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.

California is known for a lot of things, not all good things.

A new bad one is this:

A piece of legislation in the California Legislature — AB 672 (called by opponents “The Public Golf Endangerment Act”) – poses a threat to municipal golf down south.

What the bill does is provide $50 million in developer subsidies to re-develop California’s municipal golf courses into housing complexes.

That covers 22 per cent of the state’s golf stock that hosts upwards of 45 per cent of the state’s golf play and roughly 90 per cent of the game’s growth and diversity programs, according to information from the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA).

The SCGA says the bill “singles out golf and only golf for dismemberment.  No other park, open space or land preservation use is similarly jeopardized, guaranteeing that golf and only golf will be sacrificed up for re-development.”

Now, why do a care about this?

Well at least two reasons:

• First, it is a stupid idea – and, as some say, “you cannot fix stupid.”  There are far better ways to provide needed housing other than to trash open spaces such as golf courses, which, I add, have proven their worth during the pandemic.

• Second, based on my more than 25 years in the state lobby business in Oregon, I worry that legislative ideas move north and south on the West Coast.  And the ideas that move are not always good ones.

So, we could see this kind of land grab here in Oregon.

The SCGA is working to round up grassroots comments against AB 672, but it is too early to tell yet what will happen.

As a California golfer, albeit at a private club in the California desert, I intend to add my voice to the opposition.

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.

An essay in the Washington Post this morning caught my attention for a simple, yet profound, reason.

This:  The words in the essay indicate what is at stake for America as we contend with the Donald Trump led attempt to re-make our government in his own image as a dictator and authoritarian.

Consider these words written by Sam Tanenhaus, an author who is

writing a biography of William F. Buckley Jr., and is a former editor of the New York Times Book Review.

“Internal assaults on American government usually come with the promise of greater freedom.  ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,’ Thomas Jefferson wrote. He was referring to Shays’s Rebellion, an uprising of 4,000 Massachusetts citizens in protest of taxes imposed by the state’s governor to liquidate Revolutionary War debt.

“Seventy-five years later, the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, explaining another rebellion, said the South had no choice but to ‘take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires.’

“To its participants and their emboldened intellectual allies, the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was another such ‘battle cry of freedom’ — a patriotic exercise against tyranny.  

“President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might deplore this as an ‘assault on our democracy,’ but ‘what they mean by our democracy is their oligarchy,’ the author and journalist Roger Kimball said in a September speech at Hillsdale College.  The protest against them may have become unruly, but it was by no means an insurrection.

“He may be right, though for reasons different from the one he gave. Militant protest, as Garry Wills wrote in ‘A Necessary Evil,’ his history of American distrust of government comes in different forms.  At one end of the spectrum are insurrectionists, who ‘take arms against the government because it is too repressive.’

“At the opposite end are vigilantes, who ‘take arms to do the government’s work because the authorities are not repressive enough.’  They become ‘vigilant,’ Wills writes, in times when they believe ‘the government is too slow, indifferent, or lax.’

“Vigilantism seems to be the defining strain of American conservatism today, embraced by both the mob and intellectuals.  Kimball is one of many who, emancipated by former president Donald Trump, feel licensed to lead their own campaigns against the country as it becomes more egalitarian and inclusive.

“In their minds, the storming of the Capitol on January 6 was meant not to subvert democratic ‘traditions,’ ‘procedures’ and ‘norms’ — the terms we hear so often — but rather to restore them through whatever means were necessary to stop a ‘stolen’ election, ‘rigged’ by the true enemies of ‘our democracy:’  The election officials and vote counters, the judges in courts across the land, even Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr.

“So, too, the chilling words ‘Hang Mike Pence’ were shouted in protest of the vice president’s refusal to ‘do the right thing,’ as Trump recently said — which in this case meant decertifying the election won by Joe Biden.”

Strong, thought-provoking words from Tanenhaus,  

They hold huge implications – negative ones — for this country as we head down an uncertain and dangerous road.  Make no mistake – more insurrections and vigilantism are on the horizon.

