PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline on this blog is the main title of a book I just finished, the full title of which is:

The Man Who Ran Washington:  The Life and Times of James Baker, III.

So, this is my quick book report:  Read the book.  It is a good reflection on the work of an individual, James Baker, who brought what would be today, for me, a welcome relief from the intemporal tedium and almost innate dishonesty of Washington, D.C.

In a phrase, the welcome relief is this:  Value pragmatism over purity, as James Baker did over more than 40 years in public life.

Baker was able to avoid the unattainable pursuit of perfection in government in order to find the middle ground – the smart middle on issues ranging from ending the Cold War, to recovering from a recession, to brokering Middle East peace. 

The authors of book are two journalists, Peter Baker (no relation to James Baker), who writes for the New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a staff writer for the New Yorker.  They are husband and wife.

The book ought to be required for anyone aspiring for a career in government or politics.

For one thing, it is not some kind of glassy-eyed look at Baker.  It includes detailed looks at his successes and his failures.  He had both, though it should be said he produced more of the former than the latter.  For another, the two authors go far behind the scenes to produce even the notes Baker wrote as a reminder to himself about what to say when he squared off with other country leaders or the media. 

The inclusion of such notes lends a dose of credibility to the accounts.

Today, at 90 years of age, Baker is no longer in public life.  But his list of accomplishments is both long and arduous.

• He served two presidents – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush– as chief of staff in the White House.

• He served as secretary of three Cabinet departments – Commerce, Treasury and State.

• In the latter, the State Department, he brokered the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union as he conducted shuttle diplomacy across Europe.

• He represented another Bush president, George Bush, in negotiations up to the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve Bush’s victory over Al Gore.

• And, in a last statesmanlike act, he sat by the elder Bush’s beside as he passed on.  Baker and Bush had been great and lasting friends dating back to the time when they played as tennis partners when both lived n Houston.  So, it was fitting for Baker to be the one to wish his friend a permanent goodbye.

In today’s tarnished approach to politics, there always are winners and losers as contenders sneer each other.  It is not likely again for a person like Baker to emerge, though we all can wish for it to occur.

Here are two passages from the book, which illustrate Baker’s credentials and abilities:

• “Delegate hunter, campaign manager, White House chief of staff, Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State, James Addison Baker III played a leading role in some of the most critical junctures in modern American history.  For a quarter of a century, every Republican president relied on Baker to manage his campaign, the White House, his world.  Baker brought them to power or helped them stay there through the momentous events that followed.  He was Washington’s indispensable man.

• Through it all, he was the archetype of a style of American politics and governance that today seems lost, an approach focused on compromise over confrontation, deal-making over disagreement, and pragmatism over purity.  He negotiated with Democrats at home and Soviets abroad, assembled the coalition that won the Gulf War, and brokered the reunification of Germany in the heart of Europe.  He was the “gold standard” among White House chiefs of staff, as virtually everyone put it, and went on to become the most consequential Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger.  In short, he was the un-Trump.

Even if there are no more Bakers, it is time for national leaders to find the wherewithal to choose pragmatism over purity – for the good of the country.

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 writing this blog to amplify on a question asked by a friend of mine the other day as we had only a brief talk about national politics.

He said he was unaware of any lies that had been told by Donald Trump.  Really?

At the time, I let the comment go, though a first response could have been to refer to the Washington Post Fact-Checking column, which, to date, has tallied more than 20,000 lies told by Trump over the last three-plus years.

20,000?  Yes, 20,000!

Rather than cite that source, I chose to let the comment pass because, to do otherwise, would only have sparked an argument I didn’t want to have.

But, last weekend, the Washington Post ran a story under this headline:

Spin, hyperbole and deception: How Trump claimed credit for an Obama veterans’ achievement

The story outlines a standard Trump approach, which is to claim false credit for an achievement for so long and so repeatedly that many come to believe it is true.  In this case, Trump claimed credit for an achievement that, rightfully, belongs to Barack Obama.

So, to me, the story stands as a good response to my friend, though I do not intend to make it directly.

Here is how the article began:

“President Trump has told mistruths about the 2014 VA Choice Act more than 156 times, seeking to deny the contributions of rivals, including Barack Obama and John McCain.

