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 phrase “Love of the Game” resonates with me about the sport I love, golf.

It came to my mind this week for several reasons:

• Golf writer Geoff Shackleford wrote a story bemoaning the sharp infusion of money in the pro golf game, which, at least for some players, means they chase money, not just quality golf.

• Pro golfer Victor Hovland – the only PGA Tour player from my ancestors’ homeland, Norway – was quoted as bemoaning the “loss of golf’s soul,” given the chase after money.

• Every day when I play with my friends, either in Salem, Oregon, my main home, or La Quinta, California where I live in the winter, we decide whether to play for a few bucks or for the love of the game.  Often, it’s the latter.

Part of what has been called “an insane dash for case” arose due to LIV golf, which exists off tainted Saudi money as it challenges the PGA Tour.  And, so, the PGA Tour, while it supposedly is negotiating with LIV, also goes after big money from corporate investors and sponsors.

Here is the way Shackelford put it in the story he wrote:

“A sport played in some form by 70 or so million around the globe does not hinge on the popularity of the few hundred or so professionals who believe they are centers of our universe.

“The numbers do not lie.

“Even with terrible weather in key regions, according to Golf Datatech, U.S. rounds played are up 3 per cent over 2022 with magnificent spikes in female and junior participation.  An unexpected pandemic bump has turned into a steady bounce even with offices demanding that workers return and less time-consuming threats like pickleball competing for recreational time.

“Everyday golf has proved to be resilient, unmoored from the fortunes, grievances, and neuroses of those who play it for a living.”

Now, I add that one perspective needs to be added to what Shackelford wrote.  This:  Be careful about making generalizations.

Some pro golfers still love the game, even with so much money involved.  On the PGA Tour, they compete for the money.  They don’t just get it automatically if they show up – which, by the way, is what happens on LIV.

Consider this from the most recent LIV tournament:

“By late Sunday, Chilean Joaquín Niemann had surged far ahead of the field and would cruise to a four-stroke victory.  But everyone behind him was still vying for their chunk of the $20 million individual pot.  

“Unlike a typical PGA Tour event, where there’s a cut midway through the tournament, even LIV’s worst performers walk away with a decent check.  

“At this event, the last-place finisher was none other than Anthony Kim, who was 16-over par — 11 strokes behind the next player — in his return to pro golf after more than a decade away.  He still got $50,000 for his efforts.”

Where is the love of the game in that result?  Nowhere.

I also talked in the last few days with several of my friends about the love of the game.

Here is what one wrote:

“In short, I’d say my love of the game started long ago when I started caddying at age 12.  At that time, while I had seen both Ben Hogan and Arnold Palmer play in a few tournaments on TV, my initial interest was in watching the ‘moves’ of the pros’ caddies.  They were my ‘pros,’ initially.  

“When I started playing the game myself on Mondays (caddies’ day) my interest in the pros, their swings, the rules, etc. really jumped.  In general, through the 1960s, TV golf was nothing as complete and thorough as it is today.

“Heck, back then, TV typically only covered the back nine — it was as if the game was only worth showing after the pros made the turn for home.  

“For me, much of the imagery and magic of the pros and their games was forged by the written word:  Sports Illustrated, Golf Magazine, and the SF Chronicle newspaper.  

“The ‘money’ issue in pro golf seemed mostly unimportant and/or uncovered.  

“There was a ‘big’ story when, for the first time, one of the pros — maybe Palmer — crossed the $100K mark for yearly winnings.   First place winnings then ran between $15K and $20K, pretty much what the last place finishers get today.  

“Back then, it also seemed that the stars of the show, so to speak, were the golf courses, the weather, and the variety of predicaments that the golf gods threw at players in each round.  

“…what is most special about golf for me is striving to play a wonderful (frustrating, challenging, unfair) game outdoors in the fresh (wet, cold, hot, humid, dry, breezy) air with friends who enjoy doing the same thing.  

“The pro game and all its current ongoing money issues and challenges, especially including LIV vs. the PGA tour, mean almost nothing to me anymore.   The game itself is what holds my interest and involvement, not the performance measures (dollars) and, particularly for the LIV tour, the actual performers pursuing those rewards.  

“The game itself is far richer and far more important to me these days.”

Well said, my friend.  You speak for me, too.

**********

And this footnote:  Out of deference to another friend of mine, I have not spent much time in this space trying to discredit LIV, though that’s what I think it deserves – discredit.  That for another time and place.

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.

