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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Appearing, of all places, on Saturday Night Live, incoming Member of Congress Dan Crenshaw made a compelling case for a new way of behaving, both in Congress and in life.

First, before describing his “new way,” here’s just a bit of background.

Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, was wounded in Afghanistan, enough so that he lost one eye and wears an eye patch.

During the recent mid-term election, Saturday Night Live comedian Pete Davidson thought he would take a jab at Crenshaw. He mocked Crenshaw’s appearance — “he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever.” Then, Davidson added that Crenshaw looked like a “hit man in a porno movie.”

Too far? Yes.

SNL got a huge number of texts and other social media message condemning Davidson’s brazen, not comedic, comments.

That prompted SNL producers to invite Crenshaw to appear on the show to set the record straight. With some misgivings – the format was not one made for him – Crenshaw eventually agreed.

So, on to Crenshaw’s “new way.”

In a Washington Post piece, Crenshaw adds: “…I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: Outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion — daily.

“Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now?”

Crenshaw added, perceptively, I think, that “there are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals — economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. — are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them.”

Crenshaw asks how we live together in this world of differing ideas?

“For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.

“Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

“When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it.”

Imagine if Crenshaw’s ideas took hold in Congress. We’d have a better Congress, one intent on doing the public’s business, not on ridiculing the other side, no matter the subject – and ridicule that focuses on the person, not the ideas.

Maybe, Crenshaw says, “we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.”

There’s that word again – civility. I agree with Crenshaw — let’s add that dimension to our public policy debates – not left, not right, but civil.

And, this footnote: Of course, a new way of behaving in Congress won’t matter much if – or when – Donald Trump continues acting like a buffoon, lobbing huge criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with him and displaying his narcissist credentials. Note to Crenshaw and others in Congress – ignore 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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The statement in the headline may come across as a bit gruff, but, in this day of political name-calling, it is likely to be true.

Not my wish. My prediction.

There is at least one notable required exception to this prediction for gridlock and disagreement. It is this:

The Oregon Constitution requires legislators to develop a balanced budget before they leave the Capitol at the end of any legislative session.

Note the word “balance.”

Most of us don’t associate the word with what happens in Washington, D.C. as Members of Congress develop a budget. What’s more, they don’t always develop an approved budget, which balances revenue with expenditures.

In Oregon, the word balance means that revenue must equal expenses. Must.

After a legislative session, when lawmakers are ready to leave Salem about late June or early July, the two-year budget they leave behind must be in balance.

This is achieved, among other things, by creating a joint committee to work all session on the budget. It is called the Joint Committee on Ways and Means and, in this case, the word joint means two things – that both Republicans and Democrats sit on it, and that membership includes both representatives and senators.

Usually, legislative committees are tied to one chamber, either the House or the Senate. They may have members of both parties, but not both chambers.

With Joint Ways and Means, the implication is that smart legislators – yes, there are some left – take all session to work on the budget, not just the last few weeks when tempers are short and pressure is on.

A few years ago, my friend, then Oregon House Speaker Larry Campbell, threatened to split the Joint Ways and Means Committee into one House committee and one Senate committee. All that would have done is postpone the inevitable – approving a balanced budget in accord with the State Constitution.

The good news is that Campbell’s threat never became reality and he probably realized it was a foolhardy move.

My view is that creating more joint committees – Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate members – would be one way to assure that legislators work together to find middle ground. Of course, you also might have to consider imposing a constitutional requirement to reach agreement on issues beyond the budget, which, admittedly, would be very difficult.

But something must be done because, at the moment, apart from the balanced budget requirement, the Oregon Legislature is heading down the road to becoming like Congress – in two ways. One is that those in charge – in Oregon, the Democrats are in charge everywhere – impose their will on the other side, often without even the barest form of consultation.

For an example – this time in Congress — look at the Affordable Care Act, commonly called ObamaCare. It passed without one Republican vote, which one of my friends would say shows that Republicans only know how to say “no.” For me, what it shows that the party in charge imposes its will.

The second implication for Oregon is that those who win election usually start running for re-election as soon as they get into office. There is a permanent campaign, with little, if any, support for the business of governing.

My idea – joint committees on all issues, not just the budget – won’t be enacted, but I suggest it because, as I wrote earlier, something must be done. Otherwise, we’ll face an Oregon Legislature that functions much like Congress that would not good for anyone.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The exclamation in the headline pertains to a great weekend for me, one from which I just returned, but the memories will stay with me for a lifetime.

