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.

Why would I feel compelled to write about impeachment from my post out West far from the action?

Well, I am a bit of a political junkie, so the subject interests me.  Plus, a lot is at stake for Americans and our system of government as we watch impeachment processes play out in Washington, D.C.

And, as with many political issues these days, I can understand both sides – those in favor of holding former president Donald Trump to account for provoking insurrection, and those not in favor of doing so because, after all, he is no longer in office as president and it’s time to focus on the new president’s priorities, the leading one of which is to control the virus.

It appears that there are not votes in the Senate to convict Trump, so it strikes me that there could be a compromise:  Censure him for his reprehensible conduct so as not to allow such conduct to escape punishment.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are moving ahead with plans to argue impeachment before the Senate.

They have sought out new cellphone footage of the January 6 Capitol insurrection, as well as updated details about injured police officers.

They want to present the Senate with fresh evidence that reveals what Trump knew in advance of the rampage at the Capitol, as well as how his words and actions influenced those who participated to lay siege to the Capitol.  

Overall, the rioting left five dead, including a Capital police officer.   In addition, two officers, one with the D.C. Police Department, died by suicide.

As reported by the Washington Post, the effort to present new video evidence and witness testimony appears designed to make Republican senators as uncomfortable as possible as they prepare to vote to acquit Trump, as most have indicated they will do.

The prospect of injured police officers describing the brutality of pro-Trump rioters to Republicans who regularly present themselves as advocates of law enforcement could make for an extraordinary, nationally televised scene.

Republican votes to acquit appear to be based on the contention that it is unconstitutional to try a former president on impeachment charges.  That spares them from having to evaluate Trump’s conduct.  

The “he’s out of office” theory is contested by many constitutional scholars, but has gained a foothold in the GOP ranks.

But, as I wrote earlier, if there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.

One person who wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal put it this way:

“If there are no consequences for subversion and insurrection, it may encourage future presidents to do the same thing.  Nothing is more important in a democracy than the peaceful transfer of power.”

So, when all is said and done, it appears the most extreme punishment for Trump – conviction after impeachment – won’t occur.  I say head for censure instead and, then, get about important business in this country sans 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.

President Joe Biden is set to take an action today that illustrates his commitment to undo one of the most egregious actions by Trump and his acolytes.

It was, intentionally, to separate children from their immigrant parents at U.S. borders.  Call it what is was – kidnapping.

Undoing the damage cannot come soon enough.

Under this headline, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning on Biden’s planned action:

BIDEN TO SET UP TASK FORCE TO REUNITE FAMILIES SEPARATED AT THE BORDER

Here is more of the Journal’s story:

“President Biden plans to form a task force to reunite immigrant families separated at the southern border under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, one of several executive orders on immigration Biden is expected to sign Tuesday.

“The orders will set in motion a process that the new administration hopes will reverse a number of border policies and restrictions on legal immigration.

“But the orders themselves will make no immediate changes to immigration policy.  Instead, the actions signal a desire to balance competing pressures: immigration advocates hoping for swift action to undo Trump’s policies and the danger that undoing too many restrictions at once could trigger a surge of migrants attempting to enter the U.S.

“The reunification task force, which Biden pledged to create during his campaign, will charge the government with identifying all of the children who remain separated from their parents and locating those parents across Latin America, where they were likely deported.

“The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the separated children in a continuing class-action lawsuit against the U.S. government, and other nonprofit organizations have been placing advertisements and making trips across the region to help locate deported parents. The ACLU has said in court filings it has identified more than 600 children who remain separated from their parents.”

Again, this cannot happen quickly enough.

Just imagine the isolation for children separated from their parents for months.

Just imagine the agony for parents separated from their children for months.

How many children and parents are caught in this intolerable predicament?  Estimates range between 500 and 1,000.

But, whatever the overall numbers, this paragraph from a Washington Post story this morning puts the issue in graphic and emotional detail:

“It’s a daily horror for us who are living without our children. It’s an endless sadness,” said Maria, a Guatemalan mother of a 10-year-old girl who was separated on the Arizona-Mexico border in July 2017. “All we want is the opportunity to see our kids, to be with them again.”

Meanwhile, what we are witnessing now in Washington, D.C. is a process related to whether Trump will be convicted in the Senate’s second impeachment trial.  Incredibly, he chances appear good Republicans will not vote to convict.

