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

And, to this blog headline, I add this:  Something has to change or the tournament should not be able to exist in its current form.

Plus, various players – including two I’ll name, Zach Johnson and Billy Horschel – have said they may no longer play in the event.

What’s over-the top?

Two things that both start with A – attendance and alcohol.

In Phoenix, there is too much of both.

After last week’s event, a newspaper in Arizona wrote this:

“PGA Tour players complaining about rowdiness at the infamous 16th hole at the Phoenix Open?

“Seriously?

“But there’s no putting The Genie back in The Bottle at the TPC Scottsdale.”

So, here’s the bottle:

• This year’s tournament attendance pushed near the 700,000 mark for the week.  And, tournament organizers had to shut the gates on Sunday because there were too many people who wanted to swell the crowd even larger.
• The epicenter of the party is the stadium-setting of the par three 16th where 20,000 people can be jammed into a small piece of real estate.
• Make that 20,000 who are downing multiple adult beverages, many over the course of six or seven hours. 
• So, let’s do some quick “beer math.”  Let’s go totally conservative and assign three beers per person at hole #16.   That’s a piddling number because many of the imbibers are in the under-30 “power drinker” demographic where three beers constitutes a simple “warm up.”
• Not sure of the actual number, but let’s say, for math purposes, that the cost of a beer is seven dollars, not unreasonable for today’s major sporting events.  Twenty-thousand spectators at three beers each is 60,000 beers per day.  Multiply that by four, that’s Thursday through Sunday, not counting pro-am day on Wednesday, and you have 240,000 beers consumed.  Times seven dollars and that’s $1,680,000 in beer sales just on that hole.
• Doesn’t even count the Coors Light hospitality tent nearby where there is entertainment after the final putt drops each day.

Now, if I was the PGA Tour, in view of this, here is what I would do.

First, I would be talking privately to two groups – (a) the Thunderbird volunteers who have run the tournament for many years (and, to their credit, have been instrumental in raising money for various Phoenix charities), and (b) Waste Management, the long-time tournament sponsor.

Second, I would say get your act together or we will no longer be playing the Phoenix Open.

Third, by getting your act together, I would say tournament organizers should impose reasonable limits on the size of the crowd and, also, do something that is no doubt difficult to do these days, which is to limit or bar alcohol sales.

Fourth, I would say, again, do this or lose the tournament.

And, finally, if I was the leader of the PGA Tour, I also would go public with my concerns in an effort to get out ahead of at least some of the concern, which has included problems drunkenness and disorderly conduct, as well fans being hurt by falling out of bleachers.

Sound right?  I think so.

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.

One major fact about Donald Trump bothers me more than many others —  and I cannot understand why so many Americans tolerate him given this fact.

What fact? Trump’s disdain for the military.

To service personnel, some of whom risk their lives for us, many of us would just say this:  Thank you for your service!

What Trump says is the exact reverse.  He ridicules them for their service.

Here is the way Atlantic Magazine put it:

“Donald Trump made news over the weekend by saying that he would invite Russian aggression against NATO members.  …these statements were far more dangerous than his usual disconnected blustering.  But, in the midst of this appalling business, Trump also reminded Americans how little he values the service of American military personnel.

“At a campaign stop in Conway, South Carolina, Trump tried to zing his only remaining GOP primary rival, his own United Nations ambassador (and a former Palmetto State governor) Nikki Haley, by asking why her husband was not on the campaign trail with her.”

Army Major Michael Haley, as Trump almost certainly knew, was not with his wife because he was serving with the South Carolina National Guard on his second deployment, this time to Africa.

Trump made a stupid comment, the Atlantic reports, “insinuating that Major Haley asked to be sent half a world away from his family (and away from Nikki) because he didn’t want to be around his wife as she was losing presidential primaries.  “This innuendo,” the Atlantic added, “is disgusting in itself, but is especially hurtful to anyone who has ever seen the sacrifices made by military families.”

As bad as this is, for me it does not rise to what Trump, incredibly, said about John McCain, the military hero in the Vietnam War who served years under duress as a prisoner, then, upon release, went on to be a U.S. Senator, as well as run for president.

