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 ask this question about the middle ground in politics, which has been a hallmark for me, given what we’ve all been through in the last election.

I have always thought that the middle ground was a good place to be — not liberal, not conservative, but, instead, interested in what could be labeled the smart center.

But it may not exist today.

We face a pitted environment where people on either side appear to hate each other and engage in hate-filled speech. The mantra appears to be — if you don’t agree with me, then you are wrong and I’ll prove it by calling you a liar and a cheat.

Whether nationally or in a state like Oregon, advocating for middle ground – the smart or sensible center – cannot be easily translated into a sound bite that works in a TV or radio ad or in social media, the latter of which is becoming the go-to place to “make news.”

Another reason why middle ground is so difficult to find relates to what two authors call “the permanent campaign.” 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 – suggest that “political compromise is difficult in America, even though no one doubts it is necessary, because of the incursion of campaigning into governing in American democracy.”

They add that the “permanent campaign” encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult.

“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.”

Over my years as a lobbyist at the Capitol in Salem, I have seen legislators structure what they do and how they act in relation to the next campaign, not in the best interests of solving pressing public policy problems. They appear to be interested in the next headline rather than the next piece of public policy.

Another factor is that there are fewer and fewer legislators – or, for that matter, governors — who have the ability to lead disparate interests to find middle ground. You only have to look at Governor Kate Brown who, with an opportunity to invite business and labor to a negotiating table in the aftermath of the defeat of Ballot Measure 97 (a tax on profits, not sales), chooses instead to up the ante on her side of the ledger, more taxes.

Let me cite just one example from the past where a political leader led an effort to find middle – the past which doesn’t have many prologues to the current or future. Former senator Neil Bryant, a Republican from Bend, had a special ability to lead toward the smart middle. He was often turned to as THE senator to take on difficult, controversial assignments.

After Oregonians adopted an assisted suicide ballot measure by a 60-40 vote, Bryant and others at the Capitol, me included, noted that the “immunities clause” in the new law was poorly drafted.

So, even in the aftermath of the strong, affirmative public vote, Bryant convened a group of interests to work toward crafting better immunities language. I was there as a representative of Providence Health System, a large health care provider in Oregon that has an affiliation with the Catholic Church. Representatives of the assisted suicide advocacy group, Right to Die, were there, as well. We even sat next to each other.

In a decision made by Bryant, a representative of the Catholic Church was not allowed to participate because his client, the Church, could not compromise on any issue — the church’s view was that compromise was unethical, so the lobbyist was left on the outside.

After several weeks of meetings, under Bryant’s leadership, the group crafted a middle ground position – with far superior language to what had been approved at the polls and, again with Bryant’s leadership, the bill became law.

In this venture, I had to compromise as Providence’s representative and I won’t spend time or words outlining all of the specific compromise language, but one thing was and is clear – middle ground was found on a tough issue due to a top-level leader and a group willing to work together despite differences.

Finding middle ground requires, not only leaders with the skills to knock heads to produce compromise, but followers who have, to use the term coined by the two authors above, “a mindset open to compromise.”

If someone wants only to get their way and tell others to take the highway, leaders cannot do much to find the smart middle.

For government to work, I believe everyone must get back to the best definition of politics – the “art of compromise” – or, in my words, “finding the smart middle, the sensible center.”

To be sure, those holding elective office will have to consider the next campaign, but that doesn’t mean they have to be involved in a permanent campaign. They – and those of us who elect them – should be heavily invested in the process of governing.

We need leaders who will lead and followers who will follow.

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.

That question is making the rounds of news offices these days, given the proclivity of the nation’s incoming president, Donald Trump, to turn to the social media site, Twitter, at the drop of, well, a hat such as the baseball cap he often wears to keep his hair in place.

The basic answer from responsible media figures today appears to be “yes.”

Even though there is concern about the character of the president-elect’s tweets, media experts believe they cannot ignore what the nation’s political leader says, including on social media. Good reporters will spend some time and effort trying to put into context what Trump tweets, but ignore them – no.

Since election day, Trump, via tweets, has proposed a U-turn in American diplomatic relations with Cuba, boasted about negotiations with a major manufacturer (Carrier), trumpeted (pardon the play on words) false claims about millions of illegal votes, and hinted that he might upend current free speech laws by banning flag burning.

All, as the New York Times put it, “in 140 characters or less.”

