PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

This is nearly a truism in politics:  When one party is in charge in the federal government or a state capitol, it is easy for those in charge to go too far to advance their cause. 

Which gives the other side an opportunity to catch up or take control on their own.

If you are in charge, the moral is to use your majority in a smart way rather than in a way that gives aid and comfort to the other side.  Further, those in charge should find a way to take bi-partisan actions that will encourage voters who want good government.  That could pay off politically.

Consider two examples.

The first is the Biden Administration, along with Democrat leaders in Congress. 

There is an emerging consensus that the president and Congress are moving too far and too fast toward what, in the past, would have been described as “liberal” positions.  Today, the political lexicon calls it moving too far left to the abode of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Which is too far for many Americans.

Thus, it is possible Democrats may lose control of the U.S. House and Senate in the mid-term elections next year.  Biden, after those elections, will have two more years in his first term.

Further, Wall Street Journal commentator Daniel Henninger suggested that Biden has “bungled his first crisis.”   By that, Henninger was referring to a comment from former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who said, “you never want a crisis to go to waste” if you involved in politics.

A crisis, Emanuel said, is “an opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

For Biden, the crisis is the pandemic and, in that and other “crisis-type” issues, the Administration has chosen to “go big.”  It is a tactic that could cost them the smart middle – voters who wanted a relief from Donald Trump and a return to a “normal” president who focuses on getting things done in a bi-partisan fashion without resorting to Twitter diatribes.

Henninger wrote this. “The questions are everywhere this week: Has Biden wasted his crisis?  Are the Democrats on course to lose the House next year (and not beyond imagining, the Senate)?  Is the Biden agenda disappearing up the flue of Joe Manchin’s chimney (a reference to Senator Manchin who won’t give up supporting the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass anything in a 100-member Senate).?”

“My short answers,” Henninger adds, “are yes, yes and yes.”

In the second example, I cite the Oregon Legislature.  Control now is firmly in the hands of Democrats.  The fact is that it may not be possible for the Legislature to move too far left because Democrats are likely to retain control of the Legislature, as well as the Governor’s Office, for the foreseeable future.

It’s a function of the fact urban legislators control the process, illustrating that there are still “two Oregons” – the urban one and the rural one.

Just ask several Eastern Oregon counties that want to become part of Idaho because leaders in those counties have said “they don’t recognize Oregon any longer.”  The fact is that secession probably will not be possible, given all that is involved, including an act of Congress.  But, still, the instinct to leave persists.

Meanwhile, legislators are driving toward the constitutionally mandated end-of-the-session under the leadership of two Democrats – House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney, with the Democrat governor, Kate Brown, holding court in her middle-of-the-Capitol office for two more years.

Kotek could decide to run for governor in two years after several terms as House Speaker.  Courtney, for his part, could recede into the sunset as the longest serving legislator in Oregon history.

Still, going too far always risks building a majority that can be sustained, as well as one that can appeal to voters who want success, not just extremes.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

An incident in a pro golf tournament last week underlined an important general question facing this country:  What drives resistance to vaccines?

No one knows the answer for sure, but pro golfer Jon Rahm got a dose of reality last week.

After the third round of the Memorial Golf Tournament in Ohio, Rahm got the bad news.  He had tested positive for the virus.  And, thus, he had to withdraw from the tournament. 

Trouble was he had a six-shot lead and could have gone on to win a tournament the pros love because it pays homage to the best golfer ever to have the played the game, Jack Nicklaus.  [Yes, the rating of “best” in the previous sentence is mine, and there are those who will debate the ranking.]

Back to question.  Why hadn’t Rahm just gotten the vaccine to preserve his playing privileges?

I don’t know and I suppose there might have been some kind of reason for his failure.

But, to go beyond golf, resistance to the vaccine is a national issue.

In the Wall Street Journal, William Galston wrote about the issue in a column that appeared under this headline:

Eight in 10 Democrats have at least one dose, compared with about half of Republicans.

His column started this way:

“As public concern about the pandemic continues to decline, the Biden Administration is pushing hard to meet its goal of vaccinating 70 per cent of adults with at least one shot by the Fourth of July.  More than 60 per cent of the country is already vaccinated.