About McCain, Trump had the temerity to say he admired military personnel who had not been captured.

Unbelievable?  Yes.

For Trump?  No.

That’s what Trump does.  Ridicule anyone and everyone.

More from the Atlantic:

“As The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, reported in 2020, Trump went to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in 2017 with his then–secretary of homeland security, retired Marine General John Kelly, where they stopped to pay respects at the grave of Kelly’s son (who was killed serving in Afghanistan).

“Trump, standing among the headstones in one of America’s most sacred places, said to the slain soldier’s father:  ‘I don’t get it. What was in it for them?’  A year later, Trump refused to visit a military cemetery while he was in Europe, because it was ‘filled with losers.’  On the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 Marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as ‘suckers’ for getting killed.

“After he lost in 2020, Trump fumed at senior officers, including General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for what he saw as ‘treasonous’ activity — in Trump’s world, this translates to ‘serving the Constitution instead of Trump’ — and suggested that Milley should get the death penalty.”

Why does Trump get off by criticizing military personnel?

Who knows?

The Atlantic reasons that it is “perhaps is anger driven, at least in part, by insecurity.  Trump played soldier at a military boarding school (where his father sent him for a time because of behavioral issues), but he must realize that he is not even a shadow of the men and women who risk their lives in the armed forces.  He also has no comprehension of any human activity that does not carry some obvious bottom-line material benefit for himself.

“On the campaign trail, Trump still serves up faux-military spangle and glitter to a base that will forgive him anything, including snide attacks on Army families such as the Haleys or McCains.

“A decent man — especially one who once had the privilege to be the commander in chief of America’s armed forces — would have wished Major Haley a safe return home after serving his nation in uniform overseas.  Trump, however, is not a decent man, and he does not wish anyone well, military or civilian, whose first loyalty is not to Donald Trump.”

So, if given all this, if anyone understands why Trump disdains the military – and, remember, he now wants to be commander-in-chief again – please tell me.  His conduct should disqualify from any service for the country if only because Trump does not know the meaning of service.

And, please tell why some Americans still support Trump for anything.

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.

Protocol is an interesting word.

According to the dictionary, here is what it means:  “The customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.”

Lately, I have encountered this word – more accurately, this principal – on two occasions.

One relates to the short session of the Oregon Legislature which is under way in Salem, Oregon.

The other relates to golf.

So, here is information on both, even as I say that I like the word, both the way it sounds as it rolls off the tongue and what it means.

THE LEGISLATURE:  During my 25 years as a state lobbyist, I learned the value of protocols.

There are a number in the Oregon Legislature.  As I talked them through with a client, I remember he used the word “sideboards” to describe them.  His point:  There are ways of staying within boundaries at the Capitol in Oregon that increase, without guaranteeing, your chance of success.

Understanding the sideboards – read, protocols – is important.

Here is one major protocol.

When a bill you are supporting or opposing is scheduled in a House or Senate committee, remember this critical basic fact:  The chair of the committee, whomever he or she may be, is always in charge of the hearing process.

So, if you are at the witness table making comments or answering questions, always go through the chair when you introduce yourself or when you answer a question.

Like this:  Mr. or Madame Chair, the answer to your question Representative or Senator Smith is …………..

Following this protocol is one indication that you understand the Oregon Legislature and have respect for the law-making process.  It will pay off.

And, remember this:  If, somehow, you forget to follow this protocol, there is no penalty.  It just is a good thing to set out to follow it, thus illustrating your expertise.

GOLF:  Lately, I have been experiencing a violation of a couple important protocols in the sport I love.

In one case, a friend of mine doesn’t follow the protocol of hitting when it is his turn to hit.  If he is closer to the hole than me, he almost always hits first, even if I am addressing my ball farther from the green than he is.  HE does with other players, too.  Not just me.

The protocol is that the person whose golf ball is farthest from the hole hits first.

In a friendly game, if you nearer the hole than another player and if you want to hit first – for example, to save time – then the protocol is to ask the other player if he or she would mind if you went first.

Usually, the other player will say no, then don’t mind.  Then go.