Thus, editors are grappling with how to cover a president-elect who appears to have a new idea about presidency-media relations. Less access. Fewer, if any, press conferences. More White House press room reporters sitting on their hands. More social media, even at unpredictable times, such as at about 12:15 a.m. when Trump tweeted to criticize Alec Baldwin’s impersonation of him on Saturday Night Live.

“Anything that a president would say – even if it was libelous or scandalous – it’s the president talking, and I think you report it,” according to Chris Wallace, the host of the Fox News Sunday broadcast. “Under any definition, it’s news, whether it’s sensible or not, factual or not, productive or not.”

A Washington Post editor was quoted in the New York Times as saying that, if Trump tweets, it is much like what presidents have said on the walk to a helicopter ride away from the White House. “In this post-election period, anything he (Trump) says, in any way, you have to consider it, and you have weigh whether it deserves a story.”

Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) President Steve Bass – the news operation at OPB reports to him – said much the same thing in a meeting earlier this week. He said it was not right to ignore tweets, but also said it was important for reporters and editors – including those at OPB — to provide context for them.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger, in a piece this week, went farther by labeling Trump a “performance artist.”

“He is challenging what we think is normal—first for a presidential campaign and now for the presidency.

“He’s Andy Warhol silk-screening nine Jackie Kennedys. You can’t do that. Oh yes he can. Currently Donald Trump is silk-screening American corporations: Ford, Carrier, Rexnord, Boeing.

“Lady Gaga once talked about the doubters in an interview: ‘They would say, ‘This is too racy, too dance-oriented, too underground. It’s not marketable.’ And I would say, ‘My name is Lady Gaga, I’ve been on the music scene for years, and I’m telling you, this is what’s next.’ And look . . . I was right.’”

“Who does that sound like?

“In ‘The Art of the Deal,’ Donald Trump described what he was up to: ‘I play to people’s fantasies.’

“Anti-Trumpers will say: Precisely. We can’t have a performance artist as president of the United States.

“That’s irrelevant now.”

Reporters and editors would do well to keep the performance artist image in mind as they work to determine how to cover this new, mercurial president.

A footnote: At least at the moment, it appears that we do not have political leaders in Oregon who try to make news via tweets and other social media outlets. Good. I say make news the regular way by doing good public policy and work with reporters and editors to write about the process and the results.

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 former deputy director of Oregon’s Economic Development Department – now called Business Oregon – President-elect Donald Trump’s action to get involved in the “Carrier issue” set off positive notions, as well as alarm bells.

More applaud than alarm, however, because saving jobs for the U.S. is what leading political figures should be doing. President Barack Obama sat on his hands. President-elect Trump jumped into the fray.

Saving jobs in the nation’s Rust Belt is just what Trump said he would do when he ran for election. And the fact that he inserted himself in the issue produced a solid result, at least in public relations terms. About 800 jobs remain in the U.S., which otherwise would have headed south.

Important to note here that Trump had a huge resource in Indiana where the Carrier jobs were located: His vice-president-elect, Mike Pence, is governor of that state and it was relatively easy for him to vote for and gain approval for the incentives Carrier won to keep the jobs in Indiana.

If – or, more likely, when – Trump inserts himself in other states, he won’t have Pence. But he will have the bully pulpit of the Oval Office.

Many are questioning what Trump had to do to keep the Carrier jobs and whether he will be able to keep up the intervention. Some have said that there are not enough incentive dollars around to grant awards to all the companies considering re-locating manufacturing operations to Mexico or other countries where wages are far lower. And others have commented that Trump’s action were in no way conservative, which means there should have been no government intervention in private business.

Here is how my friend Ron Eachus wrote about the subject in the Salem Statesman-Journal where he is an editorial columnist:

“He got involved. He intervened. He pressured them and got a small, but symbolically important win. Whatever else one might think of his persona or proposed policies, he demonstrated why so many in the Rust Belt saw him as the best choice when it came to protecting their manufacturing jobs from globalization and international trade.

“It was a personal, hands-on approach they’d been hoping for. And for the time being, a success. But such a victory in an early skirmish comes with a siren call — an alluring appeal to entice one to ignore or disregard the inherent danger of the course taken.

“The president-elect, now negotiator-in-chief, says he’s going to do this all over the country, using threats of public humiliation and imposition of tariffs and promises of really big corporate tax cuts and regulatory relief to cut deals. But private individual deal making with companies lacks transparency and will inevitably lead to an inconsistent and inequitable treatment of companies that could further undermine the economy and faith in the political process.

