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.

Trust is an important commodity in every day life. And, not just a commodity, but a critical factor in maintaining a sense of equilibrium.

But America’s trust in its leaders and institutions has been falling for four decades. Trust in the federal government has never been lower. In 1958, Pew Research found that 73 per cent trusted government to do what is right “always” or “most of the time.” That sounds healthy.

As of 2017, that number was down to 18 per cent. Not healthy.

In a column by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal the other day, she posited: “Other institutions have suffered, too—the church, the press, the professions. That’s disturbing because those institutions often bolster our national life in highly personal ways. When government or law turns bad, they provide a place, a platform from which to stand, to make a case, to correct.”

Noonan, ever an optimist, believes there are things we can do individually to help America be more at peace with itself.

“First,” she says, “realize this isn’t merely a problem, but a crisis. When you say you believe in and trust democratic institutions, you are saying you believe in and trust democracy itself. When you don’t, you don’t. When a nation tells pollsters it’s unable to trust its constituent parts, it’s telling pollsters it doesn’t trust itself.”

Noonan says and I agree that there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism is constructive. Cynicism is the opposite, childish.

“Skepticism,” Noonan adds, “involves an intellectual exercise: You look at the grand surface knowing it may not reflect the inner reality. It implies action: If it doesn’t, try to make it better. Cynicism is a dodge: Everything’s crud, you’d be a fool to try and make it better, it’s all irredeemable and unchangeable.”

Be skeptical of our institutions, not cynical toward them.

President Trump cannot help in this effort. Increasing public trust is not his declared mission, and what it would take is not in his toolbox. He tends in his statements to undermine trust: His own government is embarked on a deep-state witch-hunt conspiracy, his agencies are incompetent, the press is fake-news liars.

So, forget Trump if that is possible. Practice skepticism.  Forego cynicism.

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.

Where were you in 1968?

Recalling that tempestuous year is a bit like remembering where you were in 1963 when John F. Kennedy was assassinated or in 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first men to walk on the moon.

There was not just one event in 1968. They were many, as this blog details below.

For my part, I was in college at Seattle Pacific College (now Seattle Pacific University), at about the middle point of my four years there. With the Vietnam War in full swing, I was concerned about my future – or, frankly, whether I would have one.

The year 1968 served as the pivot for a recent column by Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The headline for his piece termed “1968 as the year that politics collapsed.”

It went on to say that 1968 also was the year that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump graduated from college.

The year also was important enough that the Smithsonian Magazine devoted its entire January-February 2018 edition to a retrospective on 1968 — and I am still reading the magazine to recall even more events.

Meanwhile, here’s more from Henninger:

“The modern era of American politics—defined by polarization and nonstop intensity—began with the cataclysmic events of 1968, now celebrating, if that’s the right word, its 50th anniversary.

“Everyone says the pace of events in the Trump presidency is overwhelming. Compared with 1968, the past year has been a walk in the park.

“It is impossible to understand the relevance of that year (1968) without a timeline.

“Jan. 23: The USS Pueblo and its 82 survivors are captured and taken hostage by North Korea. On Jan. 30, North Vietnam launches the notorious Tet Offensive, including an invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. March 12, Minnesota’s Democratic Sen. Eugene McCarthy comes within a few hundred votes in the New Hampshire primary of upsetting President Lyndon B. Johnson. Within three weeks, Johnson announces he will not seek his party’s presidential nomination.

“Four days later, Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis. Urban riots break out across the U.S. April 23: Students occupy offices at Columbia University until police storm the building a week later. June 3: Andy Warhol is shot in New York by Valerie Solanas, author of the SCUM Manifesto, or “Society for Cutting Up Men.”

“Then, on June 5, while running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Robert F. Kennedy is assassinated at a Los Angeles hotel.

“August 8: Republicans nominate Richard Nixon. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union invades Czechoslovakia.

“In late summer during the Democratic Convention in Chicago, police fight a pitched battle with antiwar protesters in Grant Park. In October, at the Summer Olympics in Mexico City, Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise gloved fists as a black-power salute during a medal ceremony.

