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 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.

Higher education as we know it in America has been under threat and, no surprise, not always to the benefit of its reputation.  On occasion, it also has been its own worst enemy.

Some of the recent discord is not deserved if it is in relation to the appearance in Congress by three higher ed presidents – one from MIT, one from the University of Pennsylvania, and one from Harvard.  They answered questions about anti-semitism and free speech on campus. and MIT

What happened is that the three got trapped by a disreputable member of the U.S. House, Republican Elise Stefanik, who got what no doubt she wanted in the first place, which was more publicity for herself as she appears to be vying to win Donald Trump’s nod as a vice presidential candidate.

The three college presidents, two of whom lost their jobs as a result of the appearance in Congress, should have answered the questions simply and clearly – they should have said they don’t and won’t tolerate anti-semitism or any form of discrimination on their campuses. 

Instead, they failed, either because they brought a complicated academic perspective to the question or because their staffs had failed to prepare them adequately for their time in the limelight.

[As an aside, I highlight the role of staff because that was what I did in several of my public relations positions before retirement.  Therefore, my bias is that staff advice matters, though it is up to the principal about whether to take it.  Who knows what happened in this case, but one source told me that a couple law firms had been asked to provide advice and did so.  Not sure about the content of the advice or whether it was taken.]

What remains after the appearance in Congress is that higher education needs to get about the business of reforming itself to illustrate that it doesn’t tolerate any discrimination against any group of people, as well as values free speech – within appropriate limits – as a key part of learning.

I also would say it also needs to get about its core business, which ought to be education, not politics.

So it was that I read a story in the Wall Street Journal by Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey, senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute and research fellows at the University of Texas’ Civitas Institute.

It appeared under the headline I borrowed for this blog, as well as a subhead, both of which appear below:

FOLLOW THE LEFT’S EXAMPLE TO REFORM HIGHER ED:  Identify areas, like civics, that are inadequately studied and create new programs around them.

Here is how the two authors started their piece:

“Conservatives have an extraordinary opportunity to reform higher education.  Universities face a perfect storm of falling enrollments, souring public opinion, and political scrutiny.  They need friends.

“Prudent administrators should be eager to work with those whose opinions they might not always agree with.”

In my words, the call is to find the smart middle ground.

The two authors continue:

“The left’s most enduring victories on campus have been led by academics who think academically.  The right should learn from their playbook.

“When the academic left seeks to innovate, they do what scholars have always done:  They create new disciplines.  Academics who thought women’s lives and perspectives were neglected created women’s studies.  Those who saw that scholars overlooked the literature, history, and art of black Americans created African-American studies.”

This, the Storey’s write, is a legitimate tactic.

“It’s how universities work.  Academics perceive that some phenomenon is overlooked by existing modes of inquiry.  They write studies about it; they describe ways of examining it.  They attract scholars in related subjects, who become the initial faculty of the new programs.  They develop ways of thinking that cohere as a discipline, in which students can be trained.  They create associations; journals spring up; grants get funded; students get degrees.  One generation of faculty acts as mentors to the next.”

Part of me, based on my lobbying background, including on occasion for higher education institutions, wonders about the tendency to create something new to debate something old.

It’s usually how governments work.  If agencies don’t like what’s happening, they create a new department or sub-department.  Don’t fix what’s broken.  Create something new.

If I was involved in this kind of higher education reform, I also would want to make sure we were not creating some kind of new political organization.  I would want something new to focus on learning, not politics.

For higher education in general, the Storeys go on to report that the most promising academic innovations today are Republican-led efforts at public universities to remedy a deficit in university-level civic education.

Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, or SCETL, is the model.  SCETL now employs 20 faculty, teaches more than 1,000 students annually, and has bipartisan support.  Its success has encouraged similar efforts in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, North Carolina, and Ohio.

“Each such school is distinctive.  What links them is the mission of creating a new model of university-level civic education. We call this model Civic Thought.  The elements of Civic Thought are derived from the intellectual demands of American citizenship, which requires the ability to deliberate about everything from war to education.  Equipping the mind for such responsibility is an ambitious intellectual project, fully worthy of the university.”

For me, this emphasis on civics calls to mind an effort in which I participated on a committee appointed by Oregon Common Cause.