So, which is it – insurrection or vigilantism?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter because, whichever it is, the huge risks are there.  But, I found these definitions:

• Insurrection:  A violent uprising against an authority or government.

• Vigilantism:  Law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.

Both are involved as Trump lovers position themselves for the 2022 mid-term elections, as well as the 2024 presidential election.

As we look back on the startling actions of January 6 and the intentional planning that led up to the insurrection or vigilantism, the prospects are foreboding.  For what we saw on the 6^th is bound to happen again in this country as Trump and his acolytes – either former government officials or regular citizens — bid to overthrow America as we know it, even by violence if necessary.

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.

The question in this blog crosses my mind as I consider all the candidates who are bidding to serve in Congress in Oregon’s new Sixth Congressional District.

Why?

When one wins all she or he will have to do is:

• Board an airplane incessantly to get from Oregon to D.C. and back.

• On top of a first election win, begin campaigning again because terms in the U.S. House last for only two years.

• Consider the prospect of having to obey marching orders from U.S House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she wins again on the Democrat side and keeps the Speaker job, or from Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy if he achieves his long-time goal of becoming Speaker.

• Gauge how to act in the face of nearly unsolvable public policy challenges when there is little interest on the part of Ds and Rs in finding middle ground.

On the campaign trail, I hope the media will ask candidates WHY they want to run and WHAT experiences they have in or out of government they think will serve as a credential.  Better questions like this than the normal who’s ahead “horserace” coverage from many reporters and editors.

What follows are excerpts from a story from Oregon Public Broadcasting on the Sixth District race.  It appeared under this headline:

State Representatives Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, and Ron Noble, R-McMinnville, headline crowded field vying to join the state’s congressional delegation.

Unfortunately, what has not gained much notice lately is that a Salem area friend of mine, Dr. Kathleen Harder, has joined the race despite my friendly advice that she has only a long-shot chance to prevail.

The fact that avoided by advice is running is, in many ways, a testament to her drive as what she calls herself, a moderate Democrat, who wants to change the public debate to something not akin to ravaging the other side.

Salinas is touting her track record as a lawmaker and chair of the state House committee on health care where she led efforts to increase affordability and access for Oregonians.  Most recently, she worked with colleagues in the Legislature to amend the state’s constitution to declare health care as a human right — an action lawmakers have tried to pass for more than a decade.

The resolution will appear on the November 2022 ballot, means all candidates, including Harder, will have to reckon with this huge change to Oregon’s Constitution.

I dealt with the “health care as a right” issues over many years in my role as a state health care lobbyist for Providence Health & Services and others. 

To me, the addition makes sense if only because it would compel legislators to deal with health care issues in much the same way as they with education issues.  Too often, that does not occur.

So, if we put the aside the basic question – why anyone from Oregon wants to serve in Congress – my hope is that the coming campaign will provide solid information on a range of credentials and issues – solid information that signals how best to vote.

And, this personal footnote:  As an unaffiliated voter, I am not able to play in the primary, but if my friend, Dr. Harder, makes it into the general election, I’ll cast my vote for her, if only so she can experience the reality of becoming a Member of Congress.

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.

“The fight to save American democracy is just beginning.  The outcome is far from certain, but the stakes are clear.  It is a battle for objective truth over paranoid fantasy.  And one of our two major parties, the onetime ‘Party of Lincoln,’ is on the wrong side.  

“We must be blunt about how broadly and deeply the delusions advanced by President Trump have taken hold.  Only then will we be prepared for the real work before us.”

That’s how opinion columnist Eugene Robinson began a recent piece – and he is right.

In the “Trump era” (I hate to call his time an “era,” for it gives him far too much credit), truth became a casualty.

Still, the headline on this blog may be a bit misleading. 

It could be construed to suggest that I do not believe there is anything called “truth.”

No.