I had the privilege to head up to Woodinville, Washington at the request of my 10-year-old granddaughter, Kate, to be part of a grade school assembly where she, as an officer in her class, played one of the leading roles in a program to honor the nation’s veterans.

I am one, though I “only” served for six years in the U.S. Army Reserve, which my friends with more distinguished military service records said still counts for veteran status.

When your granddaughter asks for a favor, you don’t say no!

So, I was glad to head up north for what I assumed would be a relatively routine weekend. But, then, I encountered surprise after surprise.

Here’s a rundown:

• When I arrived at Wellington Grade School, my granddaughter said she wanted me, as a veteran, to join a parade with her to go into the gymnasium. We joined about 50 other veterans and their families to parade into the gym to thunderous applause, as we introduced ourselves and provided connections to a student at the school.
• Kate then proceeded to join two other students to serve as masters-of-ceremonies for a very impressive event, the most impressive one I have seen at any grade school in too many years of life to mention.
• Every student in the school participated in the assembly, often joining their voices in song to honor America.  The longest serving veteran at the assembly, by the way, was a gentleman whose service dated back to World War II. For me, it was back to the Vietnam war era, though as reservist, I did not go in-country in what was a devastating war, one from which many persons my age, including several personal friends, have never fully recovered.
• The large crowd in the gymnasium stood as one when a color guard from the University of Washington ROTC program presented the colors, marching in lockstep down the floor to plant the American flag. While everyone stood, a number of veterans in uniform saluted.
• In song after song over the next hour, the students expressed their allegiance to America. My wife and I could not help but notice that many of the students were children of immigrants, which tempts me to make a political statement or two, but, for now at least, I’ll refrain in order to emphasize the impressive character of a student body acting as one to honor America and those who served.
• After the assembly, another surprise for me. Along with my wife, Nancy, and my daughter, Lissy, we visited Kate’s class. The teacher there, Jeff Booth, was more than impressive. I have only seen one person in my life – my daughter-in-law, Holly Fiskum – who is able to work so much magic with grade schoolers.
• After reading parts of a book to the class, with entertainment-level diction and huge vocal expression, which had the students spellbound (me, too), Jeff asked me to come up and sit in the “hot seat.” Not knowing what was about to occur, I took my place and the class proceeded to sing happy birthday to me in two languages – English and Spanish. [Yes, my birthday was on November 2.]
• Jeff then proceeded to ask me about my military service. His question gave me an opportunity to emphasize, not my own service, but how important it is or all Americans – young and old alike — to consider volunteering in service to your country – either in the military or in life. As an aside, my granddaughter is vice president for philanthropy for her class, a role that asks her to lead various helping-hand services. A great learning experience for all the students.
• One of the students in the class nearly brought me to tears when, as I was leaving, he brought me a spontaneous gift – a drawing he had made with his own hand. Clearly, a keepsake for me!

I came away from the weekend experience with a renewed appreciation and respect for those who work in our classrooms, as well as for the students who, with a wonderful, Pied-Piper-like teacher, appear to eager to learn.

I also came away with huge appreciation for the commitment of students and teachers alike to express their love for America a day or two ahead of Veterans’ Day – and particularly to those men and women alike who have sacrificed to serve.

That’s one great weekend!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

The exclamation in the headline pertains to a great weekend for me, one from which I just returned, but the memories will stay with me for a lifetime.

I had the privilege to head up to Woodinville, Washington at the request of my 10-year-old granddaughter, Kate, to be part of a grade school assembly where she, as an officer in her class, played one of the leading roles in a program to honor the nation’s veterans.

I am one, though I “only” served for six years in the U.S. Army Reserve, which my friends with more distinguished military service records said still counts for veteran status.

When your granddaughter asks for a favor, you don’t say no!

So, I was glad to head up north for what I assumed would be a relatively routine weekend. But, then, I encountered surprise after surprise.