“Still, reaching that goal will be challenging. Monthly surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation show that about 20 per cent of the population was staunchly opposed to getting vaccinated at the beginning of the year and remains so today.  As the share of Americans who say they are in “wait and see” mode has declined to only 12 per cent from 31 per cent in January, the pool of new possibilities has shrunk.  Mass-inoculation centers are being phased out in favor of a strategy bringing shots to trusted messengers—such as the new campaign to organize 1,000 barbershops in black neighborhoods.”

Galston suggests that the principal remaining obstacle to near-universal vaccination is the large number of Republicans who are declining to participate.

“The partisan gap is astonishing,” he writes.  “More than 80 per cent of Democrats have already received at least one shot, compared with 49 per cent of Republicans.  Twenty-seven per cent of Republicans say that they won’t get vaccinated under any circumstances, and an additional 9 per cent will do so only if required.  The comparable figures for Democrats are 3 per cent outright refusal.”

The vaccination breach is one more illustrattion of deep divides that endanger the American political system.

Galston argues that there are three reasons for vaccine resistance.

• First, many Republicans are visceral if not doctrinal libertarians. They understand freedom as being left alone to make their own choices, and they resent being told what to do.  They implicitly reject distinctions between actions that affect only themselves and those that affect others.  From their perspective, mask mandates restrict freedom, whatever their purported social justification, and so does pressure to get vaccinated.
• Second, an increasing number of Republicans are populists who bristle at what they see as elite condescension toward ordinary citizens.  When medical experts assure us that Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, many Republicans wonder how they can be so sure about medicines that were developed so quickly.
• Third, for more than a century, white evangelical Protestants have had a tense relationship with modern science, which they see as challenging core tenets of their faith. They are less likely than other Americans to take “follow the science” as their benchmark.

I disagree, at least in part with point #3 above, I would write the sentence this way — “SOME white evangelical Protestants have had a tense relationship with modern science.”  There is a tendency among writers like Galston is to merge “white evangelical Protestants” into one supposedly collegial group. 

No.  White evangelical Protestants cannot be lumped into one group.  For many, like me, are not ones who have “a tense relationship with modern science,” just as many of us abhor Donald Trump for all the damage he did to our country.

Back to the point about vaccine resistance. 

It is time for Jon Rahm and others like him to get vaccinated to protect themselves – and us.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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 like words.  More than charts and graphs.  More than numbers.

So it is that I mourn the loss of the original meaning of some words in a society marked today by over-reliance on the Internet, which enables the definitions of some words to change – and not necessarily for the better.

Consider these three examples:

• Gay:  Means being a homosexual person, not just someone who is happy.

• Woke:  Means being alert to injustice in society, especially racism, not just someone who awakens from sleep.

• Pride:  Means being a person who displays confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience.”  Think pride about being gay.  Not just someone who takes pride, for instance, in the general values of the U.S,

So, it is no longer okay to utter this sentence: 

I woke up today feeling pride in my country, which made me look forward to a gay day.

Today, that would mean that I am a homosexual, filled with pride about being so identified, and intending to be alert for racial justice.

So, the message is:  Be careful how use these words today.

No less a vaunted journalistic source than the Washington Post showed up recently with a story on this subject, though the content tended to focus on changes prodded by technology, not by politics, as in the cases I cited above.

“Technological change,” the Post story said, “tends to provoke linguistic and cultural change.  It’s the reason why, several times a year, dictionaries trumpet the addition of new and typically very trendy words.

“But more interesting than the new words, I think, are the old words that have gotten new meanings:  Words such as “cloud” and “tablet” and “catfish,” with very long pre-Internet histories.  The re-appropriation is rarely random; in most cases, the original meaning of the word is a metaphor for the new one.  Our data is as remote as a cloud, for instance; catfish are just as tricky and unpredictable as an online love interest.”

I won’t bore you with a copy of the words the Post lists as having changed, especially through technology. 

But the point is the same.  The meanings of words change. 

For me, gay, woke, and pride are the best examples.

The fix?  Just don’t use the words in everyday language to avoid misunderstanding and misconception, even as you mourn the passing of the old definitions.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

Analyst William Galston made a good point when he wrote this in the Wall Street Journal a couple days ago:

“The American constitutional system functions well when one political party dominates the government or when two evenly matched parties have enough common ground to make compromises. When both parties are closely and deeply divided, gridlock is the norm and legislative success the exception. With thin margins in Congress, this is the situation Joe Biden faced as he took the oath of office.”

