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, remember, is one of three departments I direct with full freedom to do what I want. Which makes me a dictator.

From Dick Hughes in his column, Capital Chatter:  “My only advice as the campaigns progress is to be cautious about labeling anyone. Labels say as much about the person doing the labeling as they do about the person being labeled.

Comment: Hughes has it right again in his advice to be cautious about labels. They rarely work to describe someone’s real character.

One recent example occurred when a friend of mine said, “all Republicans should be ashamed that they support Trump.” Well, let me say the label doesn’t work. I know many Republicans don’t support Trump and a few have renounced the Republican label as a result of the president’s conduct. So, it should have been “some Republicans,’ not the label “all Republicans.”

Also from Hughes:  “Representative Pam Marsh D-Ashland wrote this is one of her recent constituent newsletters: “In its simplest form, a legislative proposal, or bill, is nothing more than a good idea designed to address a community problem. You don’t have to be an elected official to recognize the need to implement change. With help from my Ashland High School student intern, we’re soliciting your ideas for new legislation.”

Comment: Wait! To say that a “legislative proposal, or bill, is nothing more than as good idea to address a community problem,” violates one of my central propositions, which is this: Legislators should ask key questions about any legislative proposal, such as, “does this proposal warrant government action?”

Legislators also should be willing to answer “no” to the question. Not every proposed solution is a good one, warranting government action.

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Kavanaugh displayed many skills during his Senate hearings, but one above all: the ability to suffer political fools.”

Comment: In the circus-like confirmation process (if it can be called a “process” at all), Kavanaugh has come across as a reasoned person who has conducted himself with dignity and discretion. The same cannot be said for many of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have answered a call from many of “their side” to do anything to sideline Kavanaugh’s appointment. My hope is that, at the vote now scheduled for September 20, they won’t succeed.

Misusing the word “partner:” It happens all the time. What? Using nouns as verbs. The most recent was the word “partner.”

Comment: As I write this, I cannot find the example quote, but just know this is true: Partner is a noun, not a verb. You cannot “partner with someone.” You can be “a partner with someone.”

A final thought: This from my wife this morning. How is it that persons are losing their jobs all across the land for having been accused of groping someone and our president doesn’t lose his?

Comment: Good question. By even his own admission, Trump has groped many women, using the reality as a plaudit, not a debit. He should lose his job for many reasons, this included.

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 watched a replay of Serena Williams’ incredible temper tantrum in the recent United States Open Tennis Tournament, I found myself wondering this – was what we saw “just sports,” or was it something more about society in general.

Forgive that kind of big thought, but know that, in retirement, I have nothing better to do than play golf and consider such issues.

Williams, one of the great tennis players of all time, went off against officials, contending that she was being treated differently than men would have been. She yelled at the referee, calling him a sexist. She slammed her racket on the court, earning a substantial penalty in the world of tennis.

Here is a short version of what happened.

Williams lost the first set to Naomi Osaka, who is 20 years old and moved to the U.S. from Japan when she was 3. In the flexible national-origin rules of professional tennis, she represents Japan. Growing up in New York and Florida, Osaka idolized Williams.

In the second set, the chair umpire, Carlos Ramos, gave Williams a warning for being coached from the stands. Her coach, said of course he was coaching her, which is against the rules, but it shouldn’t matter because everyone does it.

After losing her serve, Williams pounded her racket against the ground and then walked to the chair to have it out with Ramos. “You owe me an apology,” she said. “I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right for her.” Ramos gave her a point penalty for the crushed racket.

Williams won the next game, and then the 2018 women’s final pretty much imploded. For what seemed like 10 minutes, Williams attacked Ramos, calling him a “thief” for stealing points from her. Staring at them, Osaka forlornly dropped the two balls she thought she was supposed to serve and walked away. Ramos then imposed a rare game penalty on Williams.

The episode spurred people all over America comment on what had transpired.

One of my favorite columnists, Daniel Henninger, found time to wonder, in a Wall Street Journal piece, whether sports could be a metaphor for real life.