Here’s a rundown:

• When I arrived at Wellington Grade School, my granddaughter said she wanted me, as a veteran, to join a parade with her to go into the gymnasium. We joined about 50 other veterans and their families to parade into the gym to thunderous applause, as we introduced ourselves and provided connections to a student at the school.
• Kate then proceeded to join two other students to serve as masters-of-ceremonies for a very impressive event, the most impressive one I have seen at any grade school in too many years of life to mention.
• Every student in the school participated in the assembly, often joining their voices in song to honor America.  The longest serving veteran at the assemblyu, by the way, was a gentleman whose service dated back to World War II. For me, it was back to the Vietnam war era, though as reservist, I did not go in-country in what was a devastating war, one from which many persons my age, including several personal friends, have never fully recovered.
• The large crowd in the gymnasium stood as one when a color guard from the University of Washington ROTC program presented the colors, marching in lockstep down the floor to plant the American flag. While everyone stood, a number of veterans in uniform saluted.
• In song after song over the next hour, the students expressed their allegiance to America. My wife and I could not help but notice that many of the students were children of immigrants, which tempts me to make a political statement or two, but, for now at least, I’ll refrain in order to emphasize the impressive character of a student body acting as one to honor America and those who served.
• After the assembly, another surprise for me. Along with my wife, Nancy, and my daughter, Lissy, we visited Kate’s class. The teacher there, Jim Booth, was more than impressive. I have only seen one person in my life – my daughter-in-law, Holly Fiskum – who is able to work so much magic with grade schoolers.
• After reading parts of a book to the class, with entertainment-level diction and huge vocal expression, which had the students spellbound (me, too), Jim asked me to come up and sit in the “hot seat.” Not knowing what was about to occur, I took my place and the class proceeded to sing happy birthday to me in two languages – English and Spanish. [Yes, my birthday was on November 2.]
• Jim then proceeded to ask me about my military service. His question gave me an opportunity to emphasize, not my own service, but how important it is or all Americans – young and old alike — to consider volunteering in service to your country – either in the military or in life. As an aside, my granddaughter is vice president for philanthropy for her class, a role that asks her to lead various helping-hand services. A great learning experience for all the students.
• One of the students in the class nearly brought me to tears when, as I was leaving, she brought me a spontaneous gift – a drawing she had made with her own hand. Clearly, a keepsake for me!

I came away from the weekend experience with a renewed appreciation and respect for those who work in our classrooms, as well as for the students who, with a wonderful, Pied-Piper-like teacher, appear to eager to learn.

I also came away with huge appreciation for the commitment of students and teachers alike to express their love for America a day or two ahead of Veterans’ Day – and particularly to those men and women alike who have sacrificed to serve.

That’s one great weekend!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

In the aftermath of an often-angry mid-term election, it’s hard to know what’s next for health care policy directions, even though many election prognosticators suggested that results turned on health care issues.

Over the last few days, I have engaged in interesting, not to mention friendly, discussions with a friend of mine who favors a single payer system. I don’t because, if nothing else, I believe such a system would bankrupt the country, or, at least, bankrupt other important federal responsibilities.

Does that mean nothing can be done? No.

There is much that can be done, but one of my notions, in the aftermath of the election, is that not much is likely happen in Congress where leadership will be split between Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate.

Plus, we’ll be stuck for at least two more years with a buffoon in the White House.

I wish reasonable minds in Congress – yes, there are some – could get together to craft an approach from the middle. Not Obamacare, which garnered only Democrat votes when it passed several years ago. Not the Republican alternative because there wasn’t an idea other than overturning ObamaCare.

Given all this, when I suggested to my friend that federal inaction would leave room for state initiatives, he was skeptical. Here is what he wrote in an e-mail to me:

“You and I know this cannot be solved at the state level. It has to be imposed by Congress to have the leverage and mandates required for a successful scheme. Universality is not just a desired feature, it is an absolute must to work. Wish it could be resolved locally but I think that is a fool’s mission.”

Point made.

But, still, I hold out hope that legislators in a state like Oregon could develop something useful. The state has a tradition of finding middle ground on various health care issues, though the main leader, former governor John Kitzhaber, is no longer in the game, at least from the standpoint of holding a public office.

As an aside, there have been reports that Kitzhaber is trying to get back into the health care policy game, not by holding public office, but by making health care speeches, though usually not in Oregon. My view is that, if he were to insert himself more directly into the Oregon debate, he would turn off many who believe, at best, that his time has passed.

If true, that leaves room for other leaders to emerge.

