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 know me, it won’t be a surprise that a Top 10 List of My Favorite Places in the World includes a few golf courses.

But I leave those courses for the last half of the list in favor of more general favorites.

So, here’s the list:

My home in Salem, Oregon: My wife Nancy and I have created a great place to live in Oregon’s capitol, Salem. Nancy deserves much of the credit for creating a welcome “nest.” We live a few houses away from our son and his family, have a great church which has been “home” for us for more than 30 years, have created great work places for those years, have a lot of friends, and love the community.

To use a trite phrase, great “when your home can be your castle.”

St. Andrews, Scotland: We have been in St. Andrews several times and it always is a great experience. One reason, of course, is the golf, which features the Old Course, plus several other venues that are part of the St. Andrews Links Trust (see below).

On sunny days – yes, there are such days in Scotland – the beach adjacent to the Old Course, as well as the course itself, accommodates walkers and waders because the course is closed. Plus, the town itself, with the St. Andrews University and many shops downtown, is a great place to walk, including seeing the coffee shop where Wills proposed to his bride.

The Plaza at the old La Quinta Hotel: We have been going to La Quinta in the California desert for many years and, on a couple of our trips, stayed at the old hotel. We fell in love with it. One of the main reasons is the absolutely incredible array of colorful flowers in the Old Hotel Plaza that creates vistas for the senses, including sight and smell.

Having a drink at The Plaza always is a great pleasure with the flowers as your guardian. Music provided by the Inca Kings adds to the pleasure.

Black Butte, Oregon: Back in Oregon, we have been heading over to Black Butte in Central Oregon for more than 30 years. A two-hour trip east from Salem, we always find a sense of rest and relaxation when we arrive at the front gate.

Great vistas with six or seven mountains standing guard over the central meadow. Great bike paths. Great weather – usually. Great relaxation.

Kapalua, Hawaii: The West End of the Island of Maui is one of our favorite places to visit. We have proved it for many years. One of the reasons is there are great golf courses in the area. They are not only good for golf, but also for vistas of the blue Pacific looking across to Lanai.

Often, you are able to see whales breaching in the ocean.

One of our favorite restaurants in the world is the Gazebo, which offers a great array of macadamia nut pancakes. We can’t miss this restaurant when we are in Maui, but, to get a table in the small establishment, you have to arrive early.

The same with Merriman’s at a point where you can watch the sun set with a cold glass of white wine and a great look across to Lanai.

Illahe Hills Golf Course in Salem, Oregon: Okay, now for golf. My home course in Salem is a great venue for the sport.

We have been members for more than 30 years and playing the course never gets old. Our kids grew up with access to golf, tennis and swimming, plus the camaraderie of a private country club where they made many friends.

The Palms Golf Course in La Quinta, California: I also have been fortunate enough to be able to join this golf course, which brands itself as being “for golf purists.” It was designed by pro golfer Fred Couples, along with pro, J.D. Ebersberger, who remains the director golf and chief operating officer at The Palms.

If you play The Palms, you must complete 18 holes in 3 hours and 50 minutes. Plus, there are no tee times there; the pros are very good at working you in to play the great 18-hole track, which is marked by greens with undulations and elevations that make them very challenging.

The Old Course in St. Andrews, Scotland: While in St. Andrews, there is no better experience than to play the Old Course, which is familiar to many Americans, at least based on television viewing. It is a links-style course in true Scottish tradition.

The last time we arrived in St. Andrews, we did so on a Sunday when, as noted above, the Old Course becomes a park where citizens and visitors walk hard by the North Sea, which borders the course. You also are able to walk across the famous Swilcan Bridge, taking the “required” photos to capture the moment of a lifetime.

On our last trip, we were not able to secure a tee time before we arrived, so, on that Sunday, we participated in what’s called “the ballot,” which essentially is a lottery to determine who gets a limited number of available tee times during the week.

Wonder of wonders, as my daughter, Lissy, and son-in-law, Tim, and I were playing the New Course – it dates to the 1860s – my wife, Nancy, got a call saying that we would have a time on the Old Course the following day.

It was a supreme experience, again which will be remembered for a lifetime, including on the first tee when many visitors to St. Andrews line up to watch whomever is hitting. It makes for a few jitters on that tee, but the good news is that first fairway joins the 18^th, so there is a lot of fairway ground.

