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.

Appearing, of all places, on Saturday Night Live, incoming Member of Congress Dan Crenshaw made a compelling case for a new way of behaving, both in Congress and in life.

First, before describing his “new way,” here’s just a bit of background.

Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, was wounded in Afghanistan, enough so that he lost one eye and wears an eye patch.

During the recent mid-term election, Saturday Night Live comedian Pete Davidson thought he would take a jab at Crenshaw. He mocked Crenshaw’s appearance — “he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever.” Then, Davidson added that Crenshaw looked like a “hit man in a porno movie.”

Too far? Yes.

SNL got a huge number of texts and other social media message condemning Davidson’s brazen, not comedic, comments.

That prompted SNL producers to invite Crenshaw to appear on the show to set the record straight. With some misgivings – the format was not one made for him – Crenshaw eventually agreed.

So, on to Crenshaw’s “new way.”

In a Washington Post piece, Crenshaw adds: “…I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: Outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion — daily.

“Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now?”

Crenshaw added, perceptively, I think, that “there are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals — economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. — are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them.”

Crenshaw asks how we live together in this world of differing ideas?

“For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.

“Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

“When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it.”

Imagine if Crenshaw’s ideas took hold in Congress. We’d have a better Congress, one intent on doing the public’s business, not on ridiculing the other side, no matter the subject – and ridicule that focuses on the person, not the ideas.

Maybe, Crenshaw says, “we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.”

There’s that word again – civility. I agree with Crenshaw — let’s add that dimension to our public policy debates – not left, not right, but civil.

And, this footnote: Of course, a new way of behaving in Congress won’t matter much if – or when – Donald Trump continues acting like a buffoon, lobbing huge criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with him and displaying his narcissist credentials. Note to Crenshaw and others in Congress – ignore Trump.