Broadly, the idea was that “ethics” was important for all those in public life, even though we also knew it would be difficult to inject ethical attitudes and behavior into politics when all sides otherwise were so pitted against each other, ethics be damned.

Beyond ethics in general, one idea we pursued — inject a new civics curriculum into Oregon high schools in the belief that doing so would help young people understand more about their government, as well as expect government to act in an ethical fashion.

We started small rather than set out to impose a statewide mandate.

We identified a couple high schools – one in Bend and another in Portland – that we thought could develop model civics education programs.  We talked with those two schools and leaders said they were ready to experiment.  If those models worked, then they could be mimicked by other schools.

Unfortunately, as luck would have it, our effort failed, at least in part because the Covid pandemic made it difficult for schools to respond to a new civics curriculum idea or, for that matter, the Oregon Legislature to respond to other statewide proposals.

Still, I remain committed to the idea that young people in America should understand more about “their government” and how it works.  That way, they’d be better citizens when it came time to vote.  And ethical attitudes and behavior would benefit.

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 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.

Two writers in the Wall Street Journal today – former Republican analyst Karl Rove and retired Wall Street editor Daniel Henninger – confirmed for me what I thought was the case already:  Today’s politics is worse than ever, especially in Washington, D.C.

What is happening again doesn’t provide much hope for democracy in America.

FIRST ROVE:  He wrote under this headline and subhead – “Biden’s 2024 Campaign Is Worse Than Churchill’s Pudding; Trump is beatable, but the president’s campaign has no persuasive theme.

Here is how he started his column:

“That Biden trails Trump in the RealClearPolitics average, 43.9 per cent to 47.8 per cent, suggests the presumptive Democrat nominee has significant challenges.  In the 18 polls conducted this year, Biden has led in only two and tied in three.  So where to begin?

“Winston Churchill reportedly once rejected an indifferent dessert, saying: ‘Take away this pudding! It has no theme.’

“Biden’s campaign is worse than Churchill’s pudding.  He not only lacks an effective, simple story line about who he is and what this contest is about; his attempts so far to draw one have only muddled things further.”

Rove also avers that it is not enough for Biden just to run against Trump.

“…railing about Trump’s traversing of norms doesn’t energize Biden voters, many of whom remain generally lethargic.  The president would have more success focusing on specific matters that independents and swayable Republicans care about.  For one, Trump promises to pardon those now imprisoned for offenses, including violent ones, related to the January. 6, 2021, riots.  That’s unacceptable to most Americans.  He keeps claiming he won the 2020 election.  While most Republicans believe that, nearly a third disagree, as do most independents.”

SECOND HENNINGER:  He wrote under this headline and subhead:  “The Republicans’ Border Crisis; The GOP is branding itself as addicted to rage and internet fundraising.”

Here is how he started his column:

“The United States, an alleged superpower, may soon join Italy, Greece and Russia as validation of Adam Smith’s cautionary maxim:  There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.  The irony is that America’s slow disintegration is occurring in perhaps its most robust state, Texas, where the southern U.S. border essentially no longer exists.

“In December alone, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 302,000 encounters with illegal migrants at the southwest border.  Total encounters for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 were an almost incomprehensible 4.7 million.

“To endure, great nations find their way to solving large problems. Migration may turn out to be the issue that swallowed America’s democratic order.”

Henninger reported that Oklahoma’s conservative Republican senator, James Lankford, has spent weeks attempting to shape a compromise on illegal migration with Democrats that would permit passage as well of a supplemental bill that has funding for embattled Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

So far, Henninger adds, Lankford has failed, at least in part because Republicans in Congress, out of fealty to Trump, are trying not to pass a border bill to avoid “giving” a win to Biden.

“The politics of immigration are well known.  But let’s step away from the Beltway mud-wrestle for a moment to acknowledge the practical, unavoidable result of Trump’s position.  Doing nothing so that he and Republicans will have an issue to run on means the migrant open hydrant will flow daily for all of 2024.  And that means an additional two million or so illegal migrants will enter the U.S.”

So, there you have it, as in:

• More inability for the Biden Administration to craft campaign themes that will appeal to the Democrat base, as well as to attract independent voters fearful of another Trump term.

