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 question in the headline has occurred to me several times over the last weeks as we have seen a new president, Donald Trump, take office and engage, like he did in the campaign, in an unpredictable array of fulminations and actions – fulminations and actions that may or may not be hinged to reality.

So, are we seeing facts or are we seeing developments made up, not just by the Administration, but by Democrat detractors, or the media, the latter of which has been labeled by the Administration as “the opposition party?”

In a piece in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Bret Stephens called Trump “our first post-rational president.”

The full quote from the Stephens piece:

“The United States has elected as president a man who has repeatedly voiced his disdain for NATO, the World Trade Organization and other institutions of the Western-led world order. He publicly calls the press “an enemy of the American people” and conjures conspiracy theories about voter fraud whose only purpose is to lend credence to his claim that the system is rigged. He is our first post-rational president, whose approach to questions of fact recalls the deconstructionism of the late Jacques Derrida: There are no truths; reality is negotiable.

In this quote, think about two phrases. One, Trump is “the post-rational president!” Some would argue with this label, of course, but, based on facts in recent days, it strikes me that it could be true.

The other phrase: “There are no truths; reality is negotiable.” If that is true, we, as a country or as a civilization, are in deep trouble.

I choose to believe that there is reality – underpinnings that provide a pivot for all of us as we live and act. We may not always agree with the reality, but there is one.

Those who were tired of the Obama Administration saw Trump as their savior, someone who would bring a new reality to Washington, D.C., one based on quick action to, as Trump would put, “make America great again.”

Those who opposed Trump saw him as either a buffoon or near-dictator who thought he always knew best about any issue – and clearly much better than either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the latter of whom struck many as Obama 3.

Just rely on me, Trump would say – I’ll save you. His was a new kind of ego-centric reality.

For many, the Trump “make America again” quote conjured up images of what it must have been like in post-World War 1 Germany as Adolph Hitler rose to power by invigorating the masses to follow his lead no matter where it took Germany.

So, in this day and age, how are we to separate fact from fiction, how are we to decide if there is reality and, if so, what it is?

Without putting myself on any sort of pedestal, I follow these paths on a daily basis to try to find reality:

• First, I read several newspapers every day, often in my hands so I can touch the ink, which I like based on my past as a reporter for a daily newspaper. The alternative is to go on-line, which is second best, but still available.

• Second, the ones I read are designed to provide multiple sides of the public policy challenges we face – the Oregonian in my home state, the Washington Post (from the left) editorial columns, the entire Wall Street Journal (from the right) and an on-line version of the New York Times. Multiple sides. Multiple perspectives.

• Third, I try to communicate with a number of my friends, not because they agree with me, but because they have perspectives to contribute that very often are different than mine. There is a risk in talking only to those with whom you agree so that you think your way is the only right way.

• Fourth, I post my thoughts from time to time in this blog, Perspective from the 19^th Hole, and then read what reactors say about what I have written.

In these ways, I try to discern reality without some kind of haughty view that I have found IT. All of us should work to find it, not just hew to perspectives that mimic our own.

And this footnote, which probably should be higher in this blog, if not the lead.  My reality is formed by my conviction that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.  As a follower of Jesus, I am able — again not in a haughty way — to put what I read and see about life and politics in a wider context.

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

…..Also, for me, this is the second in a series of blog on “the media then and now”…

Well, the answer to the proposition in the headline depends on who is speaking.

Several reporters were asked about the press conference last week in an interview piece in the Washington Post and they gave various answers, but the basic proposition was this: Trump managed to command the “news cycle,” if there is such a cycle any longer, at least for day.

The Trump Administration’s posture with Russia was pushed off most front pages or TV leads as the focus shifted to what Trump said in a press conference that was scheduled on the fly. In that venue, which he believes is made for him, he shifted the focus again and again to what he wanted to talk about, not about the previous day’s headlines, which he labeled “fake news.”

To his credit – if that is a word that can be applied to Trump after one month in office – he answered questions from reporters. Sort of. He bridged to the information he wanted to provide rather than dealing with the topics of the questions.

In that way, it reminded one reporter of a famous quote from Ronald Reagan: “Before I refuse to answer your questions, I have a statement to make.”

If all of this is a Trump strategy, even an ongoing one, you have to assume there is a strategy in the first place. Often, it just seems like a series of unconnected events, including when Trump presumes he is his best spokesman.