I do and there is.  It’s just not Trump or what he stands for.

For this reason, I have hesitated to write and post this blog.  Being misconstrued is a valid concern.

It’s just that, in some cases, with all due respect to Eugene Robinson and going beyond the Trump stupidity, truth is very difficult to define.

Consider the issue of abortion, even as I admit that abortion is a subject I have purposed to avoid in my blogs.  So, this is a one-time violation of that pledge.

What’s truth?

• Is abortion defined as a process that kills unborn infants?
• Or, is abortion defined as supporting a women’s right to choose how to use her body?

Both.  Truth is in the eye of the person who holds a belief on such a subject.

At the same time as I cite this conundrum, I oppose the notion of “alternative facts” as was often enunciated by Trump and his sycophant, Kelly Anne Conway, who both are now out of a job in the Nation’s Capital.

Trump’s standard operating procedure was – and still is — to lie.  The Washington Post Fact Checker tallied more than 35,000 lies, with, no doubt, more to come in his role as a private citizen who wants to cling to power – power for its own sake – even as he contemplates another run for president, perish the thought.

 Usually, the lies Trump told were meant to benefit him personally.

According to the Washington Post, “the Trump presidency began with ‘alternative facts.’  It ended with Trump aide Stephen Miller fantasizing about ‘alternate’ electors replacing the real ones.  And Trump’s congressional cheerleaders have taken up residence in this alternate reality.”

As for “truth,“ I think I know it when I see it.  But, I also did what I often do, which is to check my on-line dictionary.  Here is what it said about truth, which is at least partly helpful:

“The quality or state of being true.

• Loyalty; trustworthiness.
• Sincerity; genuineness; honesty.
• The quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact.
• Reality; actual existence.
• Agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy.”

The line that made the biggest impression on me was the third bullet – “the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts or reality; conformity with fact.”

There.  A fact is one thing.  Truth is another.  But they are linked inextricably.

I began thinking about the definition of truth as part of my service on a Federal Ethics Committee formed by Oregon Common Cause.   Our task was to propose ways for the federal government – including both Legislative and Executive Branches — to return to a point where ethical commitments and behavior mattered.

At the time we debated this last year, those of us on the committee were troubled by Trump’s consistent lies, so we thought we should emphasize truth – at least the word truth in what we recommended to national Common Cause.

Then came the rub.  Truth often is in the eye of the beholder as is the case with the example I cited above – the truth about abortion.

For me, the resolution is this – and it lies in the phrase “conformance with fact.” 

If someone says something that does not conform with facts, then that is not truth.  And truth is worth upholding.

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.

I am a jack of all trades.

Yesterday, I opened one of the three departments I run – the Department of Pet Peeves.  Today, I follow hard on the heels by opening another department – the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering. 

Soon, the third – the Department of “Just Saying” – will be open.

So, now for the good quotes.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  This newspaper, one I read at least on-line every morning, carried a good story about a New York couple who had re-located to Miami to avoid at least a bit of the rush of New York life.

Here is the way the writer summarized the issue:

“I thought I’d be living in New York the rest of my life.  Moving to Miami in 2014 was a tough adjustment, but has slowed the ‘hustle and bustle’ pace with learning to appreciate the light and space.”

Comment:  Think of that phrase – learning to “appreciate the light and space.”

Good advice for all of us amidst busy lives.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST MAGAZINE:  The newspaper carried an engrossing story about Congressman Jamie Raskin who, on the floor of the U.S. House last year, carried the impeachment charge against Donald Trump.  The time he did so was only a few days after another tragedy – the suicide of Raskin’s son who succumbed to depression.

Here is the way the Post writer summarized the issue:

“Raskin says it’s still too soon to see exactly where the path to his future leads, though he knows the principles that will guide him.  On the day Tommy (Raskin’s son) introduced his father as a political candidate in January 2006, Raskin vowed always to represent the moral center rather than the political center, and to push toward an alignment of the two. That is how Tommy lived, the elder Raskin says.

