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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 should have thought of this when I wrote the blog yesterday in favor of private philanthropy.

The point was cited by the writer of a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. It was this:

“The beauty of philanthropy is that I can direct my money to causes I care about and hold the charitable organizations accountable. If the charitable organizations don’t do what they say they are going to do, I can direct my money elsewhere. That’s not the case with my tax dollars.”

Good point.

Enough said.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

To hear Democrats running for president tell it, the private sector is all bad.

Corporations do nothing that benefits the economy. Their leaders don’t engage in private philanthropy. All they want is personal gain.

That’s why the likes of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to trash American capitalism and install socialism. They want to give government an ever-increasing role in life, so bureaucrats will tell us what health insurance to have, instruct us in how to be educated, tell everyone how to build “green buildings,” etc.

You get the picture.

The private sector is evil.

We see this in Washington, D.C. as the 2020 presidential election approaches, but we also see it in Oregon.

In fact, one aspirant for the Secretary of State’s office is calling corporate political contributions evil, even as that person solicits ever-growing contributions from public employee unions.

In this way, this candidate tends to mimic the Oregonian newspaper, which showed up a couple months ago with a series of major stories on the “evils of corporate political contributions.” Nary a mention of public employee union contributions.

Plus, the story contended that corporate contributions prompted Democrats to oppose various new environmental regulatory laws. You would thought Democrats were in the pocket of corporations, which should have irritated those Democrats.

So, against this backdrop, I read with interest a piece in the Wall Street Journal that appeared under this headline:

The War on Philanthropy

Private giving achieves what government can’t—which is why authoritarians hate it.

It was by Karl Zinsmeister, the author of the Almanac of American Philanthropy and editor in chief of Philanthropy Magazine.

He wrote this:

“America has just completed a banner year for private giving. The 10 largest donations in 2019 amounted to $6.2 billion, up 8 per cent from 2018. These went to a wide array of causes, and came from men and women of the right and the left. When the total of all U.S. philanthropy becomes available this summer, it will show that Americans voluntarily gave away around $430 billion in 2019.”

Further, Zinsmeister made a key point, with which I agree:

“Private giving builds institutions of civil society that provide valuable services, alleviating many pressing public problems. The New York Public Library, for example, has operated as a charity since its founding 125 years ago, and Central Park is run by a donor-funded conservancy that rescued it from decay in 1980. Quietly effective philanthropies get little visibility, though, and scant credit from journalists, academics and politicians.

“Instead, progressive editorialists and political candidates openly call for deep cuts in the charitable deduction, an end to tax protections for churches and other charities, the taxing down of personal fortunes, and new regimes in which government becomes the sole ministrant of societal needs. Givers like the Kochs and Waltons are treated as punching bags for ideological reasons, but even liberals such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad and Robert Smith are pilloried for practicing philanthropy.”

Zinsmeister says today’s critics of private giving are most misleading in their suggestion that it is primarily a game played by “the billionaire boys’ club.” That’s not even close to accurate, he says.

The lion’s share of America’s vast philanthropy comes from ordinary citizens, 100 million of whom make charitable gifts annually, with the average household donating around $3,000. In addition, 77 million citizens volunteer time and labor. This broad generosity powers some 1.5 million independent non-profits across the country, operating in every imaginable part of the economy, pursuing a panoply of approaches to national improvement.

Zinsmeistser adds: “Rather than being an instrument of plutocracy, America’s highly decentralized philanthropy is one of its most pluralistic and democratic elements. Philanthropy disperses authority, gives individuals direct opportunities to change their communities, and lets nonmainstream alternatives have their day in the sun.

“Charitable problem-solving also has many practical advantages. What works to alleviate homelessness or loneliness in old age may be different in Nebraska than in New York. With government programs it is almost impossible, even illegal, to pursue different strategies in different places. In philanthropy that’s easy—local variegation is one of the field’s inherent strengths. Studies show that philanthropic efforts are more effective than government in the amount of social repair accomplished per dollar.”

From a local, Salem-area perspective, this emphasis on philanthropy calls to the mind the example of the Salem Free Clinic, an effort by citizens and an incredible array of local churches – about 70 of them – to offer free health care (including general health and dental) to anyone who walks in off the street.

And, to the credit of local health care enterprises in the Salem area, including the major Salem Health System, those who run the systems have welcomed the Free Clinic, which, they say, provides an array of critical services in the region.

