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 toyed with commenting on the recent confirmation “process” – read, circus – for now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but decided there was no point adding my voice to all those providing comments.

I did draft a blob, which I set aside, though one of its contentions was a simple one — the issue involving Kavanaugh came down to whom you chose to believe.  A number of my friends chose to believe the accuser Christine Blasey Ford.  A number of others suggested that it would be a mistake to find someone guilty without corroboration, thus turning the “innocent until proven guilty” standard on its head.

So it goes and never the twain shall meet.

Instead of posting my own blog, I decided to reprint several letters to the editor, which ran in the Wall Street Journal, all on one day. They illustrate a huge divergence of opinion on an issue that won’t soon be forgotten and that will dog our politics for years to come.

Here are the letters:

1. Regarding your editorial “The Next Kavanaugh Stakes” (October 8) and other recent editorials: Brett Kavanaugh is a better qualified judge now than when he was nominated by President Trump. How so? Because now he knows what it’s like to be victimized by a large and powerful force. The Democrats reverted to their Saul Alinsky roots by not just trying to defeat Judge Kavanaugh, but to destroy him.

Steve Tanberg, Denver

2. The Kavanaugh hearings painfully reminded me of the time I was drugged and molested during college in the 1970s. My disgust for my assaulter, whom I never reported, is equal to my abhorrence of the “believe survivors” diktat of the left, which dangerously seeks to negate due process. I fully support Brett Kavanaugh.

Margaret Bowen, Prairie Village, Kan.

3. I’m a woman who has been through sexual assault and sexual harassment. Christine Blasey Ford had a horrible experience, worse than what I lived through. She deserves the nation’s sympathy. However, her right to sympathy should not eclipse the civility of our society. There is no concrete evidence that her version of events several decades after the fact, all through the lens of psychological trauma, is fact. We do, though, have a wealth of witnesses who can attest to Judge Kavanaugh’s behavior, demeanor and record in his adult, professional life to be comfortable with his judgment as an adult, which is what is required to make a good Supreme Court justice. Quite frankly, I don’t care what he did as a minor. I care what he has done as an adult.

The focus on one alleged and unproven aspect of his past rather than dispassionately assessing the entire picture is ridiculously skewed and a violation of the values of our civil society. I’m sure that the good people of Salem, Mass., were convinced that those hanged for witchcraft were really witches, too.

Pamela Cowan, Williston, Vt.

4. The silver lining in the Kavanaugh/Ford story is that it makes a good starting point to discuss the dangers of alcohol use with our teenage daughters. My husband and I have discussed avoiding alcohol and drug use with them, but the real-life example of a 15-year-old girl and 17-year-old boys’ impaired judgment while drinking, with long-term, irreparable damage into their adulthood, is more effective than any lecture we could give them.

Allegra Goldberg, Great Neck, N.Y.

5. Am I the only mother of a teenage son who is terrified by the Kavanaugh circus? I have taught my 17-year-old to be respectful of everyone, and to try to protect himself from false accusations by never being alone with a girl in a situation where she could turn it into “she said/he said.” But what if in 10, 20 or 30 years some woman accuses my son of sexually assaulting her? Of course he will deny it. But will anyone believe him?

Vice President Mike Pence has the right idea: Avoid being alone with a woman who isn’t your spouse (or your mother). Then, I hope, one might avoid false accusations.

Women, we don’t move ourselves forward by tearing men down.

Melanie Prieger, Agoura Hills, Calif.

6. The means used by Democrats to block Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court bring to mind the words of Friedrich Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom,” his analysis of the emergence of fascism from collectivist ideology:

“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because the “good of the whole” is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The raison d’etat, in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency—the suitability of the particular act for the end in view.”

Bob Warner, Altadena, Calif.

7. In “I am an Independent, Impartial Judge”” (op-ed, October 5) Judge Kavanaugh attempted to explain away his emotional, sharp tone at the Senate confirmation hearings by stating, “I was there as a son, husband and dad.” But Judge Kavanaugh wasn’t at the hearing as a “son, husband and dad.” And his responsibility wasn’t to address his loved ones. He was there as a jurist being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. His responsibility was to respect the nature of the hearing and the committee members seeking the truth, and to display the judicial demeanor and temperament required of someone who would serve as a Supreme Court justice. He failed to do that. He isn’t qualified to serve on the highest court.

