PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The two all-but-assured candidates for President — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – represent, for me, a choice between evils.

I intend to avoid each.

On one side is the bombastic Trump that one Wall Street Journal writer said the other day “is entirely without qualifications to be President.” On the other side is Clinton who has displayed an incredible lack of ethics and honesty over her career, both inside and outside government.

So, here are five reasons in each case that describe why I will not be voting for either candidate.

ON TRUMP

1. He has insulted all persons with disabilities.

2. He has treated women with disrespect, believing them to be mostly objects in the worst sense of that term.

3. He has posted a checkered business career marked by bankruptcies which, though legal, have produced profit for him and losses for those he worked with – plus, he has a record of not paying bills he owes.

4. He exhibits a disdain for public policy considerations, believing that bluster will carry him to victory.

5. And, as an impulsive buffoon, he will have his finger on the nuclear trigger.

To me, Trump, with his standard line, “Make America Great Again,” reminds of the way Hitler rallied Germans after World War I and committed, while in power, unimaginable atrocities. Who knows what Trump be capable of if he wins?

ON CLINTON

1. She has used her public office, especially as Secretary of State, for private gain. Look no farther than the abysmal record of the Clinton Foundation, which made money for the Clintons without doing much, if anything, for anyone else, even though a foundation is supposed to benefit someone other than the fundraisers.

2. She has risked national security by using, contrary to policy and law, a private e-mail system to avoid public review.

3. She has adopted the so-called “progressive left” agenda, which calls for more government as the solution to any problem, thus continuing the entitlement spirit over the entrepreneurial spirit. [It might be accurate to note that Trump often endorses the far right movement, so we have candidates of two extremes.]

4. She has lied about and stonewalled inspections of her record over the years, apparently believing that both traits would win out over accountability.

5. She has demonstrated no inclination to put America’s interests first as the country confronts international terrorism.

In all, her record indicates that, if she wins, it would be, simply, Obama-3.

From my soapbox, I think this country needs another candidate who will assert his or her perspective, but if that cannot carry the day, will be open to compromise, not a bad word in politics.

Finding middle ground is the essence of democracy where pressing public policy problems are solved somewhere in the smart middle anyway.

Only one example is necessary to make the point: ObamaCare. What the Administration says is its top domestic achievement in office for eight years is a “new health care system” that doesn’t work any better than what came before it. One reason is that only Democrats voted for it; not one Republican was there to help develop a better middle ground solution to one of this nation’s most vexing challenges – better and more affordable health care.

What we need: Public officials committed to finding the smart middle ground, which means neither of the two current candidates. And if that means I throw away my vote, that is the only ethical choice I have.

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.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that, once in awhile, a Sunday sermon contains a solid message for today’s political environment.

That was the case recently at our church home, Salem Alliance, where the lead pastor, Steve Fowler, used three points to drive home his message about what he said should be virtues of being a real Christian.

For me, the three points also could – even should – apply to politics today where the discourse contains mainly criticisms, insults and barbs.

Here are the three points:

1. Listen with a purpose to understand

Consider this principle in both worlds – being a Christian and being involved in politics, as I was, first, at Salem Alliance where I served for 12 years as chair of the Elder Board, and, second, in Oregon politics where I was a lobbyist for 25 years.

At the church, I tried to listen first and encourage others on the Board to do. And, as lobbyist, I often reminded myself to listen, a virtue when the temptation would be to talk first. If Mr. Fowler’s admonition, to “listen with a purpose to understand” would occur more often in politics, just think of the result. We’d have saner politics and much less talking over someone to try to gain an advantage.   Then, when campaigning was over, we also would have better government.

2. Embrace a convictional kindness

Again, sometimes in Christianity and often in politics, we emphasize our convictions over relationships. If someone doesn’t agree with us, well, then, they are wrong.

As a lobbyist, one phrase that entered my mind often was this: What you see depends on where you sit. So, though I was not always successful, I tried to see issues from perspectives other than my own.