It’s easy to be critical of Congress for inaction and many such criticisms are more than justified as Members of Congress appear to be mainoy interested in their own re-election or subjecting the opposing party to over-the-top criticism…just for “political purposes.”

What gets lost in all of this is the need for concerted, middle-of-the-road action on a host of pressing public policy challenges facing this country.  Which raises a question about whether our current form of government can work at all.

Much of this question resolves around the abhorrent conduct of Donald Trump who, by his own narcissism, turned the country inside out during his years as president and the fact that he may be running again turns my stomach,

To get back to Galston’s analysis, “the past three decades,” he reports, “have been an era of closely balanced parties unprecedented in American political history.  Of the 17 presidential elections between 1920 and 1984, 11 were decided with popular-vote landslides of 10 points or more.  In the eight elections since 1984, not one candidate has reached that margin of victory.

“Democrats held the majority in the House for four unbroken decades after the 1954 election.  Since then, the chamber has changed hands four times (in 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018).  There is a better than even chance that the House flips again in 2022.

Galston opines that, when control of Congress and the White House are up for grabs in nearly every election, governing in the national interest becomes more difficult.

“The minority,” he says, “is more likely to view issues as opportunities to cast the majority in an unfavorable light, and the majority will be less likely to make concessions.  Because the actions of committee chairman and even individual members can affect the entire party’s chances in the next election, power flows toward party leaders, who enforce ‘message discipline’ and press wavering members to stick with their party.

“Bright-line contrasts with the other party take priority over the more nuanced stances that compromise requires.  Besides, compromises may disappoint the party’s base, making stalwart supporters less interested in voting, especially in midterm elections.

“The time and political space that governance requires are replaced by 24/7 political combat.  Even on issues that enjoy support across party lines, such as infrastructure, the incentive is to score partisan points, not focus on the many areas of agreement.”

Still, there may be cause to hope on several counts.

First, such issues as competing with China and police reform could produce momentum toward compromise, given the importance of those issues.

China stands on its own.  And the rise of that huge nation has produced broad support for investments in new technologies and production processes such as artificial intelligence and robotics to enable the U.S. to compete.  As a result, the Endless Frontier Act, now on the Senate floor, will likely attract a bi-partisan majority.

Further, a bi-partisan, bi-cameral negotiation over police reform has made some progress in recent weeks and, Galston reports that, if a compromise can be forged on the scope of legal immunity police enjoy, a bill could reach the president’s desk by the end of summer.

Second, some Members of Congress may be reaching a conclusion that the cost of continued inaction is too high.  Some of these members came to Washington to get things done and are dismayed by the partisan combat they encounter, which seems to dwarf anything else.

Despite daunting obstacles, many are reaching across the aisle to work with members of the other party with efforts such as the House Problem Solvers Caucus and less formal arrangements such as the Senate’s “G-20” (10 members from each party).

If these conversations yield a clearer understanding of each side’s red lines, even the deep divide between today’s parties may prove surmountable.

One hopes that could be possible.  Otherwise, our way of government may continue to recede.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

It can be a worthwhile activity to look back on something you have done in your life and reflect on the good times.

Regarding my work in state government from 1979 through 1990, I did that this week with my wife as we drove over to an iconic resort on the Oregon Coast, Salishan Lodge.

The visit, which we have made many times over the years, brought back fond memories of a special occasion at Salishan more than 39 years ago, the Western Governor’s Association conference there.

I had the privilege of handling media relations for Governor Vic Atiyeh as he hosted the event for 14 Western state governors, as well as top representatives of three U.S. territories.

All of this came flooding back to me as my wife and I visited with Mary Arnstad who, 39 years ago, was a key Salishan manager who was in charge of hosting the Western Governors’ event.  She is now back at the Coast as an investor in the Bay House Restaurant, which has re-located from South Lincoln City to Salishan Lodge.

Mary did a great job of hosting us 39 years ago, including arranging for building a parking lot at the end of the Salishan spit, which became the site of a major seafood barbecue for all those attending, except the elected officials who were hosted elsewhere, though they probably would rather have been at the barbecue.

