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 friend of mine called me to task recently for, in one of my blogs, using a reference to “ObamaCare” to describe health care reform enacted during the former president’s tenure.

This friend thought – probably properly – that “ObamaCare” was a pejorative reference.

With a nod to my friend, from here on I will use what I consider to be a neutral term – “Federal Health Care Reform.”

I decline to use the other term for health care passed during Obama’s term – the “Affordable Care Act” – because I know that term was coined with an eye to its positive connotation. Of course, the reverse has happened – health care premiums have risen across-the-board.

I also could call Republican efforts to repeal what was passed on Obama’s watch the “McConnell Health Care Resistance,” but that, too, could be taken to be a negative reference to the Senate’s Republican leader who – Mitch McConnell – who, like Obama, did not try to find the smart middle ground.

He and his colleagues on the right side of the aisle only resisted Obama at every turn without any attempt to compromise

In my most recent blog on health care policy, I provided a list of what “my platform” would be if I was involved in a new reform effort. Of course, I won’t be so involved, which, I suspect, will strike many as a good thing.

My platform was intended, not as a final answer, but as opening gambit.

That’s what this country needs to be able to do what it should be able to do, which is reform health care. We need “opening proposals” which would go to group of Republicans and Democrats, who, with Executive Branch involvement, would find middle ground.

It can be done. In the past, at the State Capitol in Salem where I lobbied for about 40 years, I saw and was involved in many compromises, including on health care.

In Washington, D.C., I say a pox on both Congress and the federal Administration, including both parties. All they have produced is disagreement and discord. It’s way past time to find the smart middle.

So, I advocate for “Federal Health Care Reform.”

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.

Ed Koch. Rudy Guilani. Michael Blomberg.

Well known names all.

And, at least to a degree, they deserve credit for policies and approaches over the years that sparked a revival in the City of New York.

One name who also deserves credit is not well-known.

He is Larry Mone, who has announced his retirement after 23 years as executive director of the Manhattan Institute.

Here is what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said about his contributions:

“The city has since undergone a renaissance due in no small part to the ideas generated by the Manhattan Institute (MI). The mayors who pulled this off—Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg —could not have done so without the intellectual ammunition provided by MI.

“Many think tanks labor in Washington. MI has made a particular contribution by focusing on how conservative solutions can solve urban problems. It’s no coincidence that MI published ‘Fixing Broken Windows,’ which popularized the work by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling arguing that addressing pockets of disorder and even small crimes is crucial to effective policing. New York is now the safest big city in America.”

As Mone announced that he was stepping down from his post, he said “he had the privilege of leading a first-rank think tank devoted to free market principles located in the midst of one of the world’s great cities.”

“For New York,” Mone added, “it has generally been a period of rebirth— from the publication of Fixing Broken Windows in 1996, to assisting the city with the development of a municipal counter-terrorism strategy in the aftermath of 9/11, to shaping an effort to rezone large swathes of the city’s long-neglected industrial spaces, the Institute has provided no modest portion of the intellectual energy that brought New York back to its feet. We have also driven major policy change at the state and national levels, leading on issues from school choice and charter schools, to the health care marketplace, to the role of law enforcement in our society. “

To state what may be obvious, I don’t live in New York. And, beyond that, my family knows that I don’t like visiting the city. I am more comfortable in the small town of Salem, Oregon.

I do enjoy watching the TV drama, Blue Bloods, which is set in New York. Among many other subjects, it has included references to the Broken Windows theory of law enforcement.

The facts about the Manhattan Institute’s accomplishments, including advocacy for Broken Windows, are particularly interesting. It has brought a sense of optimism to New York by advocating free market principles – call them “conservative” if you must – to solving problems in the nation’s largest city.

Kudos to MI.

“The Institute must face these dangers,” Mone said in reference to issues where MI had made a difference. “It must continue to lead; it must remain an incubator of fresh insights and a place where forgotten truths can be recovered. Our city, our state, and our whole nation are divided in pitched arguments not only over the details of policy, but the essence of principle.”

To me, one key to MI’s advocacy has been its commitment to free market principles. The point is that such principles can help to produce solutions for cities and counties, not just every-increasing reliance on government largesse.

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 came across a good column in hill.com the other day. It repeated a theme I have been striking for a number of years, including in this blog.

