Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I borrowed part of the headline for this blog from one of my on-line golf magazines.

And, to state what may be obvious, the “modest proposal” deals with one of my hot-button issues these days – slow play on professional golf tours.

But, to say the proposal (reprinted below) is “modest” is not right.  It is worse.  It is just too the complex to have any chance of being implemented.

Still, it is true that, unless pro golf leaders do something about slow play, TV viewership will continue to go south.

For me, instead of the “modest proposal,” the following four steps could be taken immediately to speed up the game – plus, they are not particularly complicated:

1.  Allow range-finders:  Some could argue that using such devices actually could slow up play, but I differ.  Allow the use of range-finders to calculate yardage more quickly than the old way – pacing it off.
2. Don’t let caddies give advice on putts:  Probably too severe because caddies need to be caddies, but, now, when caddies get involved, play slows down.
3. Impose “continuous putting:”  By this, I mean that, when players first putt, they should continue to put into the hole.  And, also, don’t allow marking golf balls when they are within one-foot of the cup.  Just hit them in.
4. Place shot clocks on golf carts:   Then, have the carts travel down fairways following each group.  When a player selects a club, start the clock to measure what the official golf rules already specify – 40 seconds to hit a shot.  If players exceed the time, give them one warning and, then, if violations continue, impose penalty strokes.  Two penalty strokes and, after that, disqualification.  Pretty soon, players will get the message.

To this, some observers have added that the “aim-point” method of reading putts should be prohibited because it adds so much time on the green.

So, here is the full text of the “modest proposal” from a golf writer, just to verify that someone has thought through something complicated.

*********

Golf keeps a million measurements.  Swing speed, ball speed, shot curvature, shot trajectory, proximity to the hole, strokes gained this and strokes gained that.  One hesitates to suggest another.

But as PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan and his team prepare a strategy to address slow play — and in the wake of tougher policy at the LPGA — let’s play what if.

What if there were an actual measurement of how fast every player played?  What if, from that measurement, the PGA Tour determined an acceptable rate of play and competitors who played more slowly were penalized in strokes?

Call the new measurement SPS:  Seconds-Per-Shot.

We’re not talking here about the time it takes to execute a single swing.  SPS would include the walk to the ball, discussion with caddie, calculation of distance, club selection, rehearsal swings, and shot execution.  It would apply to all shots from tee to tap-in.  It would not be about a single shot, but of the average number of seconds consumed per shot over 18 holes.

SPS would not be a group calculation in the way that a group of two or three players can now be “put on the clock.”  It would be an individual statistic:  Shots divided by time consumed in making them.  This statistic, a rate of play, would, after a testing period, then help the tour to set a maximum allowable rate beyond which a player would be penalized — in strokes.

You’re dreaming, you say.  How could you ever measure such a thing?  Well, given the magic of the way the tour collects data these days, the answer is probably a satellite somewhere, reading chips in players clubs or badges.  But a scoring volunteer with each group, given the right computer program, could do it, as well.

Example:  Three players arrive on tee.  The fairway or green is open.  The scorer clicks his iPad on Player A who has honors, and when Player A has hit, clicks off.  Then on to Player B.  And so on.  Players’ walks to the first shot in the fairway or to the green would be shared.  If the walk consumed one minute, say, each of three players gets 20 seconds.  After each hole, play time is sent to scoring center along with the player’s score.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that, after measuring players during a test period of a couple of months, it’s determined that the median SPS is 60, with about half of players slower, about half faster.  The tour decides that this median, 60 SPS, will become slowest allowable rate.  That is, a player may not consume more than 60 seconds per shot on average over 18 holes.  Tap-ins, of course, would depress the rate, difficult recovery shots expand it.

At this hypothetical rate of 60 SPS, if three players in a group shot 70, they would consume 210 minutes or 3½ hours to complete their shots.  Add another hour of moving from hole to hole, delays for rulings, etc., and you have a reasonable pace of play.

Now add to our “what if” that penalties for violation of the standard rate are automatic.  If a player consumed on average 25 per cent more time — in our hypothetical, 75 seconds per shot — he or she would be penalized one shot; 50 per cent more time, two shots.  (Allowable SPS would be modified for course difficulty or weather conditions, as is done these days with handicaps).

