Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

Kamala Harris, the Democrat candidate for president, has come under scrutiny from the media for having changed some of her positions, including on fracking and a single-payer-system.

In the early excerpts of as prime time interview with CBS, Harris addressed criticism that her positions have shifted significantly on major issues, including climate change and immigration, saying several times, “My values have not changed.”

I find that to be a solid and sincere statement to explain her changes, though she surely will face continuing questions on such subjects as climate change and immigration along the presidential campaign trail.

And, I add quickly that it is not possible to suggest that Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, changes positions, for he has none in the first place.  So, change is simply not possible.

All Trump does is bluster, saying the first thing that comes into his mind, then allowing the bluster to cross his lips, without any attention paid to honesty or accuracy.

For me, my perceptions on the “changing positions” issue stem mostly from my 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon where I dealt with members of the State Legislature.

There, I saw lawmakers change positions from to time.

So, I came up with this list of possible reasons for a change.

• Flip-flopping:  This is a negative word meaning that the politician cannot figure out what his or her position is, so they go back and forth without much thinking.

• Learning more than you knew at first:  This is positive.  Lawmakers who are trying to do “the right thing,” often learn something when they get to the Capitol in Salem because, to state the obvious, they do not know everything on the day they arrive.  So, their positions may change.

• Recognizing changing political winds:  This can be both positive and negative.  If a politician simply puts his or her finger to the political winds before deciding what their position or changing their position, then they are just responding to the wind.  But, if they recognize the reality of politics and change positions given a rational look at the winds, then that is positive – or at least can be.

Even so, changing positions can be a negative that comes to roost during an election campaign.

Consider this example that had a lot to do with losing a major election.

It was 2004 and the George W. Bush re-election operation took one equivocation from Democrat challenger John Kerry about an Iraq funding bill — “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” — and ran Bush’s entire campaign based on it.

“Kerry’s vote itself,” a New York Times writer said, “wasn’t so important as what the Bush campaign convinced people it said about Kerry’s character.

“As the Times described it at the time, ‘Kerry aides dismiss the sentence as the inevitable verbal hiccup that comes when candidates engage voters in informal settings and complained that the Bush campaign has ripped out of context a perfectly reasonable explanation of the back-and-forth reality of Congress.’

“But Bush’s team contended it was emblematic of the larger case they were making against Kerry:  That he was a flip-flopping Washington insider unqualified to lead the nation in wartime.”

Reflecting on this case, I do remember it.  And my view:  I would give Kerry space to change in mind about a tough issue without charging him with negative flip-flopping.

And, finally, I think Kamala Harris has an adroit way to explain changes when she says “her values have not changed.”

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 in this blog headline arises because of a recent prediction that Democrats have a decent chance to come up with supermajorities in the 2025 Oregon Legislature.

That means three-fifths margins in the 60-member Oregon House and 3—member Oregon Senate.

My view, in a word, bad.

Why?

If one party controls by a supermajority, then bi-partisanship is less likely.  Perhaps even impossible.

I say this after my 40 years involved in the legislative process in Oregon, though I have now been retired for more than six years.

Does that make me right?  No.

It just means I have a view, which I can buttress by experience.

When the House and Senate were split evenly back a number of years ago, there was no option but to find public policy solutions somewhere in the middle.  And that’s often where the best solutions lie anyway – perhaps not the exact middle, but somewhere in the middle.

When one party controls the process, especially by a supermajority, it can dictate the outcome, sometimes without considering minority viewpoints.

Better, I contend, to have both parties involved in finding the best solutions.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 in this blog headline arises because of a recent prediction that Democrats have a decent chance to come up with supermajorities in the 2025 Oregon Legislature.

That means three-fifths margins in the 60-member Oregon House and 3—member Oregon Senate.

My view, in a word, bad.

Why?

If one party controls by a supermajority, then bi-partisanship is less likely.  Perhaps even impossible.

I say this after my 40 years involved in the legislative process in Oregon, though I have now been retired for more than six years.

Does that make me right?  No.

It just means I have a view, which I can buttress by experience.

When the House and Senate were split evenly back a number of years ago, there was no option but to find public policy solutions somewhere in the middle.  And that’s often where the best solutions lie anyway – perhaps not the exact middle, but somewhere in the middle.

When one party controls the process, especially by a supermajority, it can dictate the outcome, sometimes without considering minority viewpoints.

