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 question this blog headline arose because of a column by a good writer, David Brooks, that appeared in the Washington Post.

He made a few good points, he being smarter than I am when it comes to politics.

But, in the end, I disagree with his closing notion.

He contends this:

“…many voters don’t see politics as a place to go for moral affirmation.  They want to know who will create a good environment in which they can lead their lives, and right now they trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the economy, to handle immigration, to be generally competent.  It’s about policies.”

I would like to think that Brooks is right and, if he is, then President Joe Biden should win re-election “based on his policies.” 

For me, perhaps not all of those policies, but, then, that’s a reality for voters.  You may favor a certain political figure, even if you disagree with some of his or her policies.

Brooks goes on this way:

“Those of us in the anti-Trump camp love to play the Horribleness Game.

“Donald Trump does something horrible.  We are righteously appalled.  We send emails to our friends saying, ‘Did you hear about this horrible thing Trump said?’

“We click on articles that fulminate against the horrible thing.  We watch TV shows in which the pundits emote shock and dismay at the horrible thing.  We feel very morally superior about ourselves and very morally appalled by that horrible man.  It’s very satisfying.  In fact, it’s addictive.

“But somehow the horrible thing — or even the sum total of all the horrible things — never seems to end Trump’s career.”

Brooks notes that Trump is still leading in the polls, especially in swing states.  Plus, every time Trump is charged with some new offense, it translates into a fund-raising haul for him.

“The ultimate dream of these games,” Brooks writes, “is that the Trump era will end with some massive moral disqualification.  We’ll be morally vindicated.  He will be morally disgraced.  The people who play these games dream of that killer conviction.  They dreamed that 14th Amendment clause would disqualify Trump from even being on the ballot.

“There was a lot to like about President Biden’s State of the Union address, but the most important thing was this:  He understands that if you want to beat Trump, you have to show you have better policies that will improve people’s lives.  It’s less emotionally satisfying, but it’s what people actually vote on.”

As I said earlier, I wish this was true.

I think many people who define themselves as Republicans support Trump because they believe he “fights for them,” even if his definition of fighting is beyond the pale and even features lies, innuendo, and scapegoating – anyone and anything.

Policies?  Yes, let’s find way to agree on them.  And let’s hope that developing good policies will influence voters.

For now, though, count me as a skeptic.