The theme is this: All of us ought to be more interested in the true purpose of politics, which is compromise. We and those who represent us ought to be in the business of finding what I call the “smart middle” because that is where the best solutions lie anyway.

But, today, imbued with energy by the most buffoon-like president in U.S. history – Donald Trump – all of us spend more time, figuratively-speaking, yelling on street corners at the top of our lungs, suggesting that we know the RIGHT answers to all pressing public policy questions.

We also appear to hate those who disagree with us as they yell at the top of their lungs, too. So we avoid even considering where we might be able to meet in the middle.

It is easy to blame politicians, including Trump, for this, and, to be sure, they bear much of the blame. But they represent us and often they feel that, unless they go over-the-top, we won’t listen because we, like them, are prone to discord and disagreement.

Well, I add that, in the first place, listening is a lost art, especially in politics.

Mark Penn, a managing partner in a private equity firm specializing in marketing services for companies and a former pollster for President Bill Clinton, wrote the hill.com piece that caught my attention.

Here is a quick excerpt of what he wrote:

“There’s some very wise political advice in a popular song these days: ‘Oh baby, why don’t you just meet me in the middle?’ America is not a country of the right or the left but a country squarely in the middle and, yet, today’s clickbait-driven world has suffocated the true majority of the country.

“The song goes on: ‘Of just how we got into this mess, got so aggressive. I know we meant all good intentions.’ With shrill rallies on the steps of the Supreme Court protesting nominations before they are even made, our politics is becoming almost a caricature of itself. Even the once-serious New York Times told Democrats that they should ‘Go to the mattresses’ over the Supreme Court nomination, making a reference to the tactics depicted in ‘The Godfather,’ in which rival gangs shoot each other.”

Sound familiar – the “shooting each other” I mean?

Yes, both figuratively and, sometimes, literally.

Penn adds that structural problems in our politics have frustrated the sensible center from solving issues such as immigration. “The most vocal Democratic senators are already running for president and falling over themselves to capture the Iowa caucus electorate, one of the most progressive, far removed from the working-class Democrats in the big states who wind up with too little say in who will be the next Democratic presidential candidate.”

The House Republican Freedom Caucus, on the other end, Penn says, has for years created a breakdown of the budgeting process plagued by delays, government shutdowns and endless continuing resolutions.

“We are nowhere in terms of reforming the process and setting up a capital budget so that investments in the future of the country are treated differently than transfer payments and government salaries. Only such a budget can identify the true current deficit and encourage the right investments in infrastructure.”

Republicans, who often have been unable to agree upon anything amongst themselves, and the current crop of Democratic leaders, have produced a perfect storm of partisanship and gridlock at a time that at least some voters want compromise and action on the tough issues of the day. According to a Harvard Caps/Harris Poll, nearly 90 per cent of the public wants to see politicians reach a consensus rather than stick only to their left-wing or right-wing principles – if extreme positions can be called principles at all.

In the coming mid-term elections, is it too much to ask, as Americans, that we will consider voting for candidates regardless of party affiliation and who will indicate they are interested in solving the nation’s problems from the middle?

The pessimist in me says, yes, it is too much to ask.

The optimist in me says, no, it is not too much to ask.

The realist in me says the jury is out and only the results of the election next fall will tell the tale.

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 recent news developments on health care prompted me to go into the “archives” (no, there is no real archive, just my own random files) to see what I had written about health care many months ago.

The developments were that, (a) the Trump Administration (there’s what word again, “administration,” which suggests, improperly, that Trump has one) is planning to reduce financial support for government-funded efforts to recruit folks to join ObamaCare, and (b) that certain advocates are worried that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could contribute to efforts in court to do away with ObamaCare at the Court.

A number of months ago, under this headline – What Could Constitute Middle-of-the-Road Health Care Reform – I wrote that I felt it was important for me to have suggestions about reform, not just criticisms of ObamaCare.

I also said a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as health care. A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

What might undo Republicans sn’t policy so much as politics. This is where they’d do well to reflect on all that President Obama did wrong. Long before ObamaCare cratered on the merits, it had failed in the court of public opinion—because of both the manner and the means by which it became law.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

If Republicans in Congress would lead an effort to produce solid reform, instead of just carping about ObamaCare, our country would be better for the effort. Plus, if Democrats failed to participate, we’d know that they just were only interested in resisting any Republican entreaty.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what I called, several months ago “four legs of the health care stool.”