If all of us – in Christian life or in political life – would embrace kindness, with our convictions, then we all would be better for it.

3. Ask is this wise, not just is this right or wrong

It’s easy to ask about right or wrong and come up with an answer, but the black or white doesn’t deal with shades of gray. Asking what is wise does.

I was struck last Sunday by the intersection of Christianity and politics, not because Mr. Fowler brought up that subject – he didn’t – but, rather, because that’s where my mind went.

Beyond these three principles in your Christian life, just consider the improvements they would make in our political life. A lot!

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.

Now that I have been retired for a couple years from a 25-year lobbying career in Oregon, I have thought a lot about that career, often because friends and family asked me questions about what I did and why I did it.

Perhaps it’s a bit immodest to focus on this subject; some readers may not care much. But, still, I think it’s worthwhile to correct some misinformation about lobbyists, what they do and why they do it.

Lobbying often gets a bad name because of local, regional and national publicity over practitioners who commit misdeeds or don’t practice sound ethics.

But, like all professions, lobbying is a positive endeavor, even though, on occasion, to use a trite phrase, “bad applies spoil the barrel.”

To clarify my own record as a lobbyist, I am borrowing a tactic from retired late-night host David Letterman and providing a “Top 10 List” – the top questions I am often asked and the answers I provide.

QUESTION: What is it that you did?

ANSWER: This question often came from my late mother who wasn’t sure about lobbying. My answer to her resorted to using two analogies. One was to an attorney – I was like an attorney, I had a client and my courtroom was the Capitol. The second analogy related to a trader on a busy commodity-trading floor. Like such a trader, I would, figuratively speaking, have to yell to get the attention of buyers.

Both analogies fail to indicate the full scope of my role as a lobbyist, but they are helpful.

QUESTION: Did you carry money around to influence a result?

ANSWER: No. Contrary to the popular stereotype, I never carried money. My focus was on maintaining relationships with members of the Legislative and Executive Branches so they would trust what I said on behalf of a client, even if they happened to disagree. Public policy results were the objective; not payment in return for such a result.

I would say, perhaps a bit immodestly, that a “word is your bond” ethic pervaded all I did.

QUESTION: Why did you become a lobbyist?

ANSWER: It seemed like a natural progression from four previous positions – as a reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon, as a press secretary for an Oregon Congressman, as a press secretary for an Oregon Governor and as a state agency official.

In each of those positions, I dealt with high-level elected and appointed officials, so it was not hard to transfer to being a lobbyist trying to influence the decisions of those officials.

QUESTION: Did you have to agree with all your clients?

ANSWER: No. The issue was not my position on an issue. It didn’t matter. The issue was the client’s position and my ability to represent that position regardless of my personal views.

QUESTION: Did you ever represent a client about whose issues you had misgivings?

ANSWER: Yes. Once, but only once. The client wanted to install a bail bonds system in Oregon. I had misgivings, but our firm represented the client anyway.

QUESTION: Were there clients you chose not to represent?

ANSWER: Yes. During my 25-years in the business, our firm did not represent tobacco companies, organizations interested in promoting elective abortions, clients on the pro-gun side of the gun rights issue, and clients advocating special homosexual rights.

QUESTION: What are examples of your favorite clients?

ANSWER: I’ll mention two – Providence Health System, Oregon’s largest system, and the Port of Portland, an economic development engine that serves the region. Providence has operations spread throughout the state and handles health care issues with distinction and a commitment to ethical and honest behavior. It always was a privilege to be identified with Providence.

The Port is managed by executives with Oregon’s economic interests at heart in both its aviation and marine operations.

QUESTION: Of what achievements are you most proud?

ANSWER: I’ll just mention one. It was the work on behalf of the Port of Portland to gain state money to finance Oregon’s share of costs to deepen the Columbia River channel to allow bigger ships to make the transit each on the Columbia. It took a major, multi-session effort to gain the funds and the result stands for itself – a major contribution to the economic health of the region.