Better, I contend, to have both parties involved in finding the best solutions.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

A question came up the other day on the golf course where I play, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon.

As relayed to me by a friend of mine, the question dealt with this issue:  Is there a penalty in golf if you happen to hit your ball twice?  And, are there different rules for hitting twice on the regular course or on the green?

The answer to both:  No.

Official Golf Rule 10.1a says this:  “If a player’s club accidentally hits the ball more than once during a single stroke, there will be no penalty and the ball will be played as it lies.”

The ruling is the same no matter where you are on the course – on or off the green.

When the question came up, I thought I knew the answer.  Under the golf rules re-write in 2019, the change was that there was no penalty for double-hitting.  But I was not sure whether the same rule applied to double-strokes on the green.  It does.

So, in golf you learn something every day, including about the often-arcane subject of rules applying to the game.

Speaking of golf rules, there was another fascinating issue in the BMW Championship completed last weekend.

Golf Digest described the situation under this headline:  Matt Fitzpatrick was denied the chance to replace his cracked driver.  Was that the correct call?

During the final round of the BMW, Fitzpatrick noticed a crack in his Titleist TSi3 driver on the 8^th tee.  He sought to replace the damaged club under Model Local Rule G-9, but his request was denied.

Why?

The model rule reads as follows:  “If a player’s club is ‘broken or significantly damaged’ during the round by the player or caddie, except in cases of abuse, the player may replace the club with any club under Rule 4.1b(4).

“For the purposes of this rule, a club is ‘broken or significantly damaged’ when:  The shaft breaks into pieces, splinters or is bent (but not when the shaft is only dented); the club face impact area is visibly deformed (but not when the club face is only scratched); the clubhead is visibly and significantly deformed; the clubhead is detached or loose from the shaft; or the grip is loose.

But here’s the rub.  A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged solely because it is cracked.”  It has to be fully, not partially, cracked.

That’s the rule that caught Fitzpatrick.

Understandably, he was angry, but he played the rest of the round without a driver.  Still, at Castle Pines, which is a mile above sea level, a golfer of Fitzpatrick’s ability, can hit his three-wood – ah, wait, three-metal – more than 300 yards off the tee.

For me, a bit of a rules nut, I think the rule should be changed.  Any crack, not caused by abuse, should mean a replacement club.

Oh well, enough on golf rules for now?  My goodness, yes.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 the last few weeks, I and many other Americans have seen huge contrasts between the Democrat and Republican candidates for vice president.

Usually, conventional wisdom is that VP candidates don’t necessarily tip the election scale either way.

However, they can play key roles, though not deciding roles.

And, this time, my wisdom – conventional or not — is that Democrat Tim Walz is far better than Republican J.D. Vance.  [There was even a report late last week that Trump was considering dumping Vance for another VP candidate.  Who knows?]

Washington Post columnist Matt Bai put it this way last week:

“You can see why Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz as her running mate, and why Democrats have fallen in love with him.  The guy delivers a stemwinder in the tradition of the great plains populists, full of passion and humor and plain-spoken defiance.

“But let me tell you something:  Nobody delivers a speech that good unless he’s got a clear intellectual argument behind it and a burning conviction that he’s right.  And that’s why the contrast between Walz and J.D. Vance might be the most interesting of the campaign.

“We’ve seen Donald Trump meander and contradict his way through endless stretches at a lectern.  You’ll soon see Harris capably work her way through an amalgamation of platitudes and applause lines.

“But in the contrasting rhetoric of Walz and Vance, in particular, we get a much sharper sense of what’s really being litigated in this election:  Two sharply contrasting views of what being America actually means.”

Rather than write more of my own stuff, let me continue by quoting more Bai:

“The most important passage in Vance’s convention speech last month was the one where he described the country as something physical, rather than an abstraction.  ‘America is not just an idea,’ Vance said.  ‘It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.  It is in short, a nation.’

Literally speaking, this is not debatable; America exists, it is a nation and it has a history.

“But Vance isn’t being literal.  He is articulating the central idea that animates all forms of nationalism (including the white variety), as well as the Trump movement.  He is arguing that there is such thing as a common American culture, with its own language (English), its own religious ethos (Judeo-Christian) and its own concept of family (heterosexual, with naturally conceived children).

“Of course, there’s room for immigration and racial diversity in Vance’s worldview; his own wife is of Indian descent.  But in his view of America, the outsider becomes American by adopting a set of cultural norms — living here ‘on our terms,’ as he put it in his speech.  In this way, he sees America as no different, really, from France or Russia or any other country with common ethnic heritage.  The price of admission is cultural conformity.