1. It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on government mandates and funding. A functioning private marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

I hope those involved in Congress and the Administration will move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach.

Now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families. A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform.

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 don’t have a major prescription for what ails our country, the risks of which have been outlined along in my blogs.

Are we headed for another civil war, as some suggest? That strikes me as a bit of an overstatement, though there is much to be of concern to us as we continue to exist under a U.S. president who capitalizes on every opportunity to stoke fear and discord.

So, without “big thoughts” in my head, I prefer to think that, each of us, in our own way, can influence the direction of this country if we take action, one action at a time. The issue is not yelling at those who disagree with us – or worse, what has been advocated by U.S. Representative Maxine Waters who called for the mobs to hassle those who work for the federal administration.

The challenge, as I have written before, is finding the smart middle ground to save our democracy.

So, without a major prescription, I resort to the simple and straightforward, which, some of you will say, is easy for me.

It is possible, I submit, to take simple actions every day to improve the character of how we live. Without setting myself up as any kind of example, one of the actions I have learned to take is to thank at least one person for helping me each day. Sometimes the thank-you is in person; other times, it is by e-mail or text.

Or, I often think of taking action to help someone else without needing to be thanked because the action is reward in and of itself.

Just think of what such actions could mean if they were taken by everyone, every day! It won’t change the world, but it will make your world a better place.

We wouldn’t just be arguing over what Trump is doing or not doing. We’d be thinking about how to influence others, even in some small way, to live more positively in our world.

As I reflected on this, I came across an article in the Washington Post, an interview with a current poet, Cleo Wade, who is making her mark in this country, though I confess it is a mark I have missed until now.

Here is an excerpt of what I read about Wade in the Post:

“’I love you,’ Wade says before hanging up and turning to embrace a reporter she has just met. Anyone could have been on the other end of the line — she professes her love quite often, directed over the course of our afternoon conversation at everyone from her fans to TV show crushes. A tattoo along Wade’s left thumb reads ‘Love. Why wouldn’t you?’

“But it is not a word the 29-year-old artist uses lightly. She pours the feeling into her work, which largely consists of handwritten poetry dispensed on social media and in her new book, ‘Heart Talk.’ The comment sections below Insta-gram posts of her self-affirming mantras — such as ‘Maybe don’t be the one you are waiting on’ and ‘Don’t let your heart get in the way of new love’ — are littered with heart emoji and grateful messages.

“The work (Wade’s) appeals to modern culture’s desire for brevity while still managing to captivate its audience of primarily millennial women. Somehow, Wade avoids coming off as superficial to them — a seemingly miraculous feat most of her generation’s ‘Insta-gram poets’ have yet to master.

“So brief are Wade’s words that four separate aphorisms fit on the back cover of her book:

“You are more okay than you think.”

“Not every ground is a battleground.”

“Know the value of knowing your value.”

“Baby, you are the strongest flower that ever grew — remember that when the weather changes.”

Superficial, you say. Perhaps, especially in our day of very complicated and controversial matters in life and especially in politics. But, for me, Wade’s aphorisms strike home in a way that mimics what the Bible teaches about everyday life. Know your value as a human being. Know that not every ground is a battleground. And know that God wants you to love others, even if they don’t agree with you or rank as similar to you in status or nationality.

A sound affirmation as we have just passed a major holiday for our country, Independence Day on the Fourth of July!

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 blog may indicate that I have too much time on my hands, which, in MY retirement, may be true. Still…..

1. Why do baseball managers wear baseball uniforms?

As I watched a couple games on July 4, I wondered about this again. Hockey coaches wear suits. Soccer coaches the same. Basketball coaches ditto.

So, why the uniforms for baseball managers? Do they expect to play? I suspect not.

2. Why do baseball players spit so much?

Again, this question came to me as I watched baseball games on the 4^th. There is no answer. Those in other sports do not spew saliva nearly as often as do baseball players.

3. Who thinks of all those names for cars, especially with all the letters?

MDX. TSX. SLK. CLS. GLK. ATS. GTI. MKC. BMW. The list is endless.

I suspect someone or some firm gets paid big bucks to come up with the names, even though they are just collections of letters. But, if you know the name of the individual or firm which has this task, please pass my name on because I am available to help.