“The first time Trump claimed false credit for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act — which President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014 — was on June 6, 2018.  That day, as Trump signed the Mission Act, a modest update to the bi-partisan VA Choice legislation, he seemed to conflate the two.

“In the coming weeks, Trump began systematically erasing from the legislation’s history not just Obama but also the late senator John McCain, who, not only co-sponsored the VA Choice Act, but also was so instrumental in passing the Mission Act that he is one of three senators for whom the act is officially named.”

The story goes on to note that “nearly four years into the presidency, Trump has made more than 22,000 false or misleading claims — falsehoods that go well beyond mere political exaggeration.  He has obfuscated, he has deceived, and he has spun. Trump’s mendacity has become a hallmark of his presidency.

“The president’s handling of the VA Choice legislation offers a crystalline window into the anatomy of a Trump lie:  The initial false claim, the subsequent embellishment and gilding, the incessant repetition and the clear evidence that he knows the truth, but chooses to keep telling the falsehood — all enabled by aides either unwilling or unable to rein him in.”

For me, this example illustrates a bottom-line truth about Trump.  He is a narcissist – everything revolves around him, so, as he lies, his obvious motive is to bring credit to himself.

Time for a change?  Yes.

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.

…who knows what they’ll say?

But, I submit, one perspective will be clear.  Trump’s intentional policy was to rip immigrants’ children from their families – call it what is, “kidnapping.”  He tries to defend the gallingly inhumane approach in the name of immigrant reform, but, as usual, his claims don’t square with the truth.

I have two hopes.

• One is that Trump’s intentional kidnapping will resonate with voters, so much so that it will provide yet another reason not to give Trump four more years in office.
• The second is that historians will render Trump’s intentional kidnapping policy as what it is — a violation of everything America stands for, especially in the way of supporting family units.

Phillip Bump wrote about all of this in the Washington Post for publication on the day after the final presidential debate.  Here are excerpts of what he wrote:

“Near the top of the list of ways that President Trump’s administration has deviated from established practice was his endorsement of a zero-tolerance policy for families seeking to migrate to the United States.

“During the second year of his term in office, families hoping to escape violence in Central America or seeking more economic opportunity began arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border in record numbers to seek asylum in the United States.

“Immigrant advocates began to notice that children were systematically being separated from their parents and detained in different facilities.

“The administration at first denied that there had been any formally instituted policy change leading to the separations, but it soon became apparent that these separations were meant to evoke precisely the terror that inevitably resulted.

“The goal was a simple, callous one:  Making parents choose between seeking asylum or keeping their kids.  Make parents fleeing violence and poverty risk losing their children.”

Consider this new news:  Advocates have been unable to locate the parents of 545 children who were separated at the border.

Yes, that’s right.  An estimated 545 children cannot find their parents and their parents cannot find them.

If I was Trump – perish that ridiculous thought – I would be losing sleep over this unthinkable tragedy.  But wait – I would never have instituted such a heinous policy in the first place.

Also a day after the presidential debate, Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post included this paragraph in her analysis:

“…Trump’s utter lack of decency came when he insisted conditions for kids at the border were just swell.  ‘They are so well taken care of. They are in facilities that were so clean,’ Trump said.” 

To which, Biden emotionally hit back, “Separating children from their parents violates every value we hold as a nation.”

Historians will have difficulty rating the Trump presidency.  There have been so many departures from truth and conventional norms of political action.  Most of them be hard-pressed to know how to describe the tenure of the worst president in American history.

But, I believe Trump’s “kidnapping” will stand at the top of the list of issues for he should be held responsible by history.

America deserves better.

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 came in my e-mail in-box yesterday were three summaries of the case against Donald Trump as he tells America he needs another four years in office – or, more accurately, that we need him because “he is so great.”

Actually, there were more than three summaries, but I’ll limit the list to these three:

• Representatives of the Lincoln Project, a group of past Republican political operatives who say it is time for Trump to go for the good of the country.
• Washington Post political columnist Dana Milbank who, in a bid to mimic Trump tweets, produced a column in all capital letters and, with exclamation points, summarizing Trump’s record of offenses.
• Washington Post columnist George Will who projected that Trump will leave office as he entered three-plus years ago – whining.