“What Walz articulates — about as clearly as anyone has in the party since Barack Obama arrived on the scene 20 years ago — is a competing view that says, no, actually America is very much an idea.  Alone among nations, we have from the very start been a collection of immigrants and outsiders, bound together not by any common origin or culture, but rather by a common set of laws and values and institutions — what Abraham Lincoln called our “political religion.” (This is the liberal version of “American Exceptionalism” — the thing that makes us different from everyplace else.)

“In the America Walz described in his convention speech, it doesn’t matter what language you speak at home or what god (if any) you worship, or whether you have kids (naturally or otherwise).

“Because as long as you believe in the American promise of liberty and adhere to its laws, you’re just as American as anyone else, and anybody who doesn’t like it should ‘mind their own damn business.’

“Community, in Walz’s telling, isn’t defined by somebody’s idea of cultural norms, but rather by your connection to your neighbors.  If you’re willing to help out with a stranded car or a bake sale, then he doesn’t care if you’re an atheist or a cat-owner (or, God forbid, both).”

Bai adds this conclusion:

“In a campaign season that may already feel small and shallow, this is a very big disagreement, and I would argue that it’s more important than any one policy having to do with the price of groceries or the tax code.  It is an argument that will shape the way we govern ourselves for years to come — whether we conceive of American liberty as something that exists chiefly to protect White, Christian Americans from having their culture trampled, or whether we understand liberty to mean the freedom to choose whatever culture you like, as long as you respect the Constitution while you do it.”

I agree with Bai.  And that’s why Harris and Walz will get my vote.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 politics these days, often a great quote gets more play than a complicated issue paper.

That’s the way it is.  For me, as a retired lobbyist, no problem, though I also hope credentialled issue papers get a look.

In the past, I remember a few great quotes such as when President John F. Kennedy uttered his famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Memorable.

Or, when military hero, the late Colin Powell, said he would not run for president because he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

So it was that in the recent Democrat National Convention, I heard such lines as these:

• Who’s going to tell him (Trump) that the job he is seeking is one of those Black jobs that he says always go to immigrants – From Michelle Obama

• She (Harris) understands that most of us will never be afforded the job of falling forward.  We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth. – Again, from Michelle Obama

• Regarding Trump, there’s the childish nicknames.  The crazy conspiracy theories.   The weird obsession with crowd size.  From Barack Obama

• Take it from me, an actual billionaire – Trump is rich only in stupidity. – From J.B. Pritzker, Illinois governor

• I saw him after the cameras were off – Trump always mocked his supporters.  – From Stephanie Grisham, former Trump press secretary

• Of all the issues that seemingly preoccupy the mind of Trump — his perceived persecutions, the evil of his enemies, the size of the rallies — there is one that may be the most consistent:  Other people’s looks.  – Unknown.

• The next time you hear him, don’t count the lies. — count the I’s.  From Bill Clinton

• Trump is just like an old boyfriend who just won’t go away. – From House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries

• So, there I was, a 40-something high school teacher with little kids, zero political experience and no money running in a deep red district. But you know what?  Never underestimate a public-school teacher. Never – From Vice President candidate Tim Walz

• We are a nation of patriots who serve when the mission is hard and who serve when the destination is uncertain – From Wes Moore, Maryland governor

• When a house is on fire, we don’t ask about the homeowner’s race or religion.  We don’t wonder who their partner is or how they voted.  No, we just try to do the best we can to save them.  And if the place happens to belong to a childless cat lady, well, we try to get that cat out, too.  From Oprah Winfrey

And, then, this conclusion, a quote from Harris, says it all:  “My entire career, I have had only one client, the people.  Donald Trump has had only one client, himself.”

Just think how these quotes, especially the last one, will rankle Donald Trump as he wonders why a Black women may have his number. 

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 characteristic of Donald Trump – his continual belittling of the U.S. military – strikes me as a reality that should prompt some of my friends to divorce themselves from supporting him.

How can persons who value military service – especially those who served themselves – tolerate someone who doesn’t value the military and, of course, managed to avoid serving himself.

For serving is something Trump never does, unless it is to serve himself.

Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, made the same point in a recent column.

Here is how he started:

“Returning Trump to the White House would be a disservice not only to the armed services, but also to the nation.