As for the basic car names, beyond the letters, I suspect the companies work with marketing guys to find words that reflect the character or perceived character of the car they ultimately want to sell. The nomenclature of the big four in the 1960s and 1970s is a good example of this in its purest form. Mustang, Challenger, Charger, Thunderbird, Impala, and Corvette — all generate a sense of power and dynamism closely related to the image of the car…or at least the image manufacturers thought they were conveying.

4. Why do professional soccer players flop?

I am not an inveterate soccer watcher, but I have taken in a few games on TV during the World Cup? As I watched, I wondered – why are there so many actions that look like flops.

Or, when there is flop, why do the players writhe around on the ground to feign a major injury, then get up a few moments later and run pell-mell up and down the field.

Then I read this in the Washington Post:

“On soccer’s biggest stage, Brazil is taking steps to defend one of the game’s brightest stars from derision and criticism for his over-the-top reactions and predilection for diving to the turf at the slightest touch.

“For Neymar, the criticism reached a crescendo Tuesday after he rocked, rolled and writhed on the ground after Mexico’s Miguel Layun stepped on his ankle. It looked as if he might be seriously hurt this time but, nope, he was up, sprinting down the field shortly thereafter to set up the clinching goal in a 2-0 win. Neymar has, by several accounts, spent around 14 minutes on the ground during this World Cup, so his team and coach have sought to tamp down the criticism and mockery.”

And I add this contrast. In golf, players call penalties on themselves when they are warranted. I have never seen a golfer flop – or, perhaps a better word is “rarely.”

5. Why do golfers or TV golf commentators call metal clubs “woods?”

There is no reason. The clubs are made of metal. Why not just call them metals. Instead of the bulky and inaccurate “metal woods.”

Just wondering!

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 pose the contrast in the headline because…

• I had a discussion with a neighbor who felt the U.S. was heading toward another civil war, and
• I read two articles in the Wall Street Journal, one entitled “Post Cards from a Collapsing Country,” and another under the headline, “Is Democracy in Danger?”

My conclusion: No country lasts forever, so there is always a chance for an end to the U.S. as we know it, but I also think there is a way for cooler heads to prevail so we don’t go down the drain as a country. Plus, another civil war sounds a bit exaggerated to me.

Am I only optimistic? No.

Am I only pessimistic? No.

I prefer to call myself, perhaps with Poly Anna as my companion, a realist, which involves both optimism and pessimism.

Columnist Walter Russell Mead describes his concerns this way in the Wall Street Journal: “This year’s Independence Day does not find the nation in the most celebratory of moods. With one of the most polarizing presidents in American history poised to make the most consequential Supreme Court choice in decades, trade wars looming on all sides, a moral and humanitarian crisis on the southern border, and at least one member of Congress calling for mobs to harass administration officials on the streets, the atmosphere in Washington could hardly be more tense. Some speak of a ‘cold civil war’ between red and blue.”

Then, in the Washington Post, I read a piece by Anna Luhrmann, deputy director of the V-Dem Institute and assistant professor at the University of Gothenburg (Germany), and Matthew Wilson, a visiting researcher at the V-Dem Institute and assistant professor at West Virginia University.

In a major study in 2017, they said they found “that democracy was on the decline — but not as much as many pundits believed.”

“But today,” they emphasized, “we are less optimistic than we were a year ago. Our new report shows that democracy’s decline is gaining momentum: One-third of the world’s population lives in a backsliding democracy.”

So, with that background, I turned to one of my favorite analysts, Gerald Seib, who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal.

His words:

“Important as civility is in public life, something even more important appears to be imperiled in today’s charged political climate: Faith in democracy itself.”

Part of the reason for this is that President Trump intentionally sets out to sow discord and acrimony, including with respect to democracy itself. Then, he tries to capitalize on the discord, contending that only he can solve every problem as he sits at the center of his own universe, setting out to be, it appears, a dictator.

Seib says many Trump supporters believed that their own party’s power brokers worked against them and that the political system, steered by financial institutions and dominated by coastal elites, was stacked against them. So, they turned to Trump.

Since Trump’s election—which, presumably, proved the system wasn’t rigged against him—Democrats have been the ones more likely to say the system is rigged.

More from Seib: “As the nation prepares to celebrate its Independence Day (his piece was written before July 4), it is worth considering the dangers embedded in these grievances. A functioning democracy depends on the belief that the system is fair, that votes count, and that the proper recourse for unhappy citizens is the electoral process. If that faith is lost, the chances that citizens will resort to other, darker means for venting their frustration go up significantly.”