After “Super Tuesday” results, we have confirmed who is on the ballot in the next presidential election and, Tom Nichols, writing in Atlantic Magazine, comes up with this accurate summary:

“American democracy is on the ballot.  Individual freedom, including reproductive rights and civil liberties, is on the ballot.  The security of Europe, of the United States, of the world … all of it is on the ballot.  It is time for voters to take a deep breath, deal with the world as it is, and decide what they really want when they make one of the most fateful decisions in American history.”

Nichols is right. 

And, on that “fateful decision,” anyone in their right mind, will vote for Joe Biden because he is the only candidate who values American democracy.

The other one, a looney-tune, made-for-reality-TV figure, one Donald Trump, views himself as a dictator, American democracy be damned.  If he wins, it will continue to be all about him, not all about America.

Biden and his camp now have a few months to get the campaign right…for 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.

For those of us who are political junkies – yes, I am one – this is a big week.

It is the week the president will deliver the annual “State of the Union” address.

This time, what’s ahead is a huge opportunity for President Joe Biden.  Before a joint session of Congress and a national audience, he gets a chance to describe the state of the country he leads.

The address, of course, will contain both substantive policy issues, as politics, especially this time with a national election only a few months away.

Washington Post editorial writers went on record this week under this headline:  “Give ’em hell, Joe – and keep the State of the Union shortest.”

Error! Filename not specified.The Post continues:

“Previewing Thursday’s State of the Union address, the White House says President Biden plans to claim credit for ‘getting more done in his first three years than most presidents have accomplished in two terms.’

“That’s a debatable claim, but he’s keen to talk about funding infrastructure, industrial policy, lowering drug prices, and fighting junk fees.

“His most important legacy, however, will be defeating President Donald Trump in 2020.  And if he’s going to do it again in 2024, he shouldn’t squander his biggest televised audience of the year by delivering another box-checking laundry list that drags on more than an hour.”

Recent “State of the Union” address have checked that box, going on and on, thus losing interest.

Some of this arose when Bill Clinton was president.  For one thing, he loved to talk – and he did incessantly.  The trend continued under Barack Obama when, like a couple of his predecessors, he invited various individuals to attend whom he could praise for their work, including, in some cases, selfless sacrifice in the military.

The ploy worked.  After all, it’s often a good idea to illustrate a policy by a real-life example.

But, too often, the tactic got shopworn.

Biden may do the same this week.

But the Post adds this advice:

“Finally, and maybe most importantly, Biden needs to keep this State of the Union shorter than his previous three addresses to Congress.  Harry Truman spoke for 41 minutes in his 1948 State of the Union.  Biden spoke for 73 minutes last year.

“Quick — can you remember anything he said?  (No fair Googling.)  At what he has called an ‘inflection point’ in history, it is far less important for Biden to be comprehensive than to be compelling.”

Good advice.  Compelling.  Not comprehensive.

I hope Biden succeeds this week.

Mr. Trump could well win if their rematch were today, but Mr. Biden has eight months to improve his fortunes. Nodding to the priorities of every Cabinet agency and the wish lists of liberal interest groups won’t shift any narratives. Alas, a preview released by the White House press shop on Friday suggests that’s what’s coming. It says the president will talk about, among other things, protecting abortion rights and in vitro fertilization, reining in big tech, curbing fentanyl, helping veterans, ending cancer, making the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, lowering health-care premiums, uniting the country and “saving our democracy.”

These are all worthy aims, but a moment of this gravity calls for something grander. Mr. Biden needs to rethink an exhausted format, step up to the bully pulpit and make a case less for himself than for his worldview. He needs to push back on the self-defeating isolationism, nativism and protectionism of the “America First” movement, whose ideas are as dangerous now as when they were previously tried, and failed, in the 1930s.

Conventional wisdom holds that politicians should emphasize issues on which they have an advantage — such as abortion, in the president’s case — and de-emphasize those on which they’re vulnerable. But Mr. Biden will lose reelection if he doesn’t address the southern border. Immigration has become the citizenry’s No. 1 concern. A Gallup poll published Tuesday shows 28 percent of Americans see this as the country’s most important problem, the highest reading ever. The same poll shows Congress’s job approval rating has fallen to 12 percent. Mr. Biden’s is 38 percent.

It’s valid to castigate Republicans for killing the sensible bipartisan border deal, something Mr. Biden did during his visit to a Texas border town on Thursday — but insufficient. He needs to convey he understands that many see the millions of border crossings as a breakdown in one of the federal government’s core responsibilities and outline how he will use executive authorities to stop it if Congress won’t.

Mr. Biden should take a page from President Harry S. Truman’s playbook. As the 1948 election season began, Truman appeared as vulnerable as Mr. Biden does now. But he won a full term by using the “Do-Nothing Congress” as a foil and rallying the country to meet the geopolitical challenges of the post-World War II era.