QUESTION: If you were king for a day, what one result would you impose on the public policy development process?

ANSWER: It would be a deeper commitment to finding middle ground in the public policy process. That’s where best solutions lie anyway. In Congress, it appears that the aim is for one party to one-up the other. And that unseemly trait seems headed to Oregon, if it is not already here.

A factor in this is that elected officials seem always to be running for re-election. And the skills to run campaigns do not necessarily translate to the skills necessary to develop public policy.

AND THE NEXT INSTALLMENT: A few interesting anecdotes over a 25-year lobbying career.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For me, IT was an experience of a lifetime.

The “it” was having the privilege to volunteer at the NCAA Division 1 Women’s and Men’s Golf Finals held at Eugene Country Club and sponsored by the Club and the University of Oregon.

More than 150 women and 150 men from 30 schools around the country descended on Eugene Country Club for two weeks of golf magic at a 90-year-old facility that won acclaim from everyone who played it.

One coach even said to me: “I hope we can come back here again within five years.”

Given that the course was closed to members for about three weeks, including practice and the two weeks of tournament play, not sure if members would sign up for another stint. But one thing is clear: The reputation of the U of O and Eugene Country Club got a huge boost, both with local crowds covering the course and live coverage by the Golf Channel.

That wasn’t all. The U of O men’s team won several match play challenges in great form to do what no team had done for 15 years, which is to win the national title on its home course. What’s more, the top U of O player, Aaron Wise, won medalist honors in his last college tournament, given that he is turning pro immediately and setting out to make a name for himself on the Canadian Tour.

Further, beyond expectations, the women’s team also made the final eight-team match play field while one of its top players, Caroline Inglis, set a course record 65 in one of her tournament rounds.

As a lucky volunteer at this event, one of more than 400, I have a few other impressions:

• It takes guts to bid to host this national tournament, given all the logistics involved in getting 30 teams around the course with Golf Channel coverage – and settling for the fact that members would be barred from playing on “their” course for three weeks.

• Golf Channel investment in going live is nothing if not incredible. Fully 10 semi-truck loads of equipment were on site and the Golf Channel staff numbered more than 100. Plus, a recognizable stable on of on-air talent made their way around the course for both the women’s and men’s events.

One of my roles as a volunteer was to get outfitted with head-gear and follow matches, relaying information to a traffic manager on the status of play, In turn, he advised the director who positioned cameras and talent to get the best action. Fun to be just a bit on the inside.

On a few holes the other day, PGA tour player John Cook was on the same hole with me and I almost offered to help him call the action. Discretion got the better part of valor, so I stayed silent!

• Another of my roles was to be a “walking scorer,” which means that, after every hole, I would relay the result, via my cell phone (which was on silent, I add), to the central scoring facility, which then sent scores on-line so those interested in the action – parents, grand-parents, friends – could follow hole-by-hole even if they were not able to be on-site

For a golf addict like me, this was a great experience, made even greater by the top performance of the U of O teams.

So, GO DUCKS!

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For me, IT was an experience of a lifetime.

The “it” was having the privilege to volunteer at the NCAA Division 1 Women’s and Men’s Golf Finals held at Eugene Country Club and sponsored by the Club and the University of Oregon.

More than 150 women and 150 men from 30 schools around the country descended on Eugene Country Club for two weeks of golf magic at a 90-year-old facility that won acclaim from everyone who played it.

One coach even said: “I hope we can come back here again within five years.”

Given that the course was closed to members for about three weeks, including practice and the two weeks of tournament play, not sure if members would sign up for another stint. But one thing is clear: The reputation of the U of O and Eugene Country Club got a huge boost, both with local crowds covering the course and live coverage by the Golf Channel.