“November 5: Nixon defeats Hubert Humphrey and a third-party populist, former and future Alabama Governor George Wallace, who in the spirit of the times told a group of antiwar protesters: ‘I was killing fascists when you punks were in diapers.’”

Historians have tried to decipher the volcanic eruptions in 1968.  For some, it was the emerging political power of televised images; Vietnam was called “the living-room war.” That was true for me as I watched my generation serve on a battlefield while many at home demonstrated against their service, even reviling them as the likely one returned from the war.

For his part, Henninger posits that 1968 “marked the start of political polarization. Contrary to current myth, the civil-rights legislation of a few years before was bi-partisan. With the Vietnam War, unity began to unravel.”

The late 1960s, he says, saw the beginning of left-liberal moral triumphalism. The opposition was no longer just wrong. It was morally suspect. For a new generation of Democrats, which increasingly included the so-called “politically neutral press,” the Vietnam War was opposed as, simply, “a bright shining lie.”

Some 10 years later, inevitably, Henninger adds, the religious right emerged.

So, here we are today, fractured by politics and technology into myriad cultural subsets of separations that began in 1968.

For me, two points are true here.

One – we have come a long way since 1968, at least in terms of the passage of time. Things are different today as we talk to each other by mobile device no matter where we are, as we contend with a pervasive social media that confronts us at every turn, as we look at a president who defies normal norms for the most important political position in the country, if not the world, and as we limit trust in almost any institution, including those that have thrown away any reason or building trust.

Two – as a people, we are even more divided today than back in 1968. Our political views illustrate that division every day and, more and more certain of those who represent us in government work to capitalize on that division.

My fond wish today, 50 years after the grueling year of 1968, is that we would find a way to honor humanity and work together for the common good.

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.

Donald Trump fancies himself as a master of the art of the deal.

Given recent events, that may just be in his mind.

This is the way Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post editorial page, describes this issue in a summary of the last weeks of Trumpism:

“Trump is now saying the Korea summit may go ahead, even though there is no sign that Kim has changed his position on denuclearization. Still, the past month has taught all sides a lesson about Trump, if they didn’t know it already: He’s not up to serious negotiation. He can’t be expected to seriously weigh costs and benefits, or make complex trade-offs. He’s good at bluster, hype and showy gestures, but little else. In short, he may be the worst presidential deal-maker in modern history.”

If you stop and think about it over the past year-plus of the Trump presidency, he loves to be lauded and complimented. If that happens, he relishes the attention, even from very questionable world leaders like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong un.

But, if Trump is criticized, all hell breaks loose, as does his Twitter account.

Consider this summary about Trump from Senator John McCain, who has recently written a book about his political life as he is nearing the end due to brain cancer:

“The appearance of toughness or a reality show facsimile of toughness seems to matter more than any of our values. Flattery secures his friendship, criticism his enmity.”

A great line, but not just a line – an indictment of a president who is not up the job of holding the top political position in the nation, if not the world: “Flattery secures his friendship, criticism his enmity.”

Trump appears to be still looking for plaudits, even as he conducts himself with no apparent interest in coming across as even-handed and competent, not to mention one who can cut a good deal.

Now, there will be those who suggest that Trump’s approach to deal-making – offering something on one hand, then taking it away with impunity with the other hand – constitutes smart strategy. But, to quote one congressional leader, it becomes almost impossible to deal with jello – comparing Trump to something that doesn’t stay solid.

Trump’s deal-making approach is that he wants Americans to think that any deal revolves around his own image of himself and he always is the only one who matters. We’ll see how all this plays in North Korea – if, after all the pushing and shoving, a summit actually occurs.

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 editorial from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) caught my attention last week as it argues against a certain political identity – a liberal one – that impedes serving “little children.”

The editorial asks, “What’s more important—finding a foster home for needy children, or identity politics? The answer from the political left is exacerbating a crisis in Philadelphia that is leaving hundreds of children to languish in group homes.”