How to turn this around, Seib asks? For starters, he says the nation “needs leaders who, rather than stoke grievances, show they are committed to making the political system fair and effective.”

So, in conclusion, there is much to lament as U.S. democracy appears to be, at least to a degree, on the decline. What’s needed, as Seib said, are leaders who won’t stoke grievances, but work to make the American system of government fair and effective. That would give citizens some assurance that democracy works.

But that, to me, will require a change in the top political office in this country – the one, unfortunately, that Trump now holds.

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 heard several stories lately of persons renouncing their Republican party label, given the outlandish activities of the Trump administration. I use a small “a” in the word administration because I don’t believe Trump administers anything, instead flying only moment-by-moment by the seat of his pants.

One of the stories – I will not name the individual – was a long-time Republican who worked for several Republican political figures.

He couldn’t stand being aligned with Trump by party label.

If I was a Republican, I would have taken the same action – renouncing the label. But, several years ago, when I still worked as a lobbyist, I thought it best to illustrate my independence by becoming “unaffiliated.”

That action meant, obviously, that I didn’t have to renounce anything now.

All of this came to my mind when I read a piece by columnist Max Boot in the Washington Post. It said this:

“’Should I stay or should I go now?’ That question posed by the eminent political philosophers known as The Clash, is one that confronts any Republican with a glimmer of conscience. You used to belong to a conservative party with a white-nationalist fringe. Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe. If you’re part of that fringe, what should you do?

“Veteran strategist Steve Schmidt who ran John McCain’s 2008 campaign, is the latest Republican to say ‘no more.’ Recently, he issued an anguished Twitter post: ‘29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of the Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,’ he wrote. ‘Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.’”

Schmidt follows in the footsteps of Post columnist George F. Will, former senator Gordon Humphrey, former representative (and Post columnist) Joe Scarborough, Reagan and Bush aide Peter Wehner, and other Republicans who have left the party.

As Boot explained his own decision, he noted that “Trumpkins want to transform the GOP into a European-style nationalist party that opposes cuts in entitlement programs, believes in deportation of undocumented immigrants, white identity politics, protectionism and isolationism backed by hyper-macho threats to bomb the living daylights out of anyone who messes with us.”

So, as to label, Republican or Democrat? I say neither. My wife hopes for the rise of a third-party that would enable she and others like her – including me – to vote on the basis of what a person stands for, not party label.

A recent piece in the Oregonian newspaper suggested that open primaries – such as already exist in some local elections in and around Portland — would give unaffiliated voters a chance to help choose candidates for Congress, Oregon Governor and the Legislature.

In such open primaries, anyone taking 50 per cent or more of the vote wins. If no one does, the top two face off in a general election.

The numbers of unaffiliated and third-party voters are already a large voting bloc. For me, that is good news if unaffiliated and third-party voters cast their ballots with a commitment to support candidates who will represent us well as they work to find the smart middle.

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.

Before I embarked on a professional career, I took almost any job to make ends meet, both as I headed toward college, as well during my college years.

That included delivering newspapers, pumping gas and working as a janitor.

I report this, not to come across as some kind of holier-than-thou individual, but to illustrate what, for me, mimicked a headline in the Wall Street Journal the other day.

It was this:

My Advice to Grads: Start Mopping

Doing work that feels beneath you always pays off in the end.

Good advice, I say.

After you are done with schooling, there will be plenty of time to seek better jobs.

Here’s more from the Wall Street Journal piece written by Tyler Bonin, a high school economics teacher in North Carolina:

“Every commencement season, thousands of graduates are treated to something I (the writer) call ‘standard keynote language.’ Everyone can recognize these tiny, easily digestible nuggets of wisdom: ‘Don’t be afraid to take risks,’ or ‘Be courageous.’ And the classic: ‘Follow your passion.’ This is sound, albeit clichéd, advice. What would I recommend? ‘Mop your way to success.’

“A mop, used for cleaning floors, isn’t a magical tool for success. Rather, it is a reminder that there should be no task considered beneath you.

“Certainly there is a time to be bold, but there is also a time for humility. A task once considered beneath you could actually be the key to your success. Do the job nobody wants, because, believe it or not, somebody appreciates it. Volunteer to learn and to provide value to others. Find a dream job by first doing the rote tasks in that field, without complaint. Pick up a mop.”

