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 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 have posted one blog about abortion in America after the U. S. Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade.

I was hesitant to do so the first time and am hesitant to do so again because I don’t believe there is a way in America to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion about the subject, given the way many citizens are unalterably pitted against each other. 

Both sides prefer to yell, scream and remain committed to their opinion.  Not talk.  Worse.  Often violence.

But, in this post, I have chosen to argue that Americans have various obligations in a post-Roe v. Wade country.  To make this point, I rely, at least in part, on perspectives provided by Paul S. Coakley, Catholic archbishop of Oklahoma City, who produced an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal.

He writes from a Catholic perspective and lays out what strikes me as a solid case for, as Coakley puts it, “to open our doors to vulnerable mothers and children.”

I don’t write from a Catholic point-of-view, though I appreciate many tenants of the Catholic church.  Instead, I write from the perspective of a Christian who believes ALL of us have responsibilities to care for those who happen to be less fortunate than ourselves – including in relation to abortion and regardless of anyone’s position on the subject.

Coakley wrote this:  “Restricting abortion isn’t enough.  We need to open our doors to vulnerable mothers and children.”

“‘If you are pregnant and in need,’” he added, ‘come to the Catholic Church.’”

Coakley adds that the late Cardinal John O’Connor spoke good words more than 30 years ago, when he founded the Sisters of Life, a Catholic pro-life religious order in New York.  O’Connor’s remark was a welcoming call to expecting mothers with nowhere to turn and a plea to the American church to act as guardians to all of God’s children.  His words rang true then and are perhaps even more important now.

Cockley’s words, no doubt, would not impress pro-abortion advocates who decry the Supreme Court’s ruling.  But Coakley says, “Reversing Roerepresented a necessary first step to bring about a culture of life, from conception to natural death, and end a culture of abortion and death.  But the demise of Roeis only the end of the beginning.

“It also is a reminder of our duty as Catholics.  [Or, I add, the duty of all of us as human beings.]  “We are called to see Christ in every human life, and to work and pray for a society in which laws reflect the inherent dignity of the human person.

“This commitment requires us to create alternatives to abortion and ultimately to make it unthinkable.  The end of Roe challenges us anew to open our hearts, and our doors, to mothers and children in need through foster care and adoption — to what Pope Francis called ‘the highest form of love, and of fatherhood and motherhood.’”

My list of what should be OUR obligations, regardless of position on abortion:

• Work to assure churches welcome all to their doors just as Christ would because, after all, the church is “the body of Christ.”
• Advocate that governments fund adequate – if not increased — levels of pre-natal and post-natal care.
• Work to assure that domestic adoption laws in states are sane and understandable.  [There are hundreds of thousands of children in the American foster care system.  Adoption is often expensive and complicated.  The government should confirm a priority to establish policies making it easier for people to adopt domestically, while maintaining and strengthening processes that protect and safeguard children.  Tax credits, allowances, and the like could make adoption a reality for more people.]
• Advocate that birth control products be readily accessible.
• Commit to discussions of other actions in the spirit of real debate and compromise, which are mostly lost in today’s political culture.

The point is that there is a lot for real Christians, not zealots who give Christianity a bad name, to do in the wake of the demise of Roe V. Wade.

In this context, I think of good words from the late Senator Mark Hatfield, a political icon in Oregon: 

“All of us need each other.  All of us must lift and pull others as we rise.  All of us must rise together — powerful, free, one self-determined people.”

That aspiration applies to a post-Roe v. Wade America – as well as more generally.

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 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.

In this brief blog, I’ll get way over my depth in American foreign policy.

But, drowning has never stopped me from writing stuff.

So, after reading story-after-story on U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, I presume to ask a simple, straightforward, one-word question:  Why?

For me, there is no reason for the U.S. House Speaker to presume to enter into assertive foreign policy, which is – and should be — the province of the president.  Let the U.S. speak with one voice when it comes to international relations – and let that be the president.

I also suggest that Pelosi should stay home and tend to legislative affairs in Congress and, goodness knows, there is much to do in the Nation’s Capitol to produce results on a range of pressing public policy issues.

As I admitted at the start of this blog, all of us is above my pay grade, but if I were President Joe Biden, I would ask Pelosi pointedly why she chose to take such a presumptuous initiative.

Her visit, now concluded, left the president and his Administration with a much deeper set of tensions with China. 

At the same time, the Administration has emphasized it intends to honor and retain strong in support for an independent Taiwan, which begs the question about Pelosi defied pleas to avoid the trip.

Pelosi’s assertiveness – no, read, aggressiveness – has made all of this tough foreign policy much tougher.

As a believer in strong U.S. government, I say this to the three branches – Legislative, Judicial, and Executive:  Stay in your own lane, AND, when the time is right, work together, not separately, for the common good in America.

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 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.

In America today, it is credible to “bemoan the loss of civility politics” – yes, that’s a favorite quote of mine, which I attribute to the late military hero Colin Powell.

But, the loss of civility goes beyond politics to characterize many of our general relationships in American life.

In large part, we have lost the ability to “disagree, agreeably,” a phrase I often used in my lobbying career to commend the ability to find middle ground.

Today, middle ground – in politics or in life – barely exists.