Catholic Social Services has worked in Philadelphia for decades and oversees about 100 foster homes. But, two months ago, the city abruptly halted referrals to the group because the Catholic charity holds Catholic beliefs about same-sex marriage. Last week, several foster parents represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sued in federal court to resume the group’s foster-care placements.

The WSJ reports:

“Catholic Social Services works with children regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. But, on Catholic religious grounds, the charity won’t certify same-sex or unmarried couples as foster parents, instead referring them to another state-approved organization. More than two dozen alternative agencies exist, and Catholic Social Services says no gay couples have even sought its help for certification, much less filed a complaint after being turned away.

“Philadelphia has nonetheless denounced Catholic Social Services as discriminatory and launched an investigation into its practices. Unless the group agrees to provide written certifications for same-sex foster parents, the city will terminate its contract in June.

“The Becket Fund suit argues that this is a breach of contract with Catholic Social Services. It also claims that Philadelphia is violating the group’s right to religious liberty by penalizing it specifically for Catholic beliefs, and that the city is violating the First Amendment by compelling speech that Catholic Social Services opposes.”

Beyond the law, Philadelphia’s coercion hurts the city’s most vulnerable children and the families who want to care for them. One of the plaintiffs in this case is Cecelia Paul, who has opened her home to more than 130 children over the past 46 years. Philadelphia honored her as one of its foster parents of the year in 2015. But because Mrs. Paul is certified through Catholic Social Services, her home has been vacant since April.

All of this recalls to mind the time I worked as a lobbyist for organizations imbued by solid moral and ethical connections to the Catholic Church. Two of them were Providence Health & Services, a major provider of health care services around the state, and Catholic Community Services of the Marion, Polk and Yamhill, which provides services to low-income residences, especially children, in those three counties.

There were repeated threats at the Capitol in Salem to stop services by those organizations because of their “links to religion.” Vocal voices from the left – perhaps that phrase is redundant because such voices always appear to be loud and grating — thought such linkages were, somehow, inappropriate. Better to adopt dogma from the left than serve children and families?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In my experience, links to the Catholic Church provide a solid ethical and moral base for serving the poor and disadvantaged. The issue is not what you, the server, can get for doing good. It is what you can do to express God’s love for “his children.”

Back to the issues in Philadelphia.

“As the lawsuit notes, the real discrimination here is religious. Philadelphia is penalizing Catholic Social Services because its beliefs about marriage don’t mesh with so-called progressive cultural values.

“To protect the city’s conscience, Philadelphia demands that Catholics violate their own. Who is really intolerant here?”

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 my role as a lobbyist, I worked on occasion with a business owner from Salem who thought the phrase “return on investment” should apply to every government program. And he was not hesitant to use the axiom in any of his conversations with legislators in Oregon.

Think about it for a minute and it may strike you, as it does me, as a very good criterion for all government programs. Still, the test of getting results rarely is used.

Consider this most recent example pointed out by Oregonian editorial writers about a City of Portland program – providing money to the Regional Arts and Culture Council, which issues grants to arts organizations in the Portland area.

Forget a basic question – should spending money on arts be a role for government – and consider this criticism lofted by the Oregonian.

“An audit, requested by Commissioner Nick Fish and Mayor Ted Wheeler last year, reveals how the city and arts council have operated for 20 years with little thought of measuring impact, meeting objectives or showing the public what their millions of dollars a year are buying.”

“…The City of Portland never articulated any clear goals of what it wanted to achieve with regard to arts and culture. The arts council had no strategic plan to guide its actions. Contract provisions were vague, making it difficult to gauge progress. And the city provided almost no oversight of the nonprofit’s spending, despite giving the arts council more than $20 million in General Fund money since 2012, according to city budget office figures. That’s money that could have gone to public safety, homelessness or many other core needs and doesn’t even include any of the arts tax revenue passed on to the arts council since 2013.”

What has happened in Portland occurs elsewhere, as well, including in relation to far larger state government programs.

