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.

Regarding this blog headline, middle ground is lost under Trump, but is it gone forever?

Too early to tell, but I fear that, if Trump has his way, the idea that middle ground exists – call it compromise, if you will – could no longer be possible.

You see, Trump and his sycophants want to be dictators, if not kings.  They don’t believe in compromise.  They only want to assert their will.  Congress be damned.  The courts be damned.  Plus, they think public opinion is what they say it is, not what it is.

If middle ground is lost, they say “so be it.”  To them, it’s “my way or the highway.”

One other aspect of this is worth noting. 

If the “other side” rails against Trump’s over-the-top actions, all that does is infuse him with more intent to continue going down “his” path.  He never responds well to criticism, for he thinks it is all part of a major effort “to get him.”

It’s exactly what paranoid narcissists do.  It’s always all about them and no one else matters.

For my part, I always have thought that middle ground is often where the best solutions lie for pressing public policy challenges.

Neither the hard right nor the hard left.  In the middle.

That’s what I thought when I worked as state lobbyist for 25 years in Oregon.  I often saw an intent to produce solutions that work for the benefit of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as for the public at large.

As examples in Oregon, top-of-mind for me are three health care issues because much of my time was spent representing Providence Health and Services, as well as other health clients.  So, this morning, I cite the three issues:

• A Special Tax on Hospitals:  A few years ago, someone – not sure whom – came up with what was a decent idea.  Tax hospitals, use the money as it landed in State of Oregon coffers as match for federal money under Medicaid, and, thus, gain more money from Washington, D.C. than otherwise would have arrived here.

Again, a decent idea.  But, as lobbyists, we were concerned that the “new money” actually might not go to low-income health care in Oregon because, on occasion, “health care money” had been diverted elsewhere.

So, we advocated for creation of a “work group” composed of legislators and lobbyists, as well as the Governor’s Office, that would hammer out consensus details.  It worked.

The consensus was put into a memorandum that all parties signed and the result?  New money intended for health care went to health care.

• A Special Tax On Health Insurance Premiums:  The same notion as above worked its way into the idea that health insurance companies domiciled in Oregon should pay a tax, with the proceeds intended to be for the federal match.

Again, with a work group consensus, the new system worked for the benefit of low-income Oregonians in need of medical care.

Now, in the spirit of candor, I add that a critic of these two tax approaches would say the scheme was just a bid to gain MORE federal spending.  Perhaps true, but, to me, the end justified the means:  More money came to Oregon for a consensus purpose — better health care.  A middle ground solution.

• Assisted Suicide Compromise:  My final example of middle ground occurred in relation a very controversial “human” issue when it was passed by Oregon voters:  A procedure for persons, within certain limits, to end their lives in response to huge physical limitations they faced.  In other words, end their lives early.  The assisted suicide law is now more than 20 years old in Oregon.

I had a special role on behalf of Providence once the assisted suicide law was on the books.

Given Providence’s dotted-line connection to the Catholic Church, I advocated for a “conscience clause,” which would allow Providence employees to opt out of being involved in suicide processes if doing so was against their “conscience.”  The clause also would say that assisted suicide did not need to be practiced at Providence facilities if the leaders of those facilities had a “conscience” against doing so.

To achieve this, I relied on the best legislator to lead middle ground solutions, Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, who is still a friend to this day.  At my request, he agreed to form a work group to consider alternatives and, due to his leadership, the process succeeded.

Providence properties (eight hospitals throughout Oregon) and Providence nurses and other staff were given the right to opt out in exchange for Providence referring those who genuinely wanted assisted suicide to reputable providers outside the hospital system.

It was a tough solution because, to some Providence leaders, “referral” amounted to “being an agent by which something inappropriate – assisted suicide – was done.”  Agentry went against Catholic principles..

Still, Providence was a health care system, not a church.  So, referral worked.  When all was said and done, a reasonable solution that amounted to “policy in the middle.”  And, to this day, the compromise works for Providence and for citizens who want assisted suicide.

The bottom-line point is that middle ground does exist if those involved want to find it and are willing to work hard to do so.

Back to Trump.  He won’t even look.