With the Democrats in super-majority control of both the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate, it is not clear that leaders will define health care as a major issue. One wag suggested this will be true because the Ds will be more interested in passing new, higher taxes than crafting policy in such areas as health care.

I say, who knows?

But, while this may be plowing some old ground, I add that I have thought about the health care debate in the past and wanted – both then and now – to have ideas to drown the accusation that centrists like me have nothing to propose. So, here goes.

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, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. While the analogy could break down, 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. Any plan 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, to put a point on it, controversy over pre-existing conditions roiled many recent election races for seats in Congress. Many Ds alleged that Rs were out to leave those with pre-existing conditions out in the cold. It wasn’t necessarily true, but with political advertising, truth is a feeble goal.

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, not government mandates.

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 governmental mandates and funding, a problem that would be exacerbates by a single payer system along the lines of what socialist senator Bernie Sanders is advocating.

A functioning marketplace, with even-handed federal government oversight, can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

Well, that’s my opening gambit. If my wife read this, as she often does, she would add another proposal…this: Every citizen who owes taxes should pay those taxes, which, like the expanded insurance pool option, would help to fund real health care reform. By “everyone,” she includes the current occupant of the Oval Office and, at the moment, knows whether he pays taxes or, at least, how much he pays.

So, I say let the health care debate begin – both in Salem and in Washington, D.C.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 have managed to have several more thoughts about the just-completed election, in part because I am not watching political ads anymore. My thoughts are these:

• If you wonder if there are still “two-Oregons,” wonder no more. There still are two.
• If you wonder whether the urban-rural divide in Oregon occurs nationally, wonder no more. It does.
• If you wonder whether those who won can get about the business of turning from campaigning to governing, keep wondering. We won’t know until we see or don’t see results.

A bit more on each of these thoughts.

THE TWO OREGONS: Back 20 years or so ago when I served as deputy director on the Oregon Economic Development Department, now called Business Oregon, I saw both Oregons. It was far easier to recruit new companies to urban areas than to rural Oregon.

IF there was a role for government – not always the case — it also was easier to help urban companies to expand than it was to assist companies in rural Oregon.

Then, when I worked as a private sector lobbyist for 25 years, I saw the Two Oregons from a political perspective. Almost to a person, Democrats represented urban Oregon and Republicans represented rural Oregon.

They couldn’t see anything from the other’s perspective. Nor, could urban legislators conceive of issues in rural Oregon. And the reverse was true, as well.

Consider this new fact.

Democrat Kate Brown, in her victory over Republican challenger, Knute Buehler, won only five counties — Multnomah, Washington, Clatsop, Lincoln, Lane, Benton. Yet, the margin in those areas was enough to offset the fact that Buehler won everywhere else in Oregon – and couldn’t pull enough urban votes in those five counties.

THE NATIONAL URBAN-RURAL DIVIDE: According to the Wall Street Journal, the mid-term elections brought to a head a decades-long realignment of the U.S.’s major political parties, with Democrats winning contests in and around major cities while Republicans carried rural and small-town America.

“Just as rural white voters fled the Democratic Party after Mr. Obama took office,” the Journal reported, “educated suburbanites abandoned the GOP after President Trump’s election. Those trends continued Tuesday, and will not only alter the governing coalitions in Washington but also will change how and where candidates engage with the American electorate.”

One of the tests for those now in office in the Nation’s Capitol will be whether they can find strategies and tactics to bridge the urban-rural divide. Or, whether they will even want to do so.

Specifically, it will be interesting to see what role Republican Congressman Greg Walden carves out for himself, now that he will be in the minority in the U.S. House. One of my reliable sources in Bend, which is in Walden’s district, said Walden will survive well because he knows how to work both sides of the political aisle.

CAMPAIGNING VS. GOVERNING: Given the character of campaigns these days – acrimony, harsh words, negative advertising – it is logical to wonder whether those who won can get about the business of governing. With what some have called “the permanent campaign,” it is easy to predict more gridlock.

If there are stills in campaigning, those skills don’t translate well to governing.

In Oregon, Democrats ran the political table in the election, winning the Governor’s Office again and attaining super-majorities in both the House and Senate. That means they will be able to do just what they want to do without paying much attention to the minority Republicans.

Whether the Ds will find a way to work on policy in a bi-partisan fashion remains to be seen. But, in at least one issue – balancing the State of Oregon budget – the Ds and Rs have no option other than to find the smart middle.