“Duplicating Carrier isn’t going to be that easy. It helped that vice president-elect Mike Pence was also still governor of Indiana, thus chairman of the board of the state agency that granted $7 million worth of public dollar incentives to Carrier. Getting similar concessions for other companies in other states might not go as quickly or smoothly.”

Ron is right. It won’t be easy for Trump to duplicate his Carrier success.

But my view, one honed during my days at Oregon’s Economic Development Department, can be summed up in one phrase: Every job counts.

If a president or a governor acts to save, not just one job, but 800 jobs, so much the better. Especially for those whose jobs are saved.

Even recognizing all of the political pros and cons here – disparate views about the role of government in saving or helping to create jobs – it always has been a mystery to me why “the jobs issue” ranks so low on many political priority lists.

It should be higher.

Those with the saved jobs have the benefit of the jobs. They support their families. They pay taxes.  They know the worth of working.

So, at least for a time, let’s set aside the debate about whether government should act. Just save the jobs.

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.

Washington Post writers put it bluntly in a headline a few weeks ago: “The fall of the house of Obama is coming, and it’s his own fault.”

That was a reminder that President Obama came into office on a pledge to restore bi-partisan order in the Nation’s Capitol ,but did almost the reverse when he could not get his way.

To go around Congress, which would not do his bidding, he turned to executive regulations.

According to Washington Post:

“The safety-pin-wearing left is aghast at the realization that President Donald Trump could actually follow through on his promise to cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama on his first day in office.”

Further:

“The reason Obama’s legacy is so vulnerable today is that the 44^th president relied more on executive actions – issuing not only executive orders, but also a record number of rules, regulations, agency directives to legislate around Congress and impose his agenda.

“After he lost control of the Senate in 2014, Obama announced at his first Cabinet meeting: We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation…I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone and I can use that to sign executive orders and take executive and administrative actions to move the ball forward.”

Now, some on the left would say that Obama had no choice because Republicans in Congress would not work with him to find middle ground. Perhaps. But, what a president, any president, must do is cajole, pester, persuade and do everything in the substantial power of the Oval Office to prod action out of Congress, regardless of which party is in charge.

Obama, in particular, should have worked the middle because of the pledges he made while running for and winning the presidency.

Washington Post writers contended that Obama “set a land speed record” for major regulations which, taken together – there were more than 600 – cost the economy $100 million or more.

Here are a few Obama orders that likely will be overturned.

• Immigration: When Obama could not pass his immigration reform to provide amnesty for entire categories of people not in the U.S. legally, he tried to impose it on the American people.

• Cap and trade: When Obama could not pass his environmental cap-and-trade bill, he used the Clean Air Act to impose it by executive action and, in the process, twisted the meaning of the law that even the New York Times contended was beyond credibility.

• Guantanamo Bay: With a stroke of his pen, President Trump can reverse Obama’s order to close the prison.

• Climate change: Trump can scrap the climate change deal that Obama signed in September 2016, which is non-binding in the first place.

• Transgender bathrooms: Remember this piece of stupidity. It will be relatively easy to quash the Education Department’s requirement for higher education institutions to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that do not match their biological gender.

• Clean power plan: It will not be as easy to trash the so-called “clean power plan” operated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the EPA would have to revoke it formally, which could lead to litigation. There is little doubt but that Trump will try.

There are some in Washington, D.C. who suggest that Trump would really shake things up by issuing a single executive order on day one of his Administration repealing all of Obama’s executive orders. Then, the Administration could go back and decide which ones to reinstate.

Obama, who claimed to build his Administration on the rock of bi-partisan consensus, actually, to quote a Biblical reference, was a “foolish man who built his house on the sand.”

Thus, it won’t last. Just watch what happens starting January 20, 2017.

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.

We are in for substantial changes in the way health care operates in this country.

That much is clear with President-elect Donald Trump’s pending appointment of Representative Tom Price of Georgia to be Health and Human Services cabinet secretary.

Trump made the announcement of Price’s appointment earlier this week, but, of course, as with most other high-level appointments in the new Trump Administration, Price’s elevation is subject to Senate confirmation.

Price won plaudits from some quarters in Congress when, as a representative, he proposed the “Empowering Patients First Act.”

According to the New York Times:

“His proposal would take health care in a fundamentally different direction, away from mandated coverage and care and toward a free-market approach, with fewer consumer protections and more freedoms for doctors.”