“Tommy was totally anti-war, and he was vegan, and he had these positions that would be considered radical in terms of conventional political norms.  In life, Tommy always challenged his father to embody his ideals; in death, Tommy bestowed on his father a reaffirmed sense of resolve.”

Comment:  Amid a long and well-written story, the phrase that caught my attention was Raskin’s commitment to represent “the moral center,” rather that the political center.

Too often in politics these days, we advocate trying to find the political center, and I am as guilty of anyone in this quest.  But “the moral center” is a better place to be and Raskin embodies that space, even as he tries to align morality with politics.

FROM ATLANTIC MAGAZINE:  The magazine carries a major – yes, long – story on what Donald Trump is doing to achieve what he could not achieve last time, which is to steal the presidential election after he lost.

Here is the way the magazine started its story:

“Former president Donald Trump’s anti-democratic campaign to overturn the 2020 election failed.  Next time – and there will be a next time – he’s got a better shot in 2024.

“The ‘Big Lie’ has radicalized tens of millions of Americans — some to the point of violence.  The former president has built the first American mass political movement in the past century that is ready to fight by any means necessary, including bloodshed, for its cause.  This really is a new, politically violent mass movement.”

Comment:  I’ll leave it there for the moment.  But, if you want to lose sleep over the future of America, read the Atlantic story, which goes into often intricate detail about Trump’s foundation to win next time no matter the process or the cost.

I read the story and all I can say is that I have no choice but to hold out just a bit of hope that Trump and acolytes won’t succeed.  If they do, the country as we know it will be a thing of the past.

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.

This is one of three departments I run with skill and aplomb based on my many years of solid management service.

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

I open the departments only when each has action to take.  In this case, the Department of Pet Peeves has been closed for some time, but there are three new examples below that may opening worth it.

PET PEEVE #1:  Do you ever wonder why garden hoses you buy are labeled “kink-free?”

Well, it’s a lie.

All regular hoses kink as a matter of course. 

That’s why my wife and I have taken to buying metal hoses.  They are advertised as “not-kinking” – and they don’t.

Try it…you’ll like it.

PET PEEVE #2:  I am a sports fan, though not as significant or knowledgeable as some of my friends.  But what happened this week to the University of Oregon was, in many ways, a tragedy.

Another high-profile and well-paid coach, Mario Cristobal, bolted for Florida.  Along the way, in the last two or three weeks, it appeared he leveraged a major, contract extension offer from the U of O into a “better deal” in Miami. 

His conduct, reportedly, left a bad taste in the mouth of major U of O donor, Nike founder and exec Phil Knight, who ended up pulling back his huge offer after Cristobal declined to sign it.

Did Cristobal leverage Miami?  Probably, but no way to tell.

But, if he did, it would be the second time a U of O coach with Florida connections left the Ducks hanging.  Willy Taggert was the first; Cristobal is the second.

Defenders of Cristobal will say that he was simply deciding to go home where he grew up and where his extended family lives, including his sick mother.  If true, that lessens my peeve.

Given that Cristobal bolted, there might a silver lining in what otherwise is a dark cloud.  It is this:  Folks with more knowledge than me thought Cristobal was a good recruiter, but not a great coach.  Perhaps the new hire can be both.

The other peeve here is that the cost of athletics – especially football coach salaries – is going through the roof.  Witness two other high-profile departures in the last few weeks – Lincoln Riley from Oklahoma State to USC and Brian Kelly from Notre Dame to Louisiana.

When will the money grab end?  I hope soon.  And, meanwhile, those who attend major football games are in for higher and higher ticket prices.

PET PEEVE #3:  Ever notice how unintelligible health care bills are, especially from hospitals?

Well, I have.

It is nearly impossible to make sense of them.