Here are selected excerpts from each:

FROM THE LINCOLN PROJECT

“In two weeks, the most consequential election of our generation will come, and your time for choosing will arrive. As Republicans, will you stand with President Trump, or will you stand with, and stand up for, America? Will you protect democracy or protect a single person and his family?

“We’re not merely talking about your vote.

“We’re talking about what comes next.

“Never before in U.S. history has an incumbent president refused in advance to accept the outcome of an election. In the days ahead, your party may call upon you to support efforts by a White House that refuses to transfer power after a loss at the polls. The weapons won’t be tanks but thousands of lawyers backed by an attorney general who works for the president, not the people.”

FROM DANA MILBANK:

What Trump has done as if he was commenting, via tweet, on his own performance (and Milbank’s list is much longer than what I reprint here):

LETTING 220,000 AMERICANS DIE FROM COVID-19 — WORST IN WORLD. VOTE!

LOSING 3.9 MILLION JOBS IN FOUR YEARS — WORST IN RECORDED HISTORY. VOTE!

KNOWING PANDEMIC WAS “DEADLY STUFF” ON FEB. 7 BUT OPTING TO “PLAY IT DOWN” AND MISLEAD AMERICANS. VOTE!

PROPOSING BLEACH AS A COVID CURE, MOCKING MASK-WEARING, HOSTING WHITE HOUSE SUPERSPREADER EVENT AND SUGGESTING ANTHONY FAUCI IS AN “IDIOT.” VOTE!

FROM GEORGE WILL:

“As the Donald Trump parenthesis in the republic’s history closes, he is opening the sluices on his reservoir of invectives and self-pity. A practitioner of crybaby conservatism — no one, he thinks, has suffered so much since Job lost his camels and acquired boils  — and ever a weakling, Trump will end his presidency as he began it: whining.

“His first day cloaked in presidential dignity he spent disputing photographic proof that his inauguration crowd was substantially smaller than his immediate predecessor’s.  Trump’s day of complaining continued at the CIA headquarters, at the wall commemorating those who died serving the agency. His presidency that began with a wallow in self-pity probably will end in ignominy when he slinks away pouting, trailing clouds of recriminations, without a trace of John McCain’s graciousness on election night 2008.”

So, to include, I say do what I already have done, which is to end the Trump lunacy.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

This morning, my blog consists of running intact a column by one of the best writers going, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George Bush whose columns now appear in the Washington Post.

In this one, he makes an excellent case against President Donald Trump as the president grovels and pants for a second term that we should not grant him.  Too much is at stake to allow a so-called reality TV show host to occupy the Oval Office.

And, by the way, on that point, I already have cast my ballot — and it was not hard to vote for Joe Biden.

Enough said, except for Gerson below.

**********

One of the most symbolic moments of campaign 2020 was when the apparatus of the Republican Party strained and groaned to produce a platform reading, “RESOLVED, That the Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”

It was, in its own content-free, witless way, an assertion of power. The party that had produced a platform every four years since 1856 had become, well, anything President Trump wished at the moment. It was a declaration and recognition of personal rule.

After nearly four years, it is fair to ask: With the GOP as putty in Trump’s hand, what form has it taken? What are the large, organizing commitments of the GOP during the Trump captivity?

One would have to be voter suppression. What began, for some, as an effort to ensure ballot security has become a campaign to control the content of the electorate by limiting its size.

Not long ago, I would have regarded this as conspiracy thinking. At some point, however, a pattern becomes a plot. There have been Republican efforts to make voting more difficult in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma. These have included: complicated absentee ballot processes, strict voter ID rules, obstacles for voters returning from prison, objections to the broad distribution of ballots and logistical obstacles to early voting. The Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, set the example of shamelessness by limiting vast counties to a single ballot drop box. The president has attempted to destroy trust in the whole electoral enterprise in preparation for legal challenges to mail-in votes.