• More inaction on the part of Republicans in Congress to try to solve a huge problem at the Southern Border for fear of, (a) helping Biden, and (b) irritating the untethered one, Trump.

In all of this, the basic form of democracy in the United State is at risk.  Again.  And still.

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 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.

Don’t you like that word – equivocating?

Here is what it means:

To use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead, prevaricate or hedge.”

That’s exactly what Donald Trump’s sycophants do.  They equivocate.

Atlantic Magazine’s Tom Nichols made that point very well in a column he wrote recently.

It started this way:

“’I didn’t come here,’ Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina complained last week, ‘to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss.  I came here to pass good, sound public policy.’”

Good for Tillis.

Nichols wrote that Tillis was referring to Republicans who were abandoning a deal on border security because they thought reaching a solution with President Joe Biden would hurt Trump’s electoral chances in the fall.

“’It is immoral,’ Tillis added, ‘to look the other way because you think this is the linchpin for Trump to win.’”

More from Nichols:

“In theory, Republicans care deeply about the situation on the Southern United States border.  In reality, most of them seem to care only about whatever Trump wants at any given moment, and what Trump wants is to take refuge in the Oval Office from his multiple legal problems.

“Tillis’ outburst, although welcome, was a rare moment of candor from a senior Republican senator about the degree to which the party’s once and future nominee has gutted the GOP of any remaining principles.”

Nichols also criticizes, as I do, those “who remain quiet in the face of Trump’s ghoulish attacks on others rather risk Trump turning his ire – and his MAGA – on them.

“When challenged, they speak up only long enough to make excuses for Trump and engage in moral obfuscation over issues that they must certainly know are not remotely complicated, such as whether the presumptive nominee of the Republican party should defame a woman he’s been found liable for sexually abusing.”

To me, remaining quiet in the face of Trump’s criminal actions reminds of what it appears many Germans did in the face of Adolph Hitler.  [I use the word “appears” because I wasn’t there and, thus, do not know first-hand.]  Many Germans remained silent while Hitler killed millions of helpless Jewish people.

And, don’t forget – Trump welcomes comparisons to Hitler.

And, to conclude, this from Wall Street Journal retired editor Gerard Baker:

“Meatball Ron has done it.  Ted did it years ago.  Little Marco, too.  Maybe others will prove to have more cojones than that growing parade of men who once asked us to believe they were leaders but turned out to be sycophants.”

I say enough of both:  Enough of Trump and enough of those who equivocate on his behalf!

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 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.

Remember the “head of a pin”analogy?

I have used it a couple times recently to indicate that I do not know a lot about some stuff.  Like technology.

But, this time, I used it to describe what littie I know about what has become a routine matter in pro football:  “Analytics.”

A story appeared in the Wall Street Journal to portray what happened that enabled the Detroit Lions to lose a football conference championship game against the San Francisco 49ers.

The result, the story said, came down to analytics.

The story appeared under this headline:  “What Ended the Detroit Lions’ Dream Season? Math:  Lions coach Dan Campbell swears by going for it on fourth down, and analytics support him.  But in the NFC title game, the numbers didn’t work out.”

More from the story:

“The Detroit Lions led the San Francisco 49ers by 14 points midway through the third quarter of the NFC Championship, and they were in position to pour it on with a field goal.  That’s when coach Dan Campbell made the decision that defied a basic doctrine of traditional football thinking. 

“The Lions went for it on fourth down.  They didn’t get it.  Then they proceeded to blow their shot at the Super Bowl. 

“In the second half, the Lions twice turned the ball over on downs when they were in position to kick a field goal.  Those decisions potentially cost them six points in a game they lost by three.”

But the story adds that, “in truth, the aggressive fourth-down calls are more a reflection of the modern NFL than they are a brazen anomaly.  These types of calls are increasingly common because they’re supported by analytics, and in both instances on Sunday, statistical models aligned with Campbell’s calls.  That type of forward thinking is one of the reasons for Detroit’s turnaround under him—until it backfired in spectacular fashion.”

Now, for me, at best an armchair watcher of pro football, especially near the end of the season (though I may forego the Super Bowl, with all its hype and not much football), going for it on fourth down on nearly all occasions has the potential for backfire.