This is an example of what can happen in America when independent problem-solvers pounce on issues before they even rise to national notice.

“Privately funded civil society attends to a vast range of problems and threats,” Zinsmeister concludes. “This is a distinguishing strength of the U.S. It will be a tragedy if Americans allow our rich tradition of voluntary action to be smothered.”

I agree. And I wish that all of those who for public office, both here and around the country, would recognize the critical contributions of private philanthropy. It’s not only government that should set out to solve society’s problems.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The question in this blog headline emerged this week in another quality piece by one of my favorite columnists, Michael Gerson, who writes for the Washington Post.

The question – can hate drive out hate – is a good one to ask as we anticipate Martin Luther King’s birthday commemoration next Monday, January 20.

The best answer is “no.”

Gerson justifies the answer this way:

“Our civic holidays inspire us. But sometimes — as in the case of Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year — the spirit of a holiday is so at odds with our current practice that it judges and indicts us.

“That spirit is impossible to summarize in one King quote from a lifetime of quotable eloquence. But if I were forced to try, it would be this: Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive our hate; only love can do that.”

Gerson asks whether it is possible to find a more routinely violated principle – hatred doesn’t work — in our public life?

And he answers no.

“We have a president,” Gerson writes, “who boasts of avenging slights and criticism with multiplied viciousness. Donald Trump has political opponents who feel obliged to attack his breaches of decorum, morality and ethics with an intensity that continues the country’s rhetorical escalation.

“Partisan media and talk radio make their money through incitement and answering fire with fire.

“And much of this conflict is based on a trend that threatens to become a tragedy. Political divisions in the United States are becoming less ideological than sociological. Americans are increasingly taking opposition to their views as an assault on their way of life. So issues such as gun control or climate disruption — instead of being matters requiring debate and offering the possibility of compromise — become signifiers of cultural identity.

“Among those who hold this mind-set, losing an election raises the fear of cultural extinction. The strongest and loudest political advocates tend to think their loss might end America as they know it.”

As a veteran of various political processes over the years, the current state of politics is very troubling for me. It does not appear to be possible any longer to disagree agreeably. Rather, if you hold certain principles, others who don’t hold those same principles, then you hate them.

Gerson says the depth of current political divisions would not surprise King, who lived in a time when social divisions were far deeper, and the level of political violence far higher. King, thus, was not optimistic about human nature.

His primary source of hope was not in human potential, but, rather, in God’s nature – and he believed in a personal God, not some amorphous higher being out there. That hope should be ours, too.

“God has planted in the fiber of the universe certain eternal laws which forever confront every man,” King argued. “They are absolute and not relative. There is an eternal and absolute distinction between right and wrong. It is the human calling to discern and apply these principles to public affairs with prophetic intensity and urgency. No one can finally be neutral. Every man and woman has the duty to resist evil and seek the good.”

For King, the final goal was love, not hatred. And, it was love in the sense of respect for other human beings regardless of their age, the color of their skin, or their beliefs.

“I think I have discovered the highest good,” King said. “It is love. This principle stands at the center of the cosmos.”

And he found this true for a specific reason. “Agape [meaning God-like love] means a recognition of the fact that all life is interrelated,” he wrote. “…all men are brothers. To the degree that I harm my brother, no matter what he is doing to me, to that extent I am harming myself.”

Finally, Gerson, the columnist posits this:

“Many will find this impractical. But in the midst of our zero-sum politics, it is worth asking: How practical and successful is the theory that hate can drive out hate?

Hate is not practical. Hate is not successful.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

A recent column in the Washington Post by the candidate who lost the Florida governorship last time around contends that Democrats have to fight back from what he called “the socialism smear.”

The candidate, Andrew Gillum, makes some decent points, I guess, but he forgets – or ignores – what for him is one major inconvenient fact: Most of the Democrats running for president want to make government even bigger and all-inclusive.

Bureaucrats – I mean no disrespect by using the term — would be in charge of nearly every area of American life if the far left Democrats like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have their way.

That’s socialism.

And the cost would exceed any ability to pay for it, except to saddle future generations with a huge bill.  Plus, even to make a stab at the far higher cost, those in favor of socialism would have to impose huge tax increases.

From the far left, Warren and Sanders want to spend trillions of dollars of your money to GIVE you health care, as well as to FORGIVE all student debt and MAKE education the responsibility of the federal government.  And they don’t care much, if at all, about higher taxes.

