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 phrase in the headline is one of my favorites, in part because my style over the years has favored words over charts, graphs and lists of numbers.

All of those, of course, have their place, not just at the top of my list.

Two developments caught my attention yesterday.

• First, the Biden administration says it plans to order U.S. immigration enforcement agencies to stop using terms such as “alien,” “illegal alien” and “assimilation” when referring to immigrants in the United States.
• Second, Oregonian newspaper editor Therese Bottomly used her memo to readers to say this:  “I’ve written before about the evolving language and how newspapers are often slower to adjust than society at large.  We now use the singular “they” when subjects prefer it and capitalize the “B” in Black.  Other choices are more subtle, and sometimes the change occurs without notice or comment.”

Both developments indicate an inherent truth about language.  Things change.  Consider capitalizing the “B” in Black; I do it now, too, as one way to verify that I don’t want to leave any hint of racist tendencies on my part, even subtle ones.  I also want to emphasize Black ethnic heritage.

Bottomly went on in her memo to discuss tough language issues for journalists these days.

“Prison guards, for instance,“ she wrote, “prefer to be called ‘correctional officers,’ which they believe better reflects their role.  I’d say we use both, depending on context.

“Some changes reflect changing societal norms:  Newspapers nowadays typically don’t use words like ‘cripple,’ for example.  The word ‘handicap’ has similarly fallen by the wayside.

“Journalists have a responsibility to bust through jargon of any kind to ensure clarity and accuracy.  News organizations have moved away from ‘officer-involved shooting,’ which means plainly a police officer shot someone.

“We translate police jargon, changing ‘adult males’ to ‘men,’ ‘juveniles’ to ‘teens,’ ‘canine unit’ to ‘police dog.’”

Bottomly also commented on the unintended harm that can be done by using labels, a challenge which can befall journalists, as well as all of us.

For instance, the Associated Press Stylebook says this as it relates to the word “disabilities:”

“When possible, ask people how they prefer to be described (when the description is relevant).  Some people, for example, refer to themselves as a disabled person or simply disabled, using identity-first language.  Others prefer person with a disability, using person-first language.  In describing groups of people, use person-first language.”

Further, last week, the Marshall Project, a non-profit journalism organization focused on criminal justice, introduced a style guide of sorts, a primer on how news organization would refer to people going forward.  In a preamble to its guide, it said:

“Reporters and editors have long believed that terms such as ‘inmate,’ ‘felon’ and ‘offender’ are clear, succinct and neutral.  But a vocal segment of people affected by the criminal justice system argue that these words – and any other words that define human beings by their crimes and punishments – are dehumanizing.”

Sometimes, “the stigma and material consequences of incarceration are so deep that what seems like a basic descriptor to journalists becomes a permanent, potentially life-altering label.”

Labels in journalism also relate to terms like “conservative” and “liberal.”  Often, conservative is used more than liberal, but both end up being generalizations that probably don’t convey a person’s overall political leanings.

And, consider words in common usage that are not really words at all.  The best example:  Irregardless.  Its definition:  Regardless.

Finally, think of words that are nouns, but end up being used as verbs.  One of the ones used more and more these days is helm.  It is a noun, but often I see it used in this way – “The legislator helmed a group.”  No, the word should be “led” or something close to it.

Or, one more.  The word golf.  It often said that someone “golfed” their ball.  No.  It should be hit their ball.

What all of this indicates to me is the need is to use words carefully… for several reasons:

• To avoid unintentional stigmas that could result from using words poorly.

• To cut through jargon by using simple, straightforward words.

• To strive for accuracy in the use of words.

As I said, words matter to me.  One risk is that, when I write, I might use a wrong word from time to time, which, I think, is a risk worth running.  Because, when a wrong word turns up, I might avoid making the same mistake again.

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.

When he was president, I liked George Bush for several reasons.

He showed grace and skill under pressure.  He led the nation in responding effectively to the 911 terrorist attack.  He came across as human, admitting his failures and mistakes.

Now, another reason to like Bush has emerged.  It was noted in the Washington Post under this headline:

George W. Bush: Immigration is a defining asset of the United States. Here’s how to restore confidence in our system.

The nation’s 43^rd president has emerged with what strikes me as incredible piece of work, a book that contains at least two things – a prescription for what this nation should do to reform the immigration system, and a series of drawings by Bush that illustrate that he is an accomplished artist.