Now, let me add, clearly, that I am in favor of hospitals, especially good ones such as Providence Health & Services (consisting of eight hospitals and other programs for which I was the State of Oregon lobbyist for nearly 25 years) and Salem Health (which has provided uniformly solid service for me and my family over the years).

They are quality health care providers.  And, in both cases, I advocated for improving the tone, character and content of bills, so far without total success.  But, if there is something to be thankful for, it is that the billing process is improving.  Room to go?  Yes.  Good results so far?  Also yes.

I’ll assess whether there has been more progress when I get my next bill.

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.

As a person who likes words more than numbers, I often am skeptical when statistics are used to tell a story.

Because you can make statistics say anything you want.

So, I was uneasy when I came across a story this week by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank contending there is proof – statistical proof –that the media treats President Joseph Biden “as badly – or worse than” – Donald Trump.

Wouldn’t you know it.  James Freeman, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, took on Milbank this morning for relying so heavily on statistics that are very tough to measure – rating media coverage on “sentiments” (see below).

Still, Freeman grudgingly gives Milbank a passing grade because his piece was labeled “opinion.”

The proof Milbank offered came from a data information company called FiscalNote. 

The company, Milbank wrote, combed through more than 200,000 articles — tens of millions of words — from 65 news websites (newspapers, network and cable news, political publications, news wires and more) to do a “sentiment analysis” of coverage.

“Using algorithms that give weight to certain adjectives based on their placement in the story, it rated the coverage Biden received in the first 11 months of 2021 and the coverage Trump got in the first 11 months of 2020.”

It was worse for Biden.

To wit, Milbank contends, his worst fear is being acknowledged.  “My colleagues in the media are serving as accessories to the murder of democracy.”

Milbank continues:  “After a honeymoon of slightly positive coverage in the first three months of the year, Biden’s press for the past four months has been as bad as — and for a time worse than — the coverage Trump received for the same four months of 2020.

“Think about that.  In 2020, Trump presided over a worst-in-world pandemic response that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths; held a super-spreader event at the White House, and got covid–19 himself; praised QAnon adherents; embraced violent white supremacists; waged a racist campaign against Black Lives Matter demonstrators; attempted to discredit mail-in voting; and refused to accept his defeat in a free and fair election, leading eventually to the violence of January 6, and causing tens of millions to accept the ‘big lie.’ the worst of more than 30,000 he told in office.”

Point made, though the aforementioned Freeman probably wouldn’t agree that any solid point was made.

For me, Trump ranks clearly as the worst president in U.S. history.  He held office to aggrandize himself at the expense of Americans.  And, then, when he lost to Biden, he did not concede.

And still hasn’t.

Yet, chances are that he will run for president again in 2024.  And, no doubt some right-wing publications will try to help him get what he wants.

As a former newspaper reporter, I have mixed emotions about Milbank’s column.  I always have been taught that journalists should be fair and impartial as they reported “news,” not intentionally favoring one side or the other.

Opinion columns can do that – and, to be sure, Milbank is an opinion columnist for the Post, so, under that banner, he has every right to express his point-of-view if the Post will publish it.

Milbank says “we need a skeptical, independent press.”  But, then, on other hand, he adds this question:  “How about being partisans for democracy?”

“The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative.  And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians.

“Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction.  It’s time to take a stand.”

In response to Milbank, I’ll let my bias show.  If that means being more and more critical of Trump, good.  He is a liar and an authoritarian who was – and would be – terrible for this country.

If it also means favoring democracy, also good, given that the future of our form of government is at stake – and an authoritarian form with a dictator would be far worse.

So, I’ll let Milbank’s posits settle for a little longer.  What he wrote is thought-provoking – and, that, too, is one function of a free press.

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.

This stands as a footnote to a blog I posed earlier this morning, one calling, again, for finding a way in this country’s politics to land in the middle where the best public policy solutions lie.

I could have added that, over the weekend, we lost a man who knew how to find the smart middle in Congress.  So I add it now.