But, for me, the “child separation” policy would be enough, on its own, to warrant Trump’s conviction, though the policy is not part of the impeachment process.  Trump and his enablers should go to jail as their offenses should stand on their own as kidnapping.

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.

A dedicated reader of my blog – yes there is one – suggested the other day that I should research two issues:  (1) how Oregon’s virus infection rate compares with other states, and (2) how Oregon’s death rate compares with other states.

Well, I thought — good questions.

So I did what most of us do these days when we have unanswered questions – we go to the Internet.

I did and here’s what I found.

• In terms of virus infection rates, Oregon ranks near the bottom among states and Washington, D.C. – in fact, fourth from the bottom at 3,304 cases per 100,000 persons on a total population of 4.2 million.
• In terms of virus death rates, Oregon again ranks near the bottom among states and D.C. – in fact, fifth from the bottom at 46 deaths per 100,000 persons, again on a population of 4.2 million.

What do these statistics tell us?

Well, first, we all know these days that you can use statistics to make any point you want to make.   But, on its face, these statistics point to the fact is that Oregon is doing an excellent job of dealing with the virus when you compare Oregon statistics to other states and D.C.

Of course, there is always room for improvement in such an endeavor because, in the end, the vaccine is the key to the future of living without the virus, as well as allowing the economy to recover.

I have said before that I am glad I don’t have the job Oregon Governor Kate Brown and her staff face every day:  Making life and death decisions about the virus.

There are no right answers.  Good ones?  Yes.  Rational ones?  Yes. 

But, no matter what the governor and her staff do they will face criticism.

I, for one, will give the governor and her staff room to operate and make the best decisions for all of Oregon as the statistics above indicate they have done so far.  Their record has earned them credibility.

And, I also will trust that, under pressure, she and her staff will turn for help to private sector operations like Salem Health, which has won plaudits for its operation of the mass vaccine site at the State Fairgrounds in Salem and Western Oregon University in Monmouth.

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.

Several months ago, I had a simplistic notion as all of us began confronting the Covid-19 virus.

The notion was clear and simple, if not obvious:  The key to getting past the virus would be vaccines.

Some of my friends may say they believe many of my notions are simplistic.  And I often could be accused of citing the obvious. 

But, this time, it turned out that the simplistic notion was not so simple after all:  Getting vaccines to Americans has been very difficult…unfortunately.

Along the way, we learned several things:

• If he gets some credit for prodding the development of vaccines, former President Donald Trump gets debit for mismanaging vaccination processes.  He said there were vaccines reserves; there weren’t.   

• So, when President Joe Biden ruled that reserves should be released, there were none.

• That meant states would have difficulty arranging vaccine distribution without clear indications about supplies.

• It could be contended that, in the absence of clear federal instructions about distribution, states should have been prepared with their own plans.  They weren’t.

• Of course, no distribution plan would work if there were not enough vaccines, either for those who deserve early doses — health care workers, teachers, and the aging population – or for the population in general.

So, here we are.  No clear or firm distribution plans in any state, including Oregon.  Information changes almost daily. 

Biden took steps last week to deal with under-supply by ordering – and paying for – millions of new vaccine vials.  Still, that won’t produce sufficient supplies quickly enough.

With my wife, Nancy, our travel through vaccine processes verifies the dead ends. 

What happened was this.

About three weeks ago, we stumbled on information that suggested vaccine givers at the State Fairgrounds in Salem, Oregon were able to use ”extra vaccines” for folks not otherwise eligible.  Extras were available, I surmise, because not as many health care workers as expected showed up to get vaccines.  So, in an attempt to avoid wasting vials of the vaccine that were out of the deep freeze, workers passed information by word of mouth and communication grapevines that some “extras” were available.

I heard this first from my daughter-in-law, a teacher, who went down to the Fairgrounds with a friend, not a teacher, and managed to get two vaccines.  I quickly passed information to my friends in Salem and, in the space of a couple weeks, nearly all of them were able to get vaccines at the Fairgrounds.

Folks in the Portland area were not as lucky.  Neither were others around the state.

And, here in La Quinta, California (where we are spending part of our winter), we have tried to get vaccines for those 65 years of age and older, but, so far, we have missed out on booking appointments.  For all we know, our on-line attempts missed by mere seconds.