I looked at his drawings (which, unfortunately do not copy well in this blog, so I suggest that you get a copy of his new book, which I will do, as well) and recognized almost all of the subjects.

But, here, rather that write more myself, I reprint what Bush proposes on immigration.

**********

Next week, I’m proud to publish a new collection of my paintings, entitled “Out of Many, One.” The book may not set the art world stirring — hopefully, the critics won’t call it “One Too Many.”

I set out to accomplish two things: to share some portraits of immigrants, each with a remarkable story I try to tell, and to humanize the debate on immigration and reform.

I hope that these faces, and the stories that accompany them, serve as a reminder that immigration isn’t just a part of our heritage. New Americans are just as much a force for good now, with their energy, idealism and love of country, as they have always been.

I write about a champion runner who barely survived ethnic violence in East Africa, and who told me, “America has given me everything I dreamed of as a boy.” I share the story of a young man from France who followed his dream to become an American soldier, and went on to earn the Medal of Honor. And readers may recognize two distinguished citizens who fled prewar Europe as children, and who each became U.S. secretary of state.

The backgrounds are varied, but readers won’t have to search hard for a common theme. It’s gratitude. So many immigrants are filled with appreciation, a spirit nicely summed up by a Cuban American friend who said: “If I live for a hundred years, I could never repay what this country has done for me.”

The help and respect historically accorded to new arrivals is one reason so many people still aspire and wait to become Americans. So how is it that in a country more generous to new arrivals than any other, immigration policy is the source of so much rancor and ill will? The short answer is that the issue has been exploited in ways that do little credit to either party. And no proposal on immigration will have credibility without confidence that our laws are carried out consistently and in good faith.

“Out of Many, One” is not a brief for any specific set of policies, which I leave to the political leaders of today. However, the book — along with the George W. Bush Presidential Center — does set forth principles for reform that can restore the people’s confidence in an immigration system that serves both our values and our interests.

One place to start is DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Americans who favor a path to citizenship for those brought here as children, known as “dreamers,” are not advocating open borders. They just recognize that young men and women who grew up in the United States, and who never knew any other place as home, are fundamentally American. And they ought not be punished for choices made by their parents.

Another opportunity for agreement is the border. I have long said that we can be both a lawful and a welcoming nation at the same time. We need a secure and efficient border, and we should apply all the necessary resources — manpower, physical barriers, advanced technology, streamlined and efficient ports of entry, and a robust legal immigration system — to assure it.

Effective border management starts well beyond the border, so we must work with our neighbors to help them build freedom and opportunity so their citizens can thrive at home. We cannot rely on enforcement alone to prevent the untenable and so often heartbreaking scenes that come with large-scale migration.

We also need a modernized asylum system that provides humanitarian support and appropriate legal channels for refugees to pursue their cases in a timely manner. The rules for asylum should be reformed by Congress to guard against unmerited entry and reserve that vital status for its intended recipients.

Increased legal immigration, focused on employment and skills, is also a choice that both parties should be able to get behind. The United States is better off when talented people bring their ideas and aspirations here. We could also improve our temporary entry program, so that seasonal and other short-term jobs can more readily be filled by guest workers who help our economy, support their families and then return home.

As for the millions of undocumented men and women currently living in the United States, a grant of amnesty would be fundamentally unfair to those who came legally or are still waiting their turn to become citizens. But undocumented immigrants should be brought out of the shadows through a gradual process in which legal residency and citizenship must be earned, as for anyone else applying for the privilege. Requirements should include proof of work history, payment of a fine and back taxes, English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and a clean background check. We should never forget that the desire to live in the United States — a worldwide and as powerful an aspiration as ever — is an affirmation of our country and what we stand for. Over the years, our instincts have always tended toward fairness and generosity. The reward has been generations of grateful, hard-working, self-reliant, patriotic Americans who came here by choice.

If we trust those instincts in the current debate, then bipartisan reform is possible. And we will again see immigration for what it is: not a problem and source of discord, but a great and defining asset of the United States.

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.

Republicans appear flummoxed by President Joe Biden.

They don’t know how to attack him, even though attacking is what they do best, so they should be good at it.

Hill.com made the same point in a piece that appeared on-line yesterday.  Here is how it started:

“Biden is proving to be an elusive cipher for Republicans to successfully message against nearly 100 days into his Administration, keeping a relatively low profile and refusing to engage in the day-to-day verbal sparring that has consumed Washington in recent years. 