Again and again, Republicans have used, or attempted to use, the power they gained from voters to undermine democracy. This has a political intention but (for some) it also has an ideological explanation. It is the logical electoral implication of nativism. If too much diversity is the cause of our national problems, it can be fought by restricting immigration or by restricting the democratic participation of minorities. In either case, these are actions motivated by Republican fears of being swamped by people they can’t relate to and voted into obsolescence. So the GOP seems to expend more energy and creativity on discouraging minority voting than it does on doing minority outreach.

The second characteristic of the new GOP is denial of a pandemic in the midst of a surging pandemic. Trump and many other Republicans think they can win only if American voters forget about more than 219,000 deaths from covid-19 and the utterly incompetent federal response to the crisis. It is hard to recall any American presidential campaign that depended so directly on the outbreak of mass amnesia.

Trump’s recent campaign visit to Wisconsin was remarkable for its brazenness. On a day Wisconsin saw its highest level of new infections during the pandemic, Trump told a crowd that had to be screened for coughs and fevers that the country was “rounding the corner” on covid-19 and that their state was insufficiently open. This is denial pressed to the point of lunacy. It is the elephant urging people to ignore the elephant in the room.

The third organizing commitment of the GOP under Trump is loyalty to his person. At the beginning of his term, there was a Republican attempt to understand the populism that elected Trump and draw its policy implications. That ended quickly. The president made clear that the only thing that really mattered about populism was its end product: himself.

Populist causes — such as discrediting the media and “owning the libs” — are instruments to protect Trump from attack and project his own power. His whole term has been the chaotic and brutish attempt to find the people who would take his whims as law. And elected Republicans (except the admirable Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah) have been ruled by the fear of Trump’s tweeted tantrums. As Trump seems headed toward electoral failure, a few Republicans are recovering their own voices. But it won’t be easy to escape this taint. Years of complicity with Trump’s assault on American institutions is less like a bad haircut than an infected tattoo.

Some would add a conservative judiciary to this list of GOP commitments, and there is a case to be made. But this is no longer advocated in the context of moral conservatism, as it was in the Reagan era. The goal now is to secure conservative judges from a morally anarchic administration. A cause has been reduced to a transaction.

What should we make of this GOP agenda: voter suppression, disease denial and a personality cult dedicated to a con man? It is the weakest appeal to the public of any modern presidential candidate. The Republican Party may win or lose. But it deserves to lose.

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.

We used to call it “bridging.” 

As in, bridging to what you want to say in an interview despite the questions being asked.

All of this came up again as I watched Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett endure two full days of questioning last week by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On occasion, she “bridged” to the information she wanted to provide no matter the question.  Often, this involved Democrat inquisitors who tried to trap Barrett into committing to positions on such hot-button political issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control.

She would have none of it and, after two days, emerged essentially unscathed, which will insure her confirmation in the next couple weeks.  Her bridge often went something like this:  I cannot render an opinion on an issue that stands to come before the Court where I would have to render a judgment based on the law, not politics.

Her likely confirmation will come before the presidential election, which irritates Senate Democrats who, if the situation were reversed, I contend but do not know, would do the same thing.  Exercise raw political power.

I thought of this in relation to the ways, during my career as a lobbyist, that I prepared for and helped clients get ready for tough interviews before a legislative committee, a TV camera, or a radio microphone.  In such cases for me, it always was important to make a list of the key points I wanted to make or that I advised my clients to make, then find a way myself or hoped my client would find a way to insert those points no matter the question that was asked by a legislator or a news reporter.

This worked for me, for example, when, I worked in executive positions for Oregon state government and represented the state in communications with the media, including interviews by newspaper, radio or TV reporters during a state employee strike. 

With such phrases as, “that’s a good question, but let me tell you what’s really at stake during the strike,” I often bridged from the question being asked to the answer I wanted to give on behalf of management. 

Not every time, mind you, because, if that was the case, I would come across as nothing more than a PR hack.

That can be the bad part about bridging.  If done repeatedly, it doesn’t work because it deflects any sense of honesty and candor, But, if used in balance and on occasion, it is a good strategy.

I was reminded of this when I read a column by David Von Drehle in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Here is part of what Von Drehle wrote:

“ Few political arts are more valuable than that of dodging questions. The wise leader understands that tomorrow is an enigma, next week a mystery and next month an unknowable country. Flexibility to react to new and changing circumstances is a priceless asset; it should not be squandered through excessive candor.  “If elected, will you . . . ” is almost always a trap, designed to pin the would-be decider to a fixed position.