To his credit, Campbell, the coach, took full credit – or, perhaps, debit – for the “going-for-it” decisions. 

Here is a summary of how it went.

• Up 24-10 near the middle of the third quarter on Sunday, Campbell faced a fourth-and-2 situation with an obvious choice, per old-school football logic.  A made kick would have put him up three scores, forcing the 49ers to muster at least two touchdowns and a field goal over the rest of the game.  But Campbell instead put the ball in quarterback Jared Goff’s hands, and a pass to Josh Reynolds was broken up.

Despite the outcome, Campbell’s decision was backed by something better than his gut. It’s called data. One popular model said the Lions had an 85 per cent chance of winning by going for it, and 82 per cent if they kicked the field goal.

• Later, with less than 10 minutes left in the fourth quarter and the Lions now trailing by three, Campbell faced another critical decision on a fourth-and-3.  Again, the model recommended going for it.  This time, it boosted Detroit’s win probability to 28 per cent versus 26 per cent kicking the field goal. 

The Lions’ offense stayed on the field, the defense pressured Goff, and another pass fell incomplete.

So, analytics, the head-of-a-pin issue for me.

As a fan, I like it because it adds interest to the game.  And, if a coach like Campbell takes responsibility for any decision, that’s good for the game, too.

And, speaking as a fan, I like the two outcomes last week – the Kansas City Chief over the Baltimore Ravens and the 49ers over the Lions.  Regarding the latter, it also would have been fun to see the Lions make the Super Bowl, having not made the trip for so many years.

But, it’s the 49ers…my team, if, in fact, I have one.

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 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.

This is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit because, you see, I am a management guru.

The other departments:  The Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Words Matter.

So, here are more quotes worth remembering.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ON MICROSOFT:  This was the headline and subhead:  How Microsoft Catapulted to $3 Trillion on the Back of AI; Software giant becomes second company ever to reach the mark, boosted in part by its investment in OpenAI.

“Microsoft on Thursday became the second company ever to end the trading day valued at more than $3 trillion, a milestone reflecting investor optimism that one of the oldest tech companies is leading an artificial-intelligence revolution. 

“In the past decade, Microsoft’s success has come from smart bets by Chief Executive Satya Nadella.  One of his biggest gambles in recent years has been partnering with an untested non-profit startup — generative AI pioneer OpenAI — and quickly folding its technology into Microsoft’s bestselling products. That move made Microsoft a de facto leader in a burgeoning AI field many believe will retool the tech industry.”

COMMENT:  Why do I choose to report this?  Two reasons:  First, it’s interesting to see how one company is burnishing its own future with risky commitments such as to AI, and, second, my former son-in-law works for the company, so it is, again, interesting to note the company’s huge trajectory.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:  Under this headline – “Trump won New Hampshire — and showed us exactly who he is,” columnist Frank Bruni wrote this:

“About an hour and a half after Donald Trump was declared the winner of the Republican primary in New Hampshire, he appeared onstage at a victory rally in Nashua, N.H., to bask in his accomplishment and bash lesser mortals.

“Bask-and-bash is his preferred M.O., an indulgence of the love he feels for himself and the contempt he feels for almost everybody else, and his bearing and remarks indeed had a familiar, compulsory ring.  As Trump performances go, it was an unremarkable one.

“And yet so utterly revealing.  So perfectly emblematic.  CNN went live to Nashua and stayed with Trump for maybe 10 minutes, maybe less — the new fashion is to mete out attention to Trump modestly, carefully, lest he get too big a megaphone for his lies — and yet that abbreviated encounter provided ample information.  I was struck by all that it communicated.

“Such as the sycophancy surrounding Trump.  Right behind him, visible over his shoulder, was Senator Tim Scott, a man who prides himself on his faith and decency, a former rival of Trump’s for the Republican nomination, now another toady in Trump’s service, surely angling to be his running mate, already on board as a campaign-trail surrogate.

COMMENT:  Bruni is right – Trump loves himself and no one else.  Such is the role of a narcissist.  And, then, a “toady” like Scott shows up to try to burnish his own supposed credentials by bowing to Trump.