Now, I add that, in friendly games, not a tournament, hitting first when it is not your turn, does not incur a penalty.  But, if this occurs frequently, it can be upsetting to the other players who might be standing around waiting for someone to hit out of turn.

In other words, try to follow this protocol.

One other protocol strikes me as I play with friends in La Quinta, California. 

One player appears not to recognize that, around tees and greens, there are concrete cart paths.  He ignores them, often driving right up to the edge of greens.  If he had a handicapped sticker, I would give him some space. But he doesn’t.

He just doesn’t use the cart paths.

My view:  If a golf course spends money on cart paths, they are there for a reason.  Use them!

At my home course in Salem, Oregon, the superintendent says, in wet weather, it often is best for players in golf carts to drive on the fairways he and his staff manicure with skill and dedication.  But, in very wet weather, the instruction is to use the cart paths and not any part of the turf, fairway or rough.

Do I always follow such golf protocols as these?  Of course not, though I try to do so for the love of the game.  I hope you try, too.

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.

The age of a presidential candidate – Joe Biden – became a major issue again this week.

But, for me, I put it this way:  Both candidates running, Biden and Donald Trump, are old.  And, does age disqualify them automatically?  No.

But, age does raise questions about whether either candidate is up to the nation’s top political job.

However, let me get to the bottom line quickly for me, then engage in more discussion.  If Biden and Trump are the nominees, I will vote for Biden.

The main reason is that Trump is unfit for any political office, given his deranged proclivity for lying incessantly, not to mention breaking various laws so he is under court indictments.

The age issue arose because a special counsel was investigating the fact that Biden had some classified documents in his personal home and garage.  Biden did not dispute the contention, but went beyond his assignment, characterize Biden for not remembering “stuff.”

That prompted New York Times reporter, Paul Krugman, to write this:

“When the news broke about the special counsel’s hit job — his snide, unwarranted, obviously politically motivated slurs about President Biden’s memory — I found myself thinking about my mother.  

‘What year did she die?  It turned out that I didn’t know offhand; I knew that it was after I moved from Princeton to CUNY, because I was regularly commuting out to New Jersey to see her, but before the pandemic.  I actually had to look into my records to confirm that she died in 2017.

“I’ll bet that many readers are similarly vague about the dates of major life events.  You remember the circumstances, but not necessarily the precise year.  And whatever you think of me, I’m pretty sure I don’t write or sound like an old man.  The idea that Biden’s difficulty in pinning down the year of his son’s death shows his incapacity — in the middle of the Gaza crisis! — is disgusting.”

Krugman also reported that he had an hour-long off-the-record meeting with Biden in August, and while he couldn’t talk about the content, he said Biden was “perfectly lucid, with a good grasp of events.”

 Krugman also gets the right to the point.

“And my God, consider Biden’s opponent.  When I listen to Donald Trump’s speeches, I find myself thinking about my father, who died in 2013 (something else I had to look up).  During his last year, my father suffered from sundowning: he was lucid during the day, but would sometimes become incoherent and aggressive after dark.

“If we’re going to be doing amateur psychological diagnoses of elderly politicians, shouldn’t we be talking about a candidate who has confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, and whose ranting and raving sometimes reminds me of my late father on a bad evening?”

There, Krugman said it. 

Trump is worse than Biden and I hope voters render that verdict later this year.

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.

Most of us involved in management of anything – for me, a lobbying and public relations firm for 25 years – have heard about the value of listening.

But, to put a point on it, many of us still fall victim to the tendency to talk first and listen later.

I remember the way a former business partner of mine put it to emphasize the point:  God gave you two ears and one mouth, so spend twice as much time listening as talking.

Writing in the New York Times, veteran reporter (see below), Thomas L. Friedman, made the same point this way:

“One of my writing techniques has always been to employ metaphors to explain complex issues.  In a blog post last week, I explained the behavior of the United States, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others by arguing that the way they operate in certain situations mirrors that of particular species.

“Some readers from the region and elsewhere found it illuminating and told me so.  Other readers, including respected colleagues, didn’t, and told me that any use of animal or insect species to describe people or discuss the highly charged issue of the Israeli-Hamas war is dehumanizing and unhelpful.  They cited instances in which such analogies have been used as racist tropes.”