“Cynics call it a sports-metaphor alert,” he wrote. “But maybe it’s the other way around. Given the confused state of real life, we should consider ourselves lucky that sports exist as a mirror for reflection. Exhibit A this week, bigger than the NFL, is ‘the mother of all meltdowns,’ his reference to the Williams’ episode.”

Still, Osaka finally served out the match to win the U.S. Open, for which she essentially apologized at the award ceremony. The New York crowd lived up to its low reputation by booing her victory even into the awards event until Williams told them to stop.

More from Henninger: “In the real world, public tantrums have become commonplace and even ratified as legitimate expressions of policy grievance.

“One thinks of the screaming audience members carried out of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Or the routine shout-downs of speakers on campuses. After the last presidential election, the advance guard of the resistance sat during rush hour in the middle of intersections. Members of Congress routinely throw tantrums now, as in the Peter Strzok hearing. Seen a White House press briefing lately?”

Whether in real life, sports, entertainment or, heaven knows, our national politics, unsportsmanlike conduct and self-indulgence have become routine. We are worse off for the actions – in sports, in politics, and in life.

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 one of three departments I direct with full and complete authority to run each as I see fit. Thus, the decision on quotes to include is mine and mine alone. The comments, of course, are mine, as well.

From the Wall Street Journal: “Bob Woodward’s new book ‘Fear’ does not paint a different picture of the early Trump White House than the one that has already emerged from credible news organizations in daily reporting on President Trump. Rather, the book fills in details of a presidency led by an ignorant, impulsive and dishonest narcissist — and the people around him who enable or restrain his worst instincts.”

Comment: To say the Trump White House is disorganized is to employ a start understatement. I find myself wondering how experienced leaders, such as White House chief of staff John Kelly can tolerate the public musings of a disconnected president.

From Washington Post Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin: “The 12 hours Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh spent testifying Wednesday served only to entrench each party’s preconceptions of the judge—a brilliant, principled jurist humbly serving the law (to Republicans) or a duplicitous right-wing ideologue selected to secure President Trump’s grip on power (the Democratic view).”

Comment: The confirmation process before the Senate Judiciary Committee – using the word “process” does not apply accurately to the circus – was another testament to government gone awry. Democrats on the committee couldn’t hold their tongues in a way committee members normally – and appropriately – do when the person with the gavel tries to preserve order. Vote no on Kavanaugh if you must, I say, but honor the traditions and processes of Senate confirmation as you do.

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Here is the increasingly evident reality of the Trump era: We are a superpower run by a simpleton. From a foreign policy perspective, this is far worse than being run by a skilled liar. It is an invitation to manipulation and contempt.

“What we are finding from books, from insider leaks and from investigative journalism is that the rational actors who are closest to the president are frightened by his chaotic leadership style. They describe a total lack of intellectual curiosity, mental discipline and impulse control. Should the views of these establishment insiders really carry more weight than those of Uncle Clem in Scranton, Pennsylvania? Why yes, in this case, they should. We should listen to the voices of American populism in determining public needs and in setting policy agendas — but not in determining political reality.

Comment: I have found myself trying to find words to describe Trump with so many options at my disposal. But, Gerson, one of my favorite writers, come up with a new one this time around – “simpleton.” Exactly right! As Gerson writes, Trump’s “total lack of intellectual curiosity, mental discipline and impulse control” compromises his presidency.

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.

It will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog – yes, I know there are a legion of you – that one of my favorite words is “civility.”

I usually apply the word to the political arena where I often comment on the loss of civility, as well as my fond hope – poly-annish though it may be – that we can return to a time when civility matters in politics.

Call it finding what I call the “smart middle ground” which is where the best solutions lie to complicated public policy problems.

I also have said several times that one of my favorite quotes can be attributed to military leader and, at one time, a possible presidential candidate, Colin Powell, who said he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics” and cited the loss as one of the main reasons why he chose not to run for president.

The dictionary defines civility with words “courtesy and politeness,” styles missing from today’s politics.