Royal Dornoch Golf Course in Dornoch, Scotland: Other than my home track in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills, my favorite golf course in all the world is Royal Dornoch located in the small town of Dornoch in far north Scotland.

It was the setting for one of my favorite golf books, A Season in Dornoch, by Lorne Rubenstein.   It chronicled his four-month stay in Dornoch to write a book, which captured very well the captivating nature of this place.

In one section of the book, Rubenstein wrote about what it felt like to play the course alone in the late afternoon, noting with typical writing skill, the sounds and feel of his footfalls on the venerable track.

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.

As I write this, it is Monday after Easter weekend. But the reality of what Easter means to those of us who are Christians does not recede even as the “holiday” does.

Easter means that Christ has risen from the dead to give us a chance for a relationship with God the Father.

Think of it this way using THE CROSS as a guide. The fact that Christ died for us on that cross, as the song lyrics go, “creates a bridge to cross the great divide,” and, in a fascinating turn of phrase, “creates a cross to bridge the great divide.”

In effect, we are taken across the horizontal beam of that cross to a new life with Christ.

One of my favorite columnists, Michael Gerson, captured these real themes well in what he wrote to commemorate Good Friday. I give him full credit for excellent words and thoughts.

“The story of Good Friday — the garden, the bloody sweat, the sleeping friends, the torch-carrying crowd, the kiss, the slash of a sword, the questioning, the scourging, the mocking, the beam, the nails, the despair of a good man — is an invitation to cynicism. Nearly every human institution is revealed at its worst.

“Government certainly comes off poorly, giving Jesus the bureaucratic shuffle, with no one wanting to take responsibility, until a weak leader gives in to the crowd in the name of keeping the peace. “What is truth?” asks Pilate, with a sneer typical of politics to this day.

“Professional men of religion do not appear in their best light. They are violently sectarian, judgmental and turn to the state to enforce their beliefs.

“The crowd does not acquit itself well, turning hostile and cruel as quickly as an internet mob, first putting palms beneath his feet, then thorns upon his brow.

“Even friendship comes in for a beating. The men closest to Jesus slept while his enemies are fully awake. There is betrayal by a close, disgruntled associate. And then Peter’s spastic violence and cowardly denials. The women — all the assorted Marys — come off far better in the narrative. But Jesus is essentially abandoned to face his long, suffocating death alone.

“And, for a moment, even God seems to fail, vanishing into a shocking silence. ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ says Jesus, in words that many of his followers would want to erase from the Bible. How could the Son of God be subject to despair?

“Consider how the world appeared at the finish of Good Friday. It would have seemed that every source of order, justice and comfort — politics, institutional religion, the community, friendship — had been discredited. It was the cynic’s finest hour. And God Himself seemed absent or unmoved, turning cynicism toward nihilism. Every ember of human hope was cold. And there was nothing to be done about it.

“Then something happened. There was disagreement at the time, as now, on what that something was. According to the story, Pilate posted a guard at the tomb with the instruction: ‘Make it as secure as you can.’ Then the cynics somehow lost control of the narrative. There was an empty tomb and wild reports of angels and ghosts. And the claim of resurrection.

“Even those who believe the body was moved must confront certain facts. Faith in the figure Rome executed has far outlasted the Roman Empire. The cowardly friends became bold missionaries, most dying torturous deaths (according to tradition) for the sake of a figure they had once betrayed in their sleep. The faith thus founded has given the mob — all of us, even the ones who mock, especially the ones who mock — the hope of pardon and peace.

“For believers, the complete story of Good Friday and Easter legitimizes both despair and faith. Nearly every life features less-than-good Fridays. We grow tired of our own company and travel a descending path of depression. We experience lonely pain, unearned suffering or stinging injustice. We are rejected or betrayed by a friend. And then there are the unspeakable things — the death of a child, the diagnosis of an aggressive cancer, the steady advance of a disease that will take our minds and dignity. We look into the abyss of self-murder. And given the example of Christ, we are permitted to feel God-forsaken.

“And yet … eventually … or so we trust … or so we try to trust: God is forever on the side of those who suffer. God is forever on the side of life. God is forever on the side of hope.

“If the resurrection is real, death’s hold is broken. There is a truth and human existence that cannot be contained in a tomb. It is possible to live lightly, even in the face of death — not by becoming hard and strong, but through a confident perseverance. Because cynicism is the failure of patience. Because Good Friday does not have the final word.”