I did that. I picked up a mop – twice. The first time was when I lived in Portland, Oregon and the work involved cleaning up a pizza parlor. Imagine the leftover pieces I found on the floor!

The second time was when I worked in a hospital in Seattle, Washington while in college.

Frankly, both jobs taught me a stark truth: I didn’t want those jobs to be my livelihood. They sparked a continuing interest in me, as the author above put it, “to follow my passion,” which was writing for newspapers (which, as the preamble to this blog indicates, I did before embarking on other aspects of a career that always involved writing).

Lessons learned by holding onto a mop.

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 question in the headline have occupied me for a number of years because I was both a Christian and involved in politics.

Those thoughts have become even prevalent over the last few days as all Americans have watched a travesty – actions by the Trump “Administration” to separate children from their immigrant parents at U.S. borders. Whatever you may think about immigration in general, the separation policy is unconscionable, even though it appears that Trump has stopped the most objectionable parts of the policy only, I add, to leave sequestration in place, at least for families.

When I served for about 12 years as the moderator (chair) of the Salem Alliance Church Board of Directors, I had the good fortune to work with an excellent senior pastor there, Morris Dirks. We were Christian brothers, as well as “almost” earthly brothers, which meant we were fast friends in managing a large church under God’s overall leadership.

One of our commitments was to avoid getting our local church wound up in political issues. We always believed that it would be better to call persons at church to a greater commitment to God’s leading than to try to persuade them to a particular, collective position on political issues.

After all, Christians are not supposed to have one, specific position. They are called to make their own decisions, even as, according to Scripture, they respect the idea of government.

In our church, our principles could be summarized as follows:

• Stay out of individual political issues
• Call Christians to uphold high scriptural standards
• Call Christians to live out those standards

We also adopted one additional aspect of this policy. It was that, if the senior pastor, who occupied the pulpit most of the time, felt led of God to deal with what could be described as an issue with political overtones, he should do so only after consulting with key members of the Governing Board, if not the full Board itself. That way he would have a collection of wise counsel before venturing into an area which would not be a normal priority for church teaching – politics.

As I reflected on this, I recently encountered two pieces of information that caused me to consider whether these church commitments were still effective – and I came to the conclusion that, yes, they are, even though, in retirement, I am no longer involved in leadership at Salem Alliance.

In one case, an eclectic group of pastors and other church leaders convened recently to counter what they feared – rightly, I add – the polarizing times in which we live with Donald Trump as president. The group produced this list of commitments, as it was put, “to reclaim Jesus.”

• Because we believe each human being is made in God’s image and likeness, we reject the resurgence of white nationalism and racism in our nation.

• Because, in Christ, we believe there is to be no oppression based on race, gender, identity or class, we reject misogyny, the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment and assault of women that has been revealed in our culture and politics.

• Because we believe how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself, we reject the language and policies of political leaders who would debase and abandon the most vulnerable of God’s children.

• Because we believe that truth is morally central to our personal and public lives, we reject the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our political and civil life.

• Because we believe that Christ’s way of leadership is servant-hood, not domination, we reject any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule.

For me, these commitments represent, not a guide for church insertion into politics, but rather a personal guide for how we, as individuals, should consider and live in our world.

Against this backdrop, I also read a column by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. Gerson, who often writes about religion, offered these words:

“Priests and pastors are generally not experts on immigration policy and should not pretend to be. Many of the debates surrounding this issue are prudential rather than moral. There is no specifically Christian position on, say, the building of a border wall. It may be stupid and wasteful, but it is not inherently unethical to make a partially walled border into a fully walled border.

“But religious leaders have a moral duty to oppose the dehumanization of migrants — something that violates the vision of human dignity and equality at the heart of the Christian faith (and other faiths as well). Human beings, in this view, are not merely arrogant hominids, programmed for sex and death. They bear God’s image — and, in the Christian view, their flesh somehow once clothed God himself. This means that cruelty, bullying and oppression are cosmic crimes.”

Gerson’s words are exactly on point.

I say it’s time for real Christians to uphold real scriptural roots – and to expect their leaders from a pulpit to oppose the dehumanization of “a people” – call them immigrants, if you will. Use Christian roots to assess political issues, including immigration, on an individual basis and call for a return to God’s principle that all people are created equal.

I do not argue for collective political activity through a church or on the basis of an individual’s Christian commitment. I do argue for relying individually on the important principles outlined above.

Side with God!