So it was that I read and appreciated a column by William McGurn which appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning under the headline, which is the one I used for this blog – Playing the Civility Card.

Here are excerpts from McGurn’s column:

• “’A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings—unintentionally.’ The quip is attributed to Oscar Wilde, and the sentiment is capacious enough to include Donald Trump. For even the most ardent Never Trumper would concede that when this president offends, it’s intentional.”
• “During the 2016 campaign, for example, Trump claimed a judge’s Mexican heritage meant he couldn’t be impartial. He belittled a Muslim mom and dad whose U.S. Army officer son had given his life in Iraq. And he declared John McCain was ‘not a war hero’ because he had been a prisoner of war. The insults continued in the Oval Office, from regular jabs at ‘Crooked Hillary’ to ‘low IQ’ tweets variously directed at MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, actor Robert De Niro and Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat from California.”
• “Yet the civility offensive is not without contradiction. How is it that those who presume they posses the moral standing to preach on Trump’s incivility are so conspicuously blind to the equally glaring outrages of his critics? Was it civil, for example, for Hillary Clinton to dismiss half of Trump voters as ‘deplorables’ who were also ‘irredeemable? Is it civil that showing up with a ‘Make America Great Again’ cap can invite a beating?”
• “Perhaps this explains why the civility conversation is mostly confined to those who already agree. In the past few months alone, after all, Americans have watched press secretary Sarah Sanders and her family hounded out of a Virginia restaurant while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his wife were harassed by young men. More recently, John McCain’s memorial services became a weeklong taunt to the president—all by the same people applauding each other for their exquisite decency.”
• “As for the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanagh, talk about incivility and norm-breaking. Leave aside the disruptive audience members. When Democratic senators weren’t interrupting Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, they were attempting to smear a decent and respected husband, father and jurist. Surely the proposition that Trump has a monopoly on rudeness and incivility took a beating from the antics of Senator Cory Booker.”

“This is civility?” asks McGurn. “Forgive those Americans who concur that today’s pious demands for civility are often less about good manners than shutting down folks with an opposing view.”

The fact is that civility is a two-way street. Republicans need to preserve it. So do Democrats. And, often the approach from SOME on both sides, is to be decidedly uncivil.

It is important to remember that as ALL of us contend with the lack of civility in politics. To put a point on it, all of us can at least be civil to those who disagree with us even as we take the risk of talking about politics.

So, to one of the partners in my old firm who accused me of holding onto an outdated, slim hope for middle ground, I say this — I continue to hold out hope for civility to return to politics from Republicans, from Democrats and from those who don’t accept a party label.

It is not a vain hope, or, if it is, we can say goodbye to our democracy.

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 thought about this question in the headline for some time as I have watched President Donald Trump veer from issue to issue, from tweet to tweet, for months.

There is no semblance of order to what he does or says and that, for the president of this country, ought to be a source of concern for every citizen.

In my career in the public relations and lobbying business, we always advised clients to proceed with a plan when it came to the business of trying to create a solid – and accurate – image for themselves. We also emphasized deciding on a strategy, not just a set of tactics.

We employed the same kind of advice during my 25-year career as a lobbying – strategy, then tactics.

Which, among other things, led to the name of our firm, CFM Strategic Communications.

But imagine trying to do this kind of work with Trump, the president. Won’t work.

He appears, at best, to fly by the seat of his pants, saying the first thing – often in a critical and sanctimonious way – of slamming someone else, even his own staff and executives because, as always, he is the smartest person in the room.

All of this came to mind as I read a piece by Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times, now a columnist for the Guardian and a senior lecturer in Harvard’s English department.

“It’s hard,” she wrote, “to imagine a more disturbing portrait of a president than the one Bob Woodward painted of Richard Nixon in his final days: Paranoid, poisoned by power, pounding the carpet and talking to the portraits on the walls. But the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency, as recounted by Woodward in his new book, ‘Fear” are strikingly similar and in some ways even more gut-wrenching. Then, as now, the country faced a crisis of leadership caused by a president’s fatal flaws and inability to function in the job.”

