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.

Forgive me, I am writing about the government yet again.

But, if we needed more evidence of the inability of the nation’s political leaders to cut a deal to end the government shutdown, we got it this week.

President Donald Trump, who fancies himself as a “great deal-maker,” actually made what I consider to be a decent proposal to leaders in Congress. In return for getting money for “his wall,” Trump said he would commit to three years of protection for “dreamers,” persons who been in the U.S. for years, and, it is contended, properly I believe, should not be subject to deportation.

It could have been the first step toward deal, but House Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, poured cold water on it immediately, saying it was a “non-starter.” They said they wouldn’t even consider it.

Better, I suggest, for them to have said something like, “Good start. If you commit to permanent protection, not just several years of protection, we can talk.”

As William Gallston wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: “As the government shutdown enters its second month, our divided political system appears no closer to a resolution than when this disgraceful and unnecessary standoff began. There’s an obvious way to end it—and to ensure a fiasco like this never happens again.

“President Trump very much wants $5.7 billion for his border wall. Democrats very much want a permanent solution for 1.8 million immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, known as “Dreamers.” Democrats of all stripes oppose the wall. A majority of Republicans favor both the wall and permanent relief for the Dreamers, but a fervent minority of Republicans—Trump’s base—denounce even temporary measures for the Dreamers.

“Party discipline in the House has reached quasi-parliamentary levels that British Prime Minister Theresa May must envy. So there are only two legislative routes to end the stalemate: Either one side capitulates, or a bi-partisan group of senators takes the initiative that their leaders have spurned.

“If there were serious political leadership in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would co-sponsor legislation pairing $5.7 billion for the wall and permanent legal status for the Dreamers.”

Galston continues, including with a new idea to end shutdowns now and in the future: “As with most truces, acceptance (of a compromise) will be painful. For most Democrats, the wall is more than a policy dispute; it is the symbol of what they loathe most about Trump. For many Republicans, the wall stands for resistance against what they regard as Democrats’ unreasoning hostility to the president, and permanent relief for the Dreamers is one piece of the amnesty they have spent their careers opposing.

“But this is precisely the point. The issue that triggered the current stalemate cannot be resolved with a mere ‘split the difference’ funding agreement. Achieving the comprehensive immigration reform that has tied Congress in knots for years will require each side to accept something it regards as morally troubling.

“Congress also has the power to ensure that this current battle becomes the shutdown to end all shutdowns. As early as 1981, the U.S. comptroller general suggested that Congress enact a mechanism to prevent political disagreements from interrupting the basic functions of government, a device that became known as the ‘automatic continuing resolution.’ In brief, Congress would pass a law stipulating that, if it could not reach an agreement before a current appropriations bill expired, funding nonetheless would continue in a manner the law specifies. “

Galston has good points, both on a deal that could exist, as well as on a way to avoid more stupid shutdowns.

It strikes me that there could be several reasons why Democrats are not willing to deal.

First, they want Trump to cave and, if he doesn’t, they are happy to keep him without a deal because they believe he is suffering in the realm of public relations and political perception.

Second, they may believe – with some good reason — that they cannot trust Trump who often sees only a new floor with any compromise proposal, not a done deal. Such is the reality of negotiating with a hugely unpredictable Trump.

Third, they don’t know how to strike a deal themselves, one that would benefit part of their core political constituency. They are like “I’ll take my toys and go home” leaders, if you could call that leadership.

Meanwhile, Trump is coming under a bit pressure, even from those on the right, to say it’s time to end the shutdown, as well as trade wars, especially with China, for the benefit of the country’s economy. To a “normal president,” that could make political sense. To Trump, it may not.

So, what we have is a bunch of juveniles in the White House and Congress who cannot get any kind of act together for the benefit of the public — and at least one of the major troubling realities is that economic growth rides on the outcome.

I say we need mature, reasonable leaders on all sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.   To date, we have far less.

To close, consider this quote from Warren Buffett who included it in one of his books back in 2006:

“You can’t make a good deal with a bad person.”

Just go both ways with that quote. To me, it applies to Trump, it applies to Pelosi, and it applies to Schumer.

Save us all!