“Twice within our generation, world wars have taught us that we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world,” Truman said in his 1948 State of the Union. “We have learned that the loss of freedom in any area of the world means a loss of freedom to ourselves — that the loss of independence by any nation adds directly to the insecurity of the United States.”

Mr. Biden can make a similar argument regarding the need for the United States to support democracies such as Ukraine as they fend off existential threats. This cries out for more than sloganeering. On Israel, what’s happening in Gaza has riven the Democratic base, but just like with his vulnerability on immigration, that makes it even more crucial for Mr. Biden to explain his thinking and what he’s doing to prevent a wider war in the Middle East while securing a peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Far from representing a silent majority, Mr. Trump’s America First ideology reflects the thinking of a noisy minority. Fresh Gallup polling shows two-thirds of Americans want the United States to keep or expand its commitment to NATO. Only 12 percent want the United States to withdraw from the alliance.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, Mr. Biden needs to keep this State of the Union shorter than his previous three addresses to Congress. Truman spoke for 41 minutes in his 1948 State of the Union. Mr. Biden spoke for 73 minutes last year. Quick — can you remember anything he said? (No fair Googling.) At what he has called an “inflection point” in history, it is far less important for Mr. Biden to be comprehensive than to be compelling.

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.

What has happened to professional golf lately?  A grab for insane amounts of money, almost regardless of the source (read, the Saudis). 

The excess raises the question posed in this blog headline, even for those who love golf as I do.

I could write about this for some time, but it is easier for me simply to reprint an article by a solid golf writer, Geoff Shackelford.  It appeared in a recent edition of Links Magazine under this headline:  Geoff Shackelford — Why We Don’t Need Professional Golfers.

Shackelford’s words are worth noting, though I still hope that at least some pro golfers still play “for the love of the game” – or, as Shakelford puts it, “the enduring spirit of a royal and ancient pursuit.”

Now, to be sure, there are some professional golfers who still appear to love the game, not just the money.  Generalizations are troublesome.  But, that said, the grab for so much money raises questions.

*********

The more pro golfers squabble over obscene amounts of money, the less the public will care.  And that’s just fine.

The verdict is in.

A sport played in some form by 70 or so million around the globe does not hinge on the popularity of the few hundred or so professionals who believe they are centers of our universe.

The numbers do not lie.

Even with terrible weather in key regions, according to Golf Datatech, U.S. rounds played are up 3 per cent over 2022 with magnificent spikes in female and junior participation.  An unexpected pandemic bump has turned into a steady bounce even with offices demanding that workers return and less time-consuming threats like pickleball competing for recreational time.

Everyday golf has proved to be resilient, unmoored from the fortunes, grievances, and neuroses of those who play it for a living.

Dating back to when Young Tom Morris won so many silver belts they had to let him keep it and create a Claret Jug, and all the way up to the emergence of Tiger Woods, bursts of popularity have been tied to the dashing ways of generational talents.

These special players convinced people to take up the Royal and Ancient pastime.  Watching bigger-than-life types pursuing history without concern for cash gave the sport convenient boosts:  Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Babe Zaharias, and Arnold Palmer injected new life at key moments.  

They helped the masses discover or rediscover golf as a brilliant, if a tad peculiar, pastime.  A reverse effect might have been expected based on 2023’s morass of international headlines reinforcing touring pros as cartoonishly selfish.

Instead, all traceable trends suggest a record number of people are calling themselves golfers.  Flat or falling media viewing numbers suggest longtime viewers have moved on from the “logoclads.”

The inspiration to play, dream, practice, invest, and live vicariously through golf now comes from non-pro golf sources.  And while many well-meaning overlords have issued dire pleas that a sport “splintered” between LIV and the PGA Tour would be perilous, 2023 proved the Saudi Arabia-driven divorce will remain largely a non-issue for the everyday sport and surrounding businesses.

Golf has shown people it’s more than just something to do safely outdoors.  It’s a lifestyle and guiding force for many.  A safe place for kids and a healthy pastime for older folks.

Grass roots efforts to “grow” the sport have worked.  There are (finally) easier and less intimidating ways into golf.  More options have been added for those who cannot play 18 holes on a Saturday at the club.  Years of effort by leading organizations to make the sport more welcoming have shown up in the numbers even as this newfound popularity has inflated costs for equipment, green fees, travel, and memberships.

Because instead of taking cues from the elites traveling (private, no less) around the country playing beautiful courses for millions, the golfing public finds inspiration elsewhere.

Some folks — I’m only slightly judging here — take inspiration from the pursuits of the influencer set because they look like they’re having fun playing golf.  Millions more with less time to play 18 holes still are enjoying the benefits of improving through practice on upgraded ranges or short courses.