Here are other excerpts of a column by Abramson that appeared in this weekend’s Washington Post.

• “In both ‘Fear’ and ‘The Final Days’, which Woodward co-authored with Carl Bernstein, Woodward shows how a federal criminal investigation clouds and then comes to obsess a president and paralyze the operations of the White House. At a moment when feverish talk of presidential impeachment dominates the political discourse, ‘Fear’ is full of Nixonian echoes, including Trump’s childishly short attention span and refusal to read briefing papers. Nixon’s aides were instructed not to give him anything more complicated than a Reader’s Digest article.”
• “At a moment when social media and cable television are filled with journalists spouting invective about the White House and Trump blasts the press as ‘the enemy of the people,’ Woodward has clung to old-fashioned notions of journalistic objectivity. ‘My job is not to take sides,’ he told a Vox interviewer in March. ‘I think our job is not to love or loathe people we’re trying to explain and understand. It is to tell exactly what people have done, what it might mean, what drives them, and who they are.”
• “From the very first pages of the gripping prologue it is a shocking view. Woodward opens the book with a killer anecdote about how two of the president’s closest advisers purposely thwarted his directives. In one instance, Trump had ordered up a letter announcing the U.S. withdrawal from a trade agreement with South Korea. His then-chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and then-staff secretary, Rob Porter, who are both obviously major sources for the book, recognize the letter for the disaster it is, so Cohn filches it off the president’s desk. With Trump’s fitful attention span, out of sight is out of mind. The ploy buys time and short-circuits an impulsive presidential decision that had gone through none of the proper vetting channels.”
• “As a profile of Trump, the book is devastating. Even the most jaded readers will be struck by numerous examples of his childishness and cruelty. He denounces his generals in such harsh language that his secretary of state cringes. He derides the suit McMaster dons for an interview as something a beer salesman would wear. He greets his national security adviser, whose briefings he finds tedious, by saying, “You again?” He imitates Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Southern accent and calls him ‘mentally retarded.’ He tells his 79-year-old commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, that he has ‘lost it’ and not to do any more negotiating.”
• “Woodward describes an elaborate attempt to school Trump on world affairs inside the Pentagon’s famous and secure Tank, which, unsurprisingly and somewhat hilariously, ends in abject failure. Predictably, Trump is impressed by the gold carpets and curtains.”
• “‘Fear’ ends on a cliffhanger, with Dowd’s resignation. But in the man and his presidency Dowd had seen the tragic flaw. In the political back-and-forth, the evasions, the denials, the tweeting, the obscuring, crying ‘Fake News,’ the indignation, Trump had one overriding problem that Dowd knew but could not bring himself to say to the president: ‘You’re a fucking liar. ”

Abramson ends with an insightful line that may predict the future for one Donald Trump.

“Lying, as it happens,” she says was Nixon’s undoing.” Perhaps lying will catch Trump, too.

Finally, back to the headline is this blog. If I had the job of being Trump’s public relations or government relations counsel, I’d quit! I am surprised press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders can tolerate the incredible lack of discipline.

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 had the privilege over the last few days to serve as the starter for the annual Oregon Senior Men’s Amateur, which was hosted by Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club where I have been a member for more than 30 years.

There were nearly 100 senior players in the tournament, which eventually was won, in the Champions Bracket, by Portland golfer Randy Mahar. I have known Randy for many years, including when I caddied for my son, Eric, when he played Randy in tournaments.

Randy is a consummate gentleman, which was illustrated at the winners’ ceremony at the end of the tournament. He came across as humble, saying that he felt fortunate to win against so many good players.

That included Illahe’s own Ken Forster, who has been a solid golfer for many years. In the tournament, Ken won medalist honors in the first day of stroke play, posting a 67, which is seven strokes under his age. I am still trying to shoot my age, but it make take at least a few more years, not to mention good luck.