As one reporter put it: “Look, Trump will reserve the right to make game-day decisions every day of his presidency. If he feels that his narrative is unraveling, he will take the bully pulpit by the horns and self-correct. He does that because it works for him.”

To another reporter, Trump’s press conference was a great example of the difference between campaigning and governing. “During the campaign,” this reporter said, “he could go out, do this kind of press conference or event, say whatever he wanted, and the campaign and world moved on with little consequence.

“It’s different when you’re president, as Trump and his team are learning. When you say something, it is evaluated in the context of actual facts and real policy implications.”

From a communications standpoint, I don’t think it is a good idea to engage in non-stop warfare with the media as Trump is doing. Unlike in a political campaign, you cannot make the problems of government go away with a press event or a rally.

As I wrote earlier, I do not believe the Trump approach to the media – presidential counselor Steve Bannon likes to call the media “the opposition party” – will stand the test of time.

Better to engender credibility by being honest and straightforward. Provide the facts, not just “alternative facts.” Live with media coverage in the belief that, if you are honest, the programs and proposals that marked your campaign will resonate with the public which voted you into office in the first place.

Sadly, my view is that such a posture won’t happen. Trump continues to jeopardize his own by success by his bizarre behavior. To him, it will be simply another series of events or tweets – all, to me, without a solid political or public relations rationale.

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.

Marco Rubio, who sometimes comes across, at least to me, as someone full of himself, made a very thought-provoking speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate the other day.

Thought-provoking in the sense that he advocated for a renewed commitment to the idea of a stimulating, fact-filled debate on major public policy issues, but one that still preserved goodwill between competing debaters.

Rubio made his speech soon after Senator Elizabeth Warren was barred from speaking on the Senate floor because of her over-the-top diatribes against Senator Jeff Sessions, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General.

Columnist Chris Cilliza captured the essence of Rubio’s statements in a piece that ran in New York Times on-line:

“We are becoming a society incapable of having a debate,” he quoted Rubio as saying.

Cilliza went on: “Rubio’s speech was a plea for civility in the Senate, a warning that, if civilized debate dies in the Senate, it will die in the broader society, too. A few lines that really stood out to me (Cilliza):

• “I don’t know of a civilization in the history of the world that’s been able to solve its problems when half the people in a country absolutely hate the other half of the people in that country.”

• “We are becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore.”

• “We are reaching a point in this republic where we are not going to be able to solve the simplest of issues because everyone is putting themselves in a corner where everyone hates everybody.”

• What’s at stake here tonight … is not simply some rule but the ability of the most important nation on earth to debate in a productive and respectful way the pressing issues before it.”

Cilliza adds: “When did ‘reasonable people can disagree’ stop being something we believed in? Why can’t genuine debate not descend into name-calling? Why is confrontation the only way the two parties — and their leading politicians — seem to interact these days?”

The answer, Cilliza writes, “is that confrontation is what energizes the bases of the two parties. And energizing those bases is what politicians spend most of their time focusing on these days. Unfortunately, the byproduct of all that confrontation is an increasing cynicism and disgust among the large swaths of people who aren’t part of either base.”

In this blog, on several occasions, I have advocated a return to middle ground, the area where most pressing public policy problems are solved. In Congress, the middle ground is often lost by the actions of both the presidential administration and Congress itself. For each, winning the debate and demonizing the other side appears to be the goal.

In Oregon, where I operated as a private sector lobbyist for nearly 25 years, to use a quote from Colin Powell, “I bemoan loss of civility in politics.”

If we cannot return to a kind of reasoned and reasonable discourse – the ability to disagree agreeable – I believe all is lost in our form of government.

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 recent furor over a Seattle judge’s decision to stall President Donald Trump’s immigration order called to mind a different incident for me more than 40 years ago.

Actually, the specific recollection wasn’t in relation to the judge’s ruling, but rather to Trump’s comments about it.

When I was part of the administration of the late Governor Vic Atiyeh in Oregon, he held weekly Cabinet meetings with key agency heads. At one point, Victor – as we sometimes called the governor back then, with his approval — railed against a decision by a judge to allow a challenge to Oregon’s prison system to go forward.

That decision, incredibly as I look back on it, was filed by a prisoner rights organization and contended that double-bunking, required because of prison over-crowding, represented “cruel and unusual punishment.”

A judge had allowed the suit to proceed and, in response, the governor said the judge’s decision was “preposterous.” I still member the normally understated governor uttering that word.