“The non-answering of direct questions is a hot topic. Democrat senators spent much of the week grilling Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, but she zigged and zagged her way past the salvos. ​ Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden continued his dogged — though not at all graceful — dance around the question of whether he supports a plan to pack the high court.  Meanwhile, President Trump continued to avoid questions about his covid-19 tests or his tax returns as if they were bowls of quinoa and kale.”

American voters, Von Drehle wrote, are often willing to accept evasion as long as there’s a sense it serves some national purpose.

I agree.

But, as one person, let me add that I will often be one of those willing Americans to tolerate secrecy if it’s in what I believe to be the national interest.  Finally, my tolerance does not extent to Trump who has abused the oath of his office for more than three years now and, therefore, should not get another term.

Vote.

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.

Done.

My wife and I did our civic duty yesterday.

We voted at home and put our ballots in the mail so they would arrive easily on time.

It was a pleasure to perform this duty this time for at least one major reason:  We had the opportunity cast our votes for the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris presidential ticket.

It was not hard to do, considering the utter failure of the Trump presidency.

And, without any special markings, our vote for Biden/Harris amounted to the special privilege of casting a vote against the Donald Trump/Mike Pence ticket.

Here’s hoping a majority of Americans will join us to put an end to the Trump buffoonery.

All Americans deserve better in the highest political office in the land.

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.

If you follow politics, as I do, especially in retirement, it often can be a confounding process.  Who to listen to?  Who to trust?  Who can be counted on to for the good of the American people?

In the case of the presidential race, these questions are especially central to any decision.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Character matters in election decisions.

And Joe Biden has character.  Donald Trump has none.

Mail ballots for my wife and me arrived yesterday, which means we will vote soon.  We won’t mimic each other, a good and rational thing, but, on one vote, we’ll be the same.

We’ll both vote for Biden.

One of my favorite columnists, Michael Gerson, wrote a piece for the Washington Post this morning that appeared under this headline:

A conservative’s case for Biden

Now, I don’t label myself a conservative (because, for one reason, labels are so misused these days), but Gerson makes a great case for voting for Biden.  Rather than interpreting his words, I will simply reprint them here.

**********

The reasons for a traditional conservative to oppose President Trump’s reelection grow daily. There is his abdication of leadership in fighting the coronavirus pandemic; his active encouragement of citizens to adopt reckless and unhealthy behavior; his corruption of public institutions for political gain; his cultivation of right-wing extremism; his determined effort to undermine public confidence in an election he seems likely to lose.

All these are excellent reasons for people on the center right not to cast their vote for Trump. They do not, however, constitute a case for supporting Joe Biden. I have previously argued that the Democratic nominee’s pro-choice views should not be dispositive. But are there positive reasons for a moderate conservative to cast his or her vote for Biden?

One reason is merely strategic, but not unimportant. Because of the terrible damage Trump has done to the Republican Party, it is not enough for him to lose. He must lose in a fashion that constitutes repudiation. For the voter, this means that staying home on Election Day, or writing in Mitt Romney’s name, is not enough. She or he needs to vote in a manner that encourages a decisive Biden win. This theory also requires voting against all the elected Republicans who have enabled Trump (which is nearly all elected Republicans). A comprehensive Republican loss is the only way to hasten party reform. Those who love the GOP must (temporarily) leave it and ensure it is thoroughly defeated in its current form.

But this is still not a reason for a conservative to feel a glow of satisfaction after voting for Biden. He is, after all, a centrist Democrat, in a party where the ideological center of gravity has been moving steadily left. There is a case to be made, however, that the former vice president is well matched to our historical moment.

First, the restoration of institutions often requires the knowledge and skills of an insider. We have lived through the presidency of a defiant outsider who dismisses qualities such as professionalism and expertise as elitism. Trump assesses agencies within the executive branch by one criterion: Either they can be politically co-opted, or they deserve to be wrecked.