“My goal, ”Friedman adds, “is always to provide insight into this area of the world and its peoples, whom I care deeply about.  And that means always listening to the criticism, as well as the praise.”

Covering the Middle East for almost 45 years, Friedman says “the most useful lesson was to try to be a good listener.”

“Because two things happen when I listen:  One is that I learn when I listen.  But much more important is what you say when you listen.  That’s because listening is a sign of respect.

“I found over the years that it was amazing what people would let me say to them, write about them or ask them about — if they thought that I respected them.  And if they thought that I didn’t respect them, I could not tell them the sky was blue.  And the way they perceived respect, first and foremost, was if you listened — not just waited for them to stop talking — but deep listening.”

I can mimic Friedman based on my years in the lobbying business.

On my rounds every day at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, or around Oregon between legislative sessions, I tried to emphasize listening.  And, like Friedman, I always learned something by using my two ears more than my one mouth.  And, listening enabled me to achieve results for clients.

So, in business or in everyday life, practice this skill – listening.  It will pay off.

**********

As for Friedman, he became the New York Times foreign affairs opinion columnist in 1995.  He joined the newspaper in 1981, after which he served as the Beirut bureau chief in 1982, Jerusalem bureau chief in 1984, in Washington as the diplomatic correspondent in 1989, and later served as the White House correspondent, and economic correspondent.  His experience serves to underscore the value of listening.

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.

The professional golf tour made headlines last week when it announced a major financial deal with a group called “Strategic Sports Group (SSG).

The tour is getting a $3 billion investment from SSG, but, in the days after the deal was announced, there were more questions than answers.

Such questions as these:

• How would the investors get a return on their investment, assuming that the business leaders would want a return?  No one knows yet.

• How would the PGA Tour players benefit?  No one knows, except that one report said the deal “would give players access to more than $1.5 billion as equity owners in the new PGA Tour Enterprises.”

• How would the deal affect negotiations between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf, or would the deal affect those negotiations at all?

• And, who is SSG?  Well, here there is answer on this question.  It is made up of the owners of, among others, the Boston Red Sox (Fenway Sports Group led by John Henry), Atlanta Falcons (Arthur Blank), Boston Celtics (Wyc Grousbeck), Milwaukee Bucks (Mark Attanasio), and New York Mets (Steven Cohen).

Apart from the looming questions, one of my favorite on-line golf magazines, Global Golf Post (GGP), went on record to call the infusion of money, a “monumental deal.”

Early in the story, from Pebble Beach, GGP writer Ron Green, Jr., put it this way:

“PEBBLE BEACH, CALIFORNIA | Wind-whipped but smiling after a Wednesday practice round at Pebble Beach, Adam Scott walked off the famous 18th green as a sea spray carried on the gusts.

“As a member of the PGA Tour Policy Board, Scott has been integrally involved in the negotiations that led to the announcement of the tour’s transformational multibillion-dollar partnership with Strategic Sports Group, almost instantly reshaping the tour’s future.

“’I don’t know what chapter this is for the PGA Tour, but it has certainly become a new chapter in the tour taking on an investor, an incredible investor group at that.  This is a partnership that takes professional golf into the future.  It’s excitement.”

GGP wrote that, while there are many details still to be clarified, the essence of the deal is this:

• Strategic Sports Group is making an initial investment of $1.5 billion into PGA Tour Enterprises, with another $1.5 billion potentially coming.  The group, led by Fenway Sports Group, also will take an active role in plotting strategy for the tour on and off the course.
• The Policy Board, which includes PGA Players Scott, Jordan Spieth, Tiger Woods, Webb Simpson, Patrick Cantlay, and Peter Malnati, voted unanimously in favor of the deal.
• The initial investment will go toward giving approximately 200 players an equity share in PGA Tour Enterprises, the for-profit entity that is being created to sit over the PGA Tour. The player grants will be based on several factors, including performance, and will be vested over time.  It’s a way of rewarding players who turned down lucrative offers from LIV Golf as well as others, including future players.