In a great match, Mahar beat Forster 1-up, by winning the 18^th hole.  Ken gave Randy credit for playing better than he did in a great final match.

In one of the lower flight matches, Illahe’s own Jon Carey, retired athletic director at Western Oregon University, beat his opponent 1 up. He led all the way, but in one earlier match, he was down three holes with four to play. And he won all four to prevail 1 up. Illahe members Mike Whitnack and Mark Cruise also played and survived one round of match play.

Many of us, me included, feel fortunate to play a great course, Illahe Hills, every day. So it was gratifying to hear so many positive comments as I greeted players on the first tee. They were particularly positive about the fairways and greens, which, if you think about it for a moment, is complimenting almost the entire course because, as a golfer, you like to avoid hazards such as bunkers – which, I add, are new and play well if you happen to get into them.

It is noteworthy for a private club like Illahe to devote its course to a tournament for nearly all of one week. The good news is that members were not frozen out of playing during the week. Good work by the Illahe pro shop staff – head pro Steve Bowen, first assistant BJ Lewis, and second assistant Blake Bowen – enabled members to play without disrupting the tournament.

The organization that ran the tournament — the Oregon Golf Association (I am a volunteer for the association) — is a great non-profit. It organizes hundreds of tournaments every year for players of all ages. It is a very well-run organization, a credit to the game of golf in our region.

Finally, I add that the only problem with the tournament this past week was when my wife, as she saw me in required get-up – hat, sport coat and tie – said I looked a lot like Donald Trump.

Hearing that, given my antipathy for Trump, I almost retired from my volunteer job!

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.

If state government is going to operate more effectively and efficiently, then there are several questions policymakers should ask as they review individual pieces of legislation up for consideration.

Though I often advocate asking these questions as a new legislative session starts, they also apply during what’s called “the interim” between regular sessions in Salem.

But, while state government executives do not legislate, they can have a beneficial affect on the agencies by asking the same questions.

1.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

This is a question seldom asked, at least on the record.  Many policymakers simply assume that, if there is a problem, then there should be a state response to it.  The evidence is found in the 3,500 to 5,000 bills introduced every legislative session.

If the question were asked routinely, the answer would not automatically be yes or no, but would depend on the specific situation.  Often, the simple act of asking the question and considering the answer would be a step in the direction of aligning state government programs with available resources.

Policymakers should reserve the right to say there is no appropriate role for state government.

2.  What is the state getting for the money it is spending?

Call this “performance-based” government.  Or, as a business person might say, “what is the return on the investment?”

It sounds obvious that state government spending should be based on this premise.  But performance-based operation is the exception, not the rule.

In fact, in social services law in Oregon, the first instance of the use of the phrase in contracting for social services occurred in the 2011 legislative session when lawmakers passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 964, now ORS 418.190-195.  It deals with contracted programs designed to provide services to Oregon’s foster children.

In terms of full disclosure, I was the prime advocate for the bill on behalf of my firm’s client, Youth Villages.

At the time, I would have hoped that the officials at the Department of Human Services would have supported the proposition because, if nothing else, it would help end contracts that were not performing effectively. But, no, we were able to pass the proposition only over the objections of the agency.

3.  How will state action affect the private sector — especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for the money to fund its operations?

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, wrote this in a Wall Street Journal piece several years ago.

“We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise.  We have to let them compete.  We need to let people fight for business.  We need to let people take risks.  We need to let people fail.  We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.  And, we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

         “That is what economic freedom looks like.  Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or to do nothing.  People understand this.  Freedom of speech, for example, means that we have to put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular.  We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.     

         “But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles or growth and loss, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

         “Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedom through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations.  We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it.  We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws.  We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved.  Each time, we demand, “Do something…anything.”

Asking and answering the issues Bush poses in his quote would go a long way toward creating appropriate limitations on the role of government, both in Oregon and nationally.

So I say this to government: Ask the right questions and don’t be afraid to answer logically and honestly! Doing so will benefit all of those who depend on government “to get it right.”