Much of the initial work of a Biden administration would be to de-Trumpify public institutions, restore their independence and integrity, and return competence to governance. This is true of the Justice Department, which is being politicized by a pathetic factotum. This is true of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, which Trump has infected with his biases and brutality.

It is true of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, which need to be restored as trusted sources of advice and information. It is true of the demoralized intelligence community and State Department. And it is true of the presidency itself, which Trump has turned into a stage for his obscene, playacted authoritarianism.

There is a reason why the uninspiring Gerald Ford was an inspired choice to follow Richard Nixon. Ford had been a respected legislator for a quarter of a century. As president, he knew the personnel choices and institutional rituals that would begin to restore credibility to politicized agencies. Biden has the background and capacity to do the same.

The second reason that Biden might be a good fit for our times concerns racial justice and criminal justice reform. Next to getting control of covid-19, these matters have the greatest political and social momentum. Racism is an ongoing challenge to America’s self-definition. And if all the marching and activism of the past several months comes to nothing, it will be another cause of social unrest.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Biden was criticized for straddling sides. He has a history of supporting the police, and a relationship of trust with the African American community. If there is going to be serious criminal justice reform at the federal level, it will require just such a leader. Biden has the background and capacity to become a bridge between law enforcement and those pushing for social justice.

Third, Biden is a reasonable progressive. The initial economic suffering from the pandemic overwhelmingly fell on low-wage and minority workers. Today we are experiencing a recovery that William Galston has called “the most unequal in modern history.” There are now more jobs for the top quarter of earners than before the covid-19 crisis. For the bottom quarter, jobs have dropped by more than 20 percent. Someone needs to be looking out for wage workers during an uneven recovery. Biden has the background and capability to play that role.

This would not be a sufficient case for me to support Biden over a serious Republican candidate. But in our choice between the arsonist and the institutionalist, the institutionalist has virtues of his own.

**********

So, Biden gets my vote.  And, in lesser form, so does Gerson for his thoughtful approach to making a case for Biden.

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.

With all that has happened over the last few days in Congress as senators have considered the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, why would I find it necessary to add my voice to the fray?

Well, the phrase that comes to the mind is the one Sir Edmund Hillary used when he was asked why he chose to climb Mt. Everest.  “Because it’s there,” he said.

So, with Hillary, I say I comment on Barrett’s nomination “because it’s there.”

Thus, these random perspectives:

• After hearing Barrett answer questions (or, in many cases, listen to 22 senators give 30 minute speeches for the cameras) for two days, I have huge respect for her intellect, her memory of the specifics of legal cases, and her ability to parry thrusts from Democrats out to demonize her as a threat to abortion, health care and same-sex marriage.
• If I were voting, I would support in a minute based on the excellence of her performance in the hot seat.
• At the same time, I have questions about the Republican push to achieve confirmation while the national election is under way.  It’s an example of the political power Republicans have.  And they are using it.
• Further, I posit that, if Democrats were in charge in the Senate and had the presidency, they would do the same thing.
• One of my friends told me the other that the Democrats-would-do-the-same was supposition and that there was no example of when they had so acted.  Yet, yesterday, I thought of one.  It was when the Democrats enacted ObamaCare without a single Republican vote.  Why?  Because they could.
• Further, regarding Barrett.  She is a clearly a person of high character who lives out her commitment to religious faith and family.  Both are credentials for serving on the highest court in the land.
• It was striking to see her family – husband and six children – sitting behind her in the Senate chamber.  They were all masked, illustrating a commitment to limiting the virus.  Two of her children were adopted from Haiti.  A seventh child, one with Down’s Syndrome, was home with caregivers.  What a great model for women in this country who saw a great example of the combination of family, faith and professional acumen.
•  Watching the proceedings over the last couple days was an experience in understanding how government works – and, specifically, the key differences between the Legislative Branch that makes policy and the Judicial Branch that interprets the meaning of that policy.  That’s why Barrett, like many Supreme Court nominees before her, refused to commit to policy predictions, though Democrats tried to lay traps for her.  Good for her to avoid them.

In sum, it would be easy for me to vote for Barrett given her credentials and, to me, character matters.  At the same time, I have questions about the decision to hold the confirmation process during an election.

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.