That wasn’t all. The U of O men’s team won several match play challenges in great form to do what no team had done for 15 years, which is to win the national title on its home course. What’s more, the top U of O player, Aaron Wise, won medalist honors in his last college tournament, given that he is turning pro immediately and setting out to make a name for himself on the Canadian Tour.

Further, beyond expectations, the women’s team also made the final eight-team match play field while one of its top players, Caroline Inglis, set a course record 65 in one of her tournament rounds.

As a lucky volunteer at this event, one of more than 400, I have a few other impressions:

• It takes guts to bid to host this national tournament, given all the logistics involved in getting 30 teams around the course with Golf Channel coverage – and settling for the fact that members would be barred from playing on “their” course for three weeks.

• Golf Channel investment in going live is nothing if not incredible. Fully 10 semi-truck loads of equipment were on site and the Golf Channel staff numbered more than 100. Plus, a recognizable stable on of on-air talent made their way around the course for both the women’s and men’s events.

One of my roles as a volunteer was to get outfitted with head-gear and follow matches, relaying information to a traffic manager on the status of play, In turn, he advised the director who positioned cameras and talent to get the best action. Fun to be just a bit on the inside.

On a few holes the other day, PGA tour player John Cook was on the same hole as I was and I almost offered to help him call the action. Discretion got the better part of valor, so I stayed silent!

• Another of my roles was to be a “walking scorer,” which means that, after every hole, I would relay the result, via my cell phone (which was on silent, I add), to the central scoring facility, which then sent scores on-line so those interested in the action – parents, grand-parents, friends – could follow hole-by-hole even if they were not able to be on-site

For a golf addict like me, this was a great experience, made even greater by the top performance of the U of O teams.

So, GO DUCKS!

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.

My wife and I recentlyspent another 10 days in the Mediterranean on a cruise, the third one for us in that region of the world.

As usual in such ventures, we come away with a few perceptions, not all of them major, earth-shaking thoughts, but each worth remembering.

Here are perceptions from our recent trip:

• The Europeans we met appear – that’s all we have, of course, appearances – to be living okay with the reality of additional terrorist events in that part of the world.

To put a point on it, the day before we flew back to the U.S. from Barcelona, Spain, there appeared to have been a terrorist component in the sequence of events that prompted the Egypt Air plane to go down. This came on top of terrorist atrocities in Paris and Brussels. Still, the folks we encountered appeared to be living with the new realities. Of course, what choice was there for them – or for us?

• This time, we were not in Germany, as we had been on a previous Rhine and Mosel River trip, so we did not come away with major perceptions related to World War II.

In Germany and France, countries that border the Rhine, the effects of World War II were evident, as, of course, they were when we toured the site of the Normandy Invasion, which claimed so many Allied lives, not to mention German lives.

Our perception on the previous trip was that the current generation of Germans do not appear to have World War II on their minds, not surprising because the same could be said of us in this country – a generation or so removed from having to live through that horrible war.

In the Mediterranean this time, we saw only limited effects of the world war, even though we toured small villages in Italy, France and Spain that had seen the war first-hand through damages to buildings and dwellings that mostly have been repaired.

• Forgive this one big thought: Even though World War II is in our rear-view mirror, it is worth never forgetting the terrible excesses of Nazi Germany. Various political commentators in this country have compared what Donald Trump advocates now to what Hitler advocated in 1930s and 1940s Germany. I am one who hopes for even-handed government that tries to solve pressing problems rather that fulminate about them.

• On to a much smaller point. On each trip to Europe, including this most recent one, we have been impressed – call it, more accurately, depressed – with the amount of smoking that occurs in public.   Far more than here in the U.S.

There has to be an effect of this, and not just the second-hand smoke to which we were exposed, but also to the health effects for a generation or more of Europeans who appear unable to give up the tobacco habit. This includes a variety of young people who give the impression of smoking as being cool, no matter what it does to their bodies.

• Many people in Europe continue to live in what, in this country, we might call “tiny houses.” They also live vertically. Far different from here with, often, our substantial square footages and horizontal shaped houses.