Instruction is more fun, supported by revealing launch-monitor data that makes a game of suggesting swing tweaks based on the numbers.  More golfers than ever are architectionados:  Some travel to check off ranked courses, but most are seeking out rich experiences and the ensuing fun of debating design merits that produce memories of a lifetime.  All of this is far removed from the week-to-week pro game.

On the commerce side, just look at the number of fun and sophisticated niche brands that have forced the industry behemoths to reevaluate their approach and improve their offerings.

The inspiration to play more golf and ignore the pro game is also coming from infusions of technology, incredible (and environmentally healthier) course maintenance, better food, more relaxed fashion, clever use of social media to show off the beauty of golf courses as places to rejuvenate the soul, and the long overdue embrace of time-friendly alternatives like par-3 courses and Topgolf.

Yet, there is still too much desperation to “grow the game” even though we all know that phrase is only uttered by those who have never tried hitting refresh on a webpage hoping to secure a tee time.

The game has grown.  It’s cool with kids and the retiring boomers.  Is it sustainable given the increasing costs?  That’s still a matter of concern, and, thankfully, there are smart people at the USGA, R&A, GCSAA, NGF, and regional golf associations on top of these things.

While many well-meaning overlords have issued dire pleas that a sport “splintered” between LIV and the PGA Tour would be perilous, 2023 proved the Saudi Arabia-driven divorce will remain largely a non-issue for the everyday sport and surrounding businesses.

Their jobs would be easier without a professional game determined to taint the strides made by making the sport more palatable for more people.

There are still too many courses under threat despite serving a vital purpose in their communities.  Golf is still viewed as a vast waste of resources played by a small set of elitists, and pro golf’s money wars only drive this home.

Another year of silly money thrown about, most of it caught by Jon Rahm, has sharpened the focus on player greed, the kind regularly described by people who love the game as awful and disgusting. It’s no wonder folks outside the sport still unfairly lump golfers and courses into a big waste pit of excess.  Hearing pros threatening a jump to LIV because there are not enough executive restrooms or on-site parking for their caddie’s sport psychologist is enough to make even die-hard golfers hate the pros.

It’s little wonder, then, that ratings are falling and playing professionals are no longer seen as brand icons to blue chip companies.  While most are still fantastic role models to be admired for their skill, the crossfire hurricane of trends suggests the recreational game and ecosystem around it will continue to drift away from the 300 or so male professionals who believe they are the sport.  Or worse, bigger than it.

With the major tours failing to find common ground and much sense, the insular money jockeying will only end when the cash starts to dry up.  By then it’ll be too late for the pro game and the majors will be the only time we watch.

Thankfully, the rest of golf can see the unanimous verdict:  The game will be fine with or without the pros.  It’s a beautiful thing.  And a testament to the enduring spirit of a royal and ancient pursuit.

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 encountered an interesting golf rules issue the other day on the course – and, also, know this…I am addicted to learning more about golf rules.

This was the issue:

• A player in the group I was in hit a good shot on a par 3 hole to within about five feet of the cup.

• A second player hit a similar shot that struck the first ball and one of the balls ended up about two inches from the cup.  At the time, we thought it was the second shot that came up just short.

• But, when we got to the green, we learned that it was the first ball that, atter being hit, rolled toward the hole.

So, what is the proper golf ruling?

It would be this.  The first ball on the green would have to be replaced as close as possible to the spot it held when it was hit.  Not where it ended up almost in the hole.

The second ball would be played from where it ended up after the hit.  No penalty.

So, what would happen if the first ball on the green had gone into the hole after being hit?  Same answer.  It would have to be placed as close as possible to its original spot on the green.

Tough stuff, you say.

Consulting Mr. Google, I confirmed that this situation is covered by Golf Rules 18-5 and 20-3a.  You can look if up if you want.

Confirmation from Mr. Google:

“Question:  If I am off the putting green and my ball, when chipping onto the green, hits a ball on the putting surface, is there a penalty, and if so, who gets the penalty?

“Answer:  The easy thing to remember about this situation is that whenever a ball in play and, at rest, is moved by another ball in motion after a stroke, the moved ball must always be replaced (Rule 18-5).

“It is a principle of the rules of golf that a player is entitled to the lie and line of play that he or she had when the ball came to rest.  When a ball is to be replaced, the player, his or her partner or the person who moved it must place it on the spot from which it moved (Rule 20-3a).

“The player must make his or her best judgement to estimate where the ball was lying before it was moved.  The player whose ball hit the stationary ball must play their ball from wherever it came to rest.”

There.  Aren’t you glad you know all of this?