Back in Oregon, Governor Kate Brown is coming under heavy criticism for deciding teachers will get vaccines before old persons.  She has defended herself by saying that, if the reverse were true – if old folks came before teachers – reaction would have been just as negative.

As Brown put it in a column by Dick Hughes, former editor of the editorial page of the Statesman-Journal (when it had one);

“No matter what you do, people aren’t happy,” Brown said. “The teachers in Minnesota are furious at the governor because they are doing seniors first. And here, the seniors are furious at me because I am doing teachers first. There are no right answers, and there are no easy decisions.”

She is right in the sense that those making vaccine distribution decisions face life-or-death decisions every day and cannot make the “right ones.”

So, my wife and I have not received the vaccine and, in that way, we are like millions of others. 

Thus, my simplistic notion – vaccines were the panacea – was not as accurate as I hoped it would be.

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.

That’s what I managed to do – dodging a bullet — when the American Express Pro Golf Tournament, here in La Quinta, California, changed the way the four-round event was to be played.

The impetus for the change?  Covid-19.

To read farther in this blog, I suspect you have to be either an avid golfer or someone interested in the subject.

So I continue. 

Without the virus, I was scheduled to serve as a walking marshal at the La Quinta Country Club Course, only a couple of blocks from our winter home down here.  Then, the change came.

Amateurs, who were going to play with pros on the first three days of the tournament, were told that the virus meant they would not be able to play.  In turn, that meant the La Quinta Country Club course would be dropped from the playing rotation, leaving the PGA West Nicklaus and Stadium courses as the tournament venues.

Volunteers at La Quinta – including me — were told they would not be needed this year, but would be enrolled again next year.

So, why the bullet image?

Well, it’s what my assignment was going to be, a tough one.

First, because there also were no spectators this year due to Covid-19, there would be no need for walking marshals, which has been my assignment for the last two years.  I knew about the change a couple months ago, so had an opportunity to choose another activity.

I chose to be a “walking scorer.”

Then, the reality closed in.

Being a walking scorer is a complicated job, one that (1) helps to run a tournament, (12) produces a wealth of at-the-time, on-the-ground statistics, and (3) provides information to those managing TV coverage.  It is all part of what is called “The Shot-Link” system, developed by a company that has a contract with the PGA Tour.

So, the point is that, as a walking scorer, you cannot screw up.

Based on an on-line training regime I took (and passed), here is a summary of tasks for a walking scorer:

• You are given a tablet to carry around with you as you walk 18 holes very close to the players on the fairways and near the greens.

• When a player is getting ready to hit a shot, you have to click the location – teeing ground, landing area, or green.

• Then, as the player approaches the ball, you hit another click.

• Then, when he hits the ball, you click that he has done so.

• Then, on or off a green, when a player holes a shot, you have to click that.

• If the player has only a very short putt and makes that put, you have to click “tap-in.”

• Then, you have to click again to verify you have the right score for the hole.

• And, before all shots are holed, you have to strike a click if a player is in a penalty area, plus another click of that player needs a rules official’s help.

Get the picture?  Complicated!

To illustrate the complexity, one of the comments in the on-line training regime was that, as a walking scorer, you are NOT supposed to “watch golf,” in the normal sense of the phrase.  You are on-site to make all the clicks in a very timely fashion no matter how good or how bad the golf is.

As I faced this prospect, I had mixed emotions, though I think I would have decided to show up to verify that I could complete the task.  Then, in succeeding years, I would be more comfortable functioning as a walking scorer, having survived the trial run.

So, bring on the American Express tournament next year.  Between then and now, I’ll steal myself for another test drive.

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 was ready with another blog post this morning, but then I read a story in the Washington Post under this headline:

“Biden struggles to define his ‘unity’ promise for a divided nation”

By Ashley Parker, Matt Viser and Annie Linskey, the story did what the Post often does in the spirit of solid journalism BY going beneath the surface to add to reader’s knowledge and perspective.

Rather than trying to summarize the writing, I am again choosing, as I sometimes do, to reprint the entire story here.  I do so because it helps to clarify the definition of “unity” as advocated by President Joe Biden in the days after the Trump Administration, which fomented anti-unity for four years.

The piece is long, but worth reading.

