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.

For those of us who are political junkies – yes, I am one – this is a big week.

It is the week the president will deliver the annual “State of the Union” address.

This time, what’s ahead is a huge opportunity for President Joe Biden.  Before a joint session of Congress and a national audience, he gets a chance to describe the state of the country he leads.

The address, of course, will contain both substantive policy issues, as politics, especially this time with a national election only a few months away.

Washington Post editorial writers went on record this week under this headline:  “Give ’em hell, Joe – and keep the State of the Union shortest.”

Error! Filename not specified.The Post continues:

“Previewing Thursday’s State of the Union address, the White House says President Biden plans to claim credit for ‘getting more done in his first three years than most presidents have accomplished in two terms.’

“That’s a debatable claim, but he’s keen to talk about funding infrastructure, industrial policy, lowering drug prices, and fighting junk fees.

“His most important legacy, however, will be defeating President Donald Trump in 2020.  And if he’s going to do it again in 2024, he shouldn’t squander his biggest televised audience of the year by delivering another box-checking laundry list that drags on more than an hour.”

Recent “State of the Union” address have checked that box, going on and on, thus losing interest.

Some of this arose when Bill Clinton was president.  For one thing, he loved to talk – and he did incessantly.  The trend continued under Barack Obama when, like a couple of his predecessors, he invited various individuals to attend whom he could praise for their work, including, in some cases, selfless sacrifice in the military.

The ploy worked.  After all, it’s often a good idea to illustrate a policy by a real-life example.

But, too often, the tactic got shopworn.

Biden may do the same this week.

But the Post adds this advice:

“Finally, and maybe most importantly, Biden needs to keep this State of the Union shorter than his previous three addresses to Congress.  Harry Truman spoke for 41 minutes in his 1948 State of the Union.  Biden spoke for 73 minutes last year.

“Quick — can you remember anything he said?  (No fair Googling.)  At what he has called an ‘inflection point’ in history, it is far less important for Biden to be comprehensive than to be compelling.”

Good advice.  Compelling.  Not comprehensive.

I hope Biden succeeds this week.

Mr. Trump could well win if their rematch were today, but Mr. Biden has eight months to improve his fortunes. Nodding to the priorities of every Cabinet agency and the wish lists of liberal interest groups won’t shift any narratives. Alas, a preview released by the White House press shop on Friday suggests that’s what’s coming. It says the president will talk about, among other things, protecting abortion rights and in vitro fertilization, reining in big tech, curbing fentanyl, helping veterans, ending cancer, making the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, lowering health-care premiums, uniting the country and “saving our democracy.”

These are all worthy aims, but a moment of this gravity calls for something grander. Mr. Biden needs to rethink an exhausted format, step up to the bully pulpit and make a case less for himself than for his worldview. He needs to push back on the self-defeating isolationism, nativism and protectionism of the “America First” movement, whose ideas are as dangerous now as when they were previously tried, and failed, in the 1930s.

Conventional wisdom holds that politicians should emphasize issues on which they have an advantage — such as abortion, in the president’s case — and de-emphasize those on which they’re vulnerable. But Mr. Biden will lose reelection if he doesn’t address the southern border. Immigration has become the citizenry’s No. 1 concern. A Gallup poll published Tuesday shows 28 percent of Americans see this as the country’s most important problem, the highest reading ever. The same poll shows Congress’s job approval rating has fallen to 12 percent. Mr. Biden’s is 38 percent.

It’s valid to castigate Republicans for killing the sensible bipartisan border deal, something Mr. Biden did during his visit to a Texas border town on Thursday — but insufficient. He needs to convey he understands that many see the millions of border crossings as a breakdown in one of the federal government’s core responsibilities and outline how he will use executive authorities to stop it if Congress won’t.

Mr. Biden should take a page from President Harry S. Truman’s playbook. As the 1948 election season began, Truman appeared as vulnerable as Mr. Biden does now. But he won a full term by using the “Do-Nothing Congress” as a foil and rallying the country to meet the geopolitical challenges of the post-World War II era.