Well written, Mr. Gerson, my friend.

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.

During a career in politics – not as an elected official, but as a lobbyist – I often bemoaned the loss of middle ground in politics. Now, in retirement, I have had more time to reflect on the loss of that ideal – compromise — and believe it still is receding, almost, I fear, to be lost forever.

It seems that one side is always pitting itself against the other and the usual motive is revenge. Then, the other side does the same. The result is revenge after revenge resulting in acrimony and gridlock.

One of the main reasons for this falls on us, the voters. We don’t favor middle ground. Someone who runs on that platform won’t get our vote. Instead, we want someone who agrees with us and will go to Salem or Washington, D.C. and carry a purity banner for our views.

Middle ground or compromise? No.

Advocating purity? Yes.

So, why, with America’s history as a democracy, is middle ground evaporating? I posit several reasons:

1. If you hold office, you have to hew to one side or the other or face opposition designed to oust you.

To illustrate this, I point to the example several years ago of Oregon Representative Greg MacPherson, a centrist Republican from the Portland suburbs. Because he was one of the smartest legislators in the Oregon House, plus a very accomplished public speaker, he was asked to take on a very tough issue: Cutting funding for Oregon’s pension program, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), which, to this day, remains almost hopelessly underfunded.

When MacPherson accepted the task, he did not fully succeed, but he did yeoman work to try to control PERS.

Public employee unions, with their huge reliance on PERS, bolted. Read, revolted.

In the next election, they went after MacPherson, allocated thousands of dollars to his opponent, and kicked MacPherson out of office as a penalty for his good work.

To his credit, he did the good work and took the result in decent spirits, but Oregon lost a valuable legislator in the process who many felt could have risen to be Attorney General.

2. Many office-holders know how to campaign, but do not know how to govern.

The skills are different and most who run, then win, have difficulty focusing on governing.

Two authors – Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Thompson, Alfred North Whitehead Professor of Political Philosophy at Harvard University – make this point very well. They have suggested: “Political compromise is difficult in American democracy, even though no one doubts it is necessary, because of the incursion of campaigning into governing…” They call this the “permanent campaign,” which encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult.

They continue: “These constitute what we call the uncompromising mindset, characterized by politicians’ standing on principle and mistrusting opponents. This mindset is conducive to campaigning, but not to governing, because it stands in the way of necessary change and thereby biases the democratic process in favor of the status quo.

“The uncompromising mindset can be kept in check by an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments — the compromising mindset that inclines politicians to adapt their principles and respect their opponents. This mindset is more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognize and act on opportunities for desirable compromise.”

3. Finally, most legislators don’t arrive in Salem or Washington, D.C. with the skills or personal instincts to lead disparate interests toward the smart middle.

This is perhaps a result of the campaigning vs. governing point made above.

One of the best examples of a leader willing to find the smart middle occurred in Oregon nearly 20 years ago. In the immediate aftermath of voters supporting assisted suicide, then-Senator Neil Bryant showed up in Salem willing to consider an improvement in the new assisted suicide law, even after voters had approved it by a wide margin.

Tinkering with the “will of the people” is often a prescription for failure. But, Bryant persisted.

Motivated by Providence Health System, which I represented as a lobbyist, Bryant knew the “immunities” section of the law was poorly drafted. He moderated an effort including all sides, from supporters such as Oregon Right to Die to questioners such as Providence Health System, to produce better law. Then, he led the legislature to approve it.

Without Bryant, the change would not have happened.

But, to put a point on it, there are not many Bryants around any longer. Most of those who get elected come to Salem with a personal commitment to support one side or the other, not to find middle ground.

So, in all of this, if you want to point fingers at those who cannot find the smart middle ground, don’t do it. Instead, look in the mirror. Adherence to supposed purist principles won’t end – the gridlock of current government in this country won’t end – until all of us expect those we elect to govern, not continue campaigning.

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.

To say there is an arcane rule in the U.S. Senate allowing a “filibuster” is to give the process a compliment.

It is time to do away permanently with this archaic formulation that was described this way in a Wall Street Journal piece last week:

“Arcane and opaque rules have allowed a minority to paralyze the Senate and prevent consideration of nominees, treaties and legislation. Democracy is too important to permit winks, nods and obstruction to be the order of the day.”

I agree. Paralysis and opacity.