**********

Barack Obama offered “hope and change.” Donald Trump vowed to “Make America Great Again.” George W. Bush promised “compassionate conservatism.”

And for President Biden, the slogan comes down to one word: “unity.”

Biden campaigned on — and came to office promising — the ineffable concept of unity, a feel-good catchall that proffered bipartisan bonhomie, but with few tangible specifics.

Now, Biden and his team are working to implement that amorphous goal, which has already been weaponized by Republicans who disagree with Biden’s policy aims and challenged by some fellow Democrats.

Facing a deadly coronavirus pandemic and a troubled economy, as well as the slimmest of congressional majorities, Biden and his advisers are attempting to implement a blueprint of unity for a country that can only seem to agree on how much it disagrees.

Even coming up with a common definition for what unity should mean has proved impossible to unify around.

“I do think it means a lot of different things,” said John Anzalone, a top Biden adviser and campaign pollster. “When we would ask people in polls what was Joe Biden’s message, they understood it was unity. They would say ‘bringing people together’ or ‘unity.’ ”

“It may have meant different things to them,” Anzalone added. “Maybe it was bringing the different parties together. Or healing the country by using a different tone and demeanor.”

Republicans — citing various Democratic initiatives that Biden is putting forth — have already sounded anti-unity alarms, claiming that the fact Biden is governing as a Democrat means he is not committed to his campaign mantra. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) defined “unity” differently still, arguing Sunday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that the phrase perhaps should mean Democrats being “unified against insurrection,” a reference to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of angry Trump supporters.

The upcoming Senate impeachment trial of Trump over his alleged role in inciting that riot underscores the riven nature of the nation’s politics, with all but five Republican senators voting Tuesday to challenge the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.

Biden and his aides have offered broad, and sometimes conflicting, definitions of what unity entails.

The president told reporters Monday that it means trying to “eliminate the vitriol,” “trying to reflect what the majority of the American people — Democrat, Republican, independent — think,” and trying to “stay away from the ad hominem attacks on one another.”

But Biden also said consensus should not be confused with bipartisanship, and left open the possibility muscling through his coronavirus relief package over the objections of congressional Republicans.

 “Unity also is trying to get, at a minimum, if you pass a piece of legislation that breaks down on party lines, but it gets passed, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t unity,” Biden said. “It just means it wasn’t bipartisan.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday that unity signifies “approaching our work on legislative issues through a bipartisan lens,” but also “projecting that he is going to govern for all people and address all of the issues that the American people are facing.”

“Unity is about the country feeling that they’re in it together,” Psaki said, “and I think we’ll know that when we see it.”

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) echoed the same phrase, which is often associated with the definition of obscenity famously offered by then-Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

 “I’ll know it when I see it,” Hickenlooper said when asked how to recognize unity. “Isn’t that what they say about pornography?”

Early polling indicates that most Americans agree with Biden’s call for bipartisanship, with 71 percent saying they would rather see congressional Republicans work with Biden than focus on keeping him in check, according to a new Monmouth University poll conducted in the days after the inauguration. About 6 in 10 Americans have some confidence that Biden will be able to get Washington to be more cooperative, and nearly 8 in 10 said it was very or extremely important that the federal government address the lack of unity in the country.

But Republicans argue that by pursing policy goals with which they disagree, the new president is spurning his own appeals for unity. The stance is arguably disingenuous, but also potentially politically effective, allowing Republicans to undercut Biden’s entire organizing principle.

In a tweet, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) linked to a story on Biden’s move to end Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers serving in the military, writing: “Another ‘unifying’ move by the new Administration?”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) criticized Biden’s aspirations, as well. “I just wish that his actions matched the words of his inaugural in terms of being unifying and healing,” Johnson said this week. “I’m not seeing his initial actions being that, which is disappointing.”

And Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio and Fox News host, used his show to lambaste what he said were Biden’s false claims of unity. “Joe Biden made much of the word unity,” he said last weekend. “Nothing that Joe Biden has done since his inauguration speech demonstrates any form of unity.”

Writing online, Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to Obama, moved to temper the realm of the possible: “The ‘unity’ conversation is going to be constantly distorted with unfair expectations, bad faith arguments, and general stupidity.”

