details, but surely this market-based solution would be easier to administer than the never-ending travesty at the Mexican border.

“We can either let the world’s strongest economy control the immigration flow, or let politicians and bureaucrats keep trying. The latter will produce another bog of embarrassment, like the one we all stared at in Texas this week.”

Finally, a solution that begins to make sense.

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.

First, let it be said that Phil Mickelson is one of my favorite professional golfers in a sport I love.

Second, what Mickelson did on Saturday in the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills in New York defies explanation.

Do I need to add my comments to what already is under way on regular and social media? Perhaps not.

But, I will anyway.

Here is what happened. On the 13^th hole on Saturday, when it had been reported that the United States Golf Association (USGA) “lost the course” because of a combination of heat and wind, Mickelson putted his ball toward the hall and, then, when it missed, he took a couple walking steps, then ran after the ball as it continued to roll past the hole.

And, then, as the ball was still moving toward a position that would have been off the green, he hit it back toward the hole.

After the round, Mickelson explained his actions by saying, “At that time, I didn’t feel like going back and forth and hitting the same shot over. I took the two-shot penalty and moved on. It’s my understanding of the rules. I’ve had multiple times where I’ve wanted to do that. I just finally did.”

But there was an ensuing controversy over whether Mickelson deserved a two-stroke penalty – that’s what he received – or whether he should have been disqualified.

In other words, did the punishment fit the crime?

It was reported that Mickelson called USGA executive director Mike Davis on Saturday evening and offered to withdraw. But the USGA determined that the two-stroke penalty was enough punishment, and Mickelson completed the tournament Sunday with a 69, finishing in a tie for 48th place.

According to Phil’s wife, Amy, who communicated with social media reporters, her husband called the USGA because “he really did want to understand how the rule operates and because he didn’t want to play in this championship if he should have been disqualified.”

The USGA then clarified that, Mickelson made a stroke at a moving ball, and so it would have to apply a rule violation for a two-stroke penalty. That’s different, the USGA said, if Mickelson had deliberately stopped the ball or whacked it in another direction or something like that, which, if true, could have meant disqualification.

All of this revolves around THE golf rules, which are very complicated and arcane (though it should be added that, as of May 1, 2019, the rules will be updated and made more simple). Some believed the USGA was displaying deference to one of golf’s most popular figures by making a very narrow interpretation of the rule – Rule 14-5 – which says, “A player must not make a stroke at his ball while it is moving.”

To me, after watching video of the incident, it looked like Mickelson took an intentional swing at the ball while it was moving, which could have fallen under another rule – Rule 1-2 – which says that “a player must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play.”

The penalty for a violation of rule 1-2 is also a two-stroke penalty, but the language adds another provision stating that, “In the case of a serious breach of rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.” A serious breach could occur if the action allows a player to “gain a significant advantage,” and the advantage gained by Mickelson was arguably just that since he prevented his ball from sliding off the green, after which he would have to chip it back up, putt again and possibly lose even more strokes.

On Sunday morning, the USGA issued another statement clarifying its position, contending that because Mickelson “made a stroke at the ball, as opposed to another act to deflect or stop the ball in motion,” his act specifically fell under rule 14-5 and not 1-2. Thus, the USGA said, there were no grounds for disqualification.

The USGA’s comments came after Mickelson’s “moment of madness,” as Saturday playing partner Andrew Johnston described it. The action became not only the talk of the tournament, but of the entire sports world and beyond.

I guess I am part of the “sports world” because of this blog on the situation, which, while not earthshaking, is of particular interest to those of us who play golf for recreation.

The issue may revolve around the definition of the word “intent.” Did Mickelson intend to gain an advantage by hitting the moving back toward the hole? His own comments indicate that, in fact, he did intend to do what he did for its advantage.

So, for me, if I would have been a rules official on the scene, I would have imposed disqualification. Or, when Mickelson called to ask about the situation, I would have said it would be better to withdraw “to protect the field.”