The filibuster process has been generating headlines in recent days as Democrats in the Senate tried to use that tactic to avoid a vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch who is obviously qualified for a position on the nation’s highest court – and who, after an affirmative vote in the full Senate last week, was sworn in.

Democrats, led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, don’t like Gorsuch’s judicial history, which illustrates his tendency toward conservatism. Or, put differently, his commitment to look at the law and precedent, not political positions.

Democrats also want revenge for the action by Republicans not to consider Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

So, we’re back to one bad turn deserves another, which is, itself, an illustration of the gridlock and acrimony that binds Congress. And the blame, if there is blame to assign, falls on all sides.

Two authors of the Wall Street Journal article – John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, and Sai Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia – also provided a useful bit of history on the filibuster. They wrote:

“…Republicans have more than revenge on their side this time around; they have the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 creates no special vote threshold for nominees. By contrast, it explicitly requires “two thirds of the Senators present concur” to approve treaties.

“The Founders never constitutionalized the filibuster; the first one occurred in 1837. Congress managed to reach fundamental decisions—the creation of the first departments, the proposing of the Bill of Rights, the establishment of Hamilton’s national bank—without it. No filibuster was necessary then to secure a senatorial consensus. Nor, as the Gorsuch conflict demonstrates, can a filibuster today heal partisan polarization.

“A Senate minority can still filibuster legislation, though there has been talk of reforming that rule, too. As senators consider future steps, they shouldn’t pay much heed to concerns about the filibuster’s protection of the minority. The Senate’s very structure is minoritarian, giving small states a disproportionate share of legislative power. The least populous 25 states have less than one-sixth of the U.S. population but account for half the Senate’s members.

“Senators also should keep in mind that the filibuster has strayed far from its roots in promoting deliberation. As in the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” senators had to filibuster by physically delivering speeches to prevent the majority from calling for a vote. Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat from South Carolina, set the record by speaking for 24 hours against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

“But in 1917, senators adopted a procedure called ‘cloture’ under which a two-thirds vote would end debate and bring a measure to a vote. That threshold was reduced to 60 votes in 1975—but five years earlier Majority Leader Mike Mansfield had introduced the ‘two track’ system: If cloture couldn’t be achieved, senators simply accepted that a filibuster would continue and turned to other business, without requiring anyone to keep speaking.

“What had once been a rare showstopper that ground the Senate to a halt has become a cheap and easy way to increase the effective vote threshold for Senate action to 60 votes. Senators ‘extend’ debate by shrinking from it. Little wonder that filibusters are as common as broken campaign promises.”

For me, the arcane filibuster rules illustrate the inner workings of Congress that have become unintelligible to regular Americans.

It looks like what is, which is a way to avoid taking a position and voting.

As the two authors above point out, it used to be that a filibuster meant that a senator or senators had to stay on the Senate floor and keep talking. Senator Strom Thurmond holds the talking record – more than 24 hours.

The Senate’s action this week to stop filibusters and return to majority rule for Supreme Court nominations is not a bad thing:  It is a good thing and returns the Senate to simple majority rule, not “stop the voting” filibusters.

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 forgot to mention this in my recent blog on the Masters Golf Tournament, but it is worth reporting that, in Salem, I live on Augusta National Drive South.

That is a fitting reminder for me every day about the Masters, “a tradition unlike any other.”

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.

As a golf addict, there are a number of highlights I could mention each year. One would be getting a hole-in-one, which I did recently for the sixth time in my golfing career.

But, regardless of that personal achievement, which, course I cite modestly, at or near the top in any list for me is watching the Masters Golf Tournament every year.

Golf commentator Steve Sands put it well when he said “these are hallowed grounds. There is a mystique about the Masters and Augusta National that does not exist anywhere else.”

TV host Jim Nantz has become famous for his quote every day he is on the air to coordinate Masters coverage: He says the Masters is “a tradition unlike any other.”

Those quotes are true and I report that from my own experience at the Masters in 2015 when, with my daughter, Lissy, and her husband, Tim, I was fortunate enough to be at Augusta National for the Wednesday practice round and par 3 contest, then also for the first round on Thursday. [We flew home in a hurry, if that is possible, to be able to watch the final rounds of the tournament on television.]

Those who run the Masters tournament – the members of the Augusta National Golf Club – have become, to use the word, “masters” of their own craft. For one thing, they get to do it every year at the same venue, so they can be committed to a worthy goal – improving the experience every year.