Let me add quickly that everyone attending the conference participated in substance on such issues as natural resources and economic growth, each of which motivated the policies of the governors.

That is outlined in a piece by my friend Denny Miles, which is excerpted below.  Denny was Governor Atiyeh’s press secretary and also served as chair of Oregon’s task to host the Western Governors. 

Denny and I were – and are – friends and, for the conference, he asked me to handle media relations, which I gladly did, while I took a few days leave from my position at the Department of Human Resources.

Here are excerpts from Miles’ post:

“The Western Governors’ now operates with a different name and governance model, but in those days, it was headquartered in San Francisco and the organization concentrated on issues related to natural resources and economic matters of interest to Western states.

“’Western’ was defined as everything from Wyoming to New Mexico to Alaska and American Samoa — so it covered a lot of geography.

“The Western governors’ meetings were very non-partisan, in that the governors nearly always had more in common based on geography than differences based on political party.  Often a Democrat governor from Montana was more conservative than a Republican governor from California.

“The host state would raise money for a special fund donated by corporate sponsors.  Sponsors typically would attend the conference and interact with the governors and their spouses during the meeting.  A lot of policy was discussed, the White House always participated, and what seemed most important, everyone always had a great time.

“Salishan was such a great spot for this kind of premier event. It had hosted Western governors before — during the McCall Administration.

“The Pacific Ocean is a great collaborator to have for such an event. But we also had an astronaut from Oregon (Gordon Fullerton), great local entertainment (Stoddard & Cole and The Shoppe), and a lot of great parties laid into the agenda.  We literally took over the Salishan facility, along with several nice hotels nearby.

“As chairman of the WGC, Governor Atiyeh had been looking forward to hosting the Western Governors’ Conference.  We all knew it was going to be right in the middle of a tough election year. Atiyeh always did things in the legal, proper and ethical way.  Given the election-year timing we were especially careful.  Our policies, procedures and practices were vetted through legal counsel Bob Oliver.  This operation would be antiseptically clean.

“In planning for the event, every morning I would meet first with my team of Oregon host staff.  Glenna Hayden handled registration, we had an Oregon State Police captain leading a substantial cadre of troopers, Dave Fiskum was in charge of press relations, and Paul Phillips was the transportation coordinator.  Mellissa Underwood was a volunteer who also helped out.  She had a delightful Tennessee accent that calmed down just about any situation.

“My second meeting each morning was with Salishan staff, led by assistant manager Mary Arnstad.  These folks were pros.  If there was a problem, I typically didn’t hear about it until it had been solved.

“…Salishan had arranged for an area on the spit to be paved and a huge tent installed.  A very efficient shuttle system took guests to the end of the spit.  This special event featured wonderful ‘Oregon bounty’ food and great music.  This specific party was for non-elected participants.  At the same time, all the chief executives and lobbyists were hosted for a very fancy and exclusive party in a private home just a mile south.

“Visualize a huge tent set up at the end of the spit overlooking Siletz Bay and the Pacific Ocean.  I can’t remember how they got electrical power to this end-of-the-road location.  There was a sumptuous buffet and a well-stocked open bar.  Then there was The Shoppe, an amazing country-pop band that kept the place hopping for hours.”

The Salishan governors’ conference was an unbridled success.  The governor was ecstatic.  His fellow governors had a great time.  Chief of Staff Gerry Thompson, still a friend to this day, was very pleased.

“It seemed that at future WGC gatherings the comments were something like, ‘nice enough event, but nothing like what you guys did in Oregon,” Denny remembers.  “I (Denny) remember thinking at our post- event celebratory staff gathering upstairs in the Salishan bar – ‘Gee, I could go out now on a high note.  But I had accepted another, much tougher job, and my start date was just days away.

“Four days later, I moved into the Atiyeh re-election campaign office as the new campaign manager.  The incumbent governor was seriously behind in the polls.”

**********

The rest of the story: As Denny left, I took over as the governor’s press secretary.  The governor won re-election by a huge margin, Denny came back to his press secretary job, and, after pinch-hitting for him, I went on to serve as deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department and assistant director of the Oregon Executive Department before moving on to become a lobbyist.

Good to be able to remember 39-years-ago highlights.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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 headline formulates a question you could only ask in Oregon and get an answer.