Anita Weinberg, Evanston, Ill.

8. I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh owes anybody an apology for expressing emotion at a hearing where his good name and his ability to live life as he knows it was at stake. The only ones owing anyone an apology are the particular senators who ambushed him to increase their own political power, while not caring if they destroyed his and Prof. Ford’s lives in the process.

Judges are human, too. They certainly have a right to be upset when accused, especially if wrongly accused.

Heather Jones, Fairfax, Va.

9. There is nothing Judge Kavanaugh can now say that will redeem him from his injudicious, spiteful, disrespectful performance at the Senate hearing. He totally blew it while blowing his top.

Karen R. Kane, Rolling Prairie, Ind.

10. I want to thank Sen. Susan Collins as the mother of a son, who I pray is never wrongly accused and considered guilty until proved innocent; as the mother of a daughter, an engineer, who I fear will lose out on honorable men mentoring her; as the wife of an honorable man; as a lawyer who was mentored by honorable men; and as a citizen who is scared for our nation after watching the Kavanaugh hearings. Sen. Collins’s speech was a master class in how politics is supposed to work and why it didn’t in this case. I am grateful for her part in educating those who don’t know any better.

Carla Albers, Colorado Springs, Colo.

11. Regarding your editorial “The Never Conservatives” (October 4): I imagine many women and minorities don’t share a judicial philosophy of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, given that we were not part of that process. I disagree strongly with the characterization that investigating claims of sexual harassment or assault was a Democratic plan to destroy Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh. I think that the party of “personal responsibility” needs to be more ready to hold its members accountable for their actions.

The resistance is about our refusal to turn the clock backward. Judge Kavanaugh might have been the gold standard for a nominee previously, but in the #MeToo moment of today, where the traditionally disenfranchised and oppressed refuse to be silenced, he is not the right person for the Supreme Court.

I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton after he lied to the American people about his behavior; I thought he should have resigned. It was wrong for Democrats to have defended him. Women will no longer be bullied and silenced.

Erin McCoy, Fort Lee, N.J.

12. Just think, if Harry Reid hadn’t changed the Senate filibuster rule in 2013, the Democrats could have blocked Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Oh well.

Bill Fellows, Stanford, Calif.

13. After that despicable performance by the Senate Democrats, the voters of California have their own opportunity to play a real-life version of “The Apprentice” and say, “Feinstein, you’re fired!”

David Weiss, Coronado, Calif.

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.

There are at least two ways to look at the Trump Administration – probably more, but I’ll settle on two for this post.

One is to perceive Trump and his Administration (if that word can be used to describe his fly-by-seat-of-his-pants style) as one of worst in U.S. history with its practice of the politics of personal destruction. More on that in a moment.

The other is to look at the accomplishments of the Administration and give credit where credit is due – not exclusively, of course, to Trump because nothing good from government ever happens due to the work of one person, even, in this case Trump, who always views himself as the smartest person in the room.

Consider this excerpt from a column this week by Hugh Hewitt that ran in the Washington Post:

“As President Trump’s first two years in office come to a close, we’ve seen two originalist justices confirmed to the Supreme Court, 26 originalist appeals court judges confirmed, 10 more nominated, and 41 new district court judges on the bench and dozens more pending.

“Add to that: the repeal of the sequester on defense spending and a massive military re-build underway; a massive tax cut of unprecedented depth and structural change; a re-negotiated trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada; withdrawals from the awful Iran deal and, in effect, the absurdist Paris accord; the rollback of job-killing and bureaucrat-empowering regulations by the hundreds; an economy surging while unemployment drops to 3.7 per cent: and a new entente in the Middle East (one that arose despite U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) that sees the United States and Israel aligned and cooperating closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and now a new government in Iraq against the expansionist Iranian theocrats.

“Did I mention the devastation and defeat of ISIS in its physical “caliphate?”

Then, Hewitt adds: “Trump is as wearying today as Andrew Jackson must have been in 1829 to the people of both parties who are used to different rules sets. I am one of them. Thus my criticisms of the president are many and detailed. But my fear of the wild-eyed left is far greater than my discomfort with his bull-in-china shop politics.”

