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 (Les AuCoin), 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

We used to call it “bridging.” 

As in, bridging to what you want to say in an interview despite the questions being asked.

All of this came up again as I watched Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett endure two full days of questioning last week by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On occasion, she “bridged” to the information she wanted to provide no matter the question.  Often, this involved Democrat inquisitors who tried to trap Barrett into committing to positions on such hot-button political issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control.

She would have none of it and, after two days, emerged essentially unscathed, which will insure her confirmation in the next couple weeks.  Her bridge often went something like this:  I cannot render an opinion on an issue that stands to come before the Court where I would have to render a judgment based on the law, not politics.

Her likely confirmation will come before the presidential election, which irritates Senate Democrats who, if the situation were reversed, I contend but do not know, would do the same thing.  Exercise raw political power.

I thought of this in relation to the ways, during my career as a lobbyist, that I prepared for and helped clients get ready for tough interviews before a legislative committee, a TV camera, or a radio microphone.  In such cases for me, it always was important to make a list of the key points I wanted to make or that I advised my clients to make, then find a way myself or hoped my client would find a way to insert those points no matter the question that was asked by a legislator or a news reporter.

This worked for me, for example, when, I worked in executive positions for Oregon state government and represented the state in communications with the media, including interviews by newspaper, radio or TV reporters during a state employee strike. 

With such phrases as, “that’s a good question, but let me tell you what’s really at stake during the strike,” I often bridged from the question being asked to the answer I wanted to give on behalf of management. 

Not every time, mind you, because, if that was the case, I would come across as nothing more than a PR hack.

That can be the bad part about bridging.  If done repeatedly, it doesn’t work because it deflects any sense of honesty and candor, But, if used in balance and on occasion, it is a good strategy.

I was reminded of this when I read a column by David Von Drehle in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Here is part of what Von Drehle wrote:

“ Few political arts are more valuable than that of dodging questions. The wise leader understands that tomorrow is an enigma, next week a mystery and next month an unknowable country. Flexibility to react to new and changing circumstances is a priceless asset; it should not be squandered through excessive candor.  “If elected, will you . . . ” is almost always a trap, designed to pin the would-be decider to a fixed position.

“The non-answering of direct questions is a hot topic. Democrat senators spent much of the week grilling Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, but she zigged and zagged her way past the salvos. ​ Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden continued his dogged — though not at all graceful — dance around the question of whether he supports a plan to pack the high court.  Meanwhile, President Trump continued to avoid questions about his covid-19 tests or his tax returns as if they were bowls of quinoa and kale.”

American voters, Von Drehle wrote, are often willing to accept evasion as long as there’s a sense it serves some national purpose.

I agree.

But, as one person, let me add that I will often be one of those willing Americans to tolerate secrecy if it’s in what I believe to be the national interest.  Finally, my tolerance does not extent to Trump who has abused the oath of his office for more than three years now and, therefore, should not get another term.

Vote.