“Twice within our generation, world wars have taught us that we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world,” Truman said in his 1948 State of the Union. “We have learned that the loss of freedom in any area of the world means a loss of freedom to ourselves — that the loss of independence by any nation adds directly to the insecurity of the United States.”

Mr. Biden can make a similar argument regarding the need for the United States to support democracies such as Ukraine as they fend off existential threats. This cries out for more than sloganeering. On Israel, what’s happening in Gaza has riven the Democratic base, but just like with his vulnerability on immigration, that makes it even more crucial for Mr. Biden to explain his thinking and what he’s doing to prevent a wider war in the Middle East while securing a peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Far from representing a silent majority, Mr. Trump’s America First ideology reflects the thinking of a noisy minority. Fresh Gallup polling shows two-thirds of Americans want the United States to keep or expand its commitment to NATO. Only 12 percent want the United States to withdraw from the alliance.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, Mr. Biden needs to keep this State of the Union shorter than his previous three addresses to Congress. Truman spoke for 41 minutes in his 1948 State of the Union. Mr. Biden spoke for 73 minutes last year. Quick — can you remember anything he said? (No fair Googling.) At what he has called an “inflection point” in history, it is far less important for Mr. Biden to be comprehensive than to be compelling.

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.

What has happened to professional golf lately?  A grab for insane amounts of money, almost regardless of the source (read, the Saudis). 

The excess raises the question posed in this blog headline, even for those who love golf as I do.

I could write about this for some time, but it is easier for me simply to reprint an article by a solid golf writer, Geoff Shackelford.  It appeared in a recent edition of Links Magazine under this headline:  Geoff Shackelford — Why We Don’t Need Professional Golfers.

Shackelford’s words are worth noting, though I still hope that at least some pro golfers still play “for the love of the game” – or, as Shakelford puts it, “the enduring spirit of a royal and ancient pursuit.”

Now, to be sure, there are some professional golfers who still appear to love the game, not just the money.  Generalizations are troublesome.  But, that said, the grab for so much money raises questions.

*********

The more pro golfers squabble over obscene amounts of money, the less the public will care.  And that’s just fine.

The verdict is in.

A sport played in some form by 70 or so million around the globe does not hinge on the popularity of the few hundred or so professionals who believe they are centers of our universe.

The numbers do not lie.

Even with terrible weather in key regions, according to Golf Datatech, U.S. rounds played are up 3 per cent over 2022 with magnificent spikes in female and junior participation.  An unexpected pandemic bump has turned into a steady bounce even with offices demanding that workers return and less time-consuming threats like pickleball competing for recreational time.

Everyday golf has proved to be resilient, unmoored from the fortunes, grievances, and neuroses of those who play it for a living.

Dating back to when Young Tom Morris won so many silver belts they had to let him keep it and create a Claret Jug, and all the way up to the emergence of Tiger Woods, bursts of popularity have been tied to the dashing ways of generational talents.

These special players convinced people to take up the Royal and Ancient pastime.  Watching bigger-than-life types pursuing history without concern for cash gave the sport convenient boosts:  Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Babe Zaharias, and Arnold Palmer injected new life at key moments.  

They helped the masses discover or rediscover golf as a brilliant, if a tad peculiar, pastime.  A reverse effect might have been expected based on 2023’s morass of international headlines reinforcing touring pros as cartoonishly selfish.

Instead, all traceable trends suggest a record number of people are calling themselves golfers.  Flat or falling media viewing numbers suggest longtime viewers have moved on from the “logoclads.”

The inspiration to play, dream, practice, invest, and live vicariously through golf now comes from non-pro golf sources.  And while many well-meaning overlords have issued dire pleas that a sport “splintered” between LIV and the PGA Tour would be perilous, 2023 proved the Saudi Arabia-driven divorce will remain largely a non-issue for the everyday sport and surrounding businesses.

Golf has shown people it’s more than just something to do safely outdoors.  It’s a lifestyle and guiding force for many.  A safe place for kids and a healthy pastime for older folks.