“It presents a challenge that, GOP senators acknowledge, they aren’t hitting the mark on.”

The #2 senator among Republicans, John Thune, put it this way:

“We need to get better at it.  I don’t think sometimes our messaging is as sharp as it should be because a lot of the things they’re doing are things that are popular —when you’re spending money — you’re popular.”

For me, it’s not just spending money that makes Biden popular.

It’s also his style of acting like a real president, which is very different than his predecessor.  Donald Trump made headlines every day by criticizing everyone and everything that wasn’t him, which is just what an accomplished narcissist would do.

But Biden has spent decades building his reputation as an affable dealmaker who came up through the party’s centrist wing.  During the 2020 campaign, he talked up his relationship with Republicans and hoped that, after left office, the “fever” would break.

His bi-partisan rhetoric has continued in the White House, with the Administration reaching out to GOP lawmakers through private phone calls and publicly disclosed Oval Office meetings.

Republicans, however, view the rhetoric as out-of-touch with how he’s governing, pointing to invites to the White House that don’t result in actual policy changes that move toward the GOP. 

Republicans also are betting that voters will ultimately turn against Biden’s trillion-dollar spending.

“His tone is moderate and he’s an affable person, he’s a likeable individual and a lot of us know him, have relationships with him and it’s probably harder to attack somebody who is relatable and likeable,” Thune told Hill.com. 

But, he added, “If he continues down the left, the far-left lane, with respect to policy, that eventually that will start to catch up with him.” 

That isn’t panning out for Republicans so far, with Biden winning praise on both style and substance from the right as recently as this week.

For one thing, Republicans were quick to back new sanctions the Administration announced against Russia.  For another, Biden’s speech at the memorial for a Capitol Police officer killed this month earned him praise even from Fox News, where the reporter called him “iconic” for delivering “kindness and empathy.”

So, Biden’s “nice guy” reputation and moderate tone have helped insulate him politically and could continue to do so, though he faces huge challenges that will test his popularity, including the Southern border crisis, the continuing pandemic, and challenges from China and Russia.

Republicans also are having a hard time understanding how Biden’s approval ratings have held so steady since he took office in January. 

A Pew Research Center poll released last week put Biden’s approval at 59 per cent, up from 54 per cent in the Center’s March survey.  Forty-six per cent of Americans also said they liked how Biden “conducts himself as president,” compared to 27 per cent who don’t.  Forty-four per cent believe he has improved the political debate.

So, the foregoing illustrates that, with all challenges, Biden is doing well in his first 100 days. 

For my part, I wish he would end up looking more open to Republican entreaties, including on the size of the spending he proposes, as well as how to pay for it.  But being open requires Republican’s to come to the Administration with other than just the “no” answer.  They ought to offer proposals that have some chance to fly, given that they are dealing with an individual who was elected president to lead the Executive Branch.

At base, I am just relieved that we now have a president who acts like a president, instead of like a carnival barker. 

Biden will have to up his game when it comes to bi-partisan actions, but his history and style gives me confidence that he can do so.

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 opinion piece in the Washington Post this morning caught my attention as it illustrated an important, but often ignored, activity.

It is this:  Before advocating or opposing a piece of legislation, it is important to read all of the words in the bill.

Otherwise, all you are doing is uttering what could turn out to be falsehoods.

In this case, in the Post, the issue revolves around the controversial law passed in Georgia that many observers believe was passed to make it more difficult for Black persons to vote.

Not necessarily true.  But more about that later in this blog, even though I admit here that I have not read the Georgia bill.

First, I want to cite two examples of the “I don’t need to read the bill before talking action” proposition that I remember from my days as a lobbyist.

ISSUE #1:  Back in the day when the late Representative Mitch Greenlick was chairing the House Health Care Committee in Oregon, he thought he knew best about what the state needed to do in Medicaid reform.  He always had the best ideas, or so he thought.

So, he invested his personal staff with the task of drafting a major bill on Medicaid, the joint state-federal government programs to fund health care for low-income individuals.  When the bill was “unveiled” – and, I use that word advisedly – it ran to more than 200 pages. 

When it came up for a hearing in House Health Care, no one – no one – had read the bill.  It has not been unveiled in a reasonable way. 