Now, I am sure Democrats would scoff at the list of accomplishments. But a reasoned review would laud what has happened, especially for me, in comparison to the years of President Barack Obama, which were marked by an over-the-top reliance on government solutions to every perceived problem.

As for the second description of Trump, the artist of politics of personal destruction, consider the words of another Washington Post columnist, Michael Gerson.

“Fame usually has some rough relationship to accomplishment. Celebrity results from mastering the latest technologies of self-exposure. Ingrid Bergman was famous. Kim Kardashian is a celebrity. Franklin D. Roosevelt was famous. Donald Trump is . . . not in the same category.

“Within its proper bounds — confined to stunts on a desert island or in a fake boardroom — the ethos of reality television is relatively harmless. Transposed to the highest level of politics, it is deeply damaging.

“This is not only a matter of preferring a certain style of politics (though I think we should do better than the discourse of unhinged tweeting). The problem is a defect of spirit. The founders generally believed that the survival and success of a republic required leaders and citizens with certain virtues: moderation, self-restraint and concern for the common good. They were convinced that respect for a moral order made ordered liberty possible.

“The culture of celebrity is the complete negation of this approach to politics. It represents a kind of corrupt, decaying capitalism in which wealth is measured in exposure. It elevates appearance over accomplishment. Because rivalries and feuds are essential to the story line, it encourages theatrical bitterness. Instead of pursuing a policy vision, the first calling of the celebrity is to maintain a brand.”

Gerson says “the skill set of the celebrity” is not suited to the reality of governing? As evidence, he says “our celebrity president, as on North Korea, is prone to take credit for nonexistent accomplishments. As on the border wall and the travel ban, he deals in absurd symbols rather than realistic policies. As on Russia policy, he is easily manipulated by praise.”

Which of the two perspectives is right? Well, the easy answer is that it depends on your personal bias.

Mine is that the Trump Administration deserves credit for such accomplishments as those cited by Hewitt. But, I just wish Trump would pay more attention to the HOW, not just the WHAT.

How you get things done matters almost as much as the result. If you practice destruction in the pursuit of results, the results often pale. And finally, I wish Trump would take credit carefully so he doesn’t go beyond reality. Too much to hope for? Probably.

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 had the privilege of playing golf in Scotland on five different occasions, a reality I treasure.

One of the reasons I have gone so often to Scotland is that it was the homeland of my wife’s parents who emigrated to the United States when they were children. They arrived to a better life in the U.S., eventually married, and had three daughters, the youngest of which is my wife, Nancy.

So, with Nancy as the best tour guide I could possibly have, we set out on our Scottish expeditions.

The first time we were accompanied by my son, Eric, and his wife, Holly, as he played in the British Mid-Amateur, which was held at historic Muirfield. Better to say that Nancy and I accompanied Eric and Holly.

It was a great trip. My daughter, Lissy, was supposed to join us, but, being pregnant, the doctor put her to bed on the eve of the trip. No matter. Fortunately, we had trip insurance and several years later we completed a trip to Scotland with Lissy and her family, another part of what my wife calls “making memories.”

Over our trips to Scotland, I have played a variety of courses, including the famous ones like the Old Course in St. Andrews and Royal Dornoch in the far north of the country, which probably would rank as the best course I have played in my life.

Nancy and I also have stayed in bed and breakfast establishments where we loved talking to the Scottish people about their country. Your first impression sometimes can be that Scots are aloof, but give it just a bit of time and they’ll become fast friends, willing to help you with anything in “their country.”

In all of the communities where we stayed, I also played “no-name” courses, which my favorite Scottish golf writer calls “hidden gems.” They are gems and, if you have a chance to play with Scottish residents in these small towns, so much the better.

All of this came flooding back in my memory as I read a story in the on-line version of Links Magazine under the title “Top Modern Courses in Scotland.”

Here’s how the article started.

“The game of golf, at least as we know it, was born on the links land of eastern Scotland over 500 years ago. While it’s now played by tens of millions of golfers around the world, Scotland is still widely known as the home of golf. It is home to iconic Old Course at St Andrews and the R&A, the site of the first Open Championship back in 1860, and the birthplace of Old and Young Tom Morris.

“…during my research, I also found myself wondering about the modern Scottish courses I’d most like to play. With a wealth of courses dating back hundreds of years, I considered ‘modern’ to be anything that was built and opened since 1970.