The beauty of this imagined system is that it disciplines individual players, not groups, and applies to a rate over 18 holes, not a given shot or two.  And it is automatic.  No officials’ judgement.  Penalties — in the form of strokes — become part of the game, not some secret discipline of fines assessed behind closed doors.  Fans are in on things.

I love Lucas Glover’s suggestions for speeding up play and am especially fond of his plea for fewer carts gumming up the flow of things (because they also ruin the beauty of a broadcast).  Ultimately, though, with tons of money and a million measurements to consider, some players will turn a set-look-fire game into a series of unending meetings, pacings, and rehearsals.  And fans will be left to watch grass grow.  If there are fines, we may never know.

Under our “what if” scenario, a player would be warned early in the round if he was moving at a penalty-incurring pace.  He could adjust, cut back on the AimPoint, maybe, and get back on pace.  Maybe there’s an indicator on the scoreboard noting that a player is in jeopardy of incurring a penalty.  

When Jonathan Swift wrote his 1729 essay “A Modest Proposal,” he suggested that the starving Irish could solve their hunger problem by selling their children as food to the upper classes.  It was satire.

This isn’t meant to be. Some may suggest it’s just as preposterous, but we’d argue that until golf gets a measurement like this, it will be very difficult to speed things up for good.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Note to self.

This blog headline matters.  There is good news lurking around every cornefr if you just look for it.

Or this:  Don’t focus on what Donald Trump said to Congress last night as he promised to double-down on actions that are changing the face of the United States…I would say, for the worse.

Ignore Trump, both last night and most of the time as he functions like a reality TV host, not a president.

Find good news.

So, as someone who is sucker for good news about animals, including mammals, consider this:

BALD EAGLES:  Two eagles, a male and a female, worked for years to hatch chicks in California.  When two checks finally emerged a day or so ago, one at a time, it created an Internet sensation because a nest-side camera recorded what everyone hoped would be a successful event.

It was.  Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported the good news: 

“The first crack came on Sunday afternoon.

“Jackie and Shadow (the eagle’s names) cried out from their nest, trying to scare off intruders while a nearby camera zoomed in on the bald eagle couple’s three eggs.  The camera revealed a crack, or a pip, in one of the eggs — the first sign that an eaglet was trying to exit.

“It was a welcome development for Jackie and Shadow, the celebrity eagles whose nest has been broadcast live daily to thousands of devoted viewers.   For almost three years, none of their eggs had hatched.

“But Monday night, Jackie and Shadow’s long wait was over.  A chick with a light gray fuzzy coat emerged from their first egg.  Hours later, early Tuesday, a second chick sprung out of its egg.  Tens of thousands of people watched the nest camera video as Jackie and Shadow met their new hatchlings.”

DOG RESCUE:  In Texas, a dog fell into a well no one knew existed under a house.  The homeowner thought he heard the sound of a dog, but had no idea where to look for it.  And, he was among who had no idea about the well, but he found it, sort of.

So, he called firefighters to the scene and they performed a difficult rescue. 

Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported the situation:

“A firefighter crawled under the house — an aboveground duplex — and searched with his flashlight.  He followed the sound of the barks, which led him to an empty old water well.  When he looked inside, there was a terrified-looking dog trapped at the bottom.”

Performing the rescue was difficult because firefighters had to spelunk under the house and devise a rescue harness for the dog.

It worked.

Error! Filename not specified.“When the dog saw the firefighters face, he immediately stopped barking and began wagging his tail.”

And, after being rescued, the dog, a stray, is doing fine.  Plus, a citizen decided to adopt him.

MORE GOLF:  So, as I write this, I am looking forward to more golf today.  This sport represents an escape for me – an escape from worrying about what Trump is doing to this country – or other unthinkable problems. 

Golf is good news for me and many others!

So, I am thankful to be able to revel in the beauty of nature as I chase a small round ball around the course.

With friends!

What could be better than that?  Plus, when I return home, my wife and my dog say they will still love me, no matter how I play.

So, in conclusion, focus on being alert for good news.  You’ll find it.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

When Donald Trump speaks, it is as if whatever happens to cross his mind ends up coming out of his mouth.

Both sides of his mouth.

So, though I won’t watch, Trump will be speaking to Congress today and I have no idea whybecause he detests the place unless it meets his incessant demands.

Back a few weeks now, when the commercial airliner collided with a helicopter on the way into Reagan National Airport, what did Trump say?