The Europeans to whom spoke in such villages as Cuceron, Lourmarin, Bonnieux, Le Coste, Minerbes and Vieux Oppede appeared to be, not just accustomed to their living arrangements, but also to enjoy them.

Not sure our future holds more trips to the Med, but we are planning another river cruise next fall in France in the Bordeaux region.

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.

Some of you may have seen documentaries on TV detailing the Nuremberg trails of Nazi war criminals. I watched three installments again the other night and came away with a provocative question.

With Donald Trump, could we be seeing the rise of a Hitler-type figure in our own country?

It is not a new thought, having been raised by a number of political commentators who are worried about the strident and often-racist character of the current presidential campaign, especially by the over-the-top, seemingly irrational comments by Trump.

Consider these perceptions from this person who wants to be a world leader.

• Trump says it’s time for the U.S. to recover from an economic malaise — much like Hitler did to rally the people in 1930s Germany. [In the case of the U.S., the malaise, whatever its characteristics, is not as severe as the conditions in 1930s Germany.

• Trump says he wants to deport all immigrants and build a wall to keep them out — something like Hitler did in blaming the Jews for all of Germany’s troubles, only Hitler and his allies didn’t just deport the Jews…they killed more than six million of them.

• Trump engages in strident criticism of women, the disabled, those who don’t have as much money as he says he does, and various other groups to promote his own ego – much like Hitler did to buttress his standing.

• Trump fails to separate himself from an endorsement by David Duke, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan — which reminds of Hitler aligning himself with racists.

• Trump accepts raised-arm salutes from his followers — much like Hitler with the now infamous “seig heil” salute.

• Trump says he will expect the military to obey his orders, whatever they are, including illegal torture — much like Hitler did in his day.

Speaking of ego, one phrase caught my attention in the part of the Nuremberg documentaries that dealt with Hitler’s number two, Herman Goering. It was this, a description of Goering whose “ideology served an ego.”

Remind you of anyone today as we watch one of the most incredible races for president in my memory, one that features Trump who appeals to the worst instincts in voters?

As I have watched this spectacle, I have found myself wondering how and why many German people remained silent as Hitler rose to power, thus providing at least a silent assent to one of the worst – if not THE worst – crimes against humanity in history.

I, for one, won’t be silent.

[A footnote: Trump’s leading Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, and the two Democrats seeking their party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are not much better, though none of them conjure up images of Hitler. I don’t intend to for any of them, preferring instead someone will call Americans to live up to a just and tolerant society.]

 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 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 of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The headline is a question many state government-watchers are asking these days as revelations tumble out verifying inaction by the Department of Human Services (DHS) in foster care management.

Managing foster includes both individual placements of kids without homes, as well as group foster home administration.

The fact that DHS managers and staff apparently turned a blind eye to obvious problems in such programs as “Give Us This Day” defies explanation.

That now defunct program allegedly had pocketed upwards of $2 million meant for childcare and provided substandard living conditions at the same time. The litany of care reports – why call them “care reports;” call them “not giving care reports” — was sordid.

Despite knowing of abuse and mismanagement, DHS officials did not revoke Give Us This Day’s license.

The bizarre and obscene character of the reports prompted Governor Kate Brown to order an independent review of DHS foster care management and install a trusted state government manager, Clyde Saiki, as interim director of the agency. For a time, he combined that position with his own as the state’s chief operating officer at the Department of Administrative Services.

Saiki’s background had included a previous stint at DHS where he supervised implementation of the new Medicaid Management Information System, (MMIS), which today works to make it possible to sign up for and manage low income services on-line.

I suspect that Saiki did not want the DHS top job, but, after about two months as interim director, Governor Brown made his job permanent at DHS.

Almost immediately, he took decisive action to fire two agency managers who allegedly had been complicit in allowing Give Us This Day and several other providers to deliver substandard care to foster children over about two years.