His choice got the attention of one of the agency heads in the meeting, Acting Attorney General Jim Brown, a close friend of mine. By the look on Jim’s face, I knew he was very wary of the word “preposterous” in calling attention to the judge’s ruling. Brown said the very word, if it leaked as a quote from the governor, could irritate the judge to the extent that it could influence his ruling.

The good news? The comment didn’t leak, though, if it did, Victor would not have minded in the least, for he, in fact, did feel that the ruling was “preposterous.” So would many law-abiding Oregonians.

Back to the case at hand – Trump’s comments about the judge who stalled the president’s immigration order.

In fairly typical fashion, Trump torpedoed the judge, calling him “a so-called judge” and contending that, if there was a terrorist attack while the executive order was stalled, the judiciary should be blamed for it. [I suppose now the Night Circuit Court of Appeals should also share the blame because it unanimously upheld the Seattle’s judge’s ruling.]

Wall Street Journal editorial writers commented this way: “Mr. Trump’s rants against the judiciary are offensive to the rule of law, and perhaps also to his own case.”

Further, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN that “I think it’s best not to single out judges for criticism.’’

Trump’s comments about the Seattle judge aren’t the first time he has publicly attacked a sitting member of the bench. During the presidential campaign, he criticized a judge overseeing civil fraud lawsuits against Trump University, claiming Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict’’ in presiding over the litigation because he was of Mexican heritage. The judge was born in the U.S.

Comparing Trump and Atiyeh may be ill-conceived on a number of accounts. In this case, there is at least one key difference. Atiyeh’s use of the word “preposterous” was said in the confines of a private Cabinet meeting. Trump’s derogatory comments were made using his favorite medium, Twitter, for all the world to see.

So, Atiyeh and Trump? If there was a public vote, I would cast mine for Atiyeh, one of Oregon’s great governors, every time!

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.

Back in the day, when I was involved in working with the media on behalf of clients, one of my emphases was to quell arguments with editors and reporters on the theory that it was smart not to argue with those “who bought ink by the barrel.”

That old enough admonition loses a bit of luster today in a world dominated by social media, not ink. But, still, it is worth remembering that arguing with the media usually does not serve one’s interests well in the long run.

At least that used to be the case.

Now, with the Trump Administration, the motive appears to be to argue with the media every day as if such behavior will win friends, influence people and turn out well in the end. Things even went so far as the quote attributed to Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who said the “media is the opposition party.”

Press Secretary Sean Spicer often takes a cudgel to reporters in his daily White House press briefing, making news along the way, not on the basis of facts and figures, but on the basis of his fights with the media.  Some say he is just feinting, trying to deflect focus from the real issues with Trump.

It is not clear that arguing with the media will serve Trump’s interests, but here’s betting that many who voted for him will laud his anti-media disposition.

When I was involved in relating to the media, either for private sector clients, or for a Democrat congressman from Oregon or for Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, things were very different. Without meaning to call myself an icon of anything, I tried to emphasize commitments such as these:

• Always tell the truth because, if you don’t, you will be caught in a lie that will destroy your credibility as a spokesperson.

• If there is something you cannot divulge or if it is not appropriate to do so, say so – and just try to move on, though editors and reporters may still want the information and find a way to get it. But your honest deferral will add to your credibility.

• On behalf of your client, try to “put your best foot forward.” Stay on message, even as you hew to the truth.

• Try to avoid being caught in what I call “a process story,” where your method of dealing with the media – or, in some cases, not dealing with the media – becomes a story or at least part of the story in and of itself.

Think of these and other commitments and consider how often – many times a day, it appears – the Trump Administration goes the other way in the mistaken belief that their own notions of superiority will “trump” (pardon the play on the words), the media.

My view is that the Trump approach will not stand the best of time.

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.

For all of its problems, the immigration rule President Trump issued represents a good thing about democracy in the United States:   It is the checks and balances system in government, which often stops any side from running wild.

The executive order is, at once, simplistic and not well-vetted, even with his own agency appointees who will have to enforce it. Some judges stop parts of the order, then a Seattle judge stops it cold. And Trump’s legal representatives are told they have to appear in court to appeal the order rather than get an immediate injunction.

While this process – if you can call it a “process” at all – is under way, Congress sits by as members debate the merits or demerits of the order.