A few examples:

• For spectators – they are called “patrons” — running is not allowed on the course.

• If you are on a hillside looking at a golf hole, you have to be sitting, not lying down.

• If you are wearing a golf hat, you have to wear it right, not backwards.

Small things, you say.  Perhaps but for me, they illustrate a commitment to run a tournament on hallowed grounds.

This year, the organizers have done a great job of honoring the memory of golf icon, Arnold Palmer, who won the Masters four times, but passed away a few months ago. Special “Arnie’s Army” badges were printed to honor Palmer whose style and skill pushed the game of golf to higher levels. An empty chair was put on the first tee for the symbolic first tee shots by two other icons, Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus.

Though gone, the presence of Palmer was still there.

Some could contend that Masters organizers and Augusta National Club members are stuffy or thrilled with their own accomplishments. That way, they don’t have to listen to anyone else.

I view it differently. They are putting on one of the great sporting events in history, they do it every year, and those who set foot on the “hallowed grounds” feel privileged to do so. My daughter would say that attending the Masters was one of the great experiences of her life.

So would I.

So, for the next three days, we’ll be watching as new history is created. No matter who wins, it will be an experience – “a tradition unlike any other.”

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.

After a number of recent fiascos, you would think that rules officials in pro golf tournaments would have learned lessons.

But, no. There was another fiasco last weekend, one that many would say looks worse than its predecessors.

In this case, professional golfer Lexi Thompson was 12 holes into her final round of the ANA Inspiration Golf Tournament at Mission Hills in the California desert. She was four strokes ahead and looking like she would prevail in the first LPGA women’s major tournament of the year.

Then, from a golf perspective, the almost unthinkable happened.

Rules officials approached her on the course and said she would be assessed a four-stroke penalty. Someone watching on television called into say Thompson had marked her ball improperly on the green in the third round. She was two-third of her way through her fourth round.

• Never mind that, if a violation, it did not appear to be intentional and involved only a 12-inch putt.

• Never mind that her score had already been posted for the third round and she was two-thirds of the way through her fourth and final round.

• Never mind that a TV viewer had called in day late.

• Never mind that Thompson is one of the best American golfers and was in the lead, so she was on camera much of the time, in contrast to, say, someone who was not in the lead and, therefore, had escaped TV coverage.

It will be contended that the rules officials did what they had to do, which is to impose a penalty – two strokes for improperly marking the ball and two more strokes for posting an incorrect score from the third round. [By the way, a recent rules changes averted another incredible fiasco, which is that, by posting an incorrect score, Thompson would have disqualified immediately.  This time, it was “just” a four stroke penalty.]  What the rules officials should have done was say, no, it’s too late. The round is already in and, if there was a violation, it was so small and apparently unintentional as to be of no consequence.

To Thompson’s credit, despite the emotional toll of losing four strokes to push her out of the lead, she rebounded by posting two birdies and tying for the lead at the end of the fourth round. Then, unfortunately for me and many other golf fans, she lost to a birdie on the first hole of a playoff.

When asked about the altercation in his press conference at the Masters tournament which is under way this week, pro golfer Phil Mickelson got it right.  He said it was a stupid decision, that it should be reversed, and that Thompson should be given the trophy.

That won’t happen, but what will happen is that a proposal to “modernize” golf rules will include the fact that TV viewers cannot call in to become de facto rules officials.

About time.

Imagine if viewer calls were allowed for professional football, baseball, basketball or soccer. No one would ever win!

Golf has done itself another disservice by this episode. If the leaders of the industry are trying “to grow the game,” then they should make the rules change – no TV viewers as rules officials – immediately.

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.

When will it end?  Taken to its logical (or is it illogical?) extreme, never.

I ask in relation to the unfortunately predictable tendency in politics these days that one bad turn deserves another.

Think about it. Neither side gives up and so, what we have in our governing structure, is gridlock and disagreement, often without any sense of personal decorum.

To this, I say, a pox on both houses.

The current example of one bad turn deserves another relates to the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Because Republicans refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last months of former president Barack Obama’s term, Democrats were incensed, though many of them in previous cases, opposed nominations in lame-duck administrations.

Out of their sense of irritation and indignation, they now return the favor by declining to vote to confirm or not confirm Gorsuch.