Today, Saiki is continuing to oversee the independent review of DHS and it would not be surprising to see him take further personnel actions.

It’s part of a process to put DHS back on sound operational and financial footing. That’s critical because, for one thing, Governor Brown is running for re-election and it is likely her Republican opponents will raise questions about what’s has happened on her watch – or even before she took over as governor.

Those who watch state government have confidence that Saiki, a capable and sound manager, will be able to get a handle on this difficult-to-run agency. Often, management is a combination of experience and common sense. Saiki has both.

There are at least three problems with politics as it is practiced today in the race to be the next U.S. president.

One: Candidates promise the world, but know they cannot deliver and have no intention of doing so in the first place.

Call this duplicity and dishonesty.

Two: Candidates promise the world, but don’t know enough about the realities of getting things done in Washington, D.C. to deliver on promises.

Call this duplicity and ignorance (including Donald Trump’s ignorance that appears intentional and Hillary Clinton’s ignorance that appears contrived).

Three: Candidates pander to the latest public concern even when they know – or should know — that their proposals have no relationship to solving real problems.

Call this duplicity and cynicism.

On this point, consider two of Donald Trump’s proposals. As Holman Jenkins writes in today’s Wall Street Journal, “A trade war with China will not bring back low-skilled, high-wage manufacturing jobs. On the contrary, Chinese workers themselves are being turfed out of their own factories by automation. Building a wall at the southern border won’t hold back cultural changes in America from the fact that Hispanics are a fast-growing economic and cultural bloc. At the risk of putting ideas in his head, Donald Trump would have to increase the white birthrate and even then probably wouldn’t change the emergence of an unfamiliar yet familiarly dynamic new America.”

In an interview on David Feherty’s program this week – yes, Feherty, the golfer, golf commentator and interviewer who has a quick wit and a solid technique for asking good questions – former president George W. Bush saidhe still holds hope for America.

What the country needs, he said, is for citizens of goodwill and good intent to rise, both as candidates for office and as those who vote. He added that democracy, be definition, is often swarthy and unclean, but some form of reason usually prevails.

One hopes Bush is right this time around.

We need candidates for the nation’s highest office who will tell the truth on the campaign and make only promises they intend to work hard to keep, including in the complexity of achieving anything in a democracy.

At the moment, my belief is that neither front-runner, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, passes this test. So, I say a pox on both houses.

I intend to vote – some would say throw away my vote – for someone who stands on principle and pledges to lead this country with passion and integrity…someone who will say what he or she means and will do what he or she says.

What it will take to put this country on the right track is smart leaders and smart followers.

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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It makes sense, at least for a few minutes, to take a break from commenting in the worst presidential race ever to think about something more important: Golf.

Golf is one of my passions, so I thought about several notions that, if followed, would improve the game for all those who play.

Develop a routine

This is something that should be done before every shot, not just on the putting green. If you watch pro golfers – and goodness knows most of us will never be that good – they have a routine before every shot.

When they are under substantial pressure, they rely on the routine to move forward.

Golf teacher Hank Haney wrote in Golf Digest recently that one good routine before every shot from the tee or the fairway is to stand behind your golf ball and develop an idea about where you want it to go. The shot might go where you intend, but the discipline to imagine it is a good thing.

So, develop a routine. It doesn’t matter what it is – just develop it.

The “next shot”

There is an old question in golf: What’s the most important shot? The next one.

That is an axiom that, if followed, would allow golfers to avoid dwelling on a recent bad shot, but to focus on the next one.

Call this being “appropriately forgetful.”

It’s a solid ambition, but difficult to follow, as I attest from personal experience.

Perseverance

This is a word that involves focusing on the next shot and persevering to have that view – the next shot view — over an 18-hole round.

I have found that, if you focus on each shot, you’ll play better and have more fun.

So, using these admonitions and others you find helpful, go out to the golf course and have fun.

If nothing else, it will take your mind off the current presidential campaign, which is one worth forgetting.