U.S. Senator Bob Dole who ran for president a couple times, but never made it.  But he did serve 25 years in Congress where he was an architect of getting good things done.

Here is the way Washington Post columnist George Will described Dole in a column that appeared this morning:

“…few congressional careers loom large.  This is because legislative accomplishments are collaborative, the result of blurry compromises presented in pastels rather than sharp pictures painted in bold strokes of primary colors.  Dole’s legislative life was the political life as Plutarch described it:

“They are wrong who think that politics is like an ocean voyage or a military campaign, something to be done with some particular end in view, something which leaves off as soon as that end is reached. It is not a public chore, to be got over with. It is a way of life. It is the life of a domesticated political and social creature who is born with a love for public life, with a desire for honor, with a feeling for his fellows.”

That was Bob Dole.  He survived terrible wounds in war to serve with distinction in Congress.

A former partner of, Kerry Tymchuck, worked previously for Dole as his speechwriter and now serves as executive director of the Oregon Historical Society.  He remembers Dole fondly and told the Oregonian newspaper about it when he said this:

“He was an institutionalist who believed in making Congress work and getting things done.”

We need more Bob Doles these days.

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.

The New York Times asked the question in this blog headline – where is the middle ground? – in a column circulated on-line late last week.

I also ask the question repeatedly, as indicated by this excerpt from the introduction to my blog, which is called Perspective from the 19^th Hole:

“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.”

Note that my phrase links two of my favorite passions – golf and public policy.

In a question-answer format, the NY Times added the following:

“How does the middle regain its voice in the national debate?

The Times reporter answered this way:  “This is a good question, and I don’t really have an answer; only more bad news about this.

“Much of America seems to be in the middle of the political spectrum on major issues right now. As the Supreme Court weighs restricting abortion even more, polls show roughly 60 per cent of Americans are fine with allowing abortion up until about halfway through a pregnancy, as Roe v. Wade currently does.

“The weekly testing part of Biden’s vaccine requirement for most American workers is actually pretty popular, too.  And calls from progressives to change the way police departments are run and funded have fallen flat, even in liberal communities.

“But gerrymandering, which is going on across the nation right now, is only going to weaken the influence of moderates.  Both parties are eliminating competitive congressional districts, where lawmakers have an incentive to listen to the middle, in favor of districts that will reward lawmakers who drive hard to the right or left.  So it’s going to become even more structurally difficult for less partisan Americans to influence American politics.”

With the apparent loss of any ability by those in government to compromise – to find middle ground – I am preparing to vote for candidates who will express support for discussion and give-and-take, not rabble-rousing.

In the next election in Oregon, for example, we should spend time, effort and energy reviewing the backgrounds of those running for governor and try to cast a vote for person who best exemplifies working for the middle.

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.

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear about a local newspaper going out of business.

On one hand, that’s a reality of doing any kind of business these days.  Not every business succeeds.

But, when we lose local news, does the loss carry implications for democracy as we know it in America?

Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan posits that the answer is yes – and, at least in theory, I agree.

This issue is of interest to me for a specific reason.  My first professional job out of college was as a reporter for a local newspaper, The Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I considered myself to be a journalist interested in keeping readers aware of community issues.

The newspaper, part of a local chain of newspapers owned by one family in Oregon, performed solid local services in and around Astoria.  My job was to cover city and county government, as well as the Port of Astoria, a gateway to the Pacific.

 Am I objective on this point of “performing solid local services.”?  No.

I was part of the provision of such services, so it was logical for me to believe we did a solid, albeit imperfect, job of helping Astoria citizens follow “their” governments.

Media critic Sullivan made the same point in a piece she wrote for the Washington Post this week.  Here is how she started her column:

“’It has been our great privilege to bring you news from Stoneham and Woburn over the years,’ read the announcement. ‘We regret to inform you that this will be the final edition of the Sun-Advocate newspaper.’”

The Massachusetts weekly, as of August, is no more. 