Senate Republican Mitch McConnell said “I can tell you where we’re going to start: With a process to repeal and replace ObamaCare.”

The “repeal and replace” language is noteworthy because it is viewed by congressional leaders to be easier to repeal ObamaCare, then replace it, than it would be simply to change ObamaCare. The point is that Americans, if Trump and Republicans have their way, would be left with a new health care plan, not nothing

Here is a list of key changes Price’s proposal would make:

1. The requirement for insurance to cover pre-existing conditions would be available, not to everyone, but only to persons who have maintained coverage in the past, for example moving to the individual market from an employer’s health care plan.

2. The mandate for Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty would be eliminated, as would the requirement for larger employers to offer coverage.

3. Instead, the Price proposal would offer tax credits for purchasing individual and family health insurance policies and also would use other tax breaks to coax more people into using personal health savings accounts.

4. The bill would make it easier for doctors to defend themselves against medical malpractice lawsuits, especially if doctors followed clinical guidelines for treating medical conditions.

5. The bill would make it easier for doctors to enter into private contracts with Medicare beneficiaries, thus opting out of federal Medicare structures.

6. The bill would eliminate the federal health insurance exchanges, though states could contract with private entities to provide information – but only information, not enrollment – on prices and benefits offered by insurers.

7. The bill would offer federal grants to states to form high-risk pools to subsidize insurance for low-income persons who otherwise might have difficulty finding insurance on the open market.

8. The bill would allow insurers licensed in one state to sell policies to residents of other states.

There is more to the Price proposals than this list, but here’s hoping that the “Empowering Patients First Act” becomes a starting point for a larger, bi-partisan discussion of how to reform health care so it works better than ObamaCare.

It should not be the end and, with Democrats sure to be involved, it won’t be.

One of the huge problems with ObamaCare was that it was imposed by Democrats. It was not a product of a bi-partisan debate and decision. Therefore, its good points – and there are a number of them – were obscured by the “one size fits all” solution.

If Price and other Administration officials are smart, they will focus on replacing ObamaCare, not just repealing it.

And, if cooler heads prevail – a tough challenge in the emotionally-tinged political environment we have just survived – the result will be a better health care policy for all Americans.

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 Americans, do we need to give Donald Trump a chance?

As in the headline on this blog, I say yes, though a bit hesitantly because I never know which Trump will emerge – the one on the campaign trail who, with almost unimaginable rhetoric, criticized everyone, or the one in his president-elect mode who appears to be reasonable and friendly.

The New York Times covered this point the other day in a column by Nicholas Kristoff. It sparked comments in letters to the editor, such as these two:

• From Greenwich, Connecticut: “I didn’t want either candidate, but will give Donald Trump a chance because Hillary Clinton wanted us to, because I respect the process and because I have faith in a government framework intended to disseminate power.”

• From Windermere, Florida: “It will not be helpful to the country if those on the left or anyone with serious concerns becomes just as extreme as those on the far right. I agree fully with Mr. Kristof on this point: Let’s grit our teeth, give him a chance and hold him strictly to account.”

If you voted for Hillary Clinton or, at least did not vote for Trump, gritting your teeth may be a predictable reaction. But, to state the obvious, there are winners and losers in politics and, if democracy means anything, then it should mean that winners win with grace and the losers lose with the same trait.

For my part, here on the West Coast, far removed from the two East Coast letter writers, I say, too, give Trump a chance. Look at what he does, not just at what he says, via Twitter and other new-age forms of communication. Consider how he transfers from a campaign mode to a governing mode because, in the end, he will have to govern.

****

FOOTNOTE:  Even as I wrote this, recounts were being requested in several Rust Belt states, recounts demanded first by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, but later joined by the Hillary Clinton campaign, which, obviously, already has conceded the election.  I suspect these recounts will not amount to much.

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.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius wrote an interesting column the other day in which he expressed thanks for Donald Trump’s insincerity, which he called “bait and switch.”

To bait Americans on the campaign trail, Trump accused absolutely everybody of being less wonderful than he himself, “The Donald.” Then, after his election, he switched many of his off-the wall-campaign promises.

Here’s the way Ignatius described the changes:

“Perhaps we should be thankful this week for Donald Trump’s insincerity. In a breathtaking fortnight of flip-flopping, he has reversed many of his most reckless and damaging campaign positions.