Natural partisan disagreements, he wrote, should not be misconstrued as disunity, and one metric for success should be consensus from a majority of the country, not a majority from the opposing party.

“Joe Biden won the election. Republicans lost. Joe Biden doing the things Americans elected him to do is not divisive. The Republicans may not like it, but that’s their problem,” Pfeiffer wrote. “A majority of Americans voted to rejoin the Paris Accords, repeal the Muslim ban, implement more comprehensive pandemic measures and so on. Pushing forward on agenda items supported by the majority of Americans is not divisive just because [Republican Sens.] Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson find it irksome.”

At the same time, even some of Biden’s Democratic allies have struggled to articulate the exact meaning of the word in a Biden administration, often defining it by what it is not.

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said unity can be observed and felt, but not necessarily measured. “Unity to me simply means finding common ground — it doesn’t mean unanimity,” he said. “I don’t know why people think you can’t be unified unless you’re unanimous. That’s all Biden is talking about: trying to find common ground.”

Clyburn liked it to his 58-year marriage to his wife, who died in 2019.

“There was never any disunity to our marriage,” he said. “But there was a whole lot of difference of opinion. We were seldom unanimous in what we did and what we thought, but there was always unity.”

Still, Clyburn added, though he believes Biden’s main goal is seeking common ground, the concept can also be warped — and even dangerous.

“I don’t want to be unfair about this, but one of the reasons I don’t like this unity argument is because I’ve been Black all my 80 years and in the South,” he said. “The South was unified against me. There was Southern unity for segregation. So you have to be relative about this. You can be unified and be inhuman. Unity is to me something we have to be careful about.”

Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who often talks with Biden and spoke to him as he prepared the foundation of his campaign, said that some of the symbolic actions in the early days of Biden’s presidency — a day of service shortly before his inauguration, a memorial for coronavirus victims and a bipartisan invitation to lawmakers to join him for a church service — were designed with unity in mind.

 “It doesn’t mean uniformity, it doesn’t mean conformity or unanimity, it doesn’t mean we’re all going to agree on everything,” Coons said. “Bringing unity to the country starts with telling us the truth, having a real and concrete plan. It’s not just brave words. It’s actually doing the job of being president.”

Hickenlooper, a former governor of Colorado, laughed out loud when confronted with the question of how unity can be measured. “I’m not sure how you measure when you’re there,” he said. “But I do think that what President Biden is putting out is a road map.”

The concept has been a guiding force for Biden since the earliest days of his campaign, when he was meeting with advisers at a home he was renting in McLean to sketch out his fledgling bid.

“We choose unity over division,” Biden said, again and again, in the climax of almost every stump speech.

On the campaign trail, he frequently used unity and civility interchangeably, often while mentioning the lesson imparted to him by the late former Democratic senator Mike Mansfield: “It’s always appropriate to question another man’s judgment, but never appropriate to question his motives.”

Biden’s rhetoric was generally cast as naive in a Democratic primary in which candidates often engaged in partisan warfare, as Biden trumpeted his ability to work with Republicans.

“I kept talking about unity, and everybody said, ‘No, you can’t have unity any longer. It’s changed so fundamentally, Joe. It can’t be put back together again,’ ” he said during a 2019 fundraiser. “Well, if that’s the case, we’re all dead. We’re in real trouble, because our constitutional system requires consensus.”

Late in the campaign, Biden delivered a major speech in Gettysburg, Pa. — a place chosen to highlight the perils of division, and the merits of unity. “The closing argument is that we need to unify the country,” Mike Donilon, Biden’s chief strategist, said at the time. “He won’t represent just Democrats or Republicans; he’ll represent everyone.”

In his inauguration speech, Biden mentioned “unity” more than a half-dozen times, at one point citing other challenges that tested the nation — the Civil War, the Great Depression, two world wars and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward,” he said, referring not to an end of partisanship but an idealistic joining of the nation. “And, we can do so now. History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity.”

One example of Biden’s approach occurred at the end of a brief question-and-answer session with reporters Monday. As Biden’s aides began to wrap up, ushering the media out of the room, the president paused and turned to Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy, who as a reporter covering the campaign often rankled Biden and his team with his pointed questions.

“I know he always asks me tough questions, and he always has an edge to them,” Biden said. “But I like him anyway.”