Would you have to work your way to gain access to the federal largesse?

Probably not. Socialism gives. It does not require specific effort.

All of this conjures up in my mind memories of my wife’s and my trip to Europe a year or so ago, with a start in Prague. There, our guide, a woman of about 40, recounted her years growing up in a communist regime where enterprise and creativity were not just not valued – they were forbidden.

She loved her current life when, she said, she could talk and think on her own without fear of government reprisal.

So, I say this to Gillum: The best way to avoid the “socialist smear” is to avoid being part of it. Emphasize individual effort and enterprise, with a role, to be sure, for government – not to mention enlightened capitalists — to take care of the less fortunate in society.

Improve and expand capitalism. Don’t throw away the American dream motivated by enterprise and effort.

THOUGHTS ON WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A PRESS SECRETARY

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 headline for this blog may seem a bit arcane, but I write about this subject — being a press secretary for a top government official — having been one in my past.

I served as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor, the late Victor Atiyeh.

It was a position I took very seriously, for I had to strike the right balance between advocating for my boss, the governor, and shooting straight with the media.

Fortunately for me, Governor Atiyeh expected me to do my job with accuracy, ethics and credibility.

I writer all of this to submit that the role of press secretary in the White House has changed dramatically — and not for the better.

The current one for President Donald Trump, Stephanie Grisham, fancies herself only as an advocate for Trump, not a conduit for the press.

For one thing, she has not held one briefing for the press in the White House as had become a tradition for her predecessors. Not one. Zero.

She shows no signs of relenting on this. She said she thinks “reporters use the briefings to grandstand,” so she studiously avoids the role.

Grisham, of course, took her place in a less-than-distinguished line of Trump-era press secretaries. Sean Spicer peddled lies about the Trump inauguration crowd on his first day. Sarah Sanders exuded contempt at almost all points along the way. And Anthony Scaramucci flamed out in days.

Washington Post media analyst Margaret Sullivan wrote a piece over the weekend asking whether Grisham was the worst-ever White House press secretary. Sullivan answered “no” because, she said, Grisham functions as an acolyte of Trump, not a press secretary.

In her reporting, Sullivan relied, in part, on perceptions from Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

“Your main job,” Lockhart contends, “is to advocate for the press within the government. You have to make sure that the information going out to the American public and to the world is accurate and complete.

“And the reason for daily briefings? They tend to force decisions to get made in a sensible way — they reduce impetuousness and procrastination.”

When things get particularly ugly — as, for example, during the period when Clinton was being impeached — Lockhart says the need for briefings is even greater because the public is justifiably more hungry for information.

Grisham mirrors Trump when, instead of talking with reporters, she fires off aggressive tweets, often disparaging journalists, and frequently makes appearances on the Trump propaganda network, Fox News, or the even more right wing and equally friendly OANN.

She co-wrote an offensive op-ed piece harshly criticizing two Washington Post reporters for an accurate story that Trump didn’t like.

And, as Trump sycophant, she had this to say about former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly: “He was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.” Or she eagerly agreed with Trump that his critics are “human scum.”

It would not be accurate fully to compare press secretary jobs in Oregon and Washington, D.C., but I have a few thoughts about what should characterize the job wherever it is located.

Are they big thoughts?

Perhaps not.

Are they worth considering?

Who knows? But, for my part, I think they are brilliant.

• Put your best foot forward in representing your boss, but don’t descend to lies, rumor, innuendo or name-calling.
• Strive for accuracy and context because both are critically important.

[Permit an example here. Back when I served as press secretary for Governor Atiyeh, the time came for us to decide whether and, if so how, to issue a report on the number of jobs state government had helped the private sector to create. First, note the phrase, “helped the private sector to create jobs.” That was our job; not to create the jobs ourselves. Second, we needed to strive for accuracy and context so our report, under inevitable scrutiny, would stand up under that scrutiny. Facts matter. The context in which those facts lie also matters. Think about this with regard to Grisham and Trump: Neither has any commitment to accuracy or context.]

• Understand that, in the end, you work for taxpayers who pay your salary.
• Recognize that one of your tasks is to build credibility for government, something which sorely is lacking in today’s version of government, both in Washington, D.C. and Oregon.

One more point is worth making here. One of the great traits of Governor Atiyeh, one I admired and tried to replication was this: He didn’t care who got the credit when something good happened – he only wanted to produce “something good.”