Grass roots efforts to “grow” the sport have worked.  There are (finally) easier and less intimidating ways into golf.  More options have been added for those who cannot play 18 holes on a Saturday at the club.  Years of effort by leading organizations to make the sport more welcoming have shown up in the numbers even as this newfound popularity has inflated costs for equipment, green fees, travel, and memberships.

Because instead of taking cues from the elites traveling (private, no less) around the country playing beautiful courses for millions, the golfing public finds inspiration elsewhere.

Some folks — I’m only slightly judging here — take inspiration from the pursuits of the influencer set because they look like they’re having fun playing golf.  Millions more with less time to play 18 holes still are enjoying the benefits of improving through practice on upgraded ranges or short courses.

Instruction is more fun, supported by revealing launch-monitor data that makes a game of suggesting swing tweaks based on the numbers.  More golfers than ever are architectionados:  Some travel to check off ranked courses, but most are seeking out rich experiences and the ensuing fun of debating design merits that produce memories of a lifetime.  All of this is far removed from the week-to-week pro game.

On the commerce side, just look at the number of fun and sophisticated niche brands that have forced the industry behemoths to reevaluate their approach and improve their offerings.

The inspiration to play more golf and ignore the pro game is also coming from infusions of technology, incredible (and environmentally healthier) course maintenance, better food, more relaxed fashion, clever use of social media to show off the beauty of golf courses as places to rejuvenate the soul, and the long overdue embrace of time-friendly alternatives like par-3 courses and Topgolf.

Yet, there is still too much desperation to “grow the game” even though we all know that phrase is only uttered by those who have never tried hitting refresh on a webpage hoping to secure a tee time.

The game has grown.  It’s cool with kids and the retiring boomers.  Is it sustainable given the increasing costs?  That’s still a matter of concern, and, thankfully, there are smart people at the USGA, R&A, GCSAA, NGF, and regional golf associations on top of these things.

While many well-meaning overlords have issued dire pleas that a sport “splintered” between LIV and the PGA Tour would be perilous, 2023 proved the Saudi Arabia-driven divorce will remain largely a non-issue for the everyday sport and surrounding businesses.

Their jobs would be easier without a professional game determined to taint the strides made by making the sport more palatable for more people.

There are still too many courses under threat despite serving a vital purpose in their communities.  Golf is still viewed as a vast waste of resources played by a small set of elitists, and pro golf’s money wars only drive this home.

Another year of silly money thrown about, most of it caught by Jon Rahm, has sharpened the focus on player greed, the kind regularly described by people who love the game as awful and disgusting. It’s no wonder folks outside the sport still unfairly lump golfers and courses into a big waste pit of excess.  Hearing pros threatening a jump to LIV because there are not enough executive restrooms or on-site parking for their caddie’s sport psychologist is enough to make even die-hard golfers hate the pros.

It’s little wonder, then, that ratings are falling and playing professionals are no longer seen as brand icons to blue chip companies.  While most are still fantastic role models to be admired for their skill, the crossfire hurricane of trends suggests the recreational game and ecosystem around it will continue to drift away from the 300 or so male professionals who believe they are the sport.  Or worse, bigger than it.

With the major tours failing to find common ground and much sense, the insular money jockeying will only end when the cash starts to dry up.  By then it’ll be too late for the pro game and the majors will be the only time we watch.

Thankfully, the rest of golf can see the unanimous verdict:  The game will be fine with or without the pros.  It’s a beautiful thing.  And a testament to the enduring spirit of a royal and ancient pursuit.

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.

I encountered an interesting golf rules issue the other day on the course – and, also, know this…I am addicted to learning more about golf rules.

This was the issue:

• A player in the group I was in hit a good shot on a par 3 hole to within about five feet of the cup.

• A second player hit a similar shot that struck the first ball and one of the balls ended up about two inches from the cup.  At the time, we thought it was the second shot that came up just short.

• But, when we got to the green, we learned that it was the first ball that, atter being hit, rolled toward the hole.