But, because this ranks as “moment of madness,” not a routine or something more serious, Mickelson still is one of my favorite golfers.

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 the proudest moments of my life were to be on hand in the delivery room when our two children were born.

It is now about 42 years ago since my son, Eric, was born and he has become a great adult with a great family – wife, Holly, and granddaughter, Drew. They live about 10 houses away from us here in Salem, so we see them often, which is a treat.

About four years later, my daughter, Melissa – we call her Lissy – was born and she, too, has become a great adult, with a great husband, Tim, and two children, Mason and Kate. They live in Woodinville, Washington, so we don’t see them as often, but, when we do, we have a great time.

With this entire family, my wife has made it a priority “to make memories” – which, for us, has meant trips to La Quinta in California, Hawaii and Scotland, the homeland of my wife’s parents.

Let me emphasize the phrase “making memories.”

It has been a phrase my wife has used in planning all of our trips and it has proven to be more than true. Almost every day, I take time to reflect on our trips and treasure the fond memories of all of them.

We have great pictures of our trips and my daughter even has made our Scotland trip into a bound book!  This occurred when my daughter and her entire family headed to Scotland to make up for a trip she missed.  We had as great time there — teeing off on the first hole of the Old Course in St. Andrews, playing on the Castle Stuart Course (my daughter’s last name is Stuart) and being on hand at Muirfield to watch Phil Mickelson win the Open — the British Open.

With son, Eric, many of the memories over the years relate to our shared passion for golf.  When he first beat me, he was 12.  That bothered me, but every time since the first one, I have been incredibly proud of him.

I feel incredibly lucky to have such a positive relationship with our children. And I never mind if I am “relegated” to the last place in my family – after my wife, two children, their spouses, three grandchildren and our dog, Callaway. [Yes, he is a golfing dog!]

On this, the eve of Father’s Day, the fond memories come flooding back.

Last out of nine is a good place!

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 was sitting in the backyard of a friend’s house the other night, having a drink of wine, and, as usually happens, our conversation turned to politics.

All of us bemoaned what I call “the loss of civility in politics,” which means that folks on the left often hate those on the right and those on the right often hate those on the left. It appears that never the twain shall meet.

The risk is that the tension could and sometimes does develop into something more critical, even open fighting between sides. And “hate” is a word that describes the abyss.

Well, I don’t know that I have a prescription for what ails us as a society when it comes to political differences, but, perhaps a bit ostentatiously, I do have prescriptions for better government, prescriptions that could be supported by the left and the right.

• Prescription #1: All of those in government, especially those in elected or top executive positions should, in response to proposals for more government programs, always ask whether the proposal represents an area where government should be involved. And, those who ask the question always should be prepared to answer no.
• Prescription #2: All of those in government should subject all government programs to what I call “the results test.” Are the programs producing results that warrant continuing expenditures? Some call this the ethic of “return on investment.”

In my long experience in government, I have seen these two prescriptions ignored for much too long.

To repeat what I wrote above: It is logical, given limits on spending, for the basic question to be asked – should government have a role in this perceived problem? Then, if the critically constructed answer is yes, any program should only be started if it is put to the results test.

Let me provide just one example of how this could work.

Back when I represented Youth Villages, formerly ChristieCare, I had the good fortune to work with the executive director there, Lynne Saxton, who had huge credibility in her role.

On behalf of her organization, we decided to advocate for legislation that would direct the State Department of Human Services (DHS) to place renewed emphasis on “strengthening, preserving and reunifying families” to avoid the need for expensive foster care.

A key here was that, in lobbying for what became Senate Bill 964, we insisted on subjecting any new program started by DHS under SB 964 authority to implement the “results test.”

The language said this: “Establish by rule client-focused functional outcome measures for Strengthening, Preserving and Reunifying Families programs. These outcomes measures may be used as a basis for funding programs and negotiating contracts.”

We were told by the Legislative Counsel Office, which drafted the bill, that it was the first time an emphasis on required outcomes had been inserted into law governing DHS.