So this shows that, for golf, as well as most other sports, money rules.  Look only so far as the Super Bowl in a couple days.  Seats at the event cost thousands of dollars.  And, there are no more parking at airports near Las Vegas because of all the private planes that already have booked spots.  [Which, by the way, will make it tough for Taylor Swift’s plane to find a place to park – and, speaking of a lot of money, consider that!]

Still, the questions persist about the SSG investment in pro golf.  And those of us who have the questions would like answers.  But, in this as in playing golf in general, patience matters.

So, I, for one will try to be patient to see how all this evolves.

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.

Atlantic Magazine staff writer Tom Nichols puts it very well again:

“Now, anyone who has ever worked in politics knows that sometimes good bills die for stupid and cheap partisan reasons.  The House GOP’s obstruction, however, is beyond partisanship.

“Republicans are threatening to harm the country and endanger our allies merely to help Trump’s re-election chances, obeying a man under multiple indictments and whose track record as a party leader has been one of unbroken losses and humiliation.

“Trump, of course, cares nothing for national policy.  He has also clearly abandoned any pretenses about democracy, a position that might seem less than ideal heading into a general election, which is likely why Trump’s campaign has tried to ridicule concerns about its candidate’s commitment to the Constitution.

“But the former president’s footmen can’t help themselves, and they continue to trumpet their hopes for a dictatorship.”  

Nothing more need to be said to heap discredit on Trump and his minions.

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.

This lack of balance continues to irritate me:  Politics versus policy.

Most of those who represent us – either in a state such as Oregon where I live or in Washington, D.C. – don’t have a sense of balance between the two.

By definition, neither bad.  But, when balance is lost, politics becomes the name of every game and policy gets lost in the shuffle.

Put another way:  Most of those who represent us are always campaigning – engaging in election politics — and never governing.

Call it the permanent campaign.

It tends to mean never getting anything done, especially in the middle-ground, which is where the best solutions lie.

So, what is the permanent campaign?

The term was first coined by Sidney Blumenthal in his 1980 book by the same name.  In it, he explained how the breakdown in political parties forced politicians to govern in different ways.

Blumenthal contended that politicians increasingly used political consultants to help them monitor their job approval numbers and media exposure, even when not on the campaign trail.  This means those in office are always in campaign mode, even when they are supposed to be in office “governing.”

The theory of the permanent campaign is also credited to political strategist Patrick Caddell who wrote a memo for President-Elect Jimmy Carter just after Carter’s election in 1976 in which Caddell asserted:  “Governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign.”

In the U.S. House, those who win election serve only for two years, so, as soon as they win, the next campaign starts.  The same is true in the Oregon House of Representatives.

Instead of “legislating” — deciding on useful additions to U.S. law — the 435 members of the U.S. House and the 60 members of the Oregon House — start campaigning immediately, often with a negative twist compounded by irritating TV ads.

Essayist Joseph Epstein, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal, added to my thinking as he wrote a few years ago about the last mid-term election.  His column carried this subhead:  “A dispiriting mid-term cycle has only just finished and the 2024 presidential race has already started.”

Here is how his column started:

“Has there ever been an election so relentlessly dreary as the one we have just been through?  The day after Election Day a cable-show panelist remarked that ‘there are only 727 days until the next election.’  He laughed. I didn’t.

“I’m suffering from political exhaustion.  I’m bored and saddened, satiated with talk of electoral politics.  In some places, it took nearly three weeks to count the votes.  I’ve seen more polls than Poland has Poles.  And most of those polls turned out to be wrong.”

Epstein concluded:

“How much better things would be if time — eight or nine months, say —were set aside to knock off all the blather, kick back and chill.  But it is not to be.  Perhaps it never will be again, and the country will henceforth live in a permanent state of electoral frenzy:  A state of claim and counter-claim, insults delivered and returned, hyperbole everywhere, agitation reigning generally.”

With Epstein, I do not hold out much hope for change.

Wall Street Journal’s William Galston put it this way:

“Campaigning is one thing, governing another.  Opposing is not the same as legislating.”

He is right.  And right even as we endure the relentless, permanent campaign.