“It might be a little late in the day, what with the Republican and Democrat conventions in the dust and the presidential campaigns well under way.  But I can’t get past Donald Trump’s contempt toward the military, even as he runs to become commander in chief once again.”

Here’s why, King writes:

• Maybe it’s because I wore the uniform of a commissioned U.S. Army officer, and proudly served two years on active duty.
• Maybe it’s because some of my Howard University classmates not only served gallantly in the armed forces, but did so in many cases at the cost of their lives.
• Maybe it’s because I think the 2.8 million U.S. military personnel stationed worldwide deserve a president who values their service.  But I believe returning Trump to the White House would be a disservice to the nation.

As a further rationale, King cited this recent incident.

“Yes, I was put off by his shallow and thoughtless remarks about the Medal of Honor and his disrespect of those who received it.  Trump stood before an audience at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey on August 15 and told those gathered that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest award you can get as a civilian, it’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version.

“It’s actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor — that’s soldiers.  They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.”

If you heard this without attribution, you might bet it was Trump who said it, given his distaste for the military he wants to lead.

King then goes on to cite the one case that strikes me as the best indication of Trump’s hatred of the military.

“You might have been around during the Republican presidential campaign in 2015 when Trump opined on Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), a decorated Vietnam War veteran who paid a heavy, painful and physical price at the hands of North Vietnamese who held him captive for 5½ years.

“Trump declared that McCain was ‘not a war hero” and then clarified, ‘He’s not a war hero because he was captured.  I like people that weren’t captured.’  That from Trump, a loudmouth celebrity who never wore the uniform but avoided military service with draft deferments.”

I wore “the uniform,” too.  But not as well as did many of my friends who deserve the “thank you for your service” motto more than I do.

So, I say to my friends who herald Trump:  Consider his belittling of the military and don’t vote for him.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 borrowed the headline on this blog from a column that ran a few weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal (WSG).

It was written by long-time Republican political strategist Karl Rove, now, among other pursuits, a WSJ columnist.

His piece did a very good job of this:  Putting to rest notions, which I have heard from several persons, that things are worse today than they ever have been.

Rove says “no” and then describes the reality.

Some of those who love to talk about how bad things are today hue to Donald Trump who is running for president on a “U.S. is terrible” platform, as is his vice president candidate, J.D. Vance.

It’s as if Trump is saying “things are bad today and only I, Donald Trump, can make them better if you make me king again.”

His denigration of America appears to have taken hold of some persons in this country, though I hope the “some persons” refers to those who already support Trump.

Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, has a far sunnier disposition as she asks Americans to work hard to correct problems in what she calls “the greatest country in the world.”

Still, by citing excerpts of Rove’s column below, I am not saying that things are going swimmingly in America.  No.

We have real problems – immigration, tax policy, international relations in the face of wars, and many others – but we need solid officials on all sides of the political ledger to help solve them.

We don’t need naysayers.

So, here are excerpts from what Rove wrote:

• This is the subhead that led Rove’s column:  “U.S. politics today is ugly and broken, true enough. But the good news is that it was worse in the past, and it will get better again.”
• America is deeply divided.  Our politics is broken, marked by anger, contempt, and distrust.  We must acknowledge that reality but not lose historical perspective.  It’s bad now, but it’s been worse before — and not only during the Civil War.
• Let’s look backward and start with the mid-1960s to early ’70s.  The nation was bitterly divided over civil rights, the “sexual revolution,” and an increasingly unpopular war in Southeast Asia.
• The just and peaceful civil-rights protests of the 1950s and early ’60s were often met with state-sanctioned violence.  Then Harlem exploded in 1964, followed by a riot in Philadelphia.  Watts went up in flames in 1965; Chicago, Cleveland and San Francisco the next year.
• On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.  Riots broke out in more than 130 American cities, with 47 killed in the ensuing violence.  Two months later Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles.
• That same year the nation’s most prominent segregationist, George Wallace, running for president as an independent, won five states in the Deep South.  In 1972, he came in third for the Democrat nomination, 1.8 points behind the winner in total primary vote.
• Beginning in 1965, the country was rocked by demonstrations over the Vietnam War, many of them student-led.  In some instances, governors sent in the National Guard to restore order.  After guardsmen killed four students in 1970 at Ohio’s Kent State, protests broke out on 350 campuses, involving an estimated two million people. Thirty-five thousand antiwar protesters assaulted the Pentagon in October 1967.
• An estimated 10,000 protestors tried shutting down the 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago.  Four years later, thousands tried the same at the GOP convention in Miami Beach.  The U.S. experienced more than 2,500 domestic bombings in 18 months in 1971-72.
• Two presidents were driven from office during this period.  Lyndon B. Johnson opted against seeking re-election in 1968 because of the war.  Richard Nixon, facing impeachment over Watergate, resigned in 1974.
• In the early 1930s, 1 in 4 Americans was unemployed.  Populism emerged on both ends of the spectrum.  On the left, Huey Long, proclaimed “every man a king,” threatened confiscation of wealth, and preached class hatred until he was assassinated in 1935.
• The Gilded Age is often overlooked as a time of division, but Republicans and Democrats hated each other. They were still fighting the Civil War by political means.  President Ulysses S. Grant’s 1872 re-election was followed by five consecutive presidential contests in which no winner received a popular-vote majority.  
• The most notorious of these Gilded Age elections was 1876.  Democrat Samuel Tilden led Republican Rutherford Hayes by 252,666 votes nationwide, but disputes about the Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina results were settled on March 2, 1877, by a special commission that awarded their electoral votes to Hayes. He was inaugurated two days later and, in return for a meaningless pledge by the South to protect black rights, he withdrew the remaining federal troops from the region.  The Electoral College count was 185-184.
• In the Gilded Age, it was routine for the House majority of either party to phony up a challenge to a member of the opposition who’d won by a few votes and toss him out, no matter how flimsy the evidence.  This happened 62 times between 1874 and 1904.  After winning re-election in 1882 by eight votes, Representative William McKinley of Ohio was expelled by the Democrat majority.
• There were bitter divisions and acrimony in the 1850s.  Remember the caning of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner by South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks in 1856?  It was condemned in the North and cheered in the South.
• Historian Joanne Freeman writes in “Field of Blood” that this violent period in the Capitol began in the 1830s and lasted for decades.  Senators and representatives routinely carried pistols, knives, clubs, brass knuckles, and other weapons onto the floor.  Political tensions ran high; insults and confrontations were routine and violence frequent. There was even death. In 1838, Whig Representative William Graves of Kentucky shot and killed Democrat Representative Jonathan Cilley of Maine in a duel over charges of corruption.
• These decades of animus followed America’s first claim of a stolen presidential election.  Andrew Jackson led in 1824’s four-way race with 41 per cent of the popular vote and carried 11 states, but with 99 electoral votes came up 33 short of a majority.  The contest went to the House, with each state’s delegation having one vote.

So, Rove asks, what ended these periods of broken politics?  

He answers:

“Convulsive events such as World War II played a role.  More important, adroit leadership — the kind we saw with Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan — clearly mattered.  They set a tone that led to healing.”

But most of the credit, Rove continues, “goes to the American people, who make mistakes but have always found their way back to true north.  They have often tolerated our country’s politics being angry, hyper-partisan and divisive; in some instances, they are the driving force behind polarization, with the political class reflecting the public’s unchecked passions.

“But that lasts only for a season. Their good common sense eventually brings them to vote for change, determined to reshape our politics in healthier, more constructive ways.”

And, Rove concludes:

“Polls show a clear majority of voters are unhappy with today’s politics and its ugly practices.  But don’t grow weary or discouraged.  It’s bad today, but it’s been worse before, and it will be better ahead.  Change is coming.  We don’t know precisely when, but it’s coming.  The better angels of our nature as Americans will emerge and win out.”

For my part, I hope Rove is right – that “better angels” will emerge. 

But what his column drives home to me is this:  Things may seem askew today, but they have been bad before, so it helps to maintain, (a) a sense of perspective, plus (b) a commitment to do each person’s part – my part — to contribute to improvement.

That commitment to personal action is one plank in Democrat Kamala Harris’ platform as she runs for president with a sunny disposition and a sense of joy.

I will take that over Trump’s darkness.  I hope other Americans will do the same.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

As I write this, I could comment instead about Day 3 of the Democrat National Convention in Chicago.

The party continued a rousing official start to make Donald Trump what he is, which is a loser.

Vice President Tim Walz introduced himself to the country in a speech illustrating what he has been before doing to Congress and leading Minnesota as its governor – a high school football coach.

Even as the convention prepares for an acceptance speech by Kamala Harris, we’ll begin to see whether the Democrat momentum can continue through to the election, now only about 75 days away.