“There are 537 golf facilities in Scotland, according to the National Golf Foundation’s database, and approximately 90 of those were built within the past 50 years. There are some particularly good ones among them, especially those built in the past two decades or so that meld modern design touches and timeless Scottish architecture.”

It turns out that I have had the privilege of playing two of the six “top modern” courses mentioned in the article.

Machrihanish Dunes (2009)
More than 100 years after Machrihanish Golf Club was laid out by Old Tom Morris, David McLay Kidd built Machrihanish Dunes on neighboring dune-scape that shares the same breathtaking views of the Atlantic Ocean along Scotland’s west coast. Flocks of sheep roam this rough-around-the-edges, no-frills course, which is built on pristine linksland protected by the Scottish government. Kidd’s design encourages thought, creativity and imagination.

Castle Stuart (2009)
Like Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart is the vision of American developer Mark Parsinen and overlooks the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle. This Gil Hanse design was created to join iconic courses like Royal Dornoch, Nairn, and Brora as can’t-miss golf destinations in the Scottish Highlands. Along with spectacular vistas, golfers are surrounded by a rugged landscape with vast expanses of gorse, broom, heather, and sea marram.

These words beckon me to Scotland again. It’s a treasure to be able to set foot on the hallowed ground where so many have played before. And, it’s not just a game. It’s a time to welcome the lay of the land, to appreciate the beauty God has created, and to revel in the historic venues as you play “links-style” golf.

Scotland? Again, soon!

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 run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

In past writings in this blog, I have tried to avoid the debate in the Senate over President Trump’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court because I don’t think I have anything to add from my post on the West Coast.  However, several commentators I read routinely do have points to make, so I include them here to lead off Bits and Pieces.

And, if you read this and think that I would be voting “yes” on Kavanaugh if I were involved, that is probably right and, for me, the basis would be the principle that a person “is innocent until proven guilty.”

From Jason Riley in the Wall Street Journal regarding the so-called “confirmation process” involving Judge Brett Kavanaugh:  “Predictably, Democrats have used the delay to argue that a one-week investigation is insufficient and that the probe’s scope is too limited. They’ve also decided, based on Judge Kavanaugh’s response to some of the allegations, that he lacks the right ‘temperament’ for a Supreme Court justice. The bigger concern for the country might be the temperament of Senate Democrats who are so willing and eager to dispense with due process in order to prevent President Trump from filling a Supreme Court vacancy.”

Comment: If I had the bad fortune to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I do not know how I would vote on the confirmation. But, I think I would try, as Senate Democrats have not, to maintain a sense of political decorum. And, as Riley writes, to suggest the judgments about temperament flow from Kavanaugh’s appearance before the committee is silly – see below in Senator Orrin Hatch’s commentary.

From a piece in the Wall Street Journal written by Senator Orrin Hatch:  “A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

“We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

“This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as ‘angry,’ ‘belligerent’ or ‘partisan,’ followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament.

“You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

“Had Judge Kavanaugh sat dispassionately through Thursday’s hearing and denied the allegations weakly, his critics would have taken his lack of forcefulness as proof of guilt. We all know this. We’re not stupid. Spare us the pearl-clutching.”

Comment: Senator Orrin Hatch describes the status very well. 

From the Washington Post:  “Senator Richard Blumenthal in 2003 told a crowd about ‘returning from Vietnam,’ implying he had been there. He was not there. In 2008, he told another crowd about ‘the days that I served in Vietnam.’ He didn’t.”

Comment: I was struck by the senator’s duplicity as he had the guts to suggest that Kavanaugh was lying in one thing, so could not be believed in another. Takes one to know one, I say.

From William McGurn in the Wall Street Journal, regarding the underlying issue in the confirmation process — abortion:  “Never mind that Chief Justice John Roberts is unlikely to acquiesce to a move that would bring down the furies on his court. Or that it’s not clear Judge Kavanaugh would be any different, having assured senators that he regards Roe as ‘settled’ and ‘an important precedent’ whose central holding had been reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Or that overturning Roe still wouldn’t make abortion illegal.”

Comment: No matter what Kavanaugh says, the Ds believe he will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post:  “Is it feasible that some people are genuinely disturbed by a medical procedure that begins with two genetically distinct human beings and ends with one? Is it reasonable to credit the good intentions of millions of men and women who want the circle of inclusion and protection to include every human life, at every stage of development?