And this footnote to illustrate a current issue where policy loses over politics:

“The Republican Party should take yes for an answer.  By torpedoing the Senate’s bi-partisan immigration deal, under pressure from former president Donald Trump to preserve his election-year advantage on a wedge issue, congressional Republicans would blow an opportunity to reduce undocumented immigration and curtail mass crossings at the southern border — along with saving Ukraine before it runs out of ammunition.

“The 370-page legislative text released Sunday night, promptly declared ‘dead on arrival’ in the House by Speaker Mike Johnson, emerged from months of substantive discussions and careful compromises by all sides.”

So, I say consider the immigration compromise merits and lay politics aside.

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 borrow this blog headline from one that ran in the Washington Post the other day.

It captures very well the status of the border immigration issue in Washington, D.C.

To Republicans, the southern border once was a crisis.  Now, to accede to Donald Trump’s inane wishes, the crisis no longer exists.

Trump’s wishes?

He wants the border to be an election issue for him.  If Congress does nothing, then he and his minions can blame President Joe Biden and, thus, they feel, win votes in the election.

So it was that Post Dana Milbank wrote about the status this way:

Error! Filename not specified.

“When House Speaker Mike Johnson invited President Biden to give his State of the Union address on the unusually late date of March 7, people were puzzled.

“Now, the mystery can be revealed.  House Republicans delayed the State of the Union so they could use the time to foment a state of disunion.

“After the Supreme Court last month sided with the Biden Administration in a dispute with Texas over border barriers, Texas Representative Chip Roy asserted that the high court’s order ‘is unconscionable and Texas should ignore it.’

“Never mind that two conservative justices joined in the order.  Roy suggested that an appropriate response would be to ’ell the court to go to hell.’”

Milbank then summarizes things this way:

“It’s not just words.  These dime-store confederates are actively sabotaging the government they serve — by blocking it from mounting an effective response to the historic surge of migrants along the southern border.

“Back in October, Biden requested $13.6 billion in emergency funding for border protection, including the hiring of 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents and 1,600 asylum officers, as well as more funds to counter fentanyl smuggling.  Because of Republicans’ objections, Congress still hasn’t approved a penny of it.

“And now, even as House Republicans wail about a ‘crisis’ and an ‘invasion’ at the border, they are mobilizing to kill a bi-partisan deal emerging in the Senate to reform asylum claims and to beef up border security — regarded as the toughest immigration legislation in decades.”

All of this underlines an unfortunate fact in Congress.  Representatives in the House are always running for re-election.  Seldom are they governing. 

To some observers, this has been called the “permanent campaign.”

More Milbank:

“Instead of declaring victory and embracing the legislation they have long demanded, House Republicans are moving to impeach the Administration’s lead negotiator on the proposal — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — on charges so flimsy they do not identify a crime of any kind.

“But this is the new standard.  The hysteria about a crisis along the border is matched only by a determination to do nothing about it.  Rather than solve the problem, they prefer to have an issue for the 2024 campaign.”

Note the phrase:  Rather than solve the problem, make it a campaign issue.

That approach by Republicans in the U.S. House strikes me as unconscionable.  They deserve to be repudiated for their inaction on such a pressing issue.

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.

Higher education as we know it in America has been under threat and, no surprise, not always to the benefit of its reputation.  On occasion, it also has been its own worst enemy.

Some of the recent discord is not deserved if it is in relation to the appearance in Congress by three higher ed presidents – one from MIT, one from the University of Pennsylvania, and one from Harvard.  They answered questions about anti-semitism and free speech on campus. and MIT

What happened is that the three got trapped by a disreputable member of the U.S. House, Republican Elise Stefanik, who got what no doubt she wanted in the first place, which was more publicity for herself as she appears to be vying to win Donald Trump’s nod as a vice presidential candidate.

The three college presidents, two of whom lost their jobs as a result of the appearance in Congress, should have answered the questions simply and clearly – they should have said they don’t and won’t tolerate anti-semitism or any form of discrimination on their campuses. 

Instead, they failed, either because they brought a complicated academic perspective to the question or because their staffs had failed to prepare them adequately for their time in the limelight.