Members of Greenlick’s committee hadn’t read it.  Lobbyists trying to represent Oregon’s Medicaid interests (including me) were left in the dark.  Members of the public were out of the loop.

Still, Greenlick didn’t care.  He persevered.  The bill, even though no one knew for sure what it contained, was passed out of committee and on to the House floor where it also passed.

That left lobbyists like me with the task of killing the bill in the Senate.  We succeeded, in part because no one had read it, but it stands as a bad way to do the public’s business.

ISSUE #2:  I was not involved in this issue personally because it occurred in Washington, D.C. and I worked in Oregon.  The issue was the bill to create the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called “ObamaCare.”

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a vote on the House bill, she admitted out loud that she had not read it.  One reason:  It took 2,000 pages to create ObamaCare.

The days since its passage illustrate that there are many good points in the bill, but also some bad ones.  Better if those who voted for it had read it beforehand to make expanding health care coverage in the United States a solid goal, not a misunderstood one.

Now, back to the Georgia voting law.

Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating and financial officer for the Georgia Secretary of State, used a Washington Post opinion piece to illustrate various misunderstandings in the elections bill – most because those criticizing it have not read it.

And that, Sperling contended, includes President Joe Biden.

“The reaction to Georgia’s new election law has me worried again,”
Sperling writes.  “Though I have not received any threats yet, I worry that the president and others once again are spreading lies about what is going on in Georgia.”

Sterling’s points include these:

• The new legislation does not decrease early voting hours.  In fact, early voting hours have been expanded by adding an extra mandatory Saturday of early voting and continuing to allow Sunday voting.  Early voting hours must be open from at least 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., a step up from the “normal business hours” required by previous law.  Counties can extend those hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., as many have done in the past.
• The bill does not prevent giving water to voters standing in line, though it does continue the policy of making it illegal to provide gifts of value to voters to reward them for casting a ballot in a certain way.  Notably, the bill allows groups to donate water for poll workers to give out.
• The bill does not add set out to restrict voting by requiring voters to present photo ID.  Ninety-seven per cent of Georgia voters have a driver’s license or a free state voter ID, so it is logical, Georgia officials maintain, to include that method of identifying voters by name.
• Contrary to popular belief, the legislation writes ballot drop boxes into law for the first time in Georgia history.  They were created by a temporary emergency rule in Georgia in response to the pandemic last year.   Without legislation, drop boxes would be unlawful.

So, all of this about the Georgia underlines the importance of reading actual language in pieces of legislation.

If you read all of the words, then it is entirely appropriate to make comments – pro and con – about pieces of legislation.

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.

As the preamble to this blog says, golf is one of my passions.  I play the game and, despite the inevitable ups and downs of the sport, I love it.  And my wife would likely say that I am addicted to it.

So be it.

Therefore, following this love, it is natural for me to develop a few golf sayings that I go back to time and again.

Here is my list of favorites – favorites because they’re mine:

• If you only swing harder, the ball will go farther

• I pay Callaway to play Callaway golf clubs — and Callaway pays Phil Mickelson to do so

• Jack Nicklaus, Dustin Johnson and I all hit fades off the tee

• I taught my son all I know about golf, then he turned five-years-old

• Let’s play today “for the love of the game,” not for money (which I say to some friends who tend to believe that money exchanges make golf more fun…not me)

• I quit golf today, but I may start again tomorrow

Also, have you ever thought about the phrase “better than most” which is what golf commentator and former PGA player Gary Koch uttered as Tiger Woods made a huge long putt on the 17^th green at TPA Sawgrass in Florida a number of years ago.

The phrase has made Koch famous, but consider this:  What he should have said was —

“Better than anyone else.”

Because it was, not just better than most.

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.

Columnist Peggy Noonan knows what she’s talking about – actually writing about — when she calls for change in the Grand Old Party so it can survive, if not thrive.

She was a long-time Republican.  Note the word “was.”

In a telling phrase, she writes:  “I was a political conservative but not a Republican.”  So, she left the party, as many did in response, at least in part, to Donald Trump’s excesses.

Today’s Republican Party, Noonan says, is in dire need of repair.  And, as an advocate of the two-party system, she hopes the GOP will find a way to be successful.

“No one likes the Republican Party,” she generalizes.  “Pretty much every power center in America is arrayed against it — the media, the academy, the entertainment culture, what remains of our high culture, the corporate suite, the non-profit world.