One hopes that yesterday’s $83 million defamation verdict against Trump will stop him in his tracks.  But, not likely.  Trump will use verdict to showcase his status as a “victim.”

MORE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:  Chief political analyst Nate Cohn writes this:  “Is the Republican presidential primary over already?”

“Not quite, but it’s a reasonable question after New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary delivered a clear victory for Donald Trump.  And if your definition of “over” is whether Trump is now on track to win without a serious contest, the answer is probably “yes.”

“With nearly all the counting done, he won 55 per cent of the vote.  His only remaining rival, Nikki Haley, won 44 per cent.

“Trump’s 11-point margin of victory is not extraordinarily impressive in its own right.  In fact, he won by a smaller margin than many pre-election polls suggested.”

COMMENT:  Given this result, my view is that Haley should persevere – and she has made that decision on her own without consulting me.  Good.

I hope she is able at least to give Trump a run for his money.  Too much to hope for?  Perhaps.  But, still hope is worth preserving.

FROM DAN BALZ IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “Trump is certainly strong within the base of the Republican Party, but still a powerfully divisive force with the broader electorate.  His admiration for authoritarian leaders is a warning about his aspirations if he wins in November.  He is under indictment on 91 felony counts.

“No Republican can know with any certainty what further damage his legal problems will do to him by September or October, or how a broader electorate will evaluate him.  Republicans are taking a risk with him as their nominee (just as Democrats are taking a risk with Biden).”

COMMENT:  Balz is one of the best political analysts going today.  Thus, his comments on Trump are worth considering.

Further, in his piece in the Post today, he notes that Trump does not do well with strong women such as Haley.  Trump views all women as just objects.  Balz hopes Haley will continue tormenting Trump, calling him “just one of the fellas,” her term for men involved in the presidential race who usually don’t have much respect, if any, for women.

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 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 lot of words these days don’t mean what they used to mean.

Think only of the word “gay.”  Today and for a number of years, it has been used to refer to homosexual individuals.  Before, it simply meant “happy.”

But, there is a word that has been perverted beyond all levels.  It is the word “evangelical.”

Here is what the word means according to the dictionary:

“Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  The term ‘evangelical’ comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning ‘the good news’ or the ‘gospel.’  Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the ‘good news’ of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.”

However, these days, the word “evangelical” has come to mean something far different, at least as it is used in the media.   

It becomes something perverted, often by Donald Trump and his ilk who have co-opted the word to convey that “white evangelicals” favor Trump for president. 

Writing in the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago, Thomas S. Kidd, professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, made this point in the following way:

“The 2024 presidential campaign began in earnest on Monday, with the Iowa caucuses.  On the religion front, this means a new round of reports by journalists, pollsters, and scholars about how ‘evangelicals’ support Donald Trump.

“But who exactly are these evangelicals?  It’s difficult to know.  Some self-identified evangelical voters don’t even attend church.  Many in the media seem to define ‘evangelicals’ as white Republicans who consider themselves religious.  Such a definition, in both a spiritual and a historical sense, is ludicrous.”

Kidd goes on to say that “evangelical” is an ancient Biblical term, derived from the Greek euangelion, translated as “gospel’ or ‘good news,’ as I wrote above.   By the 17th century, he said, the word typically meant Protestant, as opposed to Catholic.

He goes on:

“But the evangelical movement emerged in recognizable form during the 1730s and ’40s, when the ‘First Great Awakening’ convulsed Europe and the American colonies.  Untold numbers of people in those revivals professed to have been ‘born again,’ or converted to new faith in Jesus.

“That phrase – ‘born again’ — used by Jesus in the Gospel of John, refers to the signature belief and experience of evangelicals.  To be born again is to acknowledge oneself as a sinner and put one’s faith in the Lord for salvation.  This is the good news:  Christ died to rescue sinners.”

Kidd asks how the term “evangelical” became more of a political and demographic label than a religious one?   How did adherence to the Republican Party become a more essential mark of being an evangelical than churchgoing?  

Then, he answers his own question.

“If you search for ‘evangelicals’ in the news, the leading stories are almost always political.  Over time, the coverage of conservative Christian voters and the work of groups such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority gave average Americans — especially non-churchgoers — the impression that ‘evangelical’ was basically a political term.