Wouldn’t that be healthy if that model existed today – both in the top-level public officials, as well as in the press secretaries who represent them?

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 headline refers to the fact that the “Desert Classic” pro golf tournament starts next week in the California desert – and that brings back a flood of memories for me.

Why “The American Express?”

The good news is that the major American company has stepped up to the plate to sign a five-year contract to be the named sponsor of the iconic desert tournament.

Last year, there was not a named sponsor, so the tournament went by the moniker “The Desert Classic.” To be sure, there were a number of “secondary sponsors,” including the company called WorkDay, which, some thought could become the primary named sponsor.

Another piece of good news thie year is that one of America’s best and well-known golfers, Phil Mickelson, has become the “host” of the tournament this year. Last year, he was called the “Tournament Ambassador,” but his new name could mean that he will be the host for several years, following in the footsteps, it could be said, of Bob Hope who made the desert tournament famous.

Mickelson also produced a great first round last year. He shot 60 on the La Quinta Country Club course and almost won the tournament, eventually finishing in the top five.

Another reason the tournament conjures up memories for me is that I served last year as a “walking marshal,” a title that meant I walked inside the ropes each day of the four-day tournament and, with colleagues, was assigned to make sure spectators didn’t venture inside the ropes.

Frankly, I did not have much to do, so I got to watch a lot of good golf up close and personal.

I still remember the first day as a walking marshal. One of the two pros in the group to which I assigned (on the first three days of the tournament, two amateurs pay to play with the two pros) included the pro Jason Duffner who, at best, could be called a bit of journeyman, though he has won five PGA tournaments.

He was – and is – memorable because of his apparent attitude on the course. He always appears to be mad at something or someone. Perhaps he is not, but appearances count.

It was not a good experience to be to a group assigned last year that included Duffner. I hope for better as, again, I will be a walking marshal for all four tournament days next week.

Should be an interesting and worthwhile experience for me in the spirit of giving back to the game I love.

And, to be fair, last year ended with a great experience on the fourth day of the tournament – I walked with a group that included one of my favorite golfers, Zack Johnson, who always himself with skill and aplomb.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 because – no dispute here – I am well qualified on all counts to assume these high-level jobs.

The others are the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering and the Department of “Just Saying.”

For now, here are my latest pet peeves.

INSURANCE PREMIUMS VS. CLAIMS: This is a major peeve for me. To put it simply, insurance companies love with you pay premiums, but hate when you file claims.

I say this as a retired lobbyist who represented health insurers in Oregon for about 25 years – and, during those years, while I was not in charge of paying claims, I encouraged my clients to consider claims honesty and expeditiously.

After all, those who had signed up for insurance deserved coverage, as long as those claimed basic reviews.

My wife’s and my most recent experience with insurance dealt with a claim we filed pursuant to a trip insurance policy we bought before traveling overseas. For us, that trip had to be cut short due to an emergency illness.

But, as I write this, it took almost two months to get the insurance payment after we filed the claim. Not to mention all of the hard work on the part of my wife who persevered against an array of insurance adjusters.

We paid an insurance premium. We barely got a check for the claim.

Being an insurance adjuster must be one of the most thankless jobs in America.

GLITCHES IN A NEW GOLF HANDICAPPING SYSTEM: This will be of interest only to dedicated golfers, such as myself.

In what sounded like a solid, international effort, six golf systems – including the United States Golf Association in the U.S. – got together to produce one handicapping system where, previously, there had been six.

Handicapping, by the way, if you don’t know, is a system for posting your golf scores so you get what is called “a handicap.” Then, when your handicap is compared to other golfers who have a handicap, the system allows players of different abilities to compete against each other in a fair manner.

With the one-system change, however, the devil is in the details.

If only for reasons for technology, it was difficult for the systems to be merged into one.

Plus, there was an additional factor, which amounts to my pet peeve.

It was that golfers were “expected” (though, I admit, not required) to past all 18 hole-by-hole scores, then the total – and not just the total.

I don’t any of my golfing friends who will go to that silly extent.

I say just post your total score, produce an adjusted handicap and play on.

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE GAMES CONTINUE: This last pet peeve will surprise no one who knows how I think about politics.

I wish House and Senate interests would get together to design an impeachment hearing in the Senate, one that honors the U.S. Constitution, not to mention citizens like me and many others who expect better from Congress, whatever the result is from a Senate pre-disposed to support President Donald Trump.