“The young aren’t drawn to it.

“The party is split, if not shattered.  The opposition has a new presidency, almost a Senate majority, the House, albeit by a hair.  The president nearing his hundred-day mark and deeply committed to showing energy in the Executive Branch, has yet to make masses of voters crazy with rage.  His approval numbers are steady.”

“What would constitute an active civic and political good in America in 2021,” Noonan asks.  “Helping to bring that party back.  It is worth saving, even from itself,” she answers.

“At its best, it has functioned as a friend and protector of liberty, property, speech and religious rights, an encourager of a just and expansive civic life, a defender of the law, without which we are nothing, and the order it brings, so that regular people can feel as protected on the streets as kings.

“At its best, it has been Main Street, not Wall Street, a stay on the hand of government when it demands too much. At its worst, it’s been — worse!  But let’s dwell on the good, which can function as a guide in rebuilding.”

“Some Republicans the past few years have talked of breaking from the two-party system and starting a third.  But that’s not the way to go.  Better to strengthen the system that for more than a century and a half has seen us through a lot of mess.

“In its rough way, the two-party system, even without meaning to, functions as a unifying force:  At the end of the day, for all our differences and arguments, you have to decide if you were a constituency of Team A or Team B.

“The parties, in their rough and inadequate way, had to be alive to your interests.  Things proceeded with a sense, an air, of majority rule.

“Two parties are better for the country, and better for the Democrats. A strong Republican party keeps them on their toes.  One side should stop the other when it goes too far, or boost it when it fails to move.”

But, Noonan adds, the GOP can’t just “keep existing only to own the libs, manipulate the distracted, monetize grievance, and plot revenge against those who spent the past few years on the wrong side.

“As Oscar Hammerstein once said, liberals need conservatives to hold them back and conservatives need liberals to pull them forward.”

Good quote.

My wife, smart person that she is, wishes for a viable third party that would represent her interests, which trend neither right nor left, but hew toward the center.

At the moment, neither party compels her allegiance, nor mine.  And that allegiance would not occur until one existing party or the other appeals to centrists.

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.

Joe Biden was elected, at least in part, because he said he wanted to emphasize bi-partisan action at the federal level.

So far, he has endured almost nothing but criticism from Republicans as he passed a major pandemic relief bill and as he proposed a major “infrastructure” bill – the former with no Republican votes and the latter with no apparent Republican support.

Beneath the surface of the media coverage, several things appear to be true.

• First, Biden is taking initiative to make public policy proposals, which, agree or not, is exactly what the leader of the Executive Branch has the authority to do.
• Second, Congress, especially Republicans are having difficulty responding in ways other than just saying “no,” which, again, is an option for the minority party, but not always the best option.  It would be better if Republicans in Congress recognize the Executive and came up with proposals where middle ground would be possible, assuming, at least initially, that “no” is not always the right answer.  [I add that “no” would be right if the issue boiled down to an ethical or moral prerogative.]
• Third, the Biden Administration is taking the initiative to redefine bi-partisanship.

Put differently, when you get elected as president, you get to make proposals.  I disagreed with many of Donald Trump’s proposals, including the way he talked about them, but he was president and that gave him a platform and a megaphone.

So, now, Biden has the same props.

For the third bullet above, I give credit to the Washington Post and include these excerpts from a story this morning.

“To hear President Biden and his team tell it, a successful bi-partisan bill need not attract a single Republican vote.

“Biden pushed his $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill through the Senate with the support of all 50 Democrats and nary a Republican, yet later declared it a resounding bi-partisan triumph.

“The president and his advisers have also signaled that, while they are planning robust outreach to Republican lawmakers, they are prepared to pass his infrastructure plan on the votes of Democrats alone — and call it a bi-partisan victory.

“’If you looked up ‘bi-partisan’ in the dictionary, I think it would say support from Republicans and Democrats,’ said Anita Dunn, a senior Biden adviser.  ‘It doesn’t say the Republicans have to be in Congress.’

“As the Biden Administration prepares to pursue a broad agenda ranging from infrastructure to immigration to guns, the president and his aides have proffered a definition of bi-partisanship untethered from Washington — pointing to broad public support for many Democratic policies among voters in both parties, as well as Republican governors, mayors and other local officials.