So, what is the proper golf ruling?

It would be this.  The first ball on the green would have to be replaced as close as possible to the spot it held when it was hit.  Not where it ended up almost in the hole.

The second ball would be played from where it ended up after the hit.  No penalty.

So, what would happen if the first ball on the green had gone into the hole after being hit?  Same answer.  It would have to be placed as close as possible to its original spot on the green.

Tough stuff, you say.

Consulting Mr. Google, I confirmed that this situation is covered by Golf Rules 18-5 and 20-3a.  You can look if up if you want.

Confirmation from Mr. Google:

“Question:  If I am off the putting green and my ball, when chipping onto the green, hits a ball on the putting surface, is there a penalty, and if so, who gets the penalty?

“Answer:  The easy thing to remember about this situation is that whenever a ball in play and, at rest, is moved by another ball in motion after a stroke, the moved ball must always be replaced (Rule 18-5).

“It is a principle of the rules of golf that a player is entitled to the lie and line of play that he or she had when the ball came to rest.  When a ball is to be replaced, the player, his or her partner or the person who moved it must place it on the spot from which it moved (Rule 20-3a).

“The player must make his or her best judgement to estimate where the ball was lying before it was moved.  The player whose ball hit the stationary ball must play their ball from wherever it came to rest.”

There.  Aren’t you glad you know all of this?

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 blog headline describes Donald Trump.  And I say that as a long-time public relations consultant before I retired about six years ago.

Just think about it.

Trump cares only about himself and usually says the first thing that comes into his head, no matter the potential consequences.  And, it appears to be absolutely true that consequences are irrelevant to him.

Most of the time, for him, they simply become more fund-raising opportunities.

As I thought about this over the last few days, a notion kept coming back to me.  It was this:  If you thought Trump should consider taking advice about a host of very negative issues surrounding him as a person, just know that he do the REVERSE of what any sage advisor would offer.

He is always in court these days and, rather than participate carefully in those situations, he just emotes.

He berates the judge in the judges’ own courtroom.  He is caught commenting aloud to illustrate that he detests witness testimony.

He practices these stupid traits:

• He never listens.

• He just says whatever comes into his mind.

• Truth is totally unimportant to him; not a factor.

• He believes he is always the most important person in any room, if not on the face of the earth.

• He boasts unceasingly about himself.

• He criticizes everyone, using inflammatory words.

• He doesn’t care about hurting someone else…anyone else.

And, then, this from Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post:

“…here is a very interesting question about whether any amount of damages can deter Trump from repeating his defamatory comments.  Our legal system presumes rational actors are deterred from bad conduct by the fear of consequences, either punitive (such as imprisonment) or monetary (including punitive damages).

“But Trump doesn’t seem to have been deterred — at all.  And I wonder whether he is even capable of restraining himself.  His conduct in court was not the conduct of a person who was behaving in accordance with his own best interests.”

In my public relations business, when clients faced potential negative exposure, I used to counsel them to work to limit damages by being careful and respectful about what they said.  Better to seek limits than to increase exposure.

But, then these clients cared about the exposure, not to mention their reputations.  And, unlike Trump, didn’t behave as narcissists.

So, if we cannot impeach Trump because he no longer is in public office, then we should do two things – (a) subject him to further damages in criminal courts (such as the $450 million he received in New York), and (b) don’t vote for him again.

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 the most important credentials for golfers, both amateurs and pros alike, is this:  The ability to forget.

For example, a few weeks ago, down here in La Quinta, California, where I live in the winter, I played a round at a popular public course, Desert Willow.

To put it simply, it was a bad round for me, perhaps the worst one in several months.

So, the credential:  Forget that round and go on to the next one.  Which I managed to do the next day.

The same principle applies to individual shots on a golf course. 

If you hit a bad shot, go on to the next one.

That illustrates this accurate Q and A in golf.  Question:  What is the most important shot in golf?  Answer:  The next one.

I am learning and re-learning the ability to forget.