The Oregon Constitution requires a balanced budget and, at the Capitol, the budget-making committee, which is called the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, is a joint committee in two ways – joint meaning, (1) that Democrats and Republicans are members, and (2) that members of the House and Senate serve together.

Perhaps there is a lesson there on other issues.

As citizens, not to mention voters, it’s worth keeping our eyes on these and other issues as campaigning turns to governing…at least that is an aspiration.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

It’s always risky to make – or, in this case, to post – election impressions hard upon seeing the final results. But, for me, from my post in the cheap seats, there is not really much risk, if only because a few people will care what I think about the 2018 mid-term election.

So, here in the spirit of retired late night show host David Letterman, is my Top 10 List from an Oregon perspective:

1. Democrats ran in the table in Oregon. They’ll be in charge nearly everywhere except, again, for most parts of rural Oregon.
2. Democrat Kate Brown easily won over Republican challenger, Knute Buehler, preserving a decades-long tradition of Ds in the governor’s office. In recent elections, quality Republican candidates such as Ron Saxton and Chris Dudley couldn’t the job done. This time, another credible candidate, Buehler, lost. Early reports indicate that Brown won only a handful of counties, but won by large enough margins in Multnomah and Lane Counties, plus Portland, to pull off the victory.

[The last Republican to hold the governor’s chair was the late Victor Atiyeh who found a way to campaign and govern from the middle. I had the privilege of working with and for him for several years. It’s been 35 years since a Republican held the governor’s office.]

3. To win, Brown had to overcome challenges to her ability to take the lead on major state issues, including K-12 education and homelessness. She did. Plus, she raised a lot of money to offset huge donations to Buehler from Nike CEO Phil Knight.
4. Super-majorities in the Oregon House and Oregon Senate will allow Democrats to work their will on tax increases, with the only buffer being that such increases could be initiated to the ballot.
5. The D inclination to raise taxes gained additional traction when a ballot measure — #104 – went down to a clear defeat. It would have increased the number of issues subject to the three-fifths majority vote requirement.
6. Totals for Democrats, as they usually operate from the left of center, illustrate that Oregonians appear again to support big government and the potential for more government.
7. Oregon’s congressional delegation will remain the same, which is not necessarily a surprise, though both Representative Greg Walden, R-Oregon, and Representative Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, had to fend off challenges – Walden from the left and DeFazio from the right.
8. One of the congressional winners in Oregon was Representative Kurt Schrader, D-Oregon, which is good news for me for two reasons: (1) I know Schrader well from my days lobbying when he served in the legislature and he always conducted himself with courtesy and distinction, and (2) he is a Member of Congress who hews toward the middle on issues, which is often where the best solutions lie.
9. I usually refrain from the business of attributing election victories to a certain categories – urban women, vocal suburban interests, conservative men – because those labels ignore the differences between and among members of those groups. But, in Oregon, in the demography vs. geography debate, at least one fact is again clear: There are two Oregons – an urban area and a rural Oregon. Folks who live in those areas don’t think like those from the other area, nor do they vote like it. That’s why, again, almost all of those who represent rural Oregon in the Legislature will be Republicans. Almost all of those who represent urban Oregon will be Democrats.
10. So, did what happen in Oregon last night constitute a repudiation of President Donald Trump, given his bombastic character and tendency not to tell the truth about much of anything? No surprise here. The answer is yes. But we knew that going in. A majority of Oregonians have opposed Trump all along and, while Trump was not an issue in most election races here, he would have lost had he been on the ballot.

For me, one of the main questions in the aftermath of any election is this: Will those who campaigned find a way to govern?

In their thoughtful article, the “Mindsets of Political Compromise,” two authors (Amy Guttman from the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson from Harvard University) say the likely answer is no.

“The increasing incursion of campaigning into governing – the ‘permanent campaign’ – encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise difficult…The resistance to democratic compromise is anchored in what we call an uncompromising mindset, a cluster of attitudes and arguments that encourage standing on principle and mistrusting opponents.”

Further, my view is that the very nature of campaigning these days – calling your opponent vile names and criticizing every proposal from the other side as not worth the time of day – is beyond what we used to call “campaigning.”