“’Everybody said I had no bi-partisan support,’ Biden said recently in Pittsburgh, referring to the Covid relief package as he unveiled the broad outlines of his infrastructure plan.  ‘The overwhelming bi-partisan support were Republican — registered Republican voters.’”

Now, of course, Congressional Republicans will reject Biden’s definition of bi-partisanship just as they seek to criticize his leadership.

But, for example, on infrastructure, to be taken seriously on the subject, Republicans need a serious response to Biden’s initiative. 

Jennifer Rubin wrote this in the Washington Post last week:

“There is a range of reasonable responses that Republicans could come up with.  But putting forth an unserious, lowball bill with no funding mechanism and without the items Republicans have endorsed in one form or another (e.g., upgrading the electric grids, expanded broadband Internet) will signal that they either cannot produce votes for anything meaningful or that they have not figured out how to be for infrastructure, against deficits and against taxes.

 “…instead of relying on the right-wing talking point that passing the infrastructure package through reconciliation means that Democrats want to stiff the other party, Republicans could also come forward with an alternative that has even minimal support from their party.  While reconciliation would still be needed, they could bring along a handful of Republicans who would have a role in shaping the outcome.  Or do they not even have the votes for that?

“We will know how serious Republicans are when we see a meaningful counteroffer.  Until then, there is no negotiating partner for the White House.”

Presidents get to propose.  Congress gets to dispose.

But the best disposition from Congress – both the majority and minority – is to assess what a president proposes, develop genuine alternatives (not always “no”), and negotiate to find what I like to call the “smart middle ground.”

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.

What can golf do to sustain interest in the sport as the pandemic eases?

That is a good question as the industry considers this reality:  The pandemic has boosted interest in golf to the highest levels in years, but one of the main reasons, if not the major one, is the pandemic.  As it eases, it will be important to find ways to sustain the momentum.

This is a question that, among other things, will be a topic for the Oregon Golf Association Board of Directors Executive Committee of which I am a member.

In many ways, the challenges are the same ones that have existed for years.  It takes too long to play.  It can be too expensive.  It can appear to be a snooty sport.  Golf rules can be too complicated.  And, many of those who run the sport have not listened well to customers. 

Appearing to ignore customers is a death knell for many businesses.  Or, to put it positively, those who listen well have a better chance to do well.

The Wall Street Journal dealt with this issue in a major story this morning.  Here are selected excerpts under this headline:

People flocked to socially distanced golf courses over the past year. Now the courses are looking for ways to make sure they stay.

“Golf has had a resurgence during the pandemic, with about half a million more players picking up clubs than did in 2019.

“Can it hold on to the growth in a post-pandemic world?

“Golf-course operators are scrambling to make sure it does, as they look for ways to keep the newbies coming back once the country gets closer to normalcy.  They’re aiming to make the game more informal and responsive to newcomers by loosening the dress code, easing some rules of play, and offering shortened rounds.

“They’re also trying to play up the idea of golf as a social occasion or opportunity for exercise rather than just a sport.  And they have to implement all these changes without driving away the longtime golfers they already have.”

The increase in golf interest and playing came at a good time.

The housing collapse and the financial crisis in 2006 adversely affected golf, so much so that the number of rounds played dropped for 13 straight years.

Then came the pandemic.  What the Wall Street Journal calls “cabin fever” prompted many people to consider golf, if only because it involved being outside without many virus restrictions.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

“According to a report put together by the National Golf Foundation, golfers played 502 million rounds last year, the most since 2007. Research firm U.S. Golf Datatech reported a 13.9 per cent increase in rounds played, the largest increase since the company began tracking in 1998.

“Many of new golfers were either new to the game or pulled a dusty old set of clubs out of the closet to start up again.  And the number of non-golfers who say they’re very interested in playing golf has risen to 17 million, up 1.5 million from 2019, the National Golf Foundation says.”

The current question is how to sustain the momentum.  The most important commitment is for industry leaders to pay closer attention than in the past to what customers want.   That has often been a missing ingredient as many veteran leaders come across as if ”they always know best.”

Other options:

• Offer such events as “Nine and Wine,” which means playing a small number of holes, then gathering for wine after the shorter round.

The course where I play most of the time, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, has offered a deal where, with friends, you play nine holes, stopping every third hole for food and drink. 