Including from this additional perspective.  I had the privilege recently of hosting the Oregon State University Men’s Golf Team recently at the course where I play in the winter, The Palms in La Quinta, California.

Neither the players, nor the coaches, had seen The Palms before, so my job involved shepherding them around the course, sometimes to aid with the difficulty of knowing the proper route between one green and the next tee.

So, I saw players hit shot-after-shot, impressed by their length and accuracy.

And, forgetting?  Yes.  I need to forget how far they hit the golf ball and how short I hit the ball in comparison.  Of course, 50 years or so difference in age illustrates the comparison.  I also may want to forget my age, too!

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.

I learned a new word a couple days ago – contumacious!

So, I open one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit – the Department of Words Matter.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of “Just Saying,” the Department of Inquiring Minds Want to Know, and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

The new word for me is pronounced this way:  kon-too-mey-shuhs.

It is an adjective which means this:  Stubbornly or willfully disobedient to authority; rebellious; defiant.

Here are ways the word can be used in a sentence:

• The contumacious student refused to comply with the teacher’s instructions, earning multiple disciplinary actions.
• The contumacious behavior of the defendant led to additional charges being brought against him/her..

Now, when I heard this new word, guess what and who I thought of?

Yes, Donald Trump.

He is nothing if not contumacious!

I will be adding this to my long list of words to describe Trump who, despite being contumacious, still wants to be president again.

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.

I wrote about immigration yesterday, providing a summary of great work by the Washington Post to summarize real immigration statistics, not the false ones perpetrated by Donald Trump and his minions.

So, today, to add more information to the subject, I reprint a column by one of the Post’s excellent writers, David Ignatius.

His work is worth reading.  It appeared under the headline I borrowed for this blog.  So here it is.

**********

It’s hard to find a better example of America’s political dysfunction than the impeachment this month of Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security.  Republicans are right that the country has an immigration crisis, but their grandstanding move against Mayorkas attacked the Democrat trying hardest to fix it.

Mayorkas, a feisty man with a ferocious intellect, seems almost to relish his moment in the ring.  He’s been a punching bag for outrageous comments, such as Representative Mark Green’s slur that he’s “a reptile with no balls,” which a White House spokesman rightly called “vile” and antisemitic.

Mayorkas keeps on rolling.  Some Republicans in the Senate are demanding a trial on the February 13 House impeachment charges, which appear to lack any trace of the required evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and will almost certainly fail.  President Biden described this charade as a “blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games.”

Buried underneath Mayorkas’s trial, however, is the deeper story of why this country can’t solve the border mess.  It’s a tale in which Democrats bear nearly as much responsibility as Republicans for the inability to fix a system that is plainly broken.  This account is drawn from sources in and out of government who have worked closely with Mayorkas as the train wreck of impeachment approached.

The president started on Inauguration Day wanting to be the anti-Trump on immigration.  After four years of cruel scenes at the border, Biden wanted to signal change — and to respond to Hispanic voters who had helped elect him.

Biden unfortunately threw the baby out with the bathwater.  He announced a 100-day moratorium on deportations that was quickly overturned in court.  He disdained physical barriers along the border that might resemble President Trump’s notorious “wall.”  And he shied from policies that recalled Trump’s border-closing “Remain in Mexico” stance.  Politically, immigration was a loser; Biden mostly kept his distance.

That spelled trouble for Mayorkas.  He took the job of running Homeland Security in 2021 knowing that a new legislative framework was needed — but unlikely to pass a sharply divided Congress.  That meant DHS, lacking the necessary statutory authority or resources, would inevitably struggle with migrants claiming asylum status so they could get jobs in the United States while the overburdened system took five to seven years to process their claims.

DHS was a “catcher’s mitt,” as one of Mayorkas’s aides put it.  By the time migrants arrived at the border, it was too late for good solutions.  The asylum system, with its low bar of requiring only a show of “credible fear” to enter the country, leaned in favor of admitting people, and DHS officials told me that about 75 per cent of such claimants get initial waivers.  When their cases are finally heard by immigration judges, they said, only about 20 per cent are approved.