“When white evangelicals firmly aligned with Ronald Reagan’s GOP in 1980, drawn by his staunch anti-communism and pro-life commitments, the evangelical-Republican fusion strengthened.”

And, with the following, Kidd concludes:

“Still, journalists regularly report on non-churchgoing white voters who say they are evangelicals.  These folks are among the most devoted Trump supporters, in Iowa and across the country.  To those who apply the term in a narrowly political and ethnic way, we might ask if they, or the ‘evangelical’ voters they query and write about, know what the word means.

“They might bear in mind, too, that the vast majority of the world’s real evangelical Christians have never voted for Trump.”

My conclusion:  I am among those real Christians who know what the word “evangelical” really means.  And, further, I have never voted for Trump and never will.

I hope the word “evangelical” can come back into accurate use, but, given politics these days, I am not holding my breath.

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 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.

There are at least three conclusions for me based on the recent presidential primary in New Hampshire.

1. Donald Trump is still nuts and cannot even remember his own name on occasion.
2. Nikki Halley came on strong in the primary and said she will stay in the race, which means she’ll have to take on Trump directly.
3. If Trump prevails – as seems likely – then we’ll have two old guys running for president, Trump and Joe Biden, which is not healthy for the country, nor for all of us as voters.

Biden continues to get brickbats for his tendency to forget name and places, a trait for many old folks like myself.

There has been so much written about Biden’s memory lapses, so I will focus the rest of this blog on Trump.

In the Wall Street Journal, Republican political analyst Karl Rove wrote this to summarize New Hampshire results:

“Trump, the winner with a projected 54 per cent of the vote, was irritated and nasty.  He castigated Haley as an ‘impostor’ who’d had ‘a very bad night’ and suggested New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu has ‘got to be on something’ for supporting her.

“He closed by snarling, ‘I don’t get too angry, I get even.’  The 19-minute rant made him look like an irate old man, not a confident, happy warrior.”

Rove went to provide a quick summary of Trump’s mental sharpness, or, more accurately, the lack of it:

“Then there’s Trump’s mental sharpness.  Biden’s cognitive shortcomings have long been painfully cataloged.  But Trump, who turns 78 in June, has had some notable flubs of his own.  This month he repeatedly used Haley’s name while trying to blame House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Capitol security lapses on January 6, 2021.

“He mixed up Biden’s and Barack Obama’s names seven times last fall, according to a November Forbes report, a habit Trump later said was deliberate sarcasm.  He has also said he beat Obama for president and accused Biden of leading America into World War II.  Maybe this is stress rather than age.  Whatever it is, it could be a problem for Trump.”

Error! Filename not specified.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank joined the fray after saying he has nothing better to do so attended the New Hampshire primary.

“This New Hampshire primary, like the Iowa caucuses before it, was a dud, with no real contest on either side.  But that is not to say it was without value.

“For New Hampshire showed us, beyond all doubt, that Trump is very, very confused.

“In October, in a speech in Derry, New Hampshire, he informed his audience that Viktor Orban, the strongman who rules Hungary, is “the leader of Turkey.”

“In November, in a speech in Claremont, New Hampshire, he advised the crowd that the current leader of the United States is President Obama. 

“Then, on Friday night, at a rally in Concord, New Hampshire, Trump confused his Republican primary opponent, Haley, with former House speaker Nancy Pelosi.  He claimed that Haley was in charge of security during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, that she refused all of his offers of help, and that she destroyed the evidence.

Of course, amidst these mistakes, Trump boasts of his own mental capacity.

He assured his supporters that he “took a cognitive test” and “I aced it.”

But, according to Milbank:

“Trump has previously boasted of his ability to identify an image of a ‘whale’ on said assessment, but, there is no such marine mammal on any version of the test.”

Back to my three conclusions.

• Both Biden and Trump are showing their age, which means they should not be running for the highest political office in the land.  Neither.  But, if it comes down to the two, I go with Biden.
• Haley should stay in the race to give Republicans a choice, especially as Trump continues to spend time in court trying to defend himself.  And, if she finds a way, even as a Republican, to appeal to middle-of-the-road Republicans fed up with Trump.
• And, if only because of their ages, American voters deserve better options than Trump and Biden.