The character makes it even more difficult to find common ground in the business of governing.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

This – the Just Saying Department — is a new one I run because I am doing well with the others which gives me enough time to create a new enterprise.  The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of Bits and Pieces.  I am the director of each, with full and complete authority to do what I think needs to be done, without regard to the perspectives of others, though it is important to add that I benefit from the well-written perspectives of my favorite newspaper columnists.

In the case of the new department, I will point out what, for me, are basic questions swirling around life these days.  The cases will begin with the phrase “there ought to be a law,” then will end with a usual post-script  – “Just saying.”

CASE #1: There ought to be a law against using the word PROGRESSIVE when it does not deserve to be used, such as in relating to persons, who, on a political spectrum, new to the left, often the far left.

The word conveys contains far more positive impressions than the left deserves.

You are a progressive – so that means you want to move forward, to progress. But, when the term is used to describe politicians on the left, moving forward is one of the last things they want to do.

Let’s limit the use of the word progressive to instances where it is deserved.

Just saying.

CASE #2: There ought to be a law about what words you can use in the TITLES OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION as they being moving through the process in Salem or Washington. D.C.

If you are an elected representative intent on passing a piece of legislation, you want to attach a name that will achieve at least two objectives: First, it will roll off the tongue in order to be memorable, and, second, it will convey a positive image.

Consider one example – the “Affordable Care Act,” which came to be known, perhaps a bit derisively, as ObamaCare.

To put a point on it – whatever else it was, it was not and is not affordable.

Just saying.

CASE #3: There ought to be a law against using the word NEGATIVE when you get a call from your medical provider reporting results of your recent test.

Here’s the likely sentence: “Hello, Mr. Fiskum, I want to report to you that your test was negative.”

When I hear that, I flinch.

There are at least two meanings for the word negative. One, in medical parlance, is that the tests do not show anything negative, thus the report that “they were negative.”

In everyday usage, however, the word negative can mean something else. It can mean that there is something bad or foreboding to report to you about your test.

I know the medical professionals mean well and are just doing their job. But perhaps a better phrase, if there is nothing bad to report, would be:  “I have good news about your recent test.  There is nothing wrong.”

Just saying.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

This topic came to mind earlier this week as I read a story in one of my favorite golf magazines, Links. It detailed what the author called the “Five Toughest Walks in Golf.”

A summary of the five appears below, but it got to me to thinking about tough walks on golf courses I have played in Oregon.

Two stand out.

• One is The Oregon Club in West Linn, a track designed by Oregon’s own, Peter Jacobsen.
• The other is Chehalem Glenn in Newberg, a public facility that says it is one of the most difficult courses in Oregon measured by what golf uses to make such measurements – “slope and rating.”

There may be other tough walking courses in Oregon, but, for me, these two rank as the toughest, so much so that, if I have a choice, I will not play them again. There are so many excellent courses in Oregon that allow, if not encourage, walking, so why, I ask, go places where walking is so difficult.

Here is a bit more information on both courses, along with a memory or two from my own experience.

The 18-hole Oregon Golf Club was designed jointly by Ken Kavanaugh and Peter Jacobsen. It measures 7,052 yards from the longest tees and has a slope rating of 145 and a 74.8 USGA rating. The course features six sets of tees for different skill levels.

But all those statistics don’t tell the whole story. The course is built on a series of hills in the West Linn, which make it a tough walk. When the Fred Meyer Challenge was based there for several years, I always was impressed by the fact that the late Arnold Palmer, then an “old golfer,” managed to walk the entire 18.

Of course, he had a caddy to carry his big, but, still, a tough walk. And the last hole, #18, goes uphill for its entire length.

The other tough walking course, Chehalem Glenn, is nowhere near as good a course as The Oregon Club. It, too, is built on hills, this time west of Portland.

Further, as is the case with some other courses, there often are long walking distances between a green and the next tee. Here’s an on-line description of the course:

“Chehalem Glenn Golf Club sprawls across beautifully hilly terrain, providing a course that is not for the faint of heart. The course is defined by the dramatic changes in elevation, which can make it tough to walk. The steep hills make this a tough golf course even for high handicappers. Uphill, downhill, and side-hill lies abound and you’ll also face forced carries to narrow landing areas as well as blind layup shots. The more open front nine is player friendly and the back nine is where it gets tougher with mostly tree-lined holes and more strategically placed bunkers. The golf course is as scenic as it is challenging with elevated tees and greens that overlooks the surrounding hills and valleys.”