Error! Filename not specified.

Migrants couldn’t be blamed for crossing a broken fence.  Illegal entry offered jobs and decent housing — and escape from terrible conditions back home.  And it made business sense:  Migrants who paid smugglers as much as $10,000 could be cleared as refugees to work in the United States for at least five years while waiting for a hearing, all the while sending money home to needy relatives.  That represented a net gain for them, but it has overwhelmed some of the U.S. cities and states where they arrived.

“The fundamental problem we have is that our laws and funding shortfalls do not allow the U.S. government to screen and return people rapidly who come here as economic migrants and do not have legitimate asylum claims,” Susan Rice, who worked with Mayorkas on immigration issues when she headed Biden’s domestic policy council, told me.

Mayorkas and Rice wanted a new approach of stopping the flow before it got to the border.  Biden favored it, too, in principle.  But his Administration didn’t get the job done, and it’s a case study in how good ideas get overwhelmed by inertia and interagency disputes.

Mayorkas urged the State Department back in 2021 to create what became known as “safe mobility centers” abroad where migrants could make their asylum claims — and get quick judgments that wouldn’t require an endless judicial review.  The State Department agreed in principle, and last May promised to create 100 such centers.  Nearly a year later, there are just four — in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guatemala.  They’ve helped stem flows from those countries, but migrant numbers from other places have surged.

The State Department, to be blunt, had other priorities than migration. Foreign Service officers don’t get points for helping DHS.

That was true for the Justice Department, too.  Administration officials say Mayorkas made more than a dozen requests for Justice to prosecute more cases under Sections 1325 and 1326 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which impose criminal penalties of up to six months for those crossing the border illegally and up to 20 years for those making repeated crossings.  “It’s fair to say that [the] DOJ was not prioritizing prosecution of people who made multiple attempts,” said a former senior Administration official.

Vice President Harris was given the politically thankless task of curbing refugee flows from Central America.  During a June 2021 visit to Guatemala, she said bluntly:  “I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border: Do not come. Do not come.”  It was the right policy statement, but Harris was attacked by pro-immigration groups and the White House basically left her hanging.  That might have been the moment the air began to go out of Harris’s vice presidency.

The Democrats misfired partly because, when Biden took office, border security was still predominantly a red-state issue, seemingly with little upside for Democrats.  That began to change last year, when migrants began streaming into Democratic cities such as Denver, Chicago and New York.  But in the Administration’s early months, the burden fell on Mayorkas.

An early test came in March 2021, when thousands of unaccompanied children began overwhelming crowded Border Patrol stations.  The Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for caring for these minors.  But HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, the first Latino to head the agency, was wary when told to increase the 8-to-1 ratio of children for each HHS counselor, so that more children could leave the crowded and dangerous border stations.

Becerra’s initial response was to request that the president put it in writing, remembered one participant in a White House meeting with him on the subject.  At the next meeting, a “calmly indignant” Mayorkas told Biden that Homeland’s ratio of children to supervisors was 175 to 1.  Biden ordered Becerra to increase the HHS ratio to 12 to 1; Becerra agreed, “if you’re willing to take the risk,” a participant remembers.

Error! Filename not specified.

Biden said he would, but some attendees thought he was peeved at his HHS secretary.  Rice scribbled a note to Mayorkas at one meeting in which Becerra was on the hot seat.  “Don’t save him,” she advised, according to someone who read it.  But Mayorkas took on the problem, sending hundreds of Homeland employees to help take care of the unaccompanied minors at HHS facilities.

Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for HHS, responded:  “We worked quickly, in partnership with DHS, but under any circumstances you can’t stand up licensed child-care beds overnight, much less in the middle of a pandemic.  We continue to work closely with colleagues at DHS and across the federal government to serve children referred to our care.”

A former Biden Administration official involved in immigration policy confirmed that there was “a little tension” between Biden and the two Cabinet secretaries over the issue, but he said HHS is now handling 10,000 to 20,000 unaccompanied children a month, compared with less than 1,000 a month at the beginning of 2021.