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 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

One of my good friends loves when I write again about golf rules.

He loves the words because he is a golf rules afficionado.  I won’t use his name here because he is famous enough already.

So here goes.

For some reason, I have thought a lot about a rules decision involving pro golfer Carl Yuan as he finished the 18^th hole of the last round of the Sony Open in Hawaii a couple weeks ago.

That hole was a par 5 and, while Yuan hit a decent drive, he pushed his second shot far to the right.

There was no way to tell if the ball hit the top of a corporate tent or went over that tent toward an out-of-bounds line.

A rules official came up quickly and, also quickly, gave Yuan a favorable ruling.  Without, I add, either the official or Yuan taking any time to look for the golf ball to determine whether it was lost or out-of-bounds.

Play on, the rules official said, with the favorable no-penalty ruling.

For some reason, I thought about that situation again today and came to several conclusions.  Which, my friend might say, shows that I am addicted to golf rules and/or have nothing better to do in retirement.  So, the conclusions:

• My basic conclusion is that the rules official should have taken more time to issue a ruling and, at least if not more, should have spent time looking for the ball.  Or, at least call for a second opinion from another official.

I suppose it could be contended that it didn’t matter because Yuan wasn’t going to win the tournament, no matter the ruling.  But, I add, rules are rules.

• My second conclusion is that I suppose it is possible the rules official was using a confusing definition in golf rules – “known or virtually certain.” 

The definition:  “The standard for deciding what happened to a player’s ball – for example, whether the ball came to rest in a penalty area, whether it moved,  or what caused it to move.  Known or virtually certain means more than just possible or probable.”

On TV, it was not possible to know if the rules official was applying this definition or not.  Possible, I guess.  But, if it was being used, at least it would have taken a bit more time to render the decision.

It was nothing if not interesting that the TV commentators did not weigh in on the decision as they often do on such issues.

No doubt my friend, as I said a golf rules afficionado of the highest order, will be glad that I spent more time on this.

And, if nothing else, I am glad because it gave me more to do this morning before heading out to the golf course.

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 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.

Last weekend produced a substantial boost for professional golf.

No less a win by an amateur on the professional stage in the California desert where the American Express Tournament has been held, under various sponsors, for more than 60 years.

An amateur hadn’t won a professional tournament since 1991 when Phil Mickelson did it long before he disgraced himself in my eyes for bolting for the LIV tour (which supposedly is based on growing the game, a patently false notion).

The win last weekend was authored by Nate Dunlap, now a sophomore at the University of Alabama. 

His status as an amateur meant he didn’t win any money, but he did win a two-year exemption into the PGA Tour events when he chooses to go pro.  Plus, he got into several major tournaments – the Players, the Masters, the PGA Championship, and the Sentry Tournament of Champions.

Given the incentives, he could choose the pro route very soon, though, after his win, he decided to withdrawn from the Farmers Insurance Open on the California coast this week and head home instead with his family.

In general, golf’s reputation has suffered recently with its dalliance with the Saudi Investment Fund, which involves tainted money to fund the LIV tour.  At the moment, the deadline for a deal linking the Saudis to the pro tour has passed, but the two sides – the Saudi’s who bankroll LIV and the PGA Tour — are continuing to negotiate.

Tough news emerged just this week as PGA Tour President Jay Monahan went overseas to meet with the Saudis.

News broke that Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and the chairman of LIV Golf, could be facing a $74 million lawsuit.

According to GolfWeek, legal papers were sent to Al-Rumayyan at various addresses in Saudi Arabia, New York, and London.  The allegation is that the 53-year-old “carried out the instructions” of current Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with “the malicious intent” of “harming, silencing and ultimately destroying” the family of the Kingdom’s former intelligence chief, Dr. Saad Aljabri.  It is the Aljabri family that is seeking $74 million in damages.

Who knows what Monahan thought as he set out to meet with Al-Rumayyan.

But, back to golf’s reputation enhancement:

• AN AMATEUR VICTORY FOR THE AGES:  Dunlap, a Birmingham native and sophomore on the University of Alabama golf team, became the first amateur to win on the PGA Tour in more than 30 years!