“It is an increasingly familiar story across the United States,” Sullivan writes.  “Already in a sharp downward spiral, the local news industry was hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic. The worst blows were taken by newspapers — businesses that, as a group, had never recovered from the digital revolution and the 2008 recession.

“Between 2005 and the start of the pandemic, about 2,100 newspapers closed their doors.  Since covid struck, at least 80 more papers have gone out of business, as have an undetermined number of other local publications, like the California Sunday Magazine, which folded last fall — and then won a Pulitzer Prize eight months later.”

According to PEW Research Center, papers that survived so far are still facing difficult straits.  Many have laid off scores of reporters and editors.  The newspaper industry lost an astonishing 57 per cent of its employees between 2008 and 2020 — making these publications a mere specter of their former selves.

They are now what Sullivan and others call “ghost newspapers:”  “Outlets that may bear a proud name or yore, but no longer do the job of thoroughly covering their communities and providing original reporting on matters of public interest.”

Sullivan reports that, in many regions of the country, there is no local news coverage at all, or next to none.  These areas have come to be known, she says, as “news deserts” — a term used by academics and researchers to refer to areas where coverage of the community by local news outlets is minimal or non-existent.

For these “news deserts,” a major concern is what happens to the communities they used to serve, and, more broadly, what happens to society and the ability to self-govern when local news dries up.

Sullivan adds this:

“It’s not just watchdog journalism that suffers when news organizations shrink or die.  The decline affects civic engagement and political polarization, too.  Studies show that people who live in areas with poor local news coverage are less likely to vote, and when they do, they are more likely to do so strictly along party lines.  To put it bluntly, the demise of local news poses the kind of danger to our democracy that should have alarm sirens screeching across the land.”

Well, rather than screeching, Sullivan’s contentions remind me about the situation in Salem, Oregon where I live.  Here, there used to be two newspapers, the Capitol Journal and the Salem Statesman.  Now, there is one – the Statesman-Journal, and it is only a skeleton of its former self.

I say that because, for one thing, after The Daily Astorian, I applied for a job at the then-Salem Statesman, believing that it would be good to be a reporter in the State Capitol, only three blocks from the Capitol buildings themselves.  I suppose it would have been good, but, in order to live in Portland and avoid a commute, I took a job at Portland State University, which began my career in and around government in Oregon.

When I say the Statesman is a skeleton of its former self, I am sorry about that fact.  It takes me only about five minutes to read it on-line every morning. And I often find out more information about the Salem-Keizer when I read the Salem Reporter, an on-line publication that arose because the Statesman was not doing its job well enough to suit folks in the area starved for news.

As an aside, on-line publications are springing up in many places these days.  The one in Salem is led a quality journalist, Les Zaitz, a former investigative reporter for the state’s major newspaper, The Oregonian, which also is a shadow of its former self.  Salem Reporter does a good job of ferreting out local news and that is a tribute to Zaitz’ journalism, as well as to my friend, Larry Tokarski, a community citizen who funded the on-publications start and still supports it today.

Timothy Snyder, a Yale history professor and author of “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century,” has called the loss of local news “the essential problem of our republic.”

“It is nothing less than a crisis, he says, and a deepening one. The only way we can talk to other people is with some common understanding of the facts, for example whether or not our water is polluted or whether or not the teachers in our school are on strike.  We don’t have to like what we learn about our communities through local news reporting, he noted, but it benefits us nonetheless. When local news goes away, then our sense of what is true shifts from what is helpful to us in our daily lives to what makes us ‘feel good,’ which is something entirely different.”

Sullivan concludes that “there is no single answer to this crisis.”  Any solution, if there even is a solution, will require a multi-faceted approach, she contends.

That links to what of my contentions in two recent blogs.  As we watch things deteriorate in this country, I prefer to believe that all is not lost as we root for our form of government, representative democracy.  We need to act like citizens interested in the future and do our part to improve government. 

But, it will be harder without local news outlets.