Some progressive Democrats have talked themselves into what seems an untenable position about migration issues over the past decade, sometimes sounding as though they believed that the very existence of a border — and a system of controls, including deportation — was unjust and immoral.  Mayorkas encountered that impasse when he spoke last May at a gathering of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The secretary laid out an all-too-typical hypothetical situation in which a migrant who entered the United States and received an asylum waiver, worked here until the backlogged courts could hear his claim and was finally rejected — and given a deportation order.  “What are we supposed to do?” Mayorkas asked.

“There was dead silence,” remembers one person who attended.  Then one of the immigration advocates responded, “The system is unfair.”  That seemed to mean that empathy for the migrant should trump the law.

This insistence on expanded rights for migrants is expressed in a new summary of “Humane Solutions That Work” published this week by the National Immigrant Justice Center.  It argued against a “punitive, enforcement-oriented approach to immigration policy” that “demonizes people seeking safety and a better life.”

The terrible irony of Mayorkas’s saga is that Congress came very close this year to doing what he thought back in 2021 was impossible:  Passing a sensible reform of immigration law that provides clearer legal standards and more resources so that the United States can have, at once, a humane policy and a secure border.  This bi partisan compromise was scuttled at the 11th hour after Trump signaled that he preferred no reform to one crafted during Biden’s presidency.

The impeachment of Mayorkas quickly followed.  Mayorkas seemed unfazed last weekend as he made the rounds at the Munich Security Conference.  Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general who is a friend and former law partner of Mayorkas, sums up the arc of the secretary’s story this way:  “You have to admire his dedication to doing the hardest job in Washington with severely limited authorities and resources, only to face hypocritical charges by those who could fix this in a minute.”

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.

Immigration.

Even uttering the word seems to send chills down the spines of many Americans, including some of my friends.

But, like many issues these days, untruth supplements truth.

Look only so far as the Washington Post this week.  Editors performed a major public service by posting an immigration quiz, asking readers to take it.

Any who did and paid attention to the results, learned a few truths.

Fears of immigration arise mostly from the plaintiff cries of one Donald Trump who always blames someone for something, with truth lost in the shuffle.  His sycophants mimic his cries.

Here is how the Post started its quiz:

“With former president Trump describing an immigrant invasion — and even Democrats acknowledging that the U.S. border is insecure — it is easy to worry about the large number of immigrants arriving in the United States.

“Will they bring crime?  Mooch off your taxes?  Change American culture?”

What follows below is a summary of the Post quiz, with the answers…truthful answers.

Question 1 of 5/What share of the U.S. population was born in a different country?

The truth?  14 per cent.

That proportion is less than many might imagine, particularly given claims that the United States has already taken in too many foreigners.  The United States chooses to admit some of these immigrants on work, family, or other visas.

Question 2 of 5/What share of all immigrants to the United States entered the country illegally?

The truth?  Less than 25 per cent.

Many Americans believe the proportion is far higher.

Question 3 of 5/In 2022, around 11 per cent of the U.S.-born population were living in poverty.  What was this number for immigrants?

The truth?  Around 14 per cent.

Again, many Americans believe the proportion is far higher.

Question 4 of 5/In 2019, American-born citizens got an average of $8,000 per person in welfare and other entitlements.  What was the number for immigrants?

The truth?  Around a quarter less.

Same point.  Many Americans believe the proportion is higher.

Question 5 of 5/Close to 3 per cent of U.S.-born men under 40 are incarcerated.  What is this figure for foreign-born men living in the United States?

The truth?  Around 1 per cent.

Trump, of course, has argued that immigrants are predominantly criminals, contributing to rising crime in the United States.  Again, not true – but, then, truth doesn’t matter to Trump.

Now, for the Post’s conclusion.

“For sure, many Americans welcome immigrants as critical additions to the labor force who have helped boost economic growth and contain inflation, and as contributors to the nation’s rich cultural diversity.