During my career in and around government, process always has mattered.

So far, leaders on both sides appear to have very little regard for process. They are singing from prepared sheets of music, with lyrics that have been written in advance and pay no attention to what the other side says.

That’s not the best we can do in today’s politics, but it is the best we get, which means this is a pet peeve for me.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

E. J. Dionne is not one of my favorite columnists for the Washington Post – he is usually too far left for me, as I label myself a “centrist.” But this week Dionne made a thought-provoking point in one of his columns.

President Donald Trump not only benefits from division and dissension, he tries to provoke it. It is the way he hopes to win in 2020.

Here are a few more paragraphs from Dionne’s column:

“We often hear that both sides of politics benefit equally from polarization. This is plainly untrue.

“Say what you will about President Trump, but he knows there’s only one way he can prevail. He needs to keep the nation deeply divided — by race, immigration status and religion, and by region, culture and ideology.

“Trump’s rants seem — and often are — irrational, undisciplined and self-indulgent. But they are also shrewd and ­purposeful.

“He accepts that he has permanently lost large parts of the country. But, given our electoral college, he knows he doesn’t have to win a plurality of the popular vote. He needs only tiny margins in swing states, and these require overwhelming support from whites, Christians, older Americans and people in small cities and rural areas.

“He needs them to believe that he’s their champion and that his enemies — liberals and ‘socialists,’ big-city folk and the ‘politically correct,’ the secular and the culturally adventurous — hate them. If keeping that level of hostility high requires direct and indirect appeals to racism and xenophobia, he’s good with that.”

So, polarization and division are hallmarks of Trump.

For those on the other side of Trump – I decline to call them “progressives,” as Dionne does, for that title gives them more benefit than I think they deserve – division doesn’t work.

For now, let’s call them Democrats. They win only with coalitions that cross the lines of race, place and faith. Democrat candidates need strong support and turnout from African Americans, Latinos and city dwellers. But they cannot prevail in swing states without help from blue-collar and non-college-educated whites.

“Moreover,” writes Dionne, “the left and center-left believe that public action is a positive good, that social solidarity is a realistic possibility, and that a society thrives when it shares benefits and burdens equitably. When we live in our bunkers of hatred, none of these dispositions has a chance.”

“Rural and small town voters don’t think either party is going to do anything for them, but they vote Republican because they think Democrats will do something to them: Take their guns or raise their taxes, or enact an environmental law that will put them out of work.”

Borrowing from a speech by Senator Sherrod Brown, a possible one—time candidate for president, Dionne quotes these stunning words from a speech the late Senator Ted Kennedy gave to the City Club of Cleveland during his 1968 presidential campaign, the day after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated:

“When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother,” Kennedy said, “when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens, but as enemies — to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered.”

This is the politics of Trump. Spur hate and invective. Use that to invigorate supporters to vote for you again.

With Dionne I say, even as we face the prospect of impeachment at home and war with Iran overseas, “We cannot let things go on this way.”

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 we enter a new year, one in which we will be voting for president, I ask, what is the alternative to Donald Trump who stands, for me, as the worst president in U.S. history?\

One problem is that Trump’s excesses are exactly what draws many voters to him. He spreads dissension, then capitalizes on that dissension and Trumpians follow him hook, line and sinker.

In the headline to this blog, I write the word “if” in regard to voting in the 2020 election. But the fact is that I will be voting.

I’m just not sure for whom.

Of one thing, I am sure. My vote will not go to Trump.

He cannot be trusted to put the country’s good ahead of his own. The impeachment process, now grinding forward in Washington, D.C., shows the extreme extent of his misdeeds, though his defenders in the U.S House and Senate continue to sing his praises in an apparent effort to curry political favor from him.

Here is the way Washington Post editorial writers put it in assessing the affirmative House vote on impeachment:

“…it is our view that more than enough proof exists for the House to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, based on his own actions and the testimony of the 17 present and former administration officials who courageously appeared before the House Intelligence Committee.”

Because the U.S. Senate is not likely to convict Trump –- if there even will be a Senate trial as leaders in the House and Senate cannot agree on a process for it, as they have just returned from a Christmas break — the chances are that Trump will be on the ballot in 2020.

We don’t know who the standard bearer will be for Democrats, nor whether any third-party candidate will rise to the occasion, though the latter is not likely.