Last night, my daughter, after watching Walz deliver his acceptance speech, said she wished he was at the top of the ticket.  That’s how well he did in inaugurating himself as a real, down-home American.

Back to the main point of this blog.

I suppose it could be said that “impersonation is the highest form of flattery.”

That would the only way to justify – if “justify” is the right word – what many Republicans are doing to take credit for developments in Washington, D.C. produced mainly by the other side, the Democrats.

Washington Post writer Catherine Rampell captured this very well this week when she wrote under this headline:  “The GOP’s greatest skill: Taking credit for things Democrats did; one party keeps lying about its public service record.  Talk about “stolen valor.”

Her use of the term “stolen valor” was a reference to the fact that some Republicans have been using that term to denigrate the military service of Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who left the military after 20+ years to run for Congress where he won.

For instance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance used the “stolen valor” term against Walz because he says Walz says he left the service before his unit was deployed overseas.

Note that Vance served, too, though was not exposed to combat.

So, on this point, I say to both – thank for your service and then getting about running for election in the right way.

Back to Rampell.

She jumped off the phrase “stolen valor” phrase to say this:  “But the actual perpetrators of ‘stolen valor’ in this election are Vance and his party — if not in the military context, then at least in the public service one. Republican politicians have repeatedly claimed credit for valiant actions they didn’t take, pro-family legislation they didn’t support and other popular policies they’re trying to repeal.”

Rampell provided these examples:

• For instance, as Democrats celebrated the Inflation Reduction Act’s two-year anniversary last week, Republicans, who unanimously voted against the law in 2022, condemned it and pledged to claw it back. (They’ve already voted a couple dozen times to repeal various portions of it.)

But when it comes to the projects the law subsidized, these same Republicans are big cheerleaders — both for the projects and their own (imagined) role in enabling them.

• This is hardly the only initiative Republican lawmakers have bogarted credit for despite their efforts to stop it.  Last fall, House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) cheered the expansion of Florida’s Sarasota airport, which he toured with Representative Vern Buchanan (R-Florida).

That project received at least $16 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. While some Republicans supported this law, both men voted against it.

• Similar examples abound for Republicans who voted against the Chips and Science Act.  Vance was not yet in the Senate when any of these blockbuster bills were enacted.  When he ran for office, though, he bashed the infrastructure law as “a total disaster for our country.”  He has since appeared to take credit for its funding for the Great Lakes as one of his top “accomplishments” in the Senate.

• More recently, Vance has spent the past month defending his “childless cat ladies” remarks by explaining he simply meant Republicans are more devoted to family-friendly policies than Democrats are.  Which family-friendly policies should Republicans be so proud of, you ask?  Oh, you know: the ones championed and passed by Democrats.

For instance, Vance often says he’s been fighting to expand the child tax credit. But earlier this month, when the Senate voted on a bill to do that, Vance couldn’t be bothered to show up.  His Republican colleagues blocked the bill from advancing.

• The other effort Vance has been citing as emblematic of his “pro-family” agenda:  Legislation to eliminate surprise, out-of-network medical bills.

“We got these ridiculous surprise medical billings from the hospital because we had chosen an out-of-network provider, of course, at this most stressful of all imaginable moments,” he recounted on ABC’s Face the Nation last week, when talking about the birth of his second child.  “I’ve actually introduced legislation to stop moms and dads from having to go through those surprise medical billings.”

Unable to find other legislation he sponsored on this issue, I contacted Vance’s Senate office to ask which bill he was referring to.  His spokesperson declined to speak on the record or give me the bill number for whatever legislation Vance was citing.

• To be fair, Vance has not stolen all the undue credit for himself. He’s also praised Trump for things Trump didn’t do. For instance, Vance credited Trump for a recent prisoner swap that, ahem, President Joe Biden negotiated.  And Trump himself is, of course, the master of laying claim to other presidents’ valorous and public-spirited achievements.

Back to the lead on this blog:  You know what they say — impersonation is the highest form of flattery.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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.

Washington Post writers performed a public service last week by preparing a story that appeared under the headline I used for this blog.

It went beneath the normal “race-horse” approach to detail some of the issues that may be involved in the presidential race match-up between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

The Post editors added this subhead:

“The candidates, their movements, and their rallies embody two very different identities, setting up a stark contrast for voters.”

You bet.

