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.

If you are involved or interested in politics – even from the cheap seats out West where I live – you can answer the question in this blog headline.

The answer:  Both.

But, for me, character matters first and, if character is sound, perhaps not perfect, but sound, then substance matters more.  If character is missing or derelict, then substance hardly matters.

As for the presidential election this time around, it is not hard for me to support Kamala Harris based on one word – character.

Her character is sound and her opponent, Donald Trump, is far from sound, even perhaps mentally ill as he aggrandizes himself and criticizes everybody else.  Everybody else!

Washington Post political analyst Dan Balz, one of the most experienced hands with such a job, put it this way recently:

“Former president Trump has long inhabited a bizarre world of his own creation.  He re-writes history — or makes it up entirely — to aggrandize himself, denigrate others, and spread the basest of lies.”

Back to the point about Harris and policy.

Writing in the New York Times, Brent Stephens said this:

“It should not be hard for Harris to demonstrate that she can give detailed answers to urgent policy questions.  Or to express a sense, beyond a few canned phrases, of how she sees the American interest in a darkening world.

“Or to articulate a politics of genuine inclusion that reaches out to tens of millions of distrustful voters.  Or to prove that she’s more than another factory-settings liberal Democrat whose greatest virtue, like her greatest fault, is that she won’t step too far from the conventional wisdom.”

For my part, Stephens, at least in this column, goes too far.

He wants Harris to articulate specific policy positions which, if she does, would not redound necessarily to her credit politically.

That’s because she is opposing Trump, the darkest character in American politics, though perhaps his surrogate vice president candidate, J.D. Vance, comes close.  Who knows what Trump’s policies are, except that he hates anyone who doesn’t salute him?

The fact is that Harris has laid a number of policies she favors –strengthening the economy and reducing consumer prices, a heavy emphasis on reproductive rights and abortion, and what she would do in the face of international crises, including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Meanwhile, as I tried to figure out the mind of American voters the other day – a tough and lonely task — I wrote a series of questions for myself, then answered them.

Here they are.

Would you vote for a person who had been convicted of rape?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for a person who had been found guilty of crimes for paying hush money to a porn star – in other words, for a convicted felon?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for person who sequestered sensitive, confidential documents from the White House and left them to be looked at by anyone at his resort in Florida?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who called a mob into play after he lost an election, then did not urge them to stand down as they assaulted the U.S. Capitol, including injuring police officers – in other words, someone guilty of sedition?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who has promised to release everyone convicted of a crime at the U.S. Capitol as these soon-to-felons worked to overthrow a fair election?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who denigrated military service, then wants to function as Commander in Chief?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who criticized military war hero John McCain “because McCain was captured?”

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who said he would deport nearly all immigrants in the U.S.?

Answer:  No.

Would you vote for someone who wallows in a false report that immigrants eat dogs and cats when they arrive in U.S. cities?

Answer:  No.

Need this go any farther?

Answer:  No.

In terms of character, this question-answer is all anyone needs to know about the uncouth man who wants to be president again.

So, give room for Harris, in the closing weeks of the campaign, to articulate views on issues facing the American presidency, but, also, don’t lose sight of Trump’s huge character failings that ought to bar him from running.

And, recognize Harris’ strengths of character that ought to make her president.