There was a better way to go to make good on President Trump’s campaign pledge to stem immigration. It would have been to work on the order for several days, involve Homeland Security Department Director John Kelly who would have to enforce it, involve the acting attorney general who would have to defend it in court, and consult key members of Congress who would have to respond to constituents about its content.

In this way, appropriate exceptions could have been built in to the order so, for example, the young Iranian child who had pre-scheduled surgery in Portland could have been let in to the country to undergo the procedure, or, in another example, the U.S. military veteran with a Middle Eastern-sounding name would not have been stopped at the airport after helping Americans fight in Iraq.

The checks and balance system in America, however irritating it can be from to time as it makes decisions occur more slowly, is a key part of “our” democracy.

But it works only when one side doesn’t do what former president Barack Obama did, which is to use the power of bureaucratic regulation, sans legislative involvement, to work his will when he couldn’t get Congress to do his bidding. In those cases, too, courts sometimes stopped the over-reach.

The Trump Administration would be smart to take advantage of the checks and balances system – take advantage of it to make decisions that are more well-rounded and effective, but still decisions made by an activist president.

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 sometimes-skeptic of state budgeting processes, one honed over nearly 40 years of involvement in the processes, I often tend to move more to oppose than support those processes.

But, recently, there have been two developments that provide cause for cautious optimism.

One was a decision by the two legislative leaders, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, to ask the Joint Ways and Means Committee to develop a “current taxes” budget. They did in contrast to Governor Kate Brown who built $897 million of proposed new taxes into the “Recommended Budget for 2017-19” that she unveiled last December 1.

The Ways and Means budget allows legislators to make a reasoned decision on the need for new taxes to avoid potentially deep cuts in the two-year budget.

Here’s the way the Oregonian newspaper put it in a story on the Ways and Means budget:

“Oregon’s top legislative budget writers unveiled a plan Thursday to close a looming $1.8 billion shortfall by making cuts across state government — a plan they hope lawmakers and voters will reject as unacceptable.

“The 2017-19 budget proposal lead to teacher layoffs, university tuition hikes and kicking people off the state’s Medicaid program, Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, and Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, said during a press conference.         

“The magnitude of their proposed cuts was not a surprise. Democratic leaders in the Legislatur said earlier this month they hoped the $20.6 billion budget would help build political will to overhaul the state’s tax system. In a joint statement Thursday, Devlin and Nathanson described their budget as “one we believe Oregonians will reject.”

“We do not believe the resources allocated in this document are sufficient,” Devlin said.”

Now, a critic of these processes could point out that economists expect the state to have nearly $1.3 billion more in tax and lottery revenue in 2017-19 compared with the current two-year budget. But that’s not enough to cover rising costs, particularly from the state’s Medicaid program and personnel costs such as raises and public pensions.

Now, on to the second piece of good news.

Last week, the two legislative leaders, Kotek and Courtney, reported that they had invited representatives of business and labor to meet in Salem to consider whether the 2017-19 “no new taxes budget” was appropriate.

Here’s the way they put in a joint news release:

“We met together with representatives of the business community and labor unions Wednesday evening. The discussion was productive. Everyone agrees that the current budget environment is not acceptable. We also share common goals for Oregon’s future. 

“As the presiding officers in the Oregon Legislature, we felt a duty to initiate discussions. The two groups agreed to continue to meet. We left the meeting encouraged that both sides will work together in good faith, and hopeful that we can find a path to move Oregon forward together.”

Good.

It’s about time political leaders in Oregon – it could be argued, by the way, that Governor Kate Brown should have been the one doing the heavy lifting – called competing interests together to discuss the state budget.

This comes, of course, after the huge defeat of the public employee union tax increase proposal at the polls in November. Business interests came together as never before to raise about $30 million to kill the tax, which had been proposed, stupidly I contend, on sales, not on profits.

The measure went down to defeat 58 to 41. It had the endorsement of Kotek and Brown (not Courtney), which meant that at least Kotek would have had to ask, humbly, for business participation in the next steps.

She did, though not sure humility was involved. And so did Courtney.

Now, we’ll see whether there is any room for middle ground on spending and taxes in Salem. To find it, both sides – business and labor – will have to “give” as well as “get.” That, after all, is the nature of political compromise.

Here’s one view holding out hope for success.

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 the Trump Administration continues to move in more ways than can be counted, it is worth thinking about what we lose and what we gain in this new way of doing the nation’s public business.