It would be hard to find a stronger contrast than Harris vs. Trump. 

• Harris focuses on the future of “our country.” 
• Trump focuses on the past. 
• Harris appeals to all segments of society. 
• Trump appeals to White males.

Further, as I write this, Democrats got a boost from Day 2 of the National Convention.  It was provided mostly by the Obamas, Barack and Michelle, as they accomplished two objectives:  (1) They endorsed Harris (one of the best lines is in the next paragraph, and (2) they skewered Trump.

The best line uttered by Michelle:  She wondered if Trump knew that what he called “the Black jobs” he said were going to immigrants could actually go to Harris as she took the Oval Office.

Standing ovations at the DNC.

Here is a quick excerpt from what the two writers, Hannah Knowles and Dylan Wells, prepared for the Post on the generational divide issue:

“Donald Trump walks onstage to the 1984 Lee Greenwood song “God Bless the USA,” cheered on by a roaring crowd that skews older and White.  “We will make America great again!” he promises.

“Kamala Harris walks out to Beyoncé’s 2016 hit “Freedom” and leans into internet memes — addressing more racially diverse audiences dotted with chartreuse shirts and pins that pay homage to a 2024 pop album called “Brat.”

More from the Post:

“The split screen reflects two presidential campaigns that embody two very different cultural, generational and social identities, setting up a stark contrast for voters.  

“The divide is clearer than ever since President Joe Biden quit the race — upending a campaign that had long featured two White men born in the 1940s and allowing a younger, multi-racial woman to take his place.

“Now the candidates, their rallies and their movements are showcasing two sides of America split by demographics and cultural touchstones, not just party and policy.

“Trump’s grievance-fueled movement is full of nostalgia for past generations and his own term in office — and fear and anger about how undocumented immigration and secularization are changing the country, interviews with many supporters show.”

A quick summary:

• At rallies, Trump offers apocalyptic warnings about the southern border, promises to crack down on ‘transgender insanity,’ re-litigates his 2020 election loss, belittles his critics, and vows retribution on his perceived enemies, making many false and baseless claims in his lengthy speeches.
• Harris, meanwhile, is drawing new energy from young voters and people of color who say they worry that Trump will take America backward to a place where women, people of color, LGBTQ+ Americans and others face more challenges.  She delivers tightly scripted speeches that prompt her crowds to boo at Trump, but that also strike sunny tones, such as pointing toward ‘the future.’

One pollster, Celinda Lake, told the Post that, “Now, people clearly see Harris as change — demographically, stylistically, culturally, age, gender, just in every way.”

Trump, meanwhile, is seeking to brand Harris as more of the same from Biden and trying to convince voters they were better off during his time in the White House.

More from the Post:  “The divides between the two candidates’ supporters reflect long-standing differences in race, geography, religion, education and more. Republicans’ support base in the Trump era skews White, working-class, male, rural and evangelical.  Democrats’ support skews college-educated and urban and draws more on women, young people and voters of color, especially Black Americans.  Political analysts have talked for years about Republican-leaning “Cracker Barrel voters” versus Democratic-leaning “Whole Foods voters.”

Regarding Harris:

“Now Trump, 78, and Harris, 59, personify the contrast in striking ways.

“Harris was born in the 1960s on the cusp of Gen X, and her campaign has leaned into the jokes and references of Gen Z. When singer Charli XCX declared the day that Biden dropped out that “ kamala ISbrat” — delighting TikTok users and baffling the older and less-online — Harris’s team immediately embraced the term, which has come to mean something like messy but bold.  The campaign began to use the font and Shrek green of Charli XCX’s album cover.

Regarding Trump:

Trump supporters queue early up for his events in shirts like “God, Guns and Trump” and “Jesus Is My Savior, Trump Is My President.” Some camp out all day with folding chairs. As they finally filter inside, the speakers blast classics such as “Rocket Man” (1972), “I Will Survive” (1978), “Dancing Queen” (1976) and “Memory” from the musical “Cats” (1981).

As they wait for the main show, there are teaser videos of Trump (“We will expel the warmongers!”), patriotic rituals and dire warnings about where the country is headed if Trump is not elected.  There’s always a Christian prayer.

Which, I add, is duplicitous because Trump doesn’t appear to know a thing about real Christians.

So, as this campaign plays out for the next 75 days or so, watch for the contrasts between the two – generational contrasts.

And, as two old people, my wife and I, choose Harris, we are hoping others will join.