Return on investment is rarely used as a tool to measure success – or failure.

The tendency is that, once in place, a government programs stays in place no matter what.

I have seen failure to pay attention for far too long. Taxpayers deserve better.

For me, RESULTS matter. Do government programs produce the results they were created to produce?

If so, good.

If not, do away with them and take either of two actions: Save the money or invest it in new programs that are subjected to a “return on investment” test.

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 golf course in Salem where I have been a member for more than 30 years – Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club — just completed a major renovation of its bunkers…all 44 of them.

The result? A far better golf course, both from playability and aesthetic standpoints.

Some months ago, Illahe management leaders set out to re-design and re-build bunkers, which can be a reality for many courses in the Northwest. With all the rain we get, bunkers just don’t last long – perhaps in the range of 10 years.

It was time for this project at Illahe, so the Board undertook it, without I add, imposing a special financial assessment on members. It was done within the operating and capital improvement budgets.

To accomplish this, the Board made the good-sense decision to engage a golf course architect, Dan Hixson, who has a lot of experience in the region, having worked at one point as the head pro at Columbia Edgewater, one of the best courses in the state. With his help, Illahe also hired a construction firm to do the work of taking out the old bunkers and building the new ones, with specific help from a “shaper” who used power equipment at the direction of Hixson to develop ground for the new bunkers.

It was a pleasure for me to watch the shaper at work…an obvious professional.

When the ground was ready – first, of course, workers had to move the old sand – we had new sand (white sand, which helped with aesthetics) delivered from Idaho. Then, the immediate areas around bunkers were planted either with grass seed or turf to make sure the bunkers were appropriately protected.

Finally, golfers at Illahe, me included, were told – again appropriately – that we could not play out of the bunkers for at least six months or so to let them weather in. Our very capable head golf pro, Steve Bowen, bought about 24 ball retrievers and laid them out on the course so we could retrieve balls from the bunkers without stepping in them. He also said that, if we could not get a ball out, he would give us a replacement at the end of the round.

Credit for the project also should go to Illahe’s long-time golf superintendent, Bill Swancutt. He and his maintenance crew displayed their normal great work ethic to supervise the project to successful completion. This major project at Illahe may be his last as I think Swancutt is contemplating retirement after about 35 years on the job serving as one of the premier golf course superintendents in the Northwest.

When a non-profit, member-driven operation enters into a project such as this, including with regard to cost, one never knows what the outcome will be. My sense is that the Board and Club management took an appropriate risk and the result proves the worth of their decision.

Illahe is a much better club for the investment of time, energy and money in this project.

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.

A headline in the Wall Street Journal captured the issue very well.

Seattle to Business: Drop Dead

The city taxes companies for hiring more workers.

Does the phrase “cutting off your nose despite your face come to mind?  It always is hard for me to realize what some governments will do to harm their own economies. If there were a “jobs issue” in politics, Seattle would be on the wrong side of the issue.

Just think of what new jobs would do for the economy, if only because those who hold those jobs would pay taxes to fund the government liberals want.

Or, for another example beyond Seattle, consider the Port of Portland. There, unions fought for certain job rights on the waterfront terminals only to see those terminals close and the jobs go away.

Terminal losses at the Port of Portland mean at least two things:  First, the loss of high-paying jobs on the waterfront and, second, that hundreds of big rigs ply their way north and south to bring goods to market in other ports, including Long Beach and Seattle (though the City Council action to impose a job tax there could hamstring Port development).

Here’s more detail on the Seattle story from the Wall Street Journal.

“Twenty cities are competing for Amazon’s second headquarters. Then there’s Seattle, Amazon’s current headquarters, which the city apparently wouldn’t mind driving away.

“Seattle’s city council on Monday unanimously approved a $250 ‘tax’ per full-time employee on businesses with more than $20 million in annual revenue. Progressive council members had originally proposed a $500 jobs tax that would have turned into a 0.7 per cent payroll tax in 2021, but then Seattle’s businesses revolted.