In much the same way as would occur in a play on stage, each side talks about its position as of they had memorized their lines. Each believe it is right. No quarter is given. Neither side gives up.

That’s another reason why I have reached – or, at least, am reaching – a conclusion that America’s two-party system of democracy is in dire jeopardy. Perhaps it already falls in the category of a lost cause.

Let me add this caveat. I am not arguing against the role of advocates on either the left or the right – public employee unions on the left or so-called “big business” on the right. First, to place either group fully on one side or the other is to do an injustice to them. But, second, even if the labels fit, I do not argue against political involvement by either side or all sides, even though, on most occasions, that involvement does not argue for middle ground; it argues for adherence to a particular point-of-view.

Involvement by those and other groups is part of the political process in this country and, so, I say, let all voices by heard.

But, my hope is that good minds in Congress – yes, there are some on both sides – would find a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, to use a Biblical reference. I would like them to be able to rise above one-upsmanship and find the smart middle ground.

Americans deserve nothing other than a Congress that works to adopt useful compromise on the major public policy issues we face today.

And this footnote: If you wonder why regular Americans don’t understand how Congress works, just consider the filibuster, the technique Democrats in the Senate intend to use to avoid a vote on Gorsuch. It is not part of the Constitution, just an artifact about how the Senate operates. In the old days, under a filibuster, senators could literally talk an issue to death. All they would have to do is to stay on the Senate floor and keep talking regardless of the subject. The record is held by Senator Strom Thurmond who kept talking for 24 hours to avoid a vote on an anti-segregation bill. Today, there is not the “talking filibuster,” but rather simply a vote against “cloture,” an old word that means ending debate. In the current case, Republicans intend to use their majority to change the rules to invoke cloture with a simple majority and allow a vote on Gorsuch.

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 the defeat of a Republican-sponsored health care reform bill in Congress, there essentially are two options for U.S. governance.

In this space, I wrote about one earlier this week – based on recent evidence, contending that it is possible the two-party system of democracy in this country cannot work. Democrats could not find middle ground when they were in charge in the Nation’s Capitol; perhaps they didn’t want middle ground, but only to advance their own agenda.

Republicans couldn’t find middle round in the recent health care saga and, again, may only want to express their majority.

But there an option other than giving up on our form of government. It is to find a way to govern from the center.

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) columnist William Galston proposed this approach in a piece this week in the WSJ. He posited that real bi-partisanship can only be achieved if both sides get together at the outset and work in the same room on pressing public policy problems.

This didn’t happen under former president Barack Obama, who came to Washington, D.C. talking a good line – that was one of his major skills, talking – but delivering one of the most one-sided administrations in recent history.

Most of us might be tempted to think that prospects for bi-partisanship would not be bright under President Donald Trump, who emerged through a markedly contentious Republican presidential campaign and appears to think he always knows best about any issue.

Still, Galston perseveres.

He writes: “Donald Trump wasn’t elected to perpetuate the ideologically driven gridlock of the past six years. But his decision to pursue a one-party approach on health care threatened to do just that. Now that this approach has failed, however, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to begin again with a more inclusive strategy, as many members of his own party are urging.

“Ohio’s Governor John Kasich declared the same day on CNN that ‘you cannot have major changes in major programs affecting things like health care without including Democrats from the very beginning. The Republicans tried to do it with just Republicans. It doesn’t work like that in our country. We are not a parliamentary system.’”

Galston reported that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a bit of a centrist himself, said “the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say ‘Let’s get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.’ ”

Trump himself has said a few words lately about working with Democrats if only because it was the far right Republican Freedom Caucus that sabotaged the health care bill. The question now is whether the Trump administration will allow its entire agenda to be held hostage by a minority faction of Republicans who will accept nothing less than policy purity—as they define it.

This is the inevitable consequence of trying to legislate with the votes of only one party. There are signs that the White House is contemplating a course correction. “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News. “It’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board.”

Galston continues: “Real bipartisanship means getting the parties together around a table at the beginning (emphasis added) of the legislative process. Asking Democrats to sign on to bills that Republicans have already drafted won’t work; not enough of them will break ranks to change the dynamic.”

Further, in today’s polarized political climate, real bi-partisanship needs to make it impossible for the most extreme forces to veto potential agreements. This means building coalitions from the center out, beginning with the forces in both parties that do not reject the very legitimacy of compromise.