Further, is it even worth calling the Trump presidency an “administration,” if the word administration means having your act together in some kind of rational, consistent management fashion? I don’t think so, which means that, in this blog, I’ll put quote marks around the word “administration” when it applies to Trump.

First, what we lose.

We lose truth. Trump has his own version of truth as he changes his tack every day to suit his whim, prejudice and tweeting-approach to doing business. For example, one day he criticizes the nation’s intelligence organizations as being soft and out-of-touch with his reality and the next he goes to the Central Intelligence Agency and says all of those who work there “are great.”

We lose honesty. Almost no one in the “administration” owns up to telling lies; they call them “alternative facts.” To be fair, there was one occasion for something resembling honesty when press secretary Sean Spicer, who apparently was told one day by Trump to castigate the media for underestimating the size of Trump’s inaugural crowd, showed up the next day and sort of apologized for using inaccurate figures to make his original point.

We lose deference. By that I mean the ability to disagree agreeably. It is often a lost political art on both sides of the aisle these days. Trump will have none of deference. If someone disagrees with him, they are wrong and he gets angry, writes tweets, and holds grudges. He also suffers from narcissism. It’s all about him all the time.

This is a different kind of politics that does not resemble the definition of the word, which is the “art of compromise.”

We lose consistency. Some will say “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” but, yet, consistency, especially in the conduct of foreign policy, is in the United States’ best interest. Inconsistent actions, without apparent regard to rational thought about impacts and implications, could literally lead to distrust, if not war.

Now, on the other side of the ledger, what do we gain?

Well, the two points below could have downsides, but, to be fair, they are gains.

We gain aggressive action. For those who have wanted government to reach a decision and work to implement it, they have found it in the Trump “Administration.” Consider the Keystone Pipeline. After the Obama Administration stonewalled the project for years even though it had received permit approval, the Trump “Administration” has said, resolutely, go forward with it.

The executive order designed to stem the flow of immigrants also represents action, though there is a view that the order could have been vetted more thoroughly before it was signed. The fact that an Iranian baby couldn’t get into Oregon for planned surgery is only one indication of unintended consequences.

We gain an “Administration” that sets out to implement campaign promises, for better or worse.

It appears to me that the Trump “Administration” prospers in some minds became it represents a counter to the perception that many political figures in the past have been in politics for their own ends and benefits. Trump, of course, mentioned this in his inaugural address from the steps of the Capitol even as those who allegedly had prospered at the expense of “the people” sat only a few feet behind him, trying not to look downcast.

If you talk to Trump supporters, many of them say they are willing to overlook his incredible personal faults – objectifying women in very derogatory terms, making fun of those with disabilities, assuming all Muslims are the enemy, running his businesses into the ground, not paying contractors etc. – in order to support his approach to depart from the “liberal” ways of his predecessors.

One of these supporters told me last week that he simply could not vote for Hillary Clinton because “she was a crook” and he was not prepared for, essentially, a third Obama term. So, he accepted Trump with all of his personal and professional baggage.

So, one of the ways Trump salutes his supporters, is to fulfill the various pledges he made on the campaign trail – and fulfilling campaign promises is often a lost art in politics.

Overall, the risk is that the Trump approach wears pretty thin over time. And that carries potential jeopardy for this country because, first, we may have someone who views himself a dictator in the top political job in this country, thus a risk to democracy, and, second, we could be making enemies – or at least skeptics — of friendly countries around the world that we will need to support us.

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 often wondered why “jobs” was not a more potent political issue for many candidates for public office.

For me, perhaps too simplistically, creating jobs – or, more accurately, creating a solid environment for jobs to be created by the private sector – should be part of any candidate’s campaign. But, no, the jobs issue often falls to the back of the pack.

Not so for President Donald Trump and, while I will continue to have major questions about Trump as a person and Trump as a president, I applaud the early commitment to creating jobs.

Consider these developments.

• Early on, Trump made headlines by jawboning with Carrier Corporation to keep its jobs in the United States instead of moving them to Mexico. Critics railed that this was no business for a president and, in a way, for me, point taken, because there would be no time for a president to be so involved given the range of issues any president confronts.

But, from the view of the general public, Trump’s action underlined a key point: He was going to work hard to create a positive job creation environment, or in this case, keep jobs in the U.S.