When any real president would offer support to those grievously affected by the tragedy and the loss of all lives, the words that came to Trump’s mouth were that the fault lay with Pete Buttigieg, who had run the federal Department of Transportation for President Joe Biden.

Or that it was Joe Biden’s fault.  Or former President Barack Obama.  Or “diversity, equity and inclusion” commitments.

Say what?

All without one scrap of evidence.  Just words spewing.

How could such phrases occur to Trump?  Well, the fact is that he practices the blame game all the time.  Not just this time.

Apart from the plane crash, read these words from Republican analyst Karl Rove who writes for the Wall Street Journal:

“Speed (in the Trump presidency) can lead to mistakes, such as pardoning at least 170 January 6 rioters who were accused of attacking police with deadly weapons.  The blanket pardons were an attempt ‘to move past the issue quickly,’ according to Axios.

“Rather than spend the time to identify violent criminals, ‘Trump just said: F— it: release ’em all,’ an anonymous adviser told Axios’s Marc Caputo.”

Rove also wrote that “Trump might also want to re-think linking presidential actions to partisanship and political favors.  Visiting North Carolina victims of Hurricane Helene, he led with how the region supported him in record numbers, and I’m supporting them in record numbers, too.”

Then, he went to California and, there, tied wildfire relief to passing a voter identification law he wanted.

Rove asked:  “Can you imagine the MAGA world rage if a Democrat president conditioned aid to red states on weaker voting laws?”

More from Rove:

“A bigger challenge awaits Trump.  Every president has a mandate, no matter how narrow his winning margin.  But it can’t all be done by executive orders.  A future president can easily undo them. To give his agenda some permanence, Trump must pass it into law.

“Which brings us to Congress.  It has a role to play, especially on the budget and taxes.  And little can be done on a party-line vote.  Against Trump’s urging, 38 House Republicans chose not to vote to raise the debt ceiling last December.  That points to the necessity of at least some bi-partisanship.”

Here is the way the New York Times put it:

“The first weeks into Trump’s second tour in the White House have seen so many lines crossed in the pursuit of his agenda that anyone who believes in the Constitution and honest governance should be worried:  Many of Trump’s first assertions of executive power blatantly exceed what is legally granted.

“He and his supporters have sought to undermine those best positioned to check his overreaches of power.  And he is moving to eliminate the tools of accountability in government in quick order.”

So, again, don’t listen to Trump as his mouth opens.  Out will spew violence and invective, no matter the circumstances.

As he sets out to make headlines every day – after all, he is a reality TV show host, not a real president – I hope the invective he spews will catch up with him, including making some of those voted for this felon question their votes, even though those votes cannot be undone now – and Trump will continue in office regardless of his inability to think.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The principals are these:

1. As a Christian, God does not accept me based on my performance.  Rather, he accepts based on the work of Christ to give me a way to God.
2. We can do “good works” for God as an outgrowth of our relationship with Him, not as a way to earn that relationship.

Not performance.

To use a word – grace.  Which is defined as “free and unmerited favor.”

This second principle has been amply expressed in a Bible study I attend in Salem, Oregon where I live for seven months a year.

The study – it is called Links and is part of a successful effort around the country to merge golf and the Bible – is hosted by my golf club in Salem, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club.

One of my best friends also attends and has made this statement several times in recent months:  “We can do ‘good works’ for God as an outgrowth of our relationship with Him, not as a way to earn salvation.”

As one example, those of us in this Bible study contributed to a fund, which then was dispensed to Illahe workers who often made just enough money from their jobs to make ends meet.

We didn’t want to know these recipients; we just wanted to do “good works” – in this case, just a bit of money for each.  So, we asked a top management official at Illahe to pass on the cash, a process that would guarantee that didn’t know the recipients and we didn’t “get credit” for this action.

Back to the Bible.  It has a lot of negative things to say about “works of the law.”  The apostle Paul stresses repeatedly that “we’re justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.”

But good works means more than that.  The phrase “good works” is used 13 times in the New Testament, with eight occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles.  Without exception, the phrase is used in a positive, non-ironic way to describe exemplary Christian activity.

Few chapters are as relentless in advocating good works as Titus 3, though it is one of the shortest books in the New Testament.

This is exactly what Paul says in Titus 3:8:  “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.”

Now, to put a closer point on this, I refer to my daughter. 

