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 the headline won’t make sense to either of two kinds of people – those who bow at Donald Trump’s altar and those who fawn over Bernie Sanders.

But, surprisingly, as the headline says, there are a number of similarities between what I label as “the two buffoons,” neither of which represent what I think this country needs in the way of political leaders.

[As I write this, I should note that we have just come through Super Tuesday where Sanders won some stuff, but also watched Joe Biden resuscitate his campaign.  Too soon to tell, but the Democrats may be headed to a brokered convention.]

For the list of Sanders and Trump similarities, I am indebted to Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson who, I think, writes persuasively about today’s gone-awry political landscape.

• Neither Trump nor Sanders go by a script or, better put, any sort of conventional political wisdom.

Sanders’s performance in last debate before Super Tuesday, Gerson says, was “a bellowing, boorish mess. The Vermont senator’s signature response when challenged was to pump up the volume, as though persuasiveness were measured in decibels.”

Those favoring Sanders say he speaks his mind.  He is not scripted. He is true to himself.  He may not play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

Trump speaks his mind, too, though who knows what will emerge next.  Like, Sanders, he isn’t scripted.  He is true to himself.  He doesn’t play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

• Both Sanders and Trump come across as unpleasant, ill-mannered loudmouths. For each, authenticity equals incivility and spontaneity no matter who or what becomes the target.

Gerson writes that, “It is worth noting, first, that speaking your mind without filters is not a sign of political authenticity; it usually indicates a basic lack of respect for others.  In almost any human interaction other than politics, Sanders’s outbursts on the debate stage would be taken as a sign of general jerkness.

For Trump, such gracelessness is a lifestyle.

• Both Sanders and Trump practice a type of communication that doesn’t seeks to change minds or clarify important differences. Rather, their communication seeks to establish dominance.

Communication that seeks to change minds, Gerson contends, is essential to self-government.   What Sanders and Trump do “is more appropriate to professional wrestling matches and campaign rallies.  This is not merely a matter of style.  Attempting to persuade someone — even when the source of disagreement is deep — involves the affirmation that they are worth persuading.  Shouting someone down is the denial of their dignity.”

• Both Sanders and Trump hew to an arrogant and lazy belief that anything that pops into your head is worthy of public utterance.

By contrast, Gerson says “authentic beliefs in politics emerge from reflection and craft.  Ideas and policies are refined through the careful choice of arguments and words.  Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address was an authentic piece of communication because it displayed deep thought, embodied in beautiful language.”

Trump’s tweets and Sanders rants on the campaign trail illustrate the same thing — impulse and ignorance, not reasoned thought.

• Both Sanders and Trump equate authenticity with being a disruptive outsider.

Gerson adds, “Trump’s lack of governing experience did not provide him with fresh perspective; it led to governing incompetence.  His disrespect for institutions led to an assault on essential institutions, including the FBI, the Justice Department and the intelligence services.  The promise by a politician to burn down the house is visceral and emotional.  That does not make institutional arsonists more sincere or wise.”

For Sanders, there are those who contend that as a “veteran politician” – a title he would abhor, though he has been in office for about 30 years – understands how government works.  Yet, he has not used his Senate position for anything other than to try to boost his own status.  Bi-partisanship does not exist for him.  Becoming part of producing solid, middle-ground legislation does not exist for him.

Gerson closes with this paragraph.

“In the upside-down world of American politics, Sanders and Trump are given credit by their followers for vices that corrupt democracy. Meanwhile, grace, careful rhetoric, learning and governing skill have few practitioners and few defenders.”

I wish it were not so.  And, because, it is, I fear for the future of American democracy, which is why the presidential election decision we face later this year is so important.  For me, my vote will not be for either Sanders or Trump if that is the choice.

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.

There is a proposal circulating around the Capitol in Salem these days that makes little sense.

And that is not because of the Senate and House Republican walk-out that now has lasted for just under a week.

It is a public records law change that would give statutory heft to making a so-called public records czar in state government independent of all other authorities.

Dumb.

I say this as a person who has worked with Oregon’s public records laws for about 40 years.

The laws may be complicated, but there is a solid basic proposition that underlies what is in the statutes:  All government records are public unless you can cite a specific statutory exemption that will stand up under scrutiny – often intense scrutiny.

The proposal is to make an individual public records czar (by the way, in my judgment, there should not be such a position) responsible to no one other than himself or herself.

The best option, if there has to be a public records czar, is to make the person report to the governor.  Then, as is the case with other positions in the Executive Branch, the governor or another statewide elected official would be held accountable for performance.

All of this arose because the czar – she was called a “public records advocate” — complained because she reported to the governor and key staff there, for the governor, oversaw her operation, at times telling her what policy to follow.

The advocate\czar, Ginger McCall, cited irreconcilable differences with the governor’s staff over role of the public records advocate, including that she felt pressured by the governor’s administration to advance Brown’s public records policy goals without publicly disclosing who was directing that work.

Of course, then McCall left Salem to head to another government job on the East Coast.  Before she left, said it was important to add language to state law to make clear that “the public records advocate” is independent.

It is not clear, at the moment, whether the bill will pass in the “short session,” especially given the walk-out impasse.

If not, that’s good.

No one manager in state government, no matter the subject, should be given carte blanch to operate as he or she sees fit.  Better to hold an elected official accountable — and that’s what should happen when it comes to public records.

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 Department of Just Saying is one of three I run as director.  The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

It will come as no surprise to you that I run all three with skill and dexterity, which means I multi-task well.