• Give new or returning golfers an informal and friendly chance to get golf instruction, such as, in one case, according to the Wall Street Journal, some new golfers learned half-swings with wedges early on — which naturally pops the ball into the air — so they can succeed at getting the ball off the ground when they play.

More from the Wall Street Journal: 

Tim Schantz, president and CEO of Troon Golf, which manages more than 500 golf properties world-wide, says this:

“We’ve been trying to break down the barriers to entry.  Dress codes, things that come across as more formal or stilted, can be relaxed in a way that’s better for all involved.  At the same time, you don’t want to push people away. There’s a medium in between there, and we want to take the right kinds of steps.”

“For instance, he says, ‘there’s nothing wrong with someone playing six holes carrying their bag and throwing the ball out of the trap instead of hitting it, rather than a traditional style of play, or playing rounds with just one club instead of a whole bagful.”

• Speeding up the game and not making a round take half of a day could also entice more golfers, especially when people are going back to work in their offices and don’t have as much leisure time.
• Another strategy that some courses are adopting:  Appealing to golfers who want exercise,  but don’t want to be encumbered by a heavy bag of clubs.  In some cases, they’re using technology to help implement the idea. During the pandemic, the Tempo Walk, a Roomba-like device that follows along behind golfers and carries their clubs and other gear, has gained popularity.

As with any industry challenge these days, there is no magic answer.  One way to put it:  Find the right balance that keeps the new and returning golfers, while, at the same time, not turning away the established veterans.

To achieve that right balance, it will probably be trial and error for a time.  But the effort is worth it.

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.

What can golf do to sustain interest in the sport as the pandemic eases?

That is a good question as the industry considers this reality:  The pandemic has boosted interest in golf to the highest levels in years, but one of the main reasons, if not the major one, is the pandemic.  As it eases, it will be important to find ways to sustain the momentum.

This is a question that, among other things, will be a topic for the Oregon Golf Association Board of Directors Executive Committee of which I am a member.

In many ways, the challenges are the same ones that have existed for years.  It takes too long to play.  It can be too expensive.  It can appear to be a snooty sport.  Golf rules can be too complicated.  And, many of those who run the sport have not listened well to customers. 

Appearing to ignore customers is a death knell for many businesses.  Or, to put it positively, those who listen well have a better chance to do well.

The Wall Street Journal dealt with this issue in a major story this morning.  Here are selected excerpts under this headline:

People flocked to socially distanced golf courses over the past year. Now the courses are looking for ways to make sure they stay.

“Golf has had a resurgence during the pandemic, with about half a million more players picking up clubs than did in 2019.

“Can it hold on to the growth in a post-pandemic world?

“Golf-course operators are scrambling to make sure it does, as they look for ways to keep the newbies coming back once the country gets closer to normalcy.  They’re aiming to make the game more informal and responsive to newcomers by loosening the dress code, easing some rules of play, and offering shortened rounds.

“They’re also trying to play up the idea of golf as a social occasion or opportunity for exercise rather than just a sport.  And they have to implement all these changes without driving away the longtime golfers they already have.”

The increase in golf interest and playing came at a good time.

The housing collapse and the financial crisis in 2006 adversely affected golf, so much so that the number of rounds played dropped for 13 straight years.

Then came the pandemic.  What the Wall Street Journal calls “cabin fever” prompted many people to consider golf, if only because it involved being outside without many virus restrictions.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

“According to a report put together by the National Golf Foundation, golfers played 502 million rounds last year, the most since 2007. Research firm U.S. Golf Datatech reported a 13.9 per cent increase in rounds played, the largest increase since the company began tracking in 1998.

“Many of new golfers were either new to the game or pulled a dusty old set of clubs out of the closet to start up again.  And the number of non-golfers who say they’re very interested in playing golf has risen to 17 million, up 1.5 million from 2019, the National Golf Foundation says.”

The current question is how to sustain the momentum.  The most important commitment is for industry leaders to pay closer attention than in the past to what customers want.   That has often been a missing ingredient as many veteran leaders come across as if ”they always know best.”

Other options:

• Offer such events as “Nine and Wine,” which means playing a small number of holes, then gathering for wine after the shorter round.

The course where I play most of the time, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, has offered a deal where, with friends, you play nine holes, stopping every third hole for food and drink. 