“The new Trump professes sympathy for people and ideas he disdained during the ‘vicious’ campaign. He now admires President Obama, doesn’t want to harm (let alone lock up) Hillary Clinton, is waffling on climate change, and thinks waterboarding might not work. Maybe he’ll even decide that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a great trade deal.”

If this means that Trump actually wants to get about the business of healing the great divides in America, good. He’ll have a lot more work to do and there is no doubt that he won’t be able to convince many Americans of his better self, given the way he conducted himself on the campaign trail.

Think back to when Barack Obama came into office about eight years ago. He promised to lead a bi-partisan America. He did not. He actually pushed bi-partisanship to the side to exert his own will as chief executive through regulations that circumvented Congress.

Many of his supporters would say he did so because of a recalcitrant Congress that wouldn’t do his bidding.

One test of any president is the ability to convince those in Congress – as well as the American people – of the worth of his ideas. If that means compromise with Congress, so be it because the best ideas often are found in the middle anyway and not on either extreme.

Trump’s election was one of the most divisive in American history. Here’s hoping his presidency will work to heal the divisions. Or, to use the Ignatius analogy, the Trump presidency actually will practice bait and switch bait from over-wrought campaign rhetoric to actual governing positions.

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 I was in charge of federal care reform – never fear, I won’t be assigned that unenviable task, nor would I take it – there is one foundation plank that would be in my platform.

Using the example of car insurance, it is this: You have to have coverage. If you don’t and have a “health care accident,” you would pay a penalty, just as you do with car insurance.

It’s a simple concept really, but, of course, the devil would be in the details in such areas as what happens to people who are so poor they cannot buy health insurance. No doubt there would have to be subsidies.

Also, how do you handle such issues as a ban on not covering pre-existing conditions? One key there would to make sure everyone had coverage, so the entire pool would be supporting insurance for all, which is a key spread-the-risk tenet for insurance generally.

Those who designed ObamaCare, only Democrats, faced those same questions and, by all accounts, did a bad job of providing answers. So much so that there is an emerging consensus that ObamaCare must be replaced with something smarter. Not repeal. Replaced.

It appears that even President-Elect Donald Trump – that title, by the way, does not fall easily off the lips – gets it. When he met with President Obama shortly after his stunning win, he came away, he said, with a belief that at least two ObamaCare concepts ought to be retained – a ban on insurers not covering pre-existing conditions and allowing “children” to remain on their parents coverage until age 26.

As for the “you have to have it mandate,” there was no talk about it early on in the Trump Transition, perhaps because, as its base, government mandates are anathema to Republicans, now in charge of the White House, as well as both houses of Congress.

Before the national elections, Republicans got a head start on various policy issues for consideration if they remained in charge of Congress in the nation’s Capitol. They called it “A Better Way.” Here is a summary of four key principles in the health care section:

More choices and lower costs.

• Our plan gives you more control and more choices so that you can pick the plan that meets your needs—not Washington’s mandates.

Real protections and peace of mind.

• Our plan makes sure that you never have to worry about being turned away or having your coverage taken away—regardless of age, income, medical conditions, or circumstances.

Cutting-edge cures and treatments.

• Our plan clears out the bureaucracy to accelerate the development of life-saving devices and therapies.

A stronger Medicare.

• Our plan protects Medicare for today’s seniors and preserves the program for future generations.

To be sure, these are just words on paper so far. They need to be fleshed into real concepts that have the potential to pass muster in Congress, as well as with the American people.

As I followed the recent election campaigns, a comment I heard a lot was that, if America is one of the leading nations in the free world, then it should be able to design a health care coverage program that works well for its citizens.

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

That question in that headline is on many minds these days as all of us are adjusting to an unpredictable and difficult-to-fathom reality: Donald Trump is the president-elect.

As president, will he be the same self-centered buffoon, misogynist and critic of all but himself that he was on the year-long campaign trail?

Or, will he come across as interpersonally skilled, humble, and compassionate as he done since his stunning election win, including in his victory speech, as well as on his visit with President Obama at the White House.

Only time will tell.

But, a foreboding thought is that Trump’s campaign style is so instinctive that he may not be able to contain himself when he comes under pressure in the Oval Office.

Witness these stark contrasts:

• On the campaign trail, he criticized his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton in the strongest possible terms, even threatening to throw her in jail. But, in his victory speech, he lauded Clinton’s contributions, contending that she had worked very hard and deserved gratitude from the country.