“So,” the president continued, addressing the reporter from a network whose prime-time hosts frequently propagate false conspiracy theories against him, “go ahead and answer — ask the question.”

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 didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to go after Joe Biden as he took actions to implement policies that propelled his run for president.

True, some of the actions were repudiations of former President Donald Trump and those deserved, in general, to be sent to the dust bin.

“To restore the soul and secure the future of America requires so much more than words,” Joe Biden said in his inaugural address.  “It requires the most elusive of all things in a democracy:  Unity.”

The question, only a week later, is whether unity is more than just a word.

When, after his inaugural speech, Biden signed a series of executive orders on climate change, LGBTQ rights, racial disparities and other controversial issues, it was too much for some on the right who said his actions “were a contradiction.”

“President Biden promised unity,” according to Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas,“ but his first action was to kill jobs.”

“Unity themes and divisive actions,” grumbled Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn on Twitter.  Florida Republican Marco Rubio protested:  “A radical leftist agenda in a divided country will not help unify our country.  It will only confirm 75 million Americans biggest fears about the new administration.”

Washington Post writers, already in Biden’s corner, having endorsed him for president, took on Biden opponents in an editorial under this headline:

No, President Biden has not already renounced ‘unity’

In fact, the Post says, there was no contradiction.

“In a dictatorship, unity is easy; one must agree with the leader on all matters or suffer state retribution.  In a pluralistic democracy, unity is the ‘most elusive of things,’ as Biden said in his inaugural address.

“The nation’s political system is designed to manage and channel disagreement peacefully and, ideally, with a level of respect and decorum.  Power shifts, and policies change accordingly, but everyone accepts these moves as legitimate because of an overriding allegiance to the system.  That system ensures that no one gets everything they want and everyone has a fair chance to appeal to the people.

“Unity in such a system requires, first, that the actors within it recognize that one can disagree in good faith.  Those with different views are not the enemy of the people, and they should be listened to seriously.  Second, unity requires that politicians prioritize achieving things for the country over ruining their political opponents.  They should look for win-win scenarios.  Third, it requires respect for the process.  Leaders should refrain from abusing the system to rout the other side, either when wielding power or obstructing its use.

“But unity never meant passing policies that charm both the minority and the newly earned majority.  It was always more about process than policy:  About mutual respect, and restoring the norms that a certain Florida resident blew out of the water.  Most important, it was about ideals — democracy, for starters, and equality over ‘racism, nativism, fear, demonization,’ as Biden put it.”

So, to Biden, unity is working together while, at the same time, standing on principle, as long as principle does not include calling those who disagree enemies.  That is something he will not do as he searches for win-win solutions.

What’s needed is the ability, the commitment, to rise above political generalizations and find the smart middle ground.  If that occurs, American democracy will be stronger and that is a welcome goal after four years of dissension.

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 another respite from political commentary.

I’ll admit it — when it comes to the English language, I am a purist.  

At least I believe I am, which, I suppose, could be open to question.

I believe there are right and proper grammatical propositions.  And I believe there are errors of the same.

Given that this is true, a risk is that I will make errors in what I write.  But, as embarrassing as that may be, that doesn’t mean I should disregard purity.

So, with this in mind, I have compiled a list of errors made by credible journalistic organizations.  Which proves that all of us can be human.

Error #1:  Failure to sync pronoun with verb

As in this example from the Oregonian newspaper:  “None of the patients were admitted because of the virus, and none tested positive upon admission.”

The modifier of the word “none” should have been the word “was,” not “is.”  I know – this “is” awkward to the ear, so, if a change was made is this area of grammar, I would favor it.

Or, as in this example from the Wall Street Journal:  “None of the challenges are expected to succeed, but they could slow the process and give Trump’s allies a high-profile chance to demonstrate their loyalty to him.”

Again, the modifier of the word “none” should have been the word “is.”

One more from the Wall Street Journal:  “A number of other Democrats have called for the move, and one Republican joined them on Thursday.”

The verb should have been “has called,” not “have called.”

Error #2:  Failure to sync a singular noun with a possessive pronoun

An example, though this is from my memory, not a specific publication:  “The committee did their work.”

The pronoun should be “its,” not “their.” 

If you want to use “their” so it sounds better, then design the sentence this way – committee members did their work.