“Amazon suspended two building expansion projects. More than 100 large businesses including Expedia, Alaska Airlines and Redbox wrote a letter warning that the tax sends the message ‘to every business: if you are investing in growth, if you create too many jobs in Seattle, you will be punished,’ which ‘will cause far greater damage to Seattle’s growth prospects than the direct impact on the businesses being taxed.’

“Three hundred or so small businesses also warned that ‘continuing tax increases and regulations will only hurt the small business community and will vastly change our city.’ Even trade unions in Seattle begged the council ‘not to tax our jobs away.’

“After the council scaled back the head tax, Amazon said it plans to resume work on one of its expansion projects, but a spokesperson noted that ‘we remain very apprehensive about the future created by the council’s hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses, which forces us to question our growth here.’

“The head tax is merely the city council’s latest depredation against business. In 2015 the council allowed Uber drivers, who are independent contractors, to collectively bargain. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Friday declared that the ordinance violates antitrust laws. The council last year imposed a 2.25 per cent income tax on high earners, which a state court has blocked.

“Many businesses have located and expanded in Seattle because Washington state doesn’t impose an income tax. Last year Washington’s GDP growth led the country at 4.4 per cent. But Seattle’s city council seems to think this growth will continue no matter what it does. Ask Connecticut how that turns out.”

As I have written before in this space, I am amazed that the “jobs issue” does not gain more standing in politics at the city, state or federal levels. It would seem to me that running on jobs would be s smart political move, regardless of position on the political spectrum.

Saving and creating jobs should be a major push for governments. Having a job is an answer to many of the social problems we face. Plus having a job provides a sense of self-worth and independence.

So, I say, make the “jobs issue” a part of every political platform. Just don’t talk to the Seattle City Council about it.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus 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.

Telling the truth used to be an important commitment in politics and government administration.

Tell a lie and you could get caught in a web, damaging your candidacy for public office or your record as a government official.

No longer – at least most of the time.

In an era of Trump, truth is a casualty.

Consider these recent quotes on the subject:

• From a column by Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:  “Mr. Trump unquestionably is a failure when it comes to conforming to current manners or selecting lies that prominent media organizations will endorse, e.g., you can keep your health care.  Then again all presidential speech is instrumental—a means to an end, with truth merely a tactical consideration.”
• From a commencement speech by ousted U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the Virginia Military Academy: “If our leaders seek to conceal the truth or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.

“This is the life of nondemocratic societies, comprised of people who are not free to seek the truth. … A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what the truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness, and demand our pursuit of America’s future be fact-based, not based on wishful thinking; not hopeful outcomes made in shallow promises; but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are and guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges.

“As I reflect upon the state of American democracy, I observe a growing crisis of ethics and integrity. When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may seem the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society, and among our leaders in both the public and private sector, and regrettably at times even the nonprofit sector, then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”

I reflected this week on this sad state of affairs in American political life. I went back to my own years in government in the mid-1970s through 1990, plus my 25 years as a state government lobbyist.

In those days, without trying to come across as holier-than-thou, truth was a clear goal.

If you sacrificed it, you sacrificed your credibility.

In just one example, back in the late 1980s, when I served as deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department, we produced a quarterly report on job growth in the state, including jobs we had helped the private sector create.

I remember toiling over the report in an effort to make sure it was accurate – it bore truth – and would stand up utter inevitable scrutiny.

As a lobbyist, it also was true – and is true today – that it is at least unethical if not illegal to provide inaccurate information to legislators. For one thing, doing so violates the code of conduct of the professional association of lobbyists. For another, if avoiding truth can be proven, it is illegal.

I wish political and government leaders today would hold truth as an important commodity and not, as Mr. Jenkins writes above, “with truth merely a tactical consideration.”

Or, with Mr. Tillerson, I hope we don’t continue relinquishing our freedom without regard to facts and truth.

It’s time for TRUTH IN GOVERNMENT.