• Give new or returning golfers an informal and friendly chance to get golf instruction, such as, in one case, according to the Wall Street Journal, some new golfers learned half-swings with wedges early on — which naturally pops the ball into the air — so they can succeed at getting the ball off the ground when they play.

More from the Wall Street Journal: 

Tim Schantz, president and CEO of Troon Golf, which manages more than 500 golf properties world-wide, says this:

“We’ve been trying to break down the barriers to entry.  Dress codes, things that come across as more formal or stilted, can be relaxed in a way that’s better for all involved.  At the same time, you don’t want to push people away. There’s a medium in between there, and we want to take the right kinds of steps.”

“For instance, he says, ‘there’s nothing wrong with someone playing six holes carrying their bag and throwing the ball out of the trap instead of hitting it, rather than a traditional style of play, or playing rounds with just one club instead of a whole bagful.”

• Speeding up the game and not making a round take half of a day could also entice more golfers, especially when people are going back to work in their offices and don’t have as much leisure time.
• Another strategy that some courses are adopting:  Appealing to golfers who want exercise,  but don’t want to be encumbered by a heavy bag of clubs.  In some cases, they’re using technology to help implement the idea. During the pandemic, the Tempo Walk, a Roomba-like device that follows along behind golfers and carries their clubs and other gear, has gained popularity.

As with any industry challenge these days, there is no magic answer.  One way to put it:  Find the right balance that keeps the new and returning golfers, while, at the same time, not turning away the established veterans.

To achieve that right balance, it will probably be trial and error for a time.  But the effort is worth it.

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 question in this blog headline has arisen recently over the Biden Administration’s proposal to spend trillions on “infrastructure.”

Why would I, from the cheap seats out West, choose to write about this subject?  Well, the simple answer is that I find it to be an interesting example of what the federal government is doing as we know it today.  So, for me, that is enough.

I have no argument with the idea of investing more in the country’s roads, rail and bridges.  Too many of those pieces of infrastructure are failing.  Plus, investing in the subject will provide jobs for many Americans — and that also is enough for me. 

The “jobs message” has been an emphasis for Biden and his staff.

But, since the Administration announced its infrastructure investment (or is it a “spending” plan), trouble has cropped up around several corners. 

Enough so that it may be difficult for the Administration to find its way toward a bi-partisan solution, even though in the Washington Post today, Biden said this:

“He was open to compromise with Republicans on how to pay for the approximately $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure package, even as he insisted that inaction was untenable.”

As an aside, that quote is a solid testament to the idea of bi-partisan action.  It is up to any president to propose actions.  It is then up to Congress to dispose of those actions.  But, too often, disposing of executive actions means doing nothing.

In this case, what Republicans ought to do is take Biden at his word.  Move forward on infrastructure development.  Find middle ground on the idea, including how to finance it.  And recognize that infrastructure investments could play well with Republican voters around the country.

But, today, infrastructure is a term that means different things to different people.

For my part, the term would apply to “bricks and mortar” developments such as roads, bridges and the like. 

Not so according to the Biden Administration.  The term covers a huge list of what I would call non-infrastructure proposals, such as:

• A stipulation that none of the $350 million Biden proposed for state governments can be used to finance tax cuts.  In a way, that may make sense, but Washington Post columnist George Will calls it:   “The essence of progressivism’s agenda is to create a government-centered society by increasing government’s control of society’s resources, then distributing those resources in ways that increase the dependency of individuals and social groups on government.”

Perhaps, though it may make no sense for me to counter Will’s perspective because he ranks today as the one of the best analysts of government processes.

• Investments in broadband, energy, manufacturing, wastewater systems, electric cars, housing, school buildings and more also are part of infrastructure.
• An estimated $400 billion would go to expand Medicaid payments for home healthcare – also part of infrastructure.

At base, I have no problem with investments in in-home and personal care because many elderly individuals prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible.  It’s just that such investments may not be part of infrastructure, so should stand on their own.

Still, in any infrastructure plan, I believe there is room for Democrats and Republicans to find something to like.

It’s just that, at the moment:

• The price tag may be too high.
• The proposed tax increases may be too high.
• The definition of infrastructure may be too broad.

But, if officials of good will and good intent – yes, I believe there be some left – will decide against inaction, there should be a way to find middle ground.

Allow the president to propose and allow Congress to dispose – in the best sense of the definition of both words.  And find something that will benefit all Americans.