[As an aside, I highlight the role of staff because that was what I did in several of my public relations positions before retirement.  Therefore, my bias is that staff advice matters, though it is up to the principal about whether to take it.  Who knows what happened in this case, but one source told me that a couple law firms had been asked to provide advice and did so.  Not sure about the content of the advice or whether it was taken.]

What remains after the appearance in Congress is that higher education needs to get about the business of reforming itself to illustrate that it doesn’t tolerate any discrimination against any group of people, as well as values free speech – within appropriate limits – as a key part of learning.

I also would say it also needs to get about its core business, which ought to be education, not politics.

So it was that I read a story in the Wall Street Journal by Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey, senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute and research fellows at the University of Texas’ Civitas Institute.

It appeared under the headline I borrowed for this blog, as well as a subhead, both of which appear below:

FOLLOW THE LEFT’S EXAMPLE TO REFORM HIGHER ED:  Identify areas, like civics, that are inadequately studied and create new programs around them.

Here is how the two authors started their piece:

“Conservatives have an extraordinary opportunity to reform higher education.  Universities face a perfect storm of falling enrollments, souring public opinion, and political scrutiny.  They need friends.

“Prudent administrators should be eager to work with those whose opinions they might not always agree with.”

In my words, the call is to find the smart middle ground.

The two authors continue:

“The left’s most enduring victories on campus have been led by academics who think academically.  The right should learn from their playbook.

“When the academic left seeks to innovate, they do what scholars have always done:  They create new disciplines.  Academics who thought women’s lives and perspectives were neglected created women’s studies.  Those who saw that scholars overlooked the literature, history, and art of black Americans created African-American studies.”

This, the Storey’s write, is a legitimate tactic.

“It’s how universities work.  Academics perceive that some phenomenon is overlooked by existing modes of inquiry.  They write studies about it; they describe ways of examining it.  They attract scholars in related subjects, who become the initial faculty of the new programs.  They develop ways of thinking that cohere as a discipline, in which students can be trained.  They create associations; journals spring up; grants get funded; students get degrees.  One generation of faculty acts as mentors to the next.”

Part of me, based on my lobbying background, including on occasion for higher education institutions, wonders about the tendency to create something new to debate something old.

It’s usually how governments work.  If agencies don’t like what’s happening, they create a new department or sub-department.  Don’t fix what’s broken.  Create something new.

If I was involved in this kind of higher education reform, I also would want to make sure we were not creating some kind of new political organization.  I would want something new to focus on learning, not politics.

For higher education in general, the Storeys go on to report that the most promising academic innovations today are Republican-led efforts at public universities to remedy a deficit in university-level civic education.

Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, or SCETL, is the model.  SCETL now employs 20 faculty, teaches more than 1,000 students annually, and has bipartisan support.  Its success has encouraged similar efforts in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, North Carolina, and Ohio.

“Each such school is distinctive.  What links them is the mission of creating a new model of university-level civic education. We call this model Civic Thought.  The elements of Civic Thought are derived from the intellectual demands of American citizenship, which requires the ability to deliberate about everything from war to education.  Equipping the mind for such responsibility is an ambitious intellectual project, fully worthy of the university.”

For me, this emphasis on civics calls to mind an effort in which I participated on a committee appointed by Oregon Common Cause.

Broadly, the idea was that “ethics” was important for all those in public life, even though we also knew it would be difficult to inject ethical attitudes and behavior into politics when all sides otherwise were so pitted against each other, ethics be damned.

Beyond ethics in general, one idea we pursued — inject a new civics curriculum into Oregon high schools in the belief that doing so would help young people understand more about their government, as well as expect government to act in an ethical fashion.

We started small rather than set out to impose a statewide mandate.

We identified a couple high schools – one in Bend and another in Portland – that we thought could develop model civics education programs.  We talked with those two schools and leaders said they were ready to experiment.  If those models worked, then they could be mimicked by other schools.

Unfortunately, as luck would have it, our effort failed, at least in part because the Covid pandemic made it difficult for schools to respond to a new civics curriculum idea or, for that matter, the Oregon Legislature to respond to other statewide proposals.

Still, I remain committed to the idea that young people in America should understand more about “their government” and how it works.  That way, they’d be better citizens when it came time to vote.  And ethical attitudes and behavior would benefit.