If she has a bit of money in her pocket and sees a homeless person, she often stops to give that person the money, saying that “he or she needs it more than I do.”

Also, my wife told me that on her recent trip to London with our daughter, they came across a person sitting in the rain who held a sign that she needed just a bit of money to buy a hostel for the night. 

My wife and daughter gave her that bit of money and felt good about doing so, not to get credit for a good deed, but that were expressing one of God’s important pieces of advice for real Christians – take time and energy to do good work for God, which often means helping people who are destitute and afraid.

So, my wife’s and my commitment is to continue to be alert for doing “good work” in the sense of what the Bible defines as that kind of work.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A PEW Research report caught my attention the other day when it said this:  “After years of decline, the share of Christians in U.S. has stabilized.”

I put the word “Christian” in italics because, as I will note later in this blog, the definition of the word is uncertain.  So is what the word “evangelical” means, as it also was used in the PEW study.

On this confusion, here is what the magazine Christianity Today wrote:

“The term evangelical has long provoked arguments among social scientists, historians, and lay people.  It first appeared in English as an adjective that meant ‘of the gospel.’  

“The first group of people to claim evangelical as a noun was the Evangelical Voluntary Church Association in England in the 1830s. It fought for the separation of church and state.  A subsequent group, the Evangelical Alliance, organized in the following decade to fight for the rights of free churches — groups called ‘non-conformist,’ ‘dissenting,’ and then ‘evangelical.’

“In the U.S., 100 years later, the evangelist Billy Graham started using the word as a term for people who supported his ministry.  Evangelical was so broad it could include Baptists and Presbyterians but also Episcopalians and Wesleyans, and Dutch Reformed and Stone-Campbell groups, not to mention Lutherans, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, and Black churches.

“Everyone kind of knew what it meant—something to do with the gospel — and no one had too strong of an association with the word.”

For me, evangelical refers to a group that is genuinely committed to God.

With that, back to the PEW study.  As reported by the Washington Post, the study “also found that the share of those who are ‘religiously unaffiliated’ has leveled off.”

Here is how the reporter, Emily Gustin, started her story:

“The Religious Landscape Study, which was first conducted in 2007, paints a picture of America that is more secular, particularly among young people, and remains a place where religious views closely align with politics.  And for the first time in the PEW study, more liberals are unaffiliated with a religion than identify as Christian.”

As a reader of this study, it is important first to understand something about the source, PEW, as well as its methods for conducting the study.

Here is what PEW says about itself:

“For more than 75 years, PEW has used data to address the challenges of a changing world by illuminating issues, creating common ground, and advancing ambitious strategies that lead to tangible progress.”

There may be a bit of bias in that language, but, at the same time, PEW has earned credibility for its reporting, which is based on surveying to go beyond itself to find out what the “public” thinks.  In other words, it does support one side or the other side – or for that matter any side.  It reports what survey respondents say; so it is just the facts of those responses.

As for the study, it is considered the most comprehensive look at religion in the United States, with more than 36,000 people filling out a 116-question survey in all 50 states.  Results shows significant evangelical variety diversity — racially, politically, economically, and even in terms of religious practice.

I choose to subscribe to PEW reports because they often serve to amplify my thinking.

So, based on its “Religious Landscape Study,” here are some of the key findings.

• The decline in Christianity has slowed

Overall, 62 per cent of Americans call themselves Christian, a figure that has been roughly stable over the past five years, but is down from 71 per cent in 2014 and 78 per cent in 2007. In the latest poll, 40 per cent of U.S. adults identify as Protestants, 19 per cent as Catholics and 3 per cent as “other” Christians.

• More Americans identify with a religion other than Christianity

Seven per cent of Americans identify with a religion other than Christianity, up from 5 per cent in 2007.  Similar to previous PEW surveys, 1.7 per cent of Americans identify as Jewish.

At the same time, more Americans now identify as Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu.

• Most Americans are spiritual

Almost 9 in 10 Americans believe that people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body, according to PEW.  Seven in 10 believe in heaven, hell or both.  More than 8 in 10 believe in God or a universal spirit.

• Religion and politics closely align

Generally, the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to identify or lean toward the Republican Party and express conservative opinions.  Less-religious people are more likely to identify or lean toward the Democrat Party and express liberal opinions.