A new development is roiling the presidential sweepstakes. It is Trump’s decision to take out an Iran military leader who, it is clear, had murdered many Americans over the last years in that war-torn region. Still the take-out decision prompted many to question both the decision and Trump’s ability to manage the inevitable consequences of it.

In the Washington Post this morning, columnist Joe Scarborough contends that no one should count on Trump’s ability because of his “ignorance.” “The danger posed by that ignorance,” Scarborough wrote, “is matched daily by the crises created by Trump’s own erraticism. His performance as commander in chief has been shaped by a collection of scattered grievances, emotional impulses and random tweets. As the Financial Times’ Philip Stephens had said of Trump’s foreign policy, ‘Looking for a framework is like searching for symmetrical patterns in a bowl of spaghetti.’”

So, all things considered, I won’t vote for Trump. If a far left Democrat such as Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is on the ballot, I won’t vote for that person either.

I might have to throw away my vote, which might end up being the ethical action to take.

While all of this is pending, here are the types of credentials I would look for in a candidate to lead the free world as U.S. president:

• Someone who works to tell the truth, striving for accuracy and context.
• Someone who puts the good of the nation ahead of personal aggrandizement.
• Someone who works to find the smart middle on pressing public policy issues, not just a position that serves his or her base or political party.
• Someone who demonstrates an ability to disagree agreeably.
• Someone who capitalizes on private sector experience for the public sector good.
• Someone who reads and studies to illustrate an intent to grasp history and policy.

Sound like the buffoon in the White House? No.

Sound like the far-left candidates who want to make the U.S. into a government-run enterprise? No.

But this is type of person I would look for vote when the time comes to vote later this year.

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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

Duplicity #1 — Senator Lindsay Graham: The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart writes this:

“Senator Lindsey O. Graham is a curious fellow. One year, he’s warning of the dangers that then-candidate Donald Trump posed to the Republican Party. The next, year he’s defending Trump and bragging that I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror should articles of impeachment against Trump come to the Senate.

“Or, as Jennifer Rubin (another Post writer) more aptly put it, Graham is in the throes of “boot-licking and willful ignorance of a ‘quid pro quo.’ It’s all so sad and shameful — for him, his party and our nation.”

Comment: To Graham, I say vote your conscience on the Trump impeachment, whatever that is. Reflect on your position and endeavor to employ a conscience, if you have one.

Duplicity #2: Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader: Like Graham, McConnell has tossed his sacred Senate role on impeachment – be an impartial juror – out the window.

He has announced that he will design a Senate impeachment process in complete concert with the White House.

Say what?

However he chooses to vote – no doubt not to convict Trump – he should feel a sense of constitutional obligation to design a fair and equitable process. But he won’t.

This has prompted Post columnist Max Boot to say that “the only principle Republicans have left is partisanship.”

Boot continues:

“… Republicans fervently denounce the mythical Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and then turn around and argue that President Trump has the right — nay, the obligation — to demand Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election.”

Comment: The farther we go in the post-House impeachment process, the more Trump looks guilty. The New York Times produced a piece of solid journalism a few days ago when it chronicled the time after Trump “withholding aid decision” as all of the White House worked to cover-up Trump’s illegal actions.

Duplicity #3: The way Republicans now handle impeachment: Based on words written by the columnist Boot, the very same Republicans who now accuse Democrats of wanting to impeach Trump from the start were intent on impeaching President Barack Obama from the start.

Further, Republicans now think that compliance with House subpoenas is strictly optional, but they once held Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with House subpoenas.

Comment: As the saying goes, “consistency can be the hobgoblin of small minds.” But it also is true that, in politics, your record follows you around. When Democrats or Republicans do one thing one minute and then the reverse the next minute their credibility comes into question unless they appear to have a good reason for the changed view. So far, those who are changing have no good reason…just partisan game-playing.

Duplicity #4: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s toing and froing: It would hard to write about duplicity without citing Warren. She rose to new heights – depths? – recently when she went after another candidate, Pete Buttigieg, for accepting political contributions from wealthy donors.

Well, it was exactly what she has done and continues to do. Buttigieg called her out effectively for her duplicity.

Comment: I would tell Warren to focus on issues – issues that matter to regular Americans – rather than to engage in such obvious duplicity.

My conclusion to all this is that consistency matters. If it cannot be maintained, then those who believe they must change should reckon with the need to provide a solid rationale for the change.

And, duplicity is not a Republican or Democrat issue.  It goes both ways.  Those who commit duplicity deserve to explain why.