• On the campaign trail, he continued to bring up the Obama “birther issue,” contending that the president should not have been allowed to serve in the nation’s highest political office because he was not born in the U.S. But, as he met Obama at the White House after his victory, Trump complimented the country’s current chief executive.

• On the campaign trail, he criticized Senator John McCain because he was captured during his service in the Vietnam War, and slammed the parents of the serviceman killed in Iraq. Yet, as he prepared his Transition, he made commitments to beef up America’s military might.

• On the campaign trail, he conducted himself as one who objectified women, in the worst sense of that phrase, including an incredible list of sexual conquests, about which he boasted. But, in victory, Trump was glad to count a number of women around the country as staunch supporters.

The best speech I heard Trump give in more than a year was the one to underline his victory. He complimented Clinton and appeared gracious and humble as he contemplated his rise to the top. I wish he could have come across as the same individual in the campaign, but, then, I guess, he would not have been able to capitalize on the anger and emotion resident in the U.S.

As the New York Times put in it a major piece on November 11:

“Mr. Trump’s trip (to the White House) was surreal for many Republicans and Democrats in Washington who never expected to see the real estate executive and reality television star in an Oval Office meeting to begin preparations to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Mr. Trump, whose campaign drew support from white supremacist groups, sat just in front of a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Oval Office.”

My aspiration is the same as the Times wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“As a candidate, Mr. Trump could get away with ignoring racist and sexist abuse by his supporters (or, I add, by himself). But, as the president-elect, he has the moral duty to reject it in the most aggressive terms. There should be no space in American political discourse for violent or abusive behavior. In a little more than two months, Donald Trump will take charge of a country of more than 320 million people all races, ethnicities and religions. Every one of them deserves to live in safety, with dignity.”

Living in safety, with dignity, should be the hope of all Americans.

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 wrote the other day that one test of the most recent election – and any election, for that matter – is whether those who won can get about the business of governing rather than just campaigning some more.

Another test: Can the winners avoid overplaying their hand?

After all if you, then to the victor go the spoils, right?  Well, yes, to a certain extent, but any attempt at governing will require — should require — a balance between the majority and minority.

In the Nation’s Capitol, this means can the new Trump Administration find a way to operate in a more rationale way rather than just giving those on the right all of the action. Early indications, at least reported by some national media, is that the Trump group is off to a decent start, with a gracious victory speech by Trump, a decent meeting with President Barack Obama, an indication that the new team will focus on a small short list of priorities, and an openness expressed by Trump himself to reform ObamaCare, not trash it.

In Oregon, not overplaying their hand applies to Democrats who, again, will control the Governor’s Office, the House, the Senate, the Treasurer’s Office, and the Attorney General’s Office. The only statewide office they don’t hold is Secretary of State where Republican Dennis Richardson carved out a surprising win, the first by a Republican in a statewide office in many years.

In particular, will the re-elected governor, Kate Brown, the House Speaker Tina Kotek and the Senate President Peter Courtney reach out to Republicans to help govern? And, if they reach out, will Republicans respond with moves toward the smart middle rather than just play the opposition?

For one thing, Democrats will not operate with super-majorities in either the House or the Senate, so, if tax increases are an issue in the aftermath of the defeat of Ballot Measure, they will have to work with Republicans to hammer out a deal.

In the past in Oregon, those in charge have tended to overplay their hand. They seek to shove their agendas down the throats of the other side. That problem has happened with both Democrats and Republicans.

Control in nearly every major office does not often translate to middle-ground compromise, which is where the best solutions lie anyway.

Speaking of compromise, one of the best legislative sessions to see it in Oregon occurred in 2011. At least that was true in the Oregon House. There, there were 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans. That meant legislators had no choice but to work together to do anything, including the only action that any legislature has to accomplish, which is to produce a balanced budget for the next two years.

It is rare that elections produce equal Republican-Democrat results, but when they do, you can watch democracy in action without any tendency for one party to overplay their hand.

Footnotes on the national election campaign: Based on national media coverage over the last few days, it appeared that at least three factors were at work in Donald Trump’s stunning win. One was that Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate who had trouble imparting a vision for her presidency. A second factor was that it always is difficult for one party to hold the White House for a third term and that’s how Clinton came across – Obama 3. A third factor was Trump himself who did not run a conventional campaign and that factor alone appeared to endear him to a lot voters, including those skeptical of the expansive role of government in their lives.