“There is, of course, a mirror-image problem of pro-life activists who regard pro-choice people as murderers. But that is precisely the point. There is a strong current of dehumanization running in our politics. The rival crew, it turns out, is not only wrong but evil. And how can mortal enemies embrace the give and take of a shared political project? Only the raw exercise of power can decide between them. The goal is no longer to win arguments but to crush opposition.”

Comment: Gerson is prescient again as he often is. He describes both sides of the abortion debate in precise terms. One side hates the other and never the twain shall meet.

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 a follow-up to my post yesterday outlining my current health concerns, there is something else I could have included.

It is this.

As part of my doctor office visit, I was given blood tests to confirm that I did not have pneumonia. Good. Better to have bronchitis than pneumonia.

When I got the call providing the results of the tests, here is what the nurse said:

“Dave, as for your blood tests, everything is negative.”

Well, being an old person who has had a lot of medical care over my nearly 70 years, I knew what the word “negative” meant. It meant that the test did not produce any results of concern.

But, think about the word. It might have been better to say, “Dave, as for your blood tests, the results are positive.”

That would have been good, too, in every-day usage of the word “positive.” But, in medicine, positive would not have been good. Negative is good.

Such is the world of medicine these days.

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 am an “impatient patient.”

I admit it.

Not sure about the question in the headline, but the thought contained in the phrase above crossed my mind this week in my role as a patient of the Doctors’ Clinic in Salem.

Recently, I have received great care and service there for two health issues – (1) viral bronchitis that set me back for a few days with a bad cough, headache and a sore throat, and (2) another bout with gout.

In both cases, I found myself illustrating this oxymoron – an impatient patient!

I wanted the various medications to work faster. No doubt they were working, but not fast enough for me.

So, do I add this phrase – impatient patient – to the list of oxymorons I published in this space recently.

My answer is yes.

And let me add this serious point. I am a believer in medication as long as they are prescribed by a competent medical practitioner, as is the case with me. Without them, I’d be lost.

With them, I have a chance to get back on the golf course.

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 remember when I first heard former president George H. W. Bush utter what became his signature phrase – “A thousand points of light.”

At the time, I wasn’t sure what the words meant just as I’m sure was true for many other Americans. Still, the phrase had a lilt to it, conjuring up a number of positive images as I and others looked skyward to see the point of light. To be sure, an interesting turn of phrase for this president who was not known for being very quotable, yet still substantive.

But, what, in fact, does the phrase mean?

Well, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning, two writers, B. Boyden Gray, White House counsel under Bush, and Elise Passamani, Gray’s director of research, shed light on the answer under this headline:

Here’s the Point of ‘Points of Light’

Trump hasn’t figured out George Bush’s signature phrase. That’s completely understandable.

Here is how they started their piece: “Donald Trump made fun of George H.W. Bush’s signature phrase, ‘a thousand points of light,’ at a West Virginia rally Saturday, saying it was something that ‘nobody has really figured out.’ This wasn’t the first time. In Montana this summer he asked: ‘What the hell is that? Has anyone ever figured that one out? This observation is not unfair, and has more to do with the press’s misrepresentation of the phrase than with either Bush or Trump.”

Boyden and Passamani point that the phrase emerged 1988 when then-Vice President Bush accepted the Republican presidential nomination.

“Bush was praising America’s volunteer organizations—‘a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.’ Even though Bush would later tell the New York Times, ‘I can’t do poetry,’ he returned to this lyrical phrase again and again during the ’88 campaign and his presidency.”

So what does “a thousand points of light” really mean? Bush used the phrase in nearly 200 presidential speeches. They reveal an often-overlooked conviction of his—that there are limits to what government can do, but no limits to what volunteers can do. “A thousand points of light” is shorthand for a philosophy of limited government.

According to Boyden and Passamani, “On April 26, 1990, Bush exhorted his audience to reject the hand of big government in favor of a thousand points of light, joining hands and linking hearts. To his detractors, he added: When we started talking about a thousand points of light, there were a few snickers out there. I had to keep defining what I meant. But I think people understand this. I think Americans understand it. It’s real: One American wanting to help another. So I’m going to continue to say that any definition of a successful life must be the involvement in lives of others—one American helping another.”