For me, the trouble with Chehalem Glenn is the hills, some of them extreme. They make for tough landing areas for your golf ball, not to mention for your next stance.

The first time I played the course with my golfing buddy from Salem, Dick Haglund, we did take a golf cart, so, obviously, we weren’t walking, but still, to put a point it, “it was a difficult ride.”

With options for other courses in the area, Dick and I decided then and there to try to avoid Chehalem Glenn in the future.

For all the hilly, Northwest beauty of The Oregon Club and Chehelem Glenn, my view is that there are better options, especially if you want to do an important golf two-step – have fun and play well.

As for the Links Magazine, it rates the toughest walks around the country as:

PIKEWOOD NATIONAL/You can’t help but take a few minutes to admire the views from the highest points at Pikewood National, which not only sits atop a mesa in the mountains near Morgantown, West Virginia, but has been continually climbing in national course rankings. The panoramic pit stops aren’t just because you’re treated to views of three states – Pennsylvania and Maryland as well as West Virginia – but also because you’ll probably need to take the occasional breather during your round.

Pikewood National is regarded as one of the most challenging courses in the U.S., with a 155 slope rating, a 78.9 USGA course rating and a brutal 109.4 bogey rating from its championship tees. It’s also one of the toughest walks in golf – a 9-mile hike up and down a mountain; and that’s if you’re hitting it straight. The course, which is spread over 650 acres and features elevation changes of hundreds of feet in just a few holes, is as taxing physically as it is on your scorecard.

BETHPAGE BLACK/There’s a sign just behind the first tee at Bethpage State Park’s Black Course warning that the layout, a two-time U.S. Open site, is an extremely difficult course and should be reserved for highly skilled golfers only. There should probably also be a disclaimer on the sign about how challenging it is to walk the A.W. Tillinghast-designed course that takes on the rough-and-tough personality befitting its New York location. There are plenty of golfers who won’t play the Black because of its walking-only nature. Fairly substantial elevation changes are found on almost half of the holes, including a handful of memorable climbs. Among them is the approach to the green at the 15^th hole, one of the hardest par-4s in the game. Several years ago, I was playing the Black with a good friend who, winded (and humbled) after the hike up the hill at No. 15 and over to the 16^th tee box, plopped down on a bench and said simply, “Never again will I play this (bleeping) course.” He would, of course… because it’s a taxing, yet utterly intoxicating stroll in the park.

CHAMBERS BAY/The first thing you’ll notice on the drive into Chambers Bay, which was built in an old sand and gravel mine on the Puget Sound outside Seattle, is the sheer size and scale of the layout and its topography. Course architect Robert Trent Jones Jr. has proudly boasted that the walking-only links-inspired layout is a 10-mile hike, with more than 600 feet of elevation change and significant distances between greens and the next tee. The views are spectacular – from the sparkling waterfront to the snow-capped Olympic Mountain range – and the steep climbs are equally impressive. When the U.S. Open was held at Chambers Bay in 2015, then USGA executive director Mike Davis described the course as an “endurance test,” and other tournament organizers said it would test both the physical and mental capabilities of competitors. If you go, bring comfortable shoes, and possibly a Sherpa.

I have played Chambers Bay several times and have vowed not to make a special trip to do so again. I also was there for the U.S. Open a couple years ago and, without trying to come across as a golf course architect, I thought the course was not worthy of hosting an open. It also has a links style, but, for me, it was, at best, a faint imitation of real links-style courses in Scotland.

WHISTLING STRAITS/Sculpted into two miles of uninterrupted shoreline of Lake Michigan in Kohler, Wisconsin, Whistling Straits can be an unforgiving brute. Designer Pete Dye isn’t known for his warm and fuzzy layouts, but if a golfer is errant on The Straits, which has roughly 1,000 sand bunkers, an already challenging walk can quickly become grueling. When looking at the bluffs and massive sand dunes, it’s hard to conceive that the site in the 1950s was flat farmland used by the U.S. Army as an anti-aircraft training facility. More than 7,000 truckloads of sand – approximately 105,000 cubic yards – were brought in to create the rugged, windswept terrain seen today that’s hosted three PGA Championships. You may need to be as sure-footed as the Scottish Black Sheep that call Whistling Straits home.