Frankly, in some of my personal relationships, there are subjects I don’t bring up because, rather than spark reasonable discussion, they only provoke disagreement and strife.

Contributing columnist Brian Broome made this point a couple days ago in writing that appeared in the Washington Post.

His main thesis:

“Our political parties have become rigid, unforgiving religious sects that will tolerate no second-guessing — unless we want to be shunned.

“In the liberal circles in which I mostly travel, it is nothing short of blasphemy to speak a positive word about any conservative for any reason.  Many of my friends can’t even bear to hear their names mentioned.  I was reminded of this when, in conversation with a friend, I mentioned my approval of Representative Liz Cheney’s performance during the January 6 hearings.

“I said I thought it was courageous of Cheney to speak truth against the kind of pressure and opposition she’s facing from her party.  I said I admired her for it.  I don’t love Liz Cheney or plan to send her money or anything.  But I figured it was okay to say that what she is doing is good.”

But Broome reported that his comment was met “with a mixture of shock, hurt and outrage  — as though I had stabbed my friend in the back.  ‘How can you say that,’ he asked, noting that Cheney had opposed same-sex marriage and was a legatee of the father of the Iraq War.

“When I told him Cheney had since changed her mind about same-sex marriage, he listed a litany of things that she had said or done in the past which put her beyond the realm of acceptable.  And in that moment, for him, I had failed the liberal purity test.  Because she is one of them.”

Conservatives, Brome contends, are the same.  “They hate liberals with an almost otherworldly passion. They like to put bumper stickers on their cars and trucks calling Joe Biden a communist.  They have convinced themselves that the blue cities and states they despise are hellscapes of crime and desolation.  They have made demonizing Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton a kind of obsession.  In that world, saying anything complimentary about a Democrat is a marker of probable evil.”

Broome remembers what I do – that there was a time when it was considered normal and healthy to criticize the political team to which one belonged.  We didn’t take the words of any leader, regardless of party, as gospel.  And, even if people in the other party had different values and cultures, it didn’t mean you had grounds for a violent showdown.  Now, purity tests are everywhere and something akin to a loyalty code makes it taboo to question your own side or call attention to its weaknesses and contradictions.

Broome adds:

“We are no longer a country of give-and-take.  We are a country torn apart by something closer to religious strife, where both sides demand devotion to doctrine and rough punishments await those who step out of line.”

Going back to the Powell quote, I continue “to bemoan the loss of civility,” both in politics and in life.  If we cannot find a way to “disagree, agreeably,” we could be condemned to what amounts to civil war.  To some degree, we are already seeing the extreme character of that battle.   

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 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 have undergone a huge change in the last couple years.

This:  As a journalist in my past, I used to love holding a newspaper in my hands and reading stories of the sort that I used to write for a daily newspaper.  That meant ink-stained hands.

But, now, in the information age, most of my newspaper reading is done via on-line sources.  And, in some ways, I hate to admit that reality, though I still value the process of remaining informed on issues of the day (see below).

My change in habits involves these news sources:

• The Oregonian newspaper

• The Wall Street Journal

• The Washington Post

• The Atlantic Magazine

• The New York Times

• The Salem Reporter

• And, once in a while for a few minutes at least, which is all it takes, the Salem Statesman-Journal.

Why the change?  Well, there are at least a few reasons.

First, the quality of some newspapers has deteriorated markedly in the past few years.  So, it’s easier, not to mention quicker, for me to read newspapers on-line than getting them delivered at my home.

No doubt it’s part of the economic risks for newspapers these days.  Especially “local” ones that have difficulty surviving.

Speaking of on-line sources, my friends at Google report this:  “In addition to sluggish ad growth, newspapers are challenged with circulation declines, a skeptical Wall Street, ownership changes — such as Knight Ridder’s recent sale of its 32 papers – and perhaps most notably, adapting to the world of on-line news.”

Second for me, I can read newspapers published in places like Washington, D.C., and New York without having to go there or waiting several days for home delivery from those far-off cities.

The range – especially between the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post – gives me a chance to reckon with the center-right perspective (the Journal) and the center left perspective (the Post).  That gives me a good sense of what could be at stake in politics and government these days.

It has not been surprising to confirm that both the center-right and the center-left have perspectives worth considering.

Regardless of how you get your news, it is an important societal responsibility for all of us to find ways to remain up-to-date on issues happening in our country, including in politics – and to do so by considering many points of view, not just our own.  For me for years, that has been newspapers.

In the Washington Post, contributing columnist Brian Broome notes this when he writes:

“I remember a time when it was considered normal and healthy to criticize the political team to which one belonged.  We didn’t take the words of any leader, regardless of party, as gospel.  And even if people in the other party had different values and cultures, it didn’t mean you had grounds for a violent showdown.

“Now, the purity tests are everywhere and something akin to a loyalty code makes it taboo to question your own side or call attention to its weaknesses and contradictions.

“We are no longer a country of give-and-take.  We are a country torn apart by something closer to religious strife, where both sides demand devotion to doctrine and rough punishments await those who step out of line.”

Well-written.  And a good way to avoid the pitfalls Broome outlines is, figuratively at least, to get ink on your hands.