The “kicker” is an Oregon law that says, if projected tax revenue is more than 2 per cent over projections, then the “excess” is returned to taxpayers. 

In other words, the “kicker” kicks.

All of this came to mind the other day for at least two reasons:

• First, a friend of mine who knew I worked in and around state government for many years said he had heard that legislators would find a way to avoid sending excess revenue back to taxpayers.  I said, no, that wouldn’t’ happen.

• Second, the latest revenue forecast projected a huge “kicker” for personal taxpayers in their 2021 filing.

Here is more information on both points, even as I write about this for the second time in a week:

Some legislators in Salem may want to spend “kicker” money instead of returning it to taxpayers, but they cannot take such action on their own.

The reason is that a measure went to the ballot in 1979 to put the “kicker” law in the Oregon Constitution.  It passed by a wide margin – 62 per cent approval.  So, undoing the “kicker” would require a vote of the people, and that is not likely to happen and, if the “kicker” law was sent to the ballot, there is little question but that it would be retained.

In 2007, lawmakers did succeed in diverting funds from the corporate kicker to a surplus account called the rainy-day fund, but that involved a deal with corporate payers, not individual payers.

The latest Oregon revenue report was more eye-popping than its predecessors, showing the state will bag $1.18 billion more in taxes and lottery proceeds than originally projected.  The report pretty much solidifies that Oregonians will get what state economists call the “mother of all kicker” refunds when they file their 2021 tax returns.

The “kicker” could return $1.4 billion to personal income taxpayers, ranging from around $300 to Oregonians earning up to $40,000 per year to nearly $13,000 for high-earning filers.  The average refund would be $636.  The corporate income tax kicker also would be triggered, but refunds, projected to top $660 million, would go to K-12 education reserves.

The prospect of huge kicker refunds triggered, as it has in the past, some comments on how the refunds could be used if not returned to taxpayers.

House Speaker Tina Kotek said she would favor redirecting some of kicker to “bold action and immediate relief” for struggling families. Legislative Republicans, by contrast, were quick to push back, insisting kicker refunds “belong to taxpayers” and “there is no justification to take refunds from them.”

That’s the normal political debate, one I witnessed up close and personal during my time as a state lobbyist.  It is not likely to recede.  So, count on the “kicker” refund this year.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

Here’s brilliant thought.

If you want to sell something, you need to listen to what your customers think.

This proposition showed up in a Wall Street Journal story the other day that appeared under this headline:

WHY COMPANIES SHOULDN’T GIVE UP ON FOCUS GROUPS

In an era of big data, marketers may be forgetting qualitative research

The story went on to cite a fascinating story about the toy firm, Lego:

“Numbers may not lie, but they can mislead. Listening to customers and understanding them can help companies develop strategies that are more on target.

“Back in the early 2000s, Lego Group was in trouble.  Videogames were ascendant, making the Danish toymaker’s trademark plastic interlocking bricks seem passe.  Relying on data analytics, company executives concluded that a digital generation demanded instant gratification, so they pivoted toward Lego sets with larger components that could be completed more quickly.

“Big mistake.  Sales tanked further.

“Hurtling toward bankruptcy, company executives re-dedicated themselves to listening to their potential customers rather than treating them as data points, according to Martin Lindstrom, a branding consultant who was brought in to help with the effort and to whom Lego referred questions.

“And so it was that an 11-year-old boy in Germany mentioned to a team of Lego researchers that the worn-down and pocked soles on his sneakers were evidence of his prowess on a skateboard. ‘They are my trophy,’ the boy said.  It was a eureka moment that helped change the company’s fortunes.”

Over my years in business, I was a partner in a company that valued research, in both quantitative and qualitative forms.  The definition of research we used:  Go to the effort to transcend your own biases and find out what the members of the public really thought about an issue or issues.

We weren’t selling toys like Lego or anything else in that arena.  We were selling ideas and perspectives from our clients.

Nowhere was this more valuable than in preparing for campaigns on ballot measures in Oregon, a tough business that became one of our specialties despite the fact that, as I put it, “we were working without a net.”  There was no middle ground to be found such as would be the case in lobbying; at the ballot, it was win or lose, which, for me, is working without a net.