ERIN HILLS/The first time the USGA’s Mike Davis saw Erin Hills in Wisconsin, the site of the 2017 U.S. Open, he said it looked like Shinnecock Hills on steroids. The brawny course is routed over the kettle moraine areas left by receding glaciers that formed the property’s rolling and undulating terrain. A walking-only course on 652 acres, Erin Hills is immense in scale. While you don’t have to play the tees that made it the second-longest U.S. Open course in history, you’ll still have many substantial walks past those other teeing grounds. And plenty of golfers have talked about the shin splints they’ve experienced after tackling the course’s uphill approach shots. The website for Erin Hills says to plan on a 4 hour, 55 minute round, and when the wind is blowing – and it often is – the walk can feel even more exhausting.

For me, I feel forever privileged to be able to play my home course in Salem, Illahe Hills, which, to put a twist on a common golf quote, “is a good work not spoiled.” I play Illahe to my heart’s content and I mean that in two ways – golf is a great past-time, plus it helps my heart.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Everyone wants better health care and that includes me as I have traversed the present system so many times in recent years.

In this country, the health care solution, whatever it could be, appears out of reach. Political leaders can’t find the middle ground.

The best approach would be for smart people on both – or all – sides of the political aisle, to gather around a table (yes, make it a round one) and devise a solution from the middle.

If you are involved, leave your biases at the door. Come prepared with your best ideas worthy of consideration, not absolute adoption. Purpose to give something and get something in the transaction, the true definition of compromise in politics.

Republicans become good as just saying no. Democrats advocate for huge government solutions.

Where do the two meet? Nowhere.

All of this came back to my mind this week as a read a piece in the Wall Street Journal by James Freeman who writes about issues from the perspective of what he sees on the Internet.

This time, he is seeing what he calls “BernieCare.”

Freeman starts this way:

“Former President Barack Obama doesn’t draw crowds the way he used to do. But Democrats are fortunate to have another political rock star hitting the trail for candidates in swing-state races. And just like the former President, he’s giving voters inaccurate information about his plans for their health care.

“Bernie Sanders may have been mistreated by the Democratic National Committee when he sought the 2016 presidential nomination against establishment favorite Hillary Clinton, but the party is now fully embracing him.”

Among other things, Sanders is advocating a so-called “Medicare For All” health care plan, which really is not Medicare at all, but a new, very broad government-run health care system.

But public opinion surveys show that support erodes when people hear the arguments that the plan could increase taxes or government control. And nearly half of adults surveyed last October falsely assumed they could keep their current insurance under a single-payer plan, which is not true.

“The notion that it’s popular is premised upon people knowing almost nothing about it,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the centrist Democratic think tank, Third Way. “That’s a problem for a very complicated thing that would transform one-fifth of our entire economy.”

Along with ending the Medicare program in favor of a new government-run plan, the Sanders bill also prevents competition against the government system, which, I suppose, is not surprising for a avowed socialist.

Will the Sanders’ plan make progress toward enactment? Well, who knows in the current world of politics where a carnival barker, Donald Trump, can get elected president and a socialist, Bernie Sanders, can make a run for the country’s top political job.

According to the columnist, Freeman, the White House Council of Economic Advisers is explaining the gargantuan costs of government-run health care in particular and socialism in general.

In a new paper, Freeman reports, the council notes that, in order to pay for BernieCare, “with the same spending cuts across all existing Federal programs, cuts would need to be 53 per cent across the board in 2022. In other words, without additional taxes, all other programs of the federal government would need to be cut by more than half.”

Beyond the enormous spending burden, the council also explored the impact on patient care. The paper notes the better survival rates after a cancer diagnosis for patients in the U.S. compared to various European countries often presented as models of more socialized medical systems.

Embedded in the text of BernieCare is the one Sanders’ promise voters can be confident he will keep: If you like your health plan, you won’t get to keep it.

Democrats running for office, by the way, have been advised not to use the phrase “single payer” in any of their advertising. Call it something else like, I guess, health care for all.

Now, lest someone say that all I do is criticize someone else’s proposal without any ideas of my own, let me replay the four ideas I have that I think should be discussed and resolved:

1. Require all citizens to have health insurance. [Think of 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 – if you have insurance, you will pay a price.]
2. Provide a catastrophic health insurance plan for those who cannot afford regular insurance and who need a lower-cost option.
3. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.
4. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.