• A liberal shift away from Christianity

Among self-described liberals, 37 per cent identify as Christian, down from 62 per cent in 2007, a 25-point shift.  Meanwhile, the share of liberals who identify with no religion increased to 51 per cent in 2024, up from 27 per cent in 2007.

• Immigrants are mostly Christian

Fifty-eight percent of Americans born outside the country are Christian, as are 63 per cent of those born in the country.  Both shares are down from 2007 and 2014.

• Women are more religious than men

U.S. women have long been more likely to identify with religion than men, and to say they pray daily and believe in a God.  But the gap is narrowing.  “In every age group,” the report says, “women are at least as religious as men, and in many [generations], women are significantly more religious than men.”

Now, from me, not PEW, it would be possible to argue with this study for a couple reasons.

As I wrote above, words such as “Christian” may have various meanings for those who were surveyed.  In some cases, certain folks may believe they are Christian because they live in America.  But, for me, being a “Christian” means that you have a personal relationship with God through what Christ has done for you.

In other words, real and very personal.  So, who knows if PEW’s use of the word “Christian” means what I believe it means.

Second, it’s often difficult for any reputable outfit, in this case PEW, to test “religious issues” using surveying and polling.  Often, those who are asked to respond are not sure they want to do so or they may not respond forthrightly.  This is true these for all kinds of polls, political and otherwise.

Still, despite the potential problems, this latest PEW report provides food for thought – and I am still thinking.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As I have noted before, every so often a columnist writes something that is worth reprinting in total in my blog.

This is such a day.

Writing in The Atlantic Magazine, Tom Nichols skewers Donald Trump and J.D. Vance for how they treated – read, mistreated – U.S. ally Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.  Call it an ambush, for that’s what it was for Zelensky.

No surprise in many ways, but Trump and Vance treated Zelensky as if he were an enemy and that no doubt was the objective advance as Zelensky tore himself away from war to visit the U.S. 

The stakes, of course, are far higher than just Trump and Vance preening for cameras in or near the Oval Office.  That’s what they do – preen.  After the ambush, reverberations started around the world as other supposed U.S. allies wondered who was going to get the next Trump-Vance salvo..

And, wouldn’t know it, Trump, the reality TV host, according to the Wall Street Journal, said this as the argument ended in the Oval Office:

“Toward the end of his on-camera, Oval Office brawl with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, Trump quipped that it was ‘great television.’  He’s right about that.  But the point of the meeting was supposed to be progress toward an honorable peace for Ukraine, and in the event the winner was Russia’s Vladimir Putin.”

There, what Trump and Vance they are doing, with nary a second thought, is risking the U.S. position in the world as they snuggle up to Putin.

Here is Nichols’ column.  Read it and weep for America.

Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened:  The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence. Trump’s advisers have already declared the meeting a win for “putting America first,” and his apologists will likely spin and rationalize this shameful moment as just a heated conversation — the kind of thing that in Washington-speak used to be called a “frank and candid exchange.” But this meeting reeked of a planned attack, with Trump unloading Russian talking points on Zelensky (such as blaming Ukraine for risking global war), all of it designed to humiliate the Ukrainian leader on national television and give Trump the pretext to do what he has indicated repeatedly he wants to do: side with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the war to an end on Russia’s terms. Trump is now reportedly considering the immediate end of all military aid to Ukraine because of Zelensky’s supposed intransigence during the meeting. Vance’s presence at the White House also suggests that the meeting was a setup.  Vance is usually an invisible backbencher in this administration, with few duties other than some occasional trolling of Trump’s critics. (The actual business of furthering Trump’s policies is apparently now Elon Musk’s job.) This time, however, he was brought in to troll not other Americans, but a foreign leader.  Marco Rubio — in theory, America’s top diplomat — was also there, but he sat glumly and silently while Vance pontificated like an obnoxious graduate student. Zelensky objected, as he should have, when the vice president castigated the Ukrainian president for not showing enough personal gratitude to Trump. And then in a moment of immense hypocrisy, Vance told Zelensky that it was “disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media.” But baiting Zelensky into fighting in front of the media was likely the plan all along, and Trump and Vance were soon both yelling at Zelensky. (“This is going to be great television,” Trump said during the meeting.) The president at times sounded like a Mafia boss — “You don’t have the cards”; “you’re buried there” — but in the end, he sounded like no one so much as Putin himself as he hollered about “gambling with World War III,” as if starting the biggest war in Europe in nearly a century was Zelensky’s idea. After the meeting, Trump dismissed the Ukrainian leader and then issued a statement that could only have pleased Moscow:  “I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations.  I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.  He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office.  He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” Trump might as well have dictated this post on Truth Social before the meeting, because Zelensky didn’t stand a chance of having an actual discussion at the White House.  When he showed Trump pictures of brutalized Ukrainian soldiers, Trump shrugged. “That’s tough stuff,” he muttered. Perhaps someone told Zelensky that Trump doesn’t read much, and reacts to images, but Trump, uncharacteristically, seems to have been determined to stay on message and pick a fight. Vance, for his part, fully inhabited the role of a smarmy talk-show sidekick, jumping in to make sure the star got the support he needed while slamming one of the guests.   The vice president is an unserious man who tries to insert himself into serious moments, but this time the stakes were much higher than the usual dustups with the media or congressional Democrats.  He chuckled as Brian Glenn, a journalist from the right-wing channel Real America’s Voice who is reportedly dating Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, asked Zelensky the tough and incisive question of why he had not worn a suit in the Oval Office. (Perhaps he’ll ask Musk why he wore a hat and T-shirt to a Cabinet meeting, but I doubt it.) The sheer rudeness shown to a foreign guest and friend of the United States was (to use a word) deplorable as a matter of manners and grace, but worse, Trump and Vance acted like a couple of online Kremlin sock puppets instead of American leaders. They pushed talking points that they either knew or should have known were wrong. Even if Zelensky were as fluent and capable in English as Winston Churchill, he would never have been able to rebut the flood of falsehoods. No, the U.S. has not given Ukraine $350 billion; yes, Zelensky has repeatedly expressed his thanks to America and to Trump; no, Zelensky was not attacking the administration. The Ukrainian leader did his best to stand up to the bullying, but Trump and Vance were playing to the cameras and the MAGA gallery at home. Vance showed how dedicated he was to point-scoring rather than policy making with an observation so shallow that he was lucky that Zelensky was too off-balance to call him out for it. To emphasize Ukraine’s perilous situation, Vance noted that Zelensky was sending conscripts to the front lines, as if this was an unprecedented policy that only the most desperate regime would dare enact. Zelensky said that all nations at war have problems, but he might have pointed out to Vance that Ukraine is fighting for its very existence, while the United States has dragged conscripts to places far from home—including Korea and Vietnam—to fight against troops supported by the Kremlin. Today’s meeting and America’s shameful vote in the United Nations on Monday confirmed that the United States is now aligned with Russia and against Ukraine, Europe, and most of the planet. I felt physically sick watching the president of the United States yell at a brave ally, fulminating in the Oval Office as if he were an addled old man shaking his fist at a television. Zelensky has endured tragedies, and risked his life, in ways that men such as Trump and Vance cannot imagine.  (Vance served as a public-relations officer in the most powerful military in the world; he has never had to huddle in a bunker during a Russian bombardment.)  I am ashamed for my nation; even if Congress acts to support and aid Ukraine, it cannot restore the American honor lost today. But no matter how disgusted anyone might be at Trump and Vance’s behavior, the strategic reality is that this meeting is a catastrophe for the United States and the free world. America’s alliances are now in danger, and should be:  Trump is openly, and gleefully, betraying everything America has tried to defend since the defeat of the Axis 80 years ago.  The entire international order of peace and security is now in danger, as Russian autocrats, after slaughtering innocent people for three years, look forward to enjoying the spoils of their invasion instead of standing trial for their crimes. (Shortly after Trump dismissed Zelensky from the White House, Putin’s homunculus, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, postedon X: “The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”) Friday, February 28, 2025, will go into the history books as one of the grimmest days in American diplomacy, the beginning of a long-term disaster that every American, every U.S. ally, and anyone who cares about the future of democracy will have to endure. With the White House’s betrayal of Ukraine capping a month of authoritarian chaos in America, Putin, along with other dictators around the world, can finally look at Trump with confidence and think:  One of us.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Various media outlets today are reporting this:

“Trump is coming off as Putin’s poodle,” as the so-called U.S. president Donald Trump snuggles up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

I protest.

Comparing Trump to poodles does the latter a crime.

Poodles – my wife and have had two in our lives – are better and smater than Trump ever was or could be.

For one thing, poodles are smart.  Trump isn’t.