This was a solid commitment to improved government – and it ended up passing the legislature.

All of us should want this. Is it too much to ask to question whether government should mount new programs and, if the answer is yes, then any new program should be expected to rely on a “results test?”

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.

Okay, let me dispense with this first. It is nothing if not presumptuous for me, from Salem, Oregon, to comment on international relations under one of the most mercurial, unpredictable leaders of all time – Donald Trump.

I saw a word this morning that reminded me of Trump – bloviated. It means “to talk aimlessly and boastingly.”

Now, I might say that at least the word “boastingly” describes Trump to a T. Is he aimless?

No one knows…yet.

An analytical piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning drove all of this home to me as reporters reflected on the Trump international relations style on the eve of his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

As Trump flew to Singapore, he stunned allies by refusing to sign a communique at the end of a Group of Seven summit meeting in Canada and castigating the summit host, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for criticizing U.S. trade policy.

Including that recent development, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) listed six methods to describe Trump’s foreign policy approach (and the amplification in each case also is based on WSJ reporting).

Method 1: “I Alone Can Fix It

Trump made this declaration at the 2016 Republican Natonal Convention. Twenty-two months later, on May 8, 2018, he said alone at a small wooden desk in the White House basement. As television cameras zoomed in, only a few staffers from his innermost circle watched from afar in the Diplomatic Room as he dramatically signed a stack of documents withdrawing America from the seven-nation deal aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

It was a display of showmanship the president himself devised, employing stagecraft learned on reality TV, administration officials said. After two years opposing the deal, he wanted the world to see him putting pen to paper.

Method 2: Soften Up the Opposition and Keep it Off Balance

Early in the administration, even top advisers inside the White House were concerned the president was being too confrontational with North Korea, said current and former administration officials. The speech prepared for Trump to deliver to the United Nations in September sought to isolate Kim Jong Un. The president departed from the draft and turned it personal, calling Kim “rocket man” on a “suicide mission.”

Method 3: Set Deadlines—Real or Imagined—to Create Pressure

No one loves negotiating against deadlines more than Trump, who proudly uses them as weapons. “He never gives an order without a deadline,” an administration official said.

Method 4: Don’t Calm the Waters—Roil Them

Last year, Trump faced a deadline that collided with a campaign promise, his vow to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as stipulated in a 1995 law.

The law allowed presidents to sign a waiver and postpone the move six months at a time, something every previous president did routinely. In June 2017, Trump deferred to his national-security team, said people familiar with the discussions, signing a waiver as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, mapped out a Middle East peace plan.

Six months later, Trump met again with the team. This time, he was intent on keeping his campaign promise, even though most of his advisers, including Kushner, continued to raise concerns about the decision, these people said.

Trump asked Kushner to assess what impact the embassy move would have on his diplomatic efforts, said one of the people. Kushner “told the president it would add uncertainty to the peace process and create short-term disruption,” the person said, but “thought it would be net beneficial over the long-term.”

Method 5: Make it Personal

Trump sees his personality as key to securing foreign agreements. It is a method born of a career in real estate, current and former administration officials said, where personal chemistry can hold outsize importance.

When Chinese President XI Jinping visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in April 2017, the president shattered the careful choreography—something that took weeks of international negotiations—surprising the Chinese by immediately seeking a one-on-one meeting with Xi.

Method 6: Use “Maximum Pressure” and Be Prepared to Walk Away

Trump embraced a “maximum pressure campaign” on North Korea. Other foreign leaders haven’t been spared either.

A signature Trump tactic is to respond to every attack with a stronger counterstrike. When Beijing threatened to match his tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods, he threatened to put tariffs on $100 billion.

CONCLUSION: With all due respect to the Wall Street Journal – and I mean that in the most positive sense possible – this list of Trump’s international relations approach strikes me as exactly on target, at least in the sense of description.

Will his seat of the pants, bloviated approach work? Only time will tell.