He was behind by one shot coming down the stretch with five-time PGA Tour winner Sam Burns before a birdie on the 16th hole gave him a tie for the lead, at least for the moment.

Surprisingly, at the same time, Burns, a tour veteran with five wins to his credit, hit balls into the water on holes 17 and 18 at the PGA West Stadium Course. He posted double bogeys on both holes to forfeit his chance to win.

Dunlap made pars on both holes, including a tough up-and-down on 18 to secure the memorable victory.

He was born in Huntsville, Alabama, and was a golf prodigy growing up in Birmingham.  Dunlap won the United States Amateur in 2023 making him the second person in history to win both the United States Amateur and United States Junior Amateur.  Only Tiger Woods had done so previously.

• THE OTHER ALABAMA UNIVERSITY GRAD IN THE FINAL THREESOME:  It was Justin Thomas, who seems to be on his way back after a down year in 2023 – at least a down year for him.

He paid credit to his Alabama counterpart, Dunlap, for coming up big on a big stage, even as he watched Dunlap from only a few feet away in the final threesome.

• AMERICAN EXPRESS WOWS AGAIN:  It took a 13 under score after three rounds for the pros to make the cut.  Yes, 13 under!

On his last hole on day three, one of the amazing feats occurred when pro Shane Lowry sunk his second shot on a par four to go from 10 under to 12 under.  TV commentators said that meant he made the cut on the number.  But, it turned out the cut went one lower and Lowry – not to mention a lot of other good golfers – were out.

The three courses for the AmEx – La Quinta Country Club, the Nicklaus Course at PGA West, and the Stadium Course, also at PGA West – came off looking great on TV.  Because they were great.

Various commentators said the greens at all three courses were the best the pros would play all year long.

For me, the good news was that I live about three blocks from the La Quinta CC course, so it was an easy walk for me to see the tournament first-hand, something I look forward to doing every year.

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 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 headline on this blog may strike some as stupid or disassociated from reality.

Ethical conduct is not often seen as a dimension of character many would associate with lobbyists.

But, as a retired lobbyist, I say it is possible for the two to co-exist – ethical conduct and lobbying.

If it wasn’t, I would not have been a lobbyist for about 25 years in Oregon, for I consider myself to be focused on ethical conduct.

As I review my record over those years, I never was forced to do anything that was unethical.  If I happened to make a simple mistake on occasion – everyone does, and I did – I moved quickly to correct the record because there is no question but that, as a lobbyist, “your word is your bond.”

Without that, your credibility is lost.

So, here are a few principles that I would suggest illustrate ethical conduct in lobbying:

• Always say what you mean – be courteous, but don’t mince words.

• Be honest.  If you know the answer to a question from a legislator whom you are lobbying, answer it.  If you don’t, admit that you don’t and get back to the legislator with an answer as soon as you find it – and always get back.

• Ask only for consideration, not a specific action, at least until the end of the process when you might need to emphasize the final agreement you seek on behalf of a client or clients.
  
  
• Which, I say, relates to a reality of lobbying – it is a series of actions and steps, not just one step.  Thus, consideration makes sense, not action until the end, so keep in mind that, to use an illustration, you are involved in a long-distance race, not a sprint.

• Recognize that you are involved in sales – selling a perspective or point of view held by your client.  Thus, maintaining relationships contributes to a solid sales strategy.

• Be open to middle ground if a definitive answer – a “yes” or “no” – is not possible.  This is a hallmark of good government – knowing how to compromise.

• Be prepared to tell a legislator whom you are lobbying what the other side would say if that other-side lobbyist was in the room.  That clarity contributes to credibility.

• Always follow State of Oregon regulatory laws and rules for lobbyists and their clients.  If you sometimes make a mistake in what is a complicated set of laws and rules, admit the mistake, correct it, and move on.  Plus, good lobbyists help their clients file their separate ethics reports because many of them may be headquartered out-of-state without knowledge of the specific requirements for companies that lobby in Oregon.

And, let me go back to what I considered to be a hallmark of my tenure as a lobbyist, if I am allowed to grant myself a hallmark. 

It is this:  Your word is your bond.  Believe it.  Live it.