ISSUE #1:  PRIVATE HEALTH CARE BACK IN GOOD GRACES…TEMPORARILY?/The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that “Americans naturally turn to the government when their health or physical security is at risk, but a core U.S. strength is the breadth of its private medical resources.”

That’s on display now as is calling on private actors to buttress the federal response to the Coronavirus the government pandemic-in-the-making.

The Food and Drug Administration says it will allow hundreds of academic hospital labs to begin testing for the coronavirus.  The country had relied on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, but its testing kits turned out to be faulty.  By unleashing academic labs, the U.S. will have the capacity by the end of this week to screen “probably 10,000 people a day,” says Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who writes for the WSJ.  Within two weeks that should be 20,000 a day, Gottlieb said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

JUST SAYING that it’s interesting that private health care is back in good graces, if only for a few moments, even as all of those running for the Democrat presidential nomination call for a complete government system – no private health care – and as the Trump
Administration, up to this point, has been setting out to thin the ranks of scientists in such departments as the CDC.

What’s needed, however, is a solid combination of government and private health care, which, together, will produce the capacity and the skill to serve citizens.

ISSUE #2:  BUTTIGIEG EXITS PRESIDENTIAL RACE/Sorry in some ways to see that Pete Buttigieg decided to drop out of the Democrat presidential race.  In a way, his decision represents a statesmanlike act because he did not see a way to win and wanted the country to focus on finding the best candidate among those remaining – if, I add, that is possible.

Here’s what one columnist, Daniel Drezner, said about the decision:

“Pete Buttigieg managed to surprise everyone again. He suspended his campaign last night.  The development marks an abrupt end to what was briefly an ascendant candidacy, as Buttigieg won the Iowa caucuses and came in second in New Hampshire.  But despite attracting enormous attention, significant support and sometimes enthusiastic crowds, there was no clear path forward toward the nomination.”

JUST SAYING that we have not heard the last of Buttigieg.  He is young enough to rise again and I suspect he will.  To the current race, he brought intelligence chops, coming as he did from attending Harvard and being a Rhodes Scholar, but also a willingness to discuss tough issues with the ability to use good words in doing so.

He actually came across as someone who did not need to “yell on a street corner” to be heard, as is the case with the D who might win the nomination, Bernie Sanders.  Nor did Buttigieg, for all his youth, appear as ill-suited to the Oval Office as the person who now occupies it.

ISSUE #3:  SEAL TEAM LEADER GOES ON THE RECORD/In the Wall Street Journal, military Seal Team leader, William McRaven (he led the Team when it caught up with terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden), said this:

“As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

JUST SAYING that McRaven is right and, on top of that, has earned the right to speak based on the incredible level of his service to the country.  Integrity and character do matter in politics, no matter that various political leaders or supposed-leaders on all sides violate the norms every day.  McRaven is right.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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 in this blog appeared first in various newspapers around the country last week to herald a column by Leonard Pitts, a very credible national journalist.

The words say volumes about what has happened in this country as rage and resentment have taken over, not just in politics, but in society overall.

Unfortunately, political figures have led the way in denying the importance of integrity and ethical conduct.

Donald Trump is the leader in this travesty – if leading is a word that belongs in such an issue.  But, it also is true that many on the left have followed him into rage and resentment.  Think of Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who yells to drown out disagreement.  Add U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and to the mix and you get a toxic brew.

More from Pitts:

“…it is often said that we are living now in Post-Fact America — but truth is, we are also living in Post-Integrity America.  That’s not breaking news. But it’s been brought into painfully clear focus these last few days.

“One watched – not with surprise anymore, the capacity for that being long lost, but surely with dread and fascination – as Donald Trump launched his post-impeachment purge of aides deemed insufficiently sycophantic.  But that was just a prelude.

“Last week, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people, most of them guilty of lying, fraud, corruption, tax evasion and similar crimes.  In other words, the kinds of things of which Trump has often been accused.

“But it is worth noting that every person Trump pardoned or gave clemency came to his attention not through the normal machinery of government, but through inside connections or else, as The New York Times noted, ‘were promoted on Fox News.’  Some were championed by aides and allies.  Some had donated big money to his campaign.  And again, most had breached the public trust.

“Like former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who had served eight years of a 14-year sentence for trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.  Trump, who has opined how unfair it is that U.S. companies are not allowed to pay bribes to do business overseas, had called that sentence ‘ridiculous.’

“If granting clemency and pardons opens a window upon a president’s moral priorities – and it does – the view offered here suggests an unfortunate affinity for scammers and grifters, an empathy for those on the make, cutting deals, cutting corners, living the dream, until they got caught up by pesky rules designed to enforce integrity.  And if those same people happened to give him money or had their names whispered into his ear by a friend, so much the better.

“That’s not how this is supposed to work. And that it is working this way right out in the open, before our very eyes, suggests — no, screams — Trump’s imperviousness to any sense of ethical affront.”

There’s that word again – ethics.

It’s an important word to me, for at least two reasons.  First, I am privileged to serve as one of nine members of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, which is assigned to enforce statutory ethics laws – and Oregon had a solid list of ethics laws that apply to appointed officials, elected officials, and members of state boards and commissions (including, to put a point on it, me and my colleagues in our roles on the Ethics Commission).

Second, I am a volunteer on an Ethics Committee formed at the behest of Oregon Common Cause to propose ways to reinforce the importance of ethical behavior and conduct in public life.  We are working, (a) to create ethics pledges for appointed and elected officials to sign on an annual basis (much like what now occurs at Intel Corporation); and (b) injecting improved ethics education into Oregon school curricula.

Both assignments are important to me and, it is with this background, that I read and applaud the column by Leonard Pitts.