One of my partners, Pat McCormick, was a master of the art of interpreting polls, but his ability didn’t stop there.  He always went beyond the “big data numbers” to test individual perceptions before deciding how to encourage people to vote.

One of the methods he modeled was to schedule focus groups, an ability which became an art form for another of my partners, Tom Eiland, who functioned as one of Oregon’s public survey opinion leaders.  Invite people to a meeting, even if you had to pay them just a bit to attend, then test their perceptions face-to-face.

Good to combine focus group results with polling data.

Here is the way the Wall Street Journal put it:

“In an age when big data, or quantitative research, has seduced many companies into thinking they know their customers better than their customers know themselves, there is a growing realization that, even if the numbers don’t lie, they can be seriously misleading.  To really understand the beliefs, motivations and passions that move people, it is still necessary to sit down and listen to them, which is what qualitative research is all about.”

It takes fortitude to come to the belief that you cannot rely just on data – or your own biases — and that you need to find ways to understand the real intentions, beliefs, likes and dislikes of your customers.

The Lego account above speaks volumes. 

As a lobbyist, my twist on this was that I often counseled clients not to pitch an idea to the Legislature before they had done the due diligence of asking legislators for their perspective, or what they could see their way to support, given who they were, where they lived, and how they won election.

Then, after doing legislators the courtesy of listening, either convince them of your point of view or find what I like to call “the smart middle.”

Take the basic message to heart — if you are selling something or, as was my case as a lobbyist, you are selling a perspective or point of view, find out what your customers really think before you move ahead to arrive at a conclusion.

Just ask Lego – you’ll be better for the effort.

*******

And this footnote: A writer of a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal said it was wrong for the Journal to equate the January 6 insurrection with such events as the 9/11 tragedy. She said it was wrong because not enough people died on the 6th. Well, I wrote about this, too, and I included the January 6 event because it was designed to overthrow the U.S. government. Good that not a huge number of lives were lost, but the purpose was still sinister.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

Where were you when:

• President John F. Kennedy was assassinated?
• The twin towers in New York City came down during the horrific airplane attack?
• When insurrectionists, at the urging of President Donald Trump, attacked the U.S. Capitol?

Unfortunately, it is relatively each for all of us to remember those fateful days.

Wall Street Journal writer Gerald Seib made the same point in a column earlier this week that started this way:

“One could make a plausible case that the three most traumatic days in America in the last 60 years were November 22, 1963, the day President John Kennedy was shot; September 11, 2001, the day terrorists struck New York and Washington; and January 6, 2021, the day the Capitol was attacked and democracy’s work stopped by an angry mob.”

Seib’s proposition is noteworthy in that it elevates the profile of the insurrection, comparing it to the day Kennedy was assassinated and 9/11 tragedy occurred. 

Some observers, especially some Republicans, wouldn’t make that connection.

And, before I go on, I would add a fourth traumatic day – the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, though it was not within the 60 days of Seib’s proposition.  I was not alive on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, but I have watched enough documentaries to understand how horrific that day was in our history – “a day of infamy.”

Further, though it would not be possible to cite a specific day, it is worth mentioning the holocaust Adolph Hitler wrought in Germany and many other parts of Europe, which featured his plan to rid the earth of human beings he hated, the Jews.  To be sure, the Hitler-trauma occurred far outside the U.S., but it still resonated here – and does to this day as a time of unspeakable trauma for the world.

Back to more from Seib:

“In the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 attacks, commissions were created to investigate, though they actually pursued slightly different questions.  In the case of the Kennedy assassination, the key question before the Warren Commission was: What happened?  In the 9/11 aftermath, the key question for the panel created then was:  How did this happen?

“In the aftermath of January 6, versions of both questions are on the table, and a commission presumably would try to get at both.”

The U.S. House has approved creating a commission, with 35 Republicans joining Democrats to back the idea.  But the Republican congressional leaders, under pressure from Trump, continue to oppose the idea.

For example, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell will try to stop the commission on the Senate floor this week and he may well succeed, including by using the filibuster to block action.

As Seib put it, in the cases of Kennedy assassination and 9/11 commissions, “the fear of what could happen if there wasn’t an independent inquiry came to outweigh concerns about the problems one might create.  And in the end, each panel served the principal purpose for which it was created.”