To buttress that argument, I even surprise myself by citing something Hillary Clinton said over the weekend – and, for me, Clinton is no normal purveyor of truth. But here is what she said.

In a speech at Yale University, she referenced two books by Yale history professor Timothy Snyder: “On Tyranny” and “The Road to Unfreedom when she said: “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.

“Professor Snyder … is sounding the alarm as loudly as he can. Because attempting to erase the line between fact and fiction, truth and reality is a core feature of authoritarianism! The goal is to make us question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward the people we need to rely on: Our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, even ourselves.”

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.

A friend asked me the question in the headline after reading my recent blog about the upcoming governor’s race between Democrat Kate Brown and Republican Knute Buehler.

My sense, very early in a several-months-long election process, is that Brown will win the state’s top political job again or at least be favored to do so.

The Oregonian newspaper wrote this in a lead editorial on Sunday:

“Tuesday’s primary was a test not just of candidates, but of voters: Could Oregon Republicans detach themselves from social-issue litmus tests and support the one Republican candidate for governor who stands a chance of winning in November?

“The answer is yes. In a decisive victory, Republican voters chose Bend legislator Knute Buehler, a pro-choice doctor who favors reasonable gun control measures and has openly criticized President Donald Trump as their nominee to challenge Democratic Gov. Kate Brown. Voters wisely set aside any differences they may have with his moderate social stances and selected him over opponents toeing hyper-partisan positions that are out-of-touch with most Oregonians and sunk their chances of statewide office in recent years.

“While hardcore Democrats might disagree, Buehler’s win benefits Oregonians as a whole. His legislative background and understanding of Oregon’s most pressing problems gives him the credibility and fluency to force Brown into a higher-level discussion of issues than other candidates could have. And Oregonians deserve substantive, informed debate between our gubernatorial candidates on how to prop up Oregon’s K-12 educational system, pay down its daunting public pension debt, reform its foster-care system, identify long-term health-care funding and any number of such issues that need attention now.”

So, at least the Oregonian says there will be a race leading up to November. Part of the reason is that Buehler has sought to carve out a moderate reputation as a legislator in Salem, a reputation he hopes will give him a chance to appeal to metropolitan Portland voters.

The fact that he hails from Bend, not exactly rural Oregon, though also not urban Oregon, ends up to be a strike against him.

For me, two recent Republican predecessors – Ron Saxton and Chris Dudley came from the Portland metro area and tried to portray a moderate set of values. They succeeded, but at the polls, they failed.

The reason?

The political power in the metropolitan area rests with public employee unions, which do everything to promote the candidacy of any Democrat. That includes huge financial donations, as well as “political feet” – which means public employee union members walk around the metropolitan area to promote Democrats, then collect ballots in the last hours of the mail ballot cycle, getting them to ballot collection points just before the 8 p.m. deadline.

It has become almost impossible for a Republican – and I think that includes Buehler – to surmount that heavy D advantage.

My friend also asked me another thought-provoking question.

Why, he asked, can’t Republicans make connections with metropolitan area voters? Well, in some cases they can, but, in the past, not enough to offset the heavy D advantage.

Plus, any Republican this time around is likely to call for no increase in taxes, for adequate levels of school funding (who knows what “adequate” is?), and for actions to control the huge rise in public pension costs.

None of those propositions, as important as they are for any governor, will appeal to liberal voters in the metropolitan area, so the Democrat candidate will not campaign on them.

The last Republican governor in Oregon, the late Victor Atiyeh, for whom I worked in the 1980s, managed to connect with metropolitan voters, not just once, but twice, including a huge winning 62-35 margin in his re-election campaign, admittedly against a Democrat candidate, Ted Kulongoski, who should have fared better in the metropolitan area.

The trouble is that political discourse has become far more coarse since the Atiyeh terms. Those who vote often do so on the basis of single issues – abortion access is a main one — not the breadth of what any governor will have to face once in office.

That dynamic, too, argues for the Democrat incumbent this time around.