Is there a chance for a genuine bi-partisan approach to work – for a real effort to find the smart middle ground? Given all that has happened in recent years, it is easy to be negative, even cynical, about bi-partisan prospects.

That could mean the failure of America’s two-party democracy. So, I’ll join Galston in holding out hope that centrists – those interested in the smart middle ground – can find a way to gain momentum.

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 dangerous in politics to predict the future in the immediate aftermath of a specific result. Better, I suppose, to let the details settle at least for a few days.

But, discretion aside, my sense is that it is not an exaggeration to contend that America’s two-party system of democracy is in dire jeopardy.

When Democrats were in charge in Washington, D.C., they produced one-side only results, which failed, much of the time, to garner any Republican votes. When President Barack Obama came to town he suggested that he intended to run a different kind of government, one that worked from the middle. He didn’t. His signal domestic achievement, ObamaCare, was not an example of solid two-party democracy, no matter how much the Ds lauded their effort.

With Republicans in charge now, they also could not garner any votes from the other side, even as they watched their own supposed governing coalition dissolve in acrimony over what they called health care reform.

Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, were compromised by their own party, especially the so-called “House Freedom Caucus,” which wanted something that would never happen, full repeal of ObamaCare. But Democrats also played the role of opponents, and not always the loyal opposition.

Now, some of my friends suggest that Ryan should have involved Democrats in an effort to reform ObamaCare.  Perhaps, but there was no real chance for success there because, for one thing, Republican conservatives on the far right wanted only repeal.  Plus, Democrats were never going to tinker with ObamaCare with Republicans in charge.

Who knows what will happen as Congress and the Trump Administration turn next to something else such as overall tax reform, which some say should have been the first issue undertaken by the current Congress? Or, what about a deal to increase the debt limit and keep the federal government operating?  That was the issue that brought down former speaker John Boehner and it could have the same result for Speaker Ryan – if he lasts that long.

Here are a few perceptions relating to questions about the future of the two-party system:

• Neither Democrats nor Republicans can see their way clear to work with the other side. Developing middle ground solutions to pressing public policy problems is a lost art.

• When Democrats were in charge, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid conducted themselves with an elitist attitude, suggesting that they always knew what was best for the country. The new Majority Leader, Senator Chuck Senator Schumer, illustrates the same kind of hubris. [If there is good news here, it is that Reid is gone. His idea of process in the Senate was to do nothing.]

• For Republicans, House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell talk a better line than their Democrat counterparts. Ryan, in particular, comes across as articulate and smart, qualities that get left behind in a Congress that functions more on smear and opposition than on policy. McConnell wants to return the Senate to being a deliberative body, with perspectives from all sides welcome, a far cry from Reid’s closed-door style.

• Still, the prominent motive in D.C. appears to be that a slight by one party deserves a slight by the other party. Consider the current Supreme Court nomination process involving a clearly qualified nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Because Republicans wouldn’t consider President Barack Obama’s last nominee, Merrick Garland, in the lame duck Obama Administration, many Democrats now say they won’t consider voting for Gorsuch.

In a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch wrote about this issue:

“What sort of civics lesson were the American people treated to last week? Judge Gorsuch’s performance was outstanding. Enduring more than 20 hours of questioning over two days, he displayed an impressive command of the law and an intellect befitting someone with his stellar credentials. He showed that he understands the proper role of a judge in our system: to apply, not make, the law. Throughout, his demeanor was serious, thoughtful and humble. These qualities have defined his judicial service for the past decade and will serve him well on the Supreme Court.

“In stark contrast was the astonishing treatment Judge Gorsuch received from many of my Democratic colleagues. Whatever their motivation—be it the outcome of President Obama’s lame-duck nomination during last year’s election, an unwillingness to accept the November results, or the desire for judges to push a liberal political agenda—they have apparently decided to wage a desperate, scorched-earth campaign to derail this nomination, no matter the damage they inflict along the way. We are now watching the confirmation process through the funhouse mirror.”

• Continuing fights of this sort don’t bode well for the ability of Congress and the president to get anything done. It’s always one-upmanship.

For these and other reasons, the prospects for workable two-party democracy seem to be disappearing fast. Time for third party? One that emphasizes policies from the middle, which is supposed to be the art of politics – compromise – in the first place.

Until now, it has been hard for a third party movement to gain any viable traction. If Congress and the president continue to illustrate that two-party democracy can’t work, a third party movement might gain more momentum.