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 fortunate yesterday to be otherwise occupied and so couldn’t watch the circus atmosphere in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s first day of hearings on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Calling it a “circus” is to give it a compliment, at least based on what I read in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

For my part, I say a pox on both parties in Congress. Each does a bad job of conducting its affairs, including when the public has a chance to look in on the process. Republicans irritated Democrats when they refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the country’s highest court.

Now, Democrats are trying to get even by contending that the Republican confirmation process has gone astray to serve conservative, Republican ends.

Here’s how writer Amber Phillips put it in a Washington Post story:

“The Brett Kavanaugh Su­preme Court hear­ings are ugly, there’s no ar­gu­ing that. Democrats are try­ing to end the hear­ing before it gets start­ed. There are re­peat­ed in­ter­rup­tions by protesters. Re­pub­lic­ans are ac­cus­ing Democrats of the e­quiv­a­lent of con­tempt of court and protesters of ‘mob rule.’ It’s a man­i­fes­ta­tion of the hyper-politicized en­vi­ron­ment we find our­selves in.”

Phillips is right. She went on to compliment one senator, Ben Sasse, Republican from Nebraska, for his analysis of the “process,” if you even can call the first hearing part of a “process.”

“In a word,” Sasse said the problem “is Congress.”   And he added: “In a few more words, Congress is ab­di­cat­ing its duty to write laws, which leaves people to place their hopes in the ju­di­cial branch to try to get their prob­lems solved. At the end of the day, a lot of the pow­er del­e­ga­tion that hap­pens from this branch is be­cause Congress has de­cid­ed to self-neu­ter.”

Sasse broke down his ar­gu­ment into four bullet points, which are worth considering:

1. Congress is set up to be the most po­lit­i­cal branch. “This is sup­posed to be the in­sti­tu­tion dedi­cat­ed to po­lit­i­cal fights,” Sasse said.
2. But in the name of politics, lawmakers have de­cid­ed to keep their jobs rath­er than take tough votes. “Most people here want their jobs more than they re­al­ly want to do legis­la­tive work, and so they punt their legis­la­tive work to the next branch,” Sasse said.
3. Be­cause Congress of­ten lets the ex­ec­u­tive branch write rules, and Americans aren’t sure who in the gov­ern­ment bureauc­ra­cy to talk to, that leaves Americans with no oth­er place than the courts to turn to ex­press their frus­tra­tion with poli­cies. And the Su­preme Court, with its nine vis­i­ble mem­bers, is a con­veni­ent out­let. Sasse: “This trans­fer of pow­er means people yearn for a place where politics can be done, and when we don’t do a lot of big po­lit­i­cal debate here, people trans­fer it to the Su­preme Court. And that’s why the Su­preme Court is in­creas­ing­ly a sub­sti­tute po­lit­i­cal battle­ground for America.”
4. Sasse’s final point: “This proc­ess needs to change. If Congress did more legis­lat­ing, these Su­preme Court nom­i­na­tion bat­tles would get less po­lit­i­cal,” he ar­gues: “If we see lots and lots of pro­tests in front of the Su­preme Court, that’s a pret­ty good ba­rom­e­ter of the fact that our re­pub­lic isn’t heal­thy. They shouldn’t be pro­test­ing in front of the Su­preme Court, they should be pro­test­ing in front of this body.”

To contend that Congress has failed to do its duty, thus leading to the circus atmosphere in the Senate Judiciary Committee, could be an understatement.

I have been part of confirmation processes in Salem and in Washington, D.C. They became more about political than about qualifications to hold public office, which, I guess, is another way to underline Senator Sasse’s points.

It may be hoping and dreaming, but I hope and dream that Congress will find a way to get back to doing the public’s business instead of, as Sasse put it, “wanting their jobs more than they re­al­ly want to do legis­la­tive work.”

Call me PollyAnna.

And, good that I will be otherwise occupied today so won’t have to endure another day of the circus in Washington, D.C.

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.

If state government is going to operate more effectively and efficiently, then there are several questions policymakers should ask as they review individual pieces of legislation up for consideration.