But, I hope I am selling Buehler short and that the governor’s race turns into one that will produce the best winner for all of Oregon.

As Oregonian editorial writers said:

“Oregonians should feel hopeful that Buehler and Brown will use these next few months to engage in real debate that reveals vision, ideas, priorities and character. They should listen for how each would address the precariousness of our fiscal, education, revenue, health care and housing systems. And they, like Republican voters in their primary, should recognize all a candidate has to offer rather than base support on only one issue or another. 

“True competition forces everyone to be better. Oregonians need Brown and Buehler to show them their best.”

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.

If you look at recent history, the best answer to the question in the headline? Probably not.

Moderate Republicans Ron Saxton and Chris Dudley came close to unseating Democrat incumbents in recent elections, but both lost in metropolitan Portland as Democrats – and their allies in the public employee union movement – turned out votes, even collecting late ballots in the last hours of the election and turning them in to County Clerk mailboxes at the last minute before polls closed.

Before I write about the upcoming race between Democrat incumbent Kate Brown and Republican challenger, Knute Buehler, let me provide just one point of context. I worked for the last Republican governor in Oregon 35 years ago, the late Victor Atiyeh, so, given my past and current support for this last Republican in the Governor’s Office, I am not the most dispassionate observer.

Buehler starts with a significant disadvantage. He lives in Bend, which is not exactly rural Oregon, but isn’t metro Portland either. That means he has to find a way to connect with metro voters.

He has tried to create a moderate position in the Oregon Legislature, including supporting left-of-center social positions on such issues as contraceptive insurance coverage and abortion. His views on state government finance tend to be to the right-of-center.

And he has lofted strong criticism of Governor Brown for her management of state government, including a number of problems in state agencies.

His campaign website says this:

“I love Oregon – its natural beauty, quirky culture and generous, independent-minded people. Oregon has a proud legacy—but under Kate Brown, Oregon is falling behind and too many Oregonians have an uncertain future. I’m running for Governor to help those uncertain Oregonians – those who have been left behind, left out or lost hope in the future.”

Brown, for her part, touts her credibility in Oregon by saying her platform will be “to offer opportunities for everyone to reach their full potential.”

Here is the broader website quote:

“Oregonians succeed in vibrant communities that offer opportunities for everyone to reach their full potential. A thriving Oregon is resilient and sustains the well-being of current and future generations.​”

Campaign websites can say anything. The question is which candidate will make good on general language to convince Oregonians to vote for them.

Early betting would say that Brown will win a four-year term in the Governor’s Office.

The recent past has not been positive for Republicans.

In the election of 2010, Democrat John Kitzhaber beat political newcomer Chris Dudley of whom it could be said, “he stood out in a crowd.” That’s because the former Portland Trailblazer center stood almost seven-feet tall. It didn’t matter.

Returns showed Dudley in the lead on election night, but that didn’t last when metropolitan votes came in late. Though Dudley won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties – that alone clearly illustrates that there are “two Oregons” — he couldn’t get over the top in the Portland area, so Kitzhaber won another term.

Before Dudley, Portland lawyer Ron Saxton won the Republican nomination in 2006, again running on a moderate platform. But he lost in the general election to Democrat Ted Kulongoski.

Saxton appeared to be ahead in the closing days of the election, but his campaign suffered when opposition rose to Republican President George Bush in the fall and that translated to reduced support for Saxton.

In my view, either Saxton or Dudley would have done well as governor, especially because both favored a middle-of-the-road approach to state budgeting, including the idea that results ought to matter when it came to spending taxpayer dollars.

But, that, obviously, is all in the past. So, what matters now is how the current candidates, Brown and Buehler, connect with voters. There is little doubt but that Brown will do well in this area.

I lobbied her frequently when she served as Senate Majority Leader before she took the governor’s chair and she always came across as a friendly person who would listen and make her own decisions.

I don’t know Buehler as well, so only time will tell whether he has the personality and verve to bridge the gap between rural and urban Oregon.

Whatever happens, may the best candidate win!