I find Bush’s phrase – one written for him, by the way, by Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite political columnists these days — to be, in a word, elegant.

In the Washington Post: Bush’s (and Noonan’s) phrase is elegant—though elusive, as poetry often is. Yet, the more important thing is its intellectual heft. George Bush’s vision of volunteerism as a check on big government and as a crucial element of liberty is worth remembering.”

Kudos to Bush. It would be good if this country would return to the idea that big government is not the answer to every perceived problem. Is there a role for government? Of course. But not one that is automatic.

This is not a partisan proposition. Both Republicans and Democrats, as well as those who claim independence from party labels, should be able to accept of limits on government intervention – accept, as the Post put it, the “intellectual heft of the idea.”

At least in that way, such a focus would allow government to achieve better results in programs that it does accept as being withing its orbit. Volunteerism – “A Thousand Points of Light” – can become a current-day highlight, not something in our past.

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 difference noted in the headline is one I followed for a number of years as a partner in a lobbying and public relations business in Oregon. (We also had offices in Washington, D.C.)

It is this:

A strategic focus is looking at the big picture, then designing tactics to fit that focus.

Too often, I saw lobbyists focus on routine tactics as a way to achieve desired ends. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn’t.

But a focus on strategy would have been better.

Here is the dictionary definition of the two words:

• Strategy: A plan, method or series of maneuvers for obtaining a specific goal or result.
• Tactics: Any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

There is at least a subtle difference between the two, but one I think is important. It is that strategy is the bigger word, one that doesn’t just focus on activities, but that emphasizes goals and aspirations. It was what motivated us to call our firm, CFM Strategic Communications (CFM), when the time came several years ago to recognize that one of our partners was going to retire and we needed a new name.

An example or two from my role as a lobbyist may help to underline the difference between strategies and tactics.

1. Deepening the Columbia River Channel on behalf of the Port of Portland (a CFM client)

Our strategy here rested on the theory – not to mention the reality – that the Port of Portland served the entire region, not just Portland. Our work also rested on the strategy to convey a perception – a true one, by the way – that deepening the channel would serve as an economic benefit for the entire region as deeper-draft ships could ply their way up and down the Columbia River.

Our tactics were designed to cement that strategic focus in the minds of legislators who eventually would have to vote to make the channel deepening money available over multiple biennia. In one case, we produced a list showing how businesses in all of Oregon’s 36 counties used the Port of Portland and would benefit from increasing ship traffic – and we often called the Port of Portland, the Port of Oregon, if not the Port of the Region.

We also produced statistics that showed the potential economic benefit for the region beyond Oregon.

We started with a strategy, aiming at the big picture, then built the individual, daily tactics to serve that strategy. It was not just about the appropriation; it was conveying a big-picture rationale for the appropriation. The result was that legislators approved the allocation.

2. Supporting continued investments in Medicaid for low income Oregonians on behalf of Providence Health and Services (CFM’s long-standing client)

Here, we set out to describe Medicaid, the joint federal-state program, as a key feature of Oregon’s safety net for low-income Oregonians, many of them single mothers with young children.

To design tactics to serve the strategy, we developed a variety of communications materials to convey the reality that physicians and other medical personnel supported continued Medicaid investments. We also designed materials to make the funding case on behalf of actual patients who agreed to allow us to use photos and to tell their personal stories.

It was not just – appropriate the money. It was developing a strategic rationale for the appropriation. Again, the tactics served the strategy, not the reverse. And the result was success – the appropriation was approved.

All of this reminds me of the times when I have been asked to appear before a Willamette University graduate class where I often described the differences between strategy and tactics. My impression was that the class members accepted the difference.

I hope they did and that the differences between the two will help them succeed in their chosen fields, just as the differences have helped me succeed in mine over the years.

I cannot help but add that President Donald Trump appears to proceed on a tactical basis. It is often not possible to see the strategic focus that motivates him. In one case, a commentator called his approach “swagger, not strategy.”

Too bad. We’d be better served with a presidential strategy that put America first, in deeds, not words, and that valued ALL lives in America, not just those a president chose to encompass.

Sorry to bridge from my own experience to the current Oval Office, but I cannot help it. A strategic served me well and I believe it also would serve public officials well.