Error #3:  Failure to avoid splitting infinitives

In an example from the Oregonian newspaper:  “He attempted to unseat Commissioner Chloe Eudaly in last May’s primary, but finished third behind her and political newcomer Mingus Mapps. Mapps,with Adams’ hearty endorsement, went on to soundly defeat Eudaly in the general election.”

Note the phrase “to soundly defeat…”  It would have been better – and sounded better – to write, “to defeat soundly.”

Not sure if avoiding splitting an infinitive is a grammar rule, but it could be – or, I think, should be.

Error #4:  Using an impossible phrase – “center around.”

As in this example from the Oregonian newspaper:  “Early discussions among officials with the city, Multnomah County and health care providers have centered around Unity Center for Behavioral Health …”

Think about that for just a moment – centering around something is impossible.  The phrase should have been “centered on.”

Error #4:  Using nouns as verbs.

As in this sentence about Trump’s departure for Florida:  “But already pending for the soon-to-be South Florida retiree is a trio of lawsuits that allege defamation, fraud and more fraud — all of which are helmed by one attorney.”

I contend that “helm” is a noun, not a very.  You cannot “helm” something. 

Now, finally, this is not a grammar error, but, in a time of genuine concern about racial inequality, there has been a lot of talk about whether the word “Black” should appear with a capital B.

I wrote about this a few months ago and argued that the capital letter should be used. 

This is not a grammar rule yet, but I will continue to capitalize Black as one small, personal step, at least in my mind, to illustrate my concern over racism, even subtle racism.

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 am taking a respite – for me, a welcome one — from my approach in this blog lately to write about the welcome demise of Donald Trump as a loser and the welcome arrival of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as winners.

The change provides an opportunity for a majority of the country to move on from the worst presidency in history, with its litany of crimes, insurrection and sedition.

But, for today, I write about incredibly good deals to become a member of a major golf club or a golfing society in Scotland, the home of golf.  And, it won’t cost you an arm and a leg. 

Here is the information supplied by Links Magazine:

Royal Dornoch

One of the world’s most famous clubs, with one of its highest ranked courses, charges a $1,177 initiation fee, plus $557 in annual dues, which makes that $1,734 first year cost the bargain of a lifetime.  Membership also includes reciprocal courses and discounts at Castle Stuart among other perks.

Crail Golfing Society

You’re likely not going to get into the R & A, but the next best thing is this club, very close to St. Andrews, that is the seventh oldest club in the world and has two courses.  One is a charming classic links and the other the debut design by acclaimed architect Gil Hanse. 

Initiation is $207, annual dues $219, which includes a small assessment for past clubhouse renovations.  Membership also includes discounts at a number of other classic Scottish courses.

Of course, today, given the pandemic, you’d have a tough time traveling to Scotland.  So, it will have to be enough just to imagine becoming a member of Royal Dornoch or the Crail Golfing.  Then, in your mind, play those courses to your heart’s content.

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’s not enough apparently to face off against the coronavirus pandemic.

We also have to contend with:

• An epidemic of inept government officials who cannot impart honestly and effectively about the dissemination of vaccines.  [True, the genesis of this may rest with the Trump Administration, which is not surprising.]

• An epidemic of inadequate media coverage that cannot get facts straight and reported well.

• Or both.

The three statements above, obviously, are generalizations.  But, as with any generalization, there are germs of truth in each.

And, for those who consume information from government and the media, the result is frustration.

With an inadequate federal government, it might be possible to excuse officials in Oregon for getting mixed up, for example, in how many vaccine containers would be available in the state and, thus, when to advise citizens in various categories to make appointments for shots.

Further, Governor Kate Brown did not win friends and influence people when she appeared not to recognize the work of an advisory committee she had created expressly to advice her on vaccine distribution.

Comments over the last few days spark nothing but confusion, even, as I do, if you grant that state officials are not intentionally trying to mislead the public.

The fact is that know many of those involved at a high level, including Brown and Oregon Health Authority Director Pat Allen.  They are credible, but, unfortunately, the information they provide is not.

So it is with media reporters and editors.  On one hand, they have to contend with inadequate information, but, as a former journalist, I wish for a more substantial level of enterprise.  It has been provided to a degree by two sources – Oregon Public Broadcasting and Salem Reporter. 

But, aggressive reporting beneath the surface should be emulated by more outlets.