• This from Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: “More important than the orders (the executive orders Trump signed last week) were the White House meetings. One was a breakfast with a dozen major CEOs. They looked happy as frolicking puppies in the photo-op, and afterward talked about jobs. Marillyn Hewson of Lockheed Martin said she was ‘encouraged by the president’s commitment to reduce barriers to job creation. In a statement after the meeting, the glassmaker Corning whose CEO attended, announced plans to expand its U.S. manufacturing base significantly over the next few years.”

• Trump also met with U.S. automobile manufacturers and asked them – perhaps a better word would be “told” them – to keep their car-making business in the U.S. That means jobs American citizens.

• Trump ordered resumption of movement toward two pipelines – Keystone and Dakota Access – that will create jobs, both to build the installations and then to operate them. Both had been stopped arbitrarily by the Obama Administration. Of course, there will be legal challenges from the enviro left, but, to Trump, jobs hung in the balance, an estimated 40,000 alone with the Keystone project.

• As a new kind of populist, Trump also met with union leaders. The columnist Noonan described the meeting this way. “More important still—the most important moment of the first week—was the meeting with union leaders. Mr. Trump gave them almost an hour and a half. ‘The president treated us with respect, not only our organization but our members,’ said Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, by telephone. ‘The whole meeting was about middle class jobs, how do we create more?’ Mr. O’Sullivan believes the Keystone pipeline will eventually generate more than 40,000 jobs. Mr. O’Sullivan said he hopes fixing ‘our crumbling transportation infrastructure’ will be ‘the largest jobs program in the country.’”

Critics will continue to say that issuing executive orders alone will not achieve the objective. They are right. Good government requires more than orders from an imperial top. But, at same time, such orders do two things: First, they give clear instructions to the bureaucracy, and, second and perhaps more importantly, they appeal to the public.

As Peggy Noonan put it this week, “It actually looked as if someone was doing something.”

My view is that creating an environment for job creation is not just good economic business – it is good business period. And, having a job often is the best social policy, giving those who have them a sense of self-worth as they provide for their families and themselves, not to mention getting them off government programs.

So, I hope politicians at all levels will find ways to adopt a jobs policy. It will be good for America.

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 Department of Pet Peeves is open and I, as the director with absolute discretion, will include a few new pet peeves.

First, a Pet Peeve: Why does Donald Trump get away with saying one thing one day and then the exact opposite the next?  Consider his remarks on U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA.

On January 11, Trump tweeted that “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?”

It was like declaring war on those officials who would have to help him defend the country as soon as he became president.

Then, a couple days after taking the oath of office, Trump went out to CIA headquarters and called officials there great folks with whom he would work to “make America great again.”

So, which is it ? With Trump, who knows? But, it appears that an explicit strategy in the Trump camp is to disregard consistency, perhaps even truth, and believe the strategy will deflect media editors and reporters, even the public.

As a former journalist, I say a critical task for editors and reporters is to decide which Trump statement (or those from his press secretary) are worth being categorized as news. The same discretion should be used in relation to Trump’s tweets, which also seem designed to deflect the media from its more properly appointed rounds.

Back when I worked in Oregon state government, including as press secretary for Governor Vic Atiyeh, we were concerned about making every effort to be consistent lest the media — and, more importantly, the public — felt we were less than honest.  It appears that such a commitment to honesty is not part of the Trump Administration.

Second, another Pet Peeve: As legislators gather in Salem for a regular legislative session starting February 1, they should keep one question in mind as they consider almost 3,000 individual bills. The queston: Does this proposed bill deal with an issue state government should consider and is there an appropriate role for government?

My pet peeve is that this question is seldom asked or answered.

Perhaps because Democrats are in charge in Salem and they often believe in big government, the assumption is that government should be involved. But legislators from both sides of the aisle should ask the basic question and, at least once in awhile, throw out a piece of legislation because there is no way government should assume a role.

Third, another Pet Peeve: One of the biggest issues legislators will face during their five or six-month sojourn in Salem will revolve around the State of Oregon budget. In a legislative session, the only official task lawmakers must achieve is to produce a balanced 2017-2019 budget.

As they do this, they’ll find the phrase, “this is an essential role for state government and this is a non-essential role. My question is this: If a service is not essential, why should it be funded? Isn’t every service essential if government is involved? My answer is yes. If not, then don’t fund it.

Footnote: Let me end on this more positive note. I heard a great line when the New England Patriots dispatched the Pittsburgh Steelers the other day in an NFL division championship football game.

About one of the Patriots receivers, Chris Hogan, the announcer said he should be labeled a “9-11 receiver.” Why, “because he was open all night?” A great line!