Though I often advocate asking these questions as a new legislative session starts, they also apply during what’s called “the interim” between regular sessions in Salem.

1.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

This is a question seldom asked, at least on the record.  Many policymakers simply assume that, if there is a problem, then there should be a state response to it.  The evidence is found in the 3,500 to 5,000 bills introduced every legislative session.

If the question was asked routinely, the answer would not automatically be yes or no, but would depend on the specific situation.  Often, the simple act of asking the question and considering the answer would be a step in the direction of aligning state government programs with available resources.

Policymakers should reserve the right to say there is no appropriate role for state government.

2.  What is the state getting for the money it is spending?

Call this “performance-based” government.  Or, as a business person might say, “what is the return on the investment?”

It sounds obvious that state government spending should be based on this premise.  But performance-based operation is the exception, not the rule.

In fact, in social services law in Oregon, the first instance of the use of the phrase in contracting for social services occurred in the 2011 legislative session when lawmakers passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 964, now ORS 418.190-195.  It deals with contracted programs designed to provide services to Oregon’s foster children.

In terms of full disclosure, I was the prime advocate for the bill on behalf of my firm’s client, Youth Villages.

3.  How will state action affect the private sector — especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for the money to fund its operations?

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, wrote this in a Wall Street Journal piece several years ago.

“We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise.  We have to let them compete.  We need to let people fight for business.  We need to let people take risks.  We need to let people fail.  We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.  And, we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

         “That is what economic freedom looks like.  Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or to do nothing.  People understand this.  Freedom of speech, for example, means that we have to put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular.  We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.       

         “But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles or growth and loss, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

         “Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedom through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations.  We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it.  We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws.  We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved.  Each time, we demand, “Do something…anything.”

Asking and answering the issues Bush poses in his quote would go a long way toward creating appropriate limitations on the role of government, both in Oregon and nationally.

So I say to government: Ask the right questions and don’t be afraid to answer logically and forthrightly. Doing so will benefit all of those who depend on government “to get it right.”

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 had an interesting and friendly exchange last week with a partner of mine from the firm from which I retired, CFM Strategic Communications.

In an internal communications vehicle, I had lauded a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. In his words: “John McCain recognized that resistance to compromise stands in the way of America’s advancement. We all would do well to heed his advice.”

My partner, a solid analyst of political trends – though we sometimes disagree – wrote this:

“I know you like the nostalgia of calling for common ground and compromise, but I fear the divisions are too deep to bridge at this point. There is an existential battle afoot to define (or redefine) what democracy means in America. A president derides the news media and denies what he said captured on tape. A racist comment about a Florida candidate is dismissed as ‘just the way white folks talk’ about African-Americans. Hispanics, including native-born citizens, are denied passports. Rules to protect the environment, consumers, endangered species and the health care for low-income people are rolled back or denied. Violence is predicted – and incited – based on election results. This is no longer a Democrat versus Republican divide. It is a battle for the values of the country.”

My partner went on: “Bernie Sanders advocates universal health care and free college education. Elizabeth Warren wants to curb corporate power and market concentration. Those aren’t the reasons the country is ripping apart.”

I differ from my partner in at least two respects.

First, if it is only nostalgia that advocates a return to the idea of compromise in politics, then I embrace nostalgia. If we don’t find a way for government to work better for ALL Americans, I fear we’ll see the end of democracy as we know it.

Second, I know folks on the right are not always open to “government in the middle,” but to laud Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for their proposals for free health care and free education is give them far too much credit.

It is proposals like this from the left – even the far left – that will tear this country apart just as fulminations from President Trump and his ilk will tear the country apart from the right.

Plus, the two left-wing Democrats advocate “free government” that will aggravate the federal deficit. As a country, we simply cannot afford “more free stuff.”

So, to my partner, I say, yes, government from the “smart middle” still makes sense. It is not just nostalgia. It is a fond hope, perhaps even a dream.

Continue hoping and dreaming, I say.