As for the January 6 commission, the question persists – what will happen if there is not an independent inquiry, one created by, but separate from, Congress. 

Republicans appear to fear that an independent inquiry would verify that Trump fomented the insurrection, did nothing to stop it, and, presumably, thinks it serves his interests to ascribe value to what it did.

Which, for me, stands as another reason to oppose the rise of Trump.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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 set out to write this blog about quirks in the game we love – golf.  But, just as I started, I received a newsletter from the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) that gave me more grist for my mill.

First, here are just a couple quirky things I remember:

• I recall when ace golfer Phil Mickelson hit a ball while it was still rolling on the green after he had hit a putt far too long.  He got a penalty, which, I add, he deserved.

And, as I write this, I am still relishing his huge win in the PGA Championship.  A win for the ages – and for all of us old golfers!

• I recall what no less a golf legend than Jack Nicklaus did what many of us have done on a golf course over the years – hit a “shank,” which is not a word anyone should use on a course.  It was in a tournament in Hawaii and, of course, given his stature in the game, Nicklaus recovered from that bad shot to play well.

On to the quirks cited in the OGA newsletter, which was written by two staff members at the Association who have tough jobs – Kelly Neely, who handles golf handicapping, and Gretchen Yoder, who is in charge of course rating.

Here’s how they started their article.

“Gretchen and I often laugh (when we aren’t crying) about the weird and wonderful world of handicapping and course rating we inhabit.

“We muse upon the fact that we are in unusual company with like-minded oddballs who know quite a bit about some peculiar subjects.  

Not that golf in and of itself is strange; rather due to its complexity, there are mystifying things surrounding it (we’re looking at you, Rules Officials).

“Gretchen pointed out one day that there are actually more professional mermaids in the U.S. than there are handicapping and course rating administrators.  Apparently, there are over a thousand people willing to reach whatever accreditation is necessary to become the best mermaids they can be.  In comparison, folks of our ilk only number about 200, so while that makes us more rare, they have better outfits.

“Speaking of oddities, we happen to be fascinated by the quirkier aspects of the Course Rating System and while some of them are not necessarily things Gretchen and her ready team of raters encounter on a daily basis, we believe they deserve closer examination.  Yardage measurements for the course have to be spot-on.   The USGA requires that the equipment we use be within 6 inches for every 250 yards.”

Other quirks:

• Ten obstacles are evaluated per hole – landing zones, topography (stance and lie), fairways, crossings, lateral (water, extreme rough, out of bounds), bunkers, rough and recoverability, green target (length of approach shot and size of green), green surface (speed and contour), and psychological.

• Scratch Player – Course Handicap of a big fat 0 for men and women.  Note:  Even though most of the course rating team members are not scratch golfers, we do need to think like one!

• Bogey Player – Course Handicap of 20 for men, 24 for women.

• Every hole on every set of tees at every course is rated for each of those players. This gives us a Scratch Course Rating and a Bogey Rating and guess what those two things produce?  The magical Slope Rating.  We need all three for an official rating for handicap purposes.

• We always rate the forward tees for the scratch player, even though they may never play from there.

And, out of mercy, I will not continue on with detailed explanation of more quirks, cited by Neely and Yoder such as doglegs, split fairways, no landing zones, double green vs. “conjoined” greens, pars 3s with tees at different angles, etc.

You can thank me now for stopping with the quirks.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  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 of 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.

Even as the pandemic appears to be lessening – notice the word “appears” because there are so many twists and terms in the process – many people continue to avoid vaccines.

Call them “anti-vaxxers.”

Why?

There aren’t many good reasons.  At least that’s my view.

Atlantic Magazine had the same view, so sent one of its writers, Derek Thompson, on a quest in early May to find out more about anti-vaccine beliefs.  It was a tribute to quality enterprise journalism.

Here’s how Thompson started an article he wrote for the magazine:

“Several days ago, the mega-popular podcast host Joe Rogan advised his young listeners to skip the COVID-19 vaccine.  ‘I think you should get vaccinated if you’re vulnerable,’ Rogan said.  ‘But if you’re 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go, ‘No.’”

Thompson reports that, while Rogan’s comments drew widespread condemnation, his view is surprisingly common.