If poodles had vocal cords, they could speak and what they would say would be far better than anything Trump has said or would say.

So, Trump, snuggle up to Putin if you feel you must.  But, for the media – don’t use poodles in the metaphor.  They and I protest…loudly.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Okay, as we all deal with how Donald Trump and his lackeys will violate federal law without a smidge of regret, some of us have to find ways to respond.

While “ways to respond” will, I hope, mean more than two of my minor protests with regard to writing, it still feels better for me to hone these protests.

Here they are:

• When I refer to Trump, I will refrain from calling him Mr. as is done routinely by such top newspapers as the New York Times.  I don’t exalt that moniker; it just feels good not to do so.

• Also, when I refer to Trump, I will not use the word “administration” to cite what he is doing as president, as I would with any other president.  Using that word conveys that I might have a notion that  Trump is “administering” anything.  He is not.  He is just flying by the seat of his pants, no matter if anyone opposes his illegal actions – not Congress, not the courts, not public opinion.

There!

I feel better already, even though there is no way my protests will matter.

Still, all of us Americans must find real ways to oppose Trump as he continues dismantling the America we know.

These small protests could lead to bigger ones for me.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Well, the answer to the question posed in this blog headline:  Perhaps.

And, if a crisis exists, it is exactly what Donald Trump wants.

You see, he views himself as king or dictator, so nothing else matters.  Not what others think.  Not Congress.  Not the courts.  Not public opinion.  And, not the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the way the New York Times put it:

“Trump is operating under the theory that the Executive Branch is unitary, in the sense that Article II of the Constitution places executive power in a single person, the president, who gets to control every high-level official who executes federal law (and plenty of lower-level ones, too).”

And, here’s a summary of the U.S. Constitution because, to know if it is in jeopardy, we all need to know what it is.

“Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government.

“Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.

“The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

“The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers.

“The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses.  The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

“For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.

“More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.  To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992.  The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.”

All this came up in my mind mostly because of an article in The Atlantic Magazine by David A. Graham.

He started his column this way:

:Grasping the scale of President Donald Trump’s assault on American governance is no small matter.  The administration is challenging laws, claiming the right to reinterpret the Constitution, questioning judges’ powers, and arrogating new powers to itself.  Seeking to convey the gravity of the situation, many commentators have labeled what’s happening a ‘constitutional crisis.’

“That’s a mistake — not because what’s happening is not serious, but because it is so serious.  This week, the Trump administration came the closest it has thus far to outright refusing to follow a judge’s order, after days of comments from Vice President J. D. Vance, Bureaucrat in Chief Elon Musk, and others questioning whether a president must follow court rulings.  That’s a threat to the very basic question of whether a president is subject to the law or not — especially when so many things that Trump has done appear plainly illegal.”

But, Graham believes what he calls “the abstraction of constitutional crisis obscures the immediate danger, making what’s happening seem like an issue more for legal experts and policy wonks than for the everyday Americans who stand to lose not only essential government services but also fundamental rights.

“A president refusing to abide by the law or the Constitution and ignoring court orders to stop his illegitimate actions would be a constitutional crisis like a bank robbery is a cash flow crisis,” says Joseph Ura, a political scientist at Clemson University.”

A recent New York Times article reported that many legal scholars believe the country is in a constitutional crisis, but it began by acknowledging, “There is no universally accepted definition of a constitutional crisis.”

The law, for all its careful parsing of language, has a weakness for this sort of I-know-it-when-I-see-it formulation, but if even the professors can’t define it, how can the general public?

More from The Atlantic writer, Graham:

“At one time, appeals to the sanctity of the Constitution might have swayed more people, but one reason Trump has been able to dominate U.S. politics for so long is that voters are not feeling protective of their institutions.

“About six in 10 people in a 2022 New York Times poll said the constitutional order needs major reforms.  In 2023, PEW found that just 4 per cent of Americans think the political system is working very well.  And in 2024, voters selected a guy who’d tried to overturn the previous election.  Regardless of what law professors think, the populace has already decided that the Constitution is in crisis.

“And insofar as people do think of this as a ‘crisis,’ that might only further empower Trump — who’s responsible for it in the first place.  That’s because, in times of crisis, Americans usually look to the president to act quickly and decisively.

“That can be good in a bona fide external crisis, like an attack by a foreign country or a pandemic, but that’s not what’s happening now.”