NOTE:  This is an old health care blog, but one worth repeating.  Plus, in light of the fact that ObamaCare now exists and has done some good work, a point I make below is that now is the time to work to improve it, not work to toss it out.  And, as I write this, the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is under way in Washington, D.C.  ObamaCare has been a central tenet of that process illustrating that Democrats believe Barrett wants to gut the law.  To her credit, Judge Barrett, appropriately, has declined to predict how should would rule on such a case when one comes to the Court, but she also stresses she is not an enemy of ObamaCare.

**********

One recent news development prompts me to go into my “archives” (no, there is no real archive, just my own random files) to see what I wrote about health care many months ago.

As mentioned in the note agove, the development is the confirmation hearing for the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court.  Critics on the Senate Committee conducting her confirmation hearing have tried to paint her as a direct threat to ObamaCare, earlier known as the Affordable Care Act.

Other issues have been raised – especially abortion – but the future of ObamaCare has been central to proceedings.

As I watched much of the process on-line (remember, I am retired, so don’t have much else to do), I found myself marveling at Judge Barrett’s ability, with skill, distinction and honesty, to avoid traps laid by some Senate Democrats.  They wanted to depict her as an enemy of health care by getting her to commit to getting rid of ObamaCare, and she would have none of it.

So it was that I went to my archives.

A number of months ago, under this headline – What Could Constitute Middle-of-the-Road Health Care Reform – I wrote that I felt it was important for me to have suggestions about reform, not just criticisms of ObamaCare.

I also said a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve a challenge such as what to do about health care for Americans.  A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration as it developed what came to be called ObamaCare, or in contrast to Republicans in Congress who have no alternatives, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

In today’s confirmation hearing, Senator John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas, put it very well when he said Congress – and he included himself in his indictment – had not done its job well by producing ObamaCare law.  In fact, he said Members of Congress don’t even see legislative language as they delegate the writing task to staff.

If, he contended, Congress had developed the exact language of health care policy and set out to build a strong and bi-partisan consensus for it, health care policy would not be as contentious as it is today.

For that failure, he blamed both Republicans and Democrats.

All parties should endeavor to do what did not occur with ObamaCare, which was developed by one side behind closed doors.  The plan gave bureaucrats control of health care and represented, to many, the  irst step down a slippery slope toward a single payer health care system that would bankrupt the federal treasury, if it is not already bankrupt.

Senior Democrats crafted ObamaCare in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues—much less Republicans.  And the final vote was taken even before many of those who voted had even read the legislation.

 It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress – and, yes, there are some, perhaps a minority, but “some” nonetheless.

And, I believe the middle ground solution should include involvement from government and the private sector

If Republicans in Congress would participate in an effort to produce solid reform, instead of just carping about ObamaCare, our country would be better for the effort.  That would require a change of heart and mind on the part of Republicans.  Work toward the smart middle instead of just saying no routinely.

And, of course, Democrats would have to participate fully in the process.

So, borrowing, in part, ideas from the American Enterprise Institute, not just my own notions, here are what I called several months ago “four legs of the health care stool.” 

1.  It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse.   The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

THINK OF IT THIS WAY.  ALL OF US WHO DRIVE CARS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE.  IF WE DON’T, WE PAY A PRICE.  THE SAME POLICY SHOULD EXIST FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.

2.  Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written:  “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3.  Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions.  Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.  And, I support covering pre-existing conditions even if it costs me more money to do so.

4.  Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA).  ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

While I am not advocating this specifically as part of my proposal, I believe consideration also should be given to deregulating the market for medical services.

As I wrote above, HSAs will empower the demand side of the market, but suppliers need freedom from overly-aggressive regulation to provide packages of services better tailored to individual needs.

Hospitals and physicians should also be allowed to sell access to their networks of clinics, oncology services, and inpatient facilities as an option to be used in the event a patient is diagnosed with an expensive illness.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on government mandates and funding. Along with government health care, including Medicare and Medicaid, a functioning private marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

I hope those involved in Congress and the Administration will move to consider real health care from and then build consensus behind it .  At the same time, because ObamaCare is in place, the best solution is to build on it, not tear it down. 

Now is the time to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families.  A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable, long-term reform.