“One in four Americans say they don’t plan to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and about half of Republicans under 50 say they won’t get a vaccine,” Thompson reports.  “This partisan vaccine gap is already playing out in the real world.  The average number of daily shots has declined 20 per cent in the past two weeks (the Atlantic article was published on May 3) largely because states with larger Trump vote shares are falling off the pace.”

To find out what “vaccine-hesitant, vaccine-resistant, and COVID-apathetic” persons thought, Thompson posted an invitation on Twitter for anybody who wasn’t planning to get vaccinated to explain why.  

“In the past few days,” he wrote, “I spoke or corresponded with more than a dozen such people.  I told them that I was staunchly pro-vaccine, but this wouldn’t be a takedown piece.  I wanted to produce an ethnography of a position I didn’t really understand.

“The people I spoke with were all under 50.  A few of them self-identified as Republican, and none of them claimed the modern Democrat Party as their political home.  Most said they weren’t against all vaccines; they were just a “no” on this vaccine.  They were COVID-19 no-vaxxers, not overall anti-vaxxers.

“Many people I spoke with said they trusted their immune system to protect them.  ‘Nobody ever looks at it from the perspective of a guy who’s like me,’ Bradley Baca, a 39-year-old truck driver in Colorado, told me. ‘As an essential worker, my life was never going to change in the pandemic, and I knew I was going to get COVID no matter what. Now I think I’ve got the antibodies, so why would I take a risk on the vaccine?’

“Some had already recovered from COVID-19 and considered the vaccine unnecessary.  ‘In December 2020, I tested positive and experienced many symptoms,’ said Derek Perrin, a 31-year-old service technician in Connecticut.  ‘Since I have already survived one recorded bout with this virus, I see no reason to take a vaccine that has only been approved for emergency use. I trust my immune system more than this current experiment.’

“Others were worried that the vaccines might have long-term side effects. ‘As a Black American descendant of slavery, I am bottom caste, in terms of finances,’ Georgette Russell, a 40-year-old resident of New Jersey, told me. ‘The fact that there is no way to sue the government or the pharmaceutical company if I have any adverse reactions is highly problematic to me.’

“Many people said they had read up on the risk of COVID-19 to people under 50 and felt that the pandemic didn’t pose a particularly grave threat.  ‘The chances of me dying from a car accident are higher than my dying of COVID,’ said Michael Searle, a 36-year-old who owns a consulting firm in Austin, Texas.  ‘But it’s not like I don’t get in my car.’

“And many others said that perceived liberal overreach had pushed them to the right.  ‘Before March 2020, I was a solid progressive Democrat,’ Jenin Younes, a 37-year-old attorney, said. ‘I am so disturbed by the Democrats’ failure to recognize the importance of civil liberties.  I’ll vote for anyone who takes a strong stand for civil liberties and doesn’t permit the erosion of our fundamental rights that we are seeing now.’

After many conversations and email exchanges, the Atlantic writer said he came to understand what he called “the deep story of the American no-vaxxer.”

“The under-50 no-vaxxers’ deep story has a very different starting place,” Thompson wrote.  “It begins like this:  The coronavirus is a wildly overrated threat.  Yes, it’s appropriate and good to protect old and vulnerable people.

“But I’m not old or vulnerable.  If I get it, I’ll be fine.  In fact, maybe I have gotten it, and I am fine.  I don’t know why I should consider this disease more dangerous than driving a car, a risky thing I do every day without a moment’s worry.  Liberals, Democrats, and public-health elites have been so wrong so often, we’d be better off doing the opposite of almost everything they say.

“I don’t need some novel pharmaceutical product to give me permission to do the things I’m already doing.  This isn’t even an FDA-approved vaccine; it’s authorized for an emergency.  Well, I don’t consider COVID-19 a personal emergency.  So why would I sign up to be an early guinea pig for a therapy that I don’t need, whose long-term effects we don’t understand?  I’d rather bet on my immune system than on Big Pharma.”

The trouble, of course, is that those who oppose the vaccine, given its meritorious effect overall, risk the lives of others.  It’s not just the individuals who refuse the vaccine; it’s the rest of us.

And, in this way, it’s like so much else in this country these days.  It’s the, “I’ll do what I want TO DO because I know best and others can pay the price, not me.”  Call it what it is – being selfish.