What’s happening now is Trump disregarding the rule of law – the rule of the U.S. Constitution – when it suits him.  He doesn’t care about the usual boundaries, but, as he preens for TV and on-line sources, I hope his contempt will catch up with him.

The future of American democracy depends on it.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 to 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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Regarding this blog headline, middle ground is lost under Trump, but is it gone forever?

Too early to tell, but I fear that, if Trump has his way, the idea that middle ground exists – call it compromise, if you will – could no longer be possible.

You see, Trump and his sycophants want to be dictators, if not kings.  They don’t believe in compromise.  They only want to assert their will.  Congress be damned.  The courts be damned.  Plus, they think public opinion is what they say it is, not what it is.

If middle ground is lost, they say “so be it.”  To them, it’s “my way or the highway.”

One other aspect of this is worth noting. 

If the “other side” rails against Trump’s over-the-top actions, all that does is infuse him with more intent to continue going down “his” path.  He never responds well to criticism, for he thinks it is all part of a major effort “to get him.”

It’s exactly what paranoid narcissists do.  It’s always all about them and no one else matters.

For my part, I always have thought that middle ground is often where the best solutions lie for pressing public policy challenges.

Neither the hard right nor the hard left.  In the middle.

That’s what I thought when I worked as state lobbyist for 25 years in Oregon.  I often saw an intent to produce solutions that work for the benefit of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as for the public at large.

As examples in Oregon, top-of-mind for me are three health care issues because much of my time was spent representing Providence Health and Services, as well as other health clients.  So, this morning, I cite the three issues:

• A Special Tax on Hospitals:  A few years ago, someone – not sure whom – came up with what was a decent idea.  Tax hospitals, use the money as it landed in State of Oregon coffers as match for federal money under Medicaid, and, thus, gain more money from Washington, D.C. than otherwise would have arrived here.

Again, a decent idea.  But, as lobbyists, we were concerned that the “new money” actually might not go to low-income health care in Oregon because, on occasion, “health care money” had been diverted elsewhere.

So, we advocated for creation of a “work group” composed of legislators and lobbyists, as well as the Governor’s Office, that would hammer out consensus details.  It worked.

The consensus was put into a memorandum that all parties signed and the result?  New money intended for health care went to health care.

• A Special Tax On Health Insurance Premiums:  The same notion as above worked its way into the idea that health insurance companies domiciled in Oregon should pay a tax, with the proceeds intended to be for the federal match.

Again, with a work group consensus, the new system worked for the benefit of low-income Oregonians in need of medical care.

Now, in the spirit of candor, I add that a critic of these two tax approaches would say the scheme was just a bid to gain MORE federal spending.  Perhaps true, but, to me, the end justified the means:  More money came to Oregon for a consensus purpose — better health care.  A middle ground solution.

• Assisted Suicide Compromise:  My final example of middle ground occurred in relation a very controversial “human” issue when it was passed by Oregon voters:  A procedure for persons, within certain limits, to end their lives in response to huge physical limitations they faced.  In other words, end their lives early.  The assisted suicide law is now more than 20 years old in Oregon.

I had a special role on behalf of Providence once the assisted suicide law was on the books.

Given Providence’s dotted-line connection to the Catholic Church, I advocated for a “conscience clause,” which would allow Providence employees to opt out of being involved in suicide processes if doing so was against their “conscience.”  The clause also would say that assisted suicide did not need to be practiced at Providence facilities if the leaders of those facilities had a “conscience” against doing so.

To achieve this, I relied on the best legislator to lead middle ground solutions, Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, who is still a friend to this day.  At my request, he agreed to form a work group to consider alternatives and, due to his leadership, the process succeeded.

Providence properties (eight hospitals throughout Oregon) and Providence nurses and other staff were given the right to opt out in exchange for Providence referring those who genuinely wanted assisted suicide to reputable providers outside the hospital system.

It was a tough solution because, to some Providence leaders, “referral” amounted to “being an agent by which something inappropriate – assisted suicide – was done.”  Agentry went against Catholic principles..

Still, Providence was a health care system, not a church.  So, referral worked.  When all was said and done, a reasonable solution that amounted to “policy in the middle.”  And, to this day, the compromise works for Providence and for citizens who want assisted suicide.

The bottom-line point is that middle ground does exist if those involved want to find it and are willing to work hard to do so.

Back to Trump.  He won’t even look.