“But many accept Trump’s tale of hordes of immigrants ‘destroying the blood of our country,’ bringing only poverty and crime.  Even those who do not subscribe to all of Trump’s blood-and-soil nationalism still hear reports of unprecedented numbers of migrants seeking asylum and worry about disorder.”

I highly value what the Post has done.  As the Bible would say, its writing “separates the wheat from the chaff.”

For me, two things are true:

• First, all of us in America are immigrants.  We or our forebears came from somewhere else to settle in America – and we always should remember our past, which has enabled our future.

• Second, the time is long past for elected officials to display the political courage to solve the illegal immigrant problem.  Those in office in Washington, D.C. – both in Congress and the Executive Administration — have been more interested in using immigrants as political pawns than they have in finding the smart middle ground.

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 thing that has bugged me for years about Donald Trump and those who shill for him is that they wrap themselves in the American flag, yet

have no respect for it.

I say this:  Save the American flag for those who support America, some of whom have died in the process.

As for Trump, he is opposed to America, so why does he choose to use the flag.

I don’t know.

Washington Post columnist Maureen Dowd does.  Thus, she wrote a recent column under this headline:  “The Florida Fraudster and the Russian ‘Killer’”

Here is how she started her column:

“When I covered George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 1988, he was so eager to wrap himself in the American flag that he took us to a New Jersey flag factory.  That way, he could claim that the GOP was ‘on the American side’ while caressing pieces of striped, red-and-white nylon.

“At the time, it seemed like a cynical move by Republicans, trying to bogart patriotism.  But at least they respected our country enough to try to monopolize its symbol.”

Dowd continues:

“That vanishing breed of Republican pledged allegiance to the American flag.  Now, Republicans pledge allegiance to Donald Trump’s ego.  He has to be bigger than everything — even America itself.

“’Bush wrapped himself in the American flag,’ Democrat analyst David Axelrod said.  ‘Trump wants to wrap himself in the Mar-a-Lago flag.’

“Just as Trump has remade the Republican Party in his own nasty and selfish image, he wants to remake America in his own nasty and selfish image.

“Trump doesn’t seem to subscribe to any of the verities about this country.  He doesn’t believe America is exceptional.  He only believes that Trump is exceptional — an exception to all the rules that the rest of us live by.”

Alexrod goes on by saying, “If American laws get in his way — like counting votes to choose a president — he tries to smash them.  He’s bigger than democracy, after all.

“If American values get in his way — like our distaste for authoritarians like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban — he mocks those values.  When Putin and Orban flattered Trump, that seemed more important to the Mar-a-Lago megalomaniac than our nation’s proud history of facing down autocrats.”

The writer Dowd then concludes:

“America the Beautiful, our Shining City on a Hill, is not so hot to Trump.  Get in his way, and he will bust up institutions, trash courts, tear down cultural icons like Taylor Swift, and egg on acolytes to storm the Capitol.

“He doesn’t see America as the idealistic leader of the free world. He sees the world as ‘The Hunger Games,’ as Axelrod put it.  And frighteningly, Trump sometimes acts as if he prefers America’s enemies to America.

“The former president shocked the world last weekend when he said at a rally that if NATO countries did not pay more for defense, he would ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ to our allies.  Biden called that ‘un-American.’”

So, in conclusion, I say, don’t let Trump wrap himself in the American flag.  Save the flag for those who deserve its genuine patriotic purpose, such as those Trump hates, military veterans who have served America with distinction and sacrifice.

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.

I read a brief post in a recent Wall Street Journal and came to a broad conclusion.

That’s me.  Reading something short one minute.  Then, coming to a major conclusion in the next.

The post appeared under this headline and sub-head:  “Notable & Quotable:  The White House Culture Has Changed; ‘There’s this whole, ‘You’re not the boss of me’ attitude now.”

Say what?

It appears that, if the post is right, junior staffers in the White House have no difficulty going against the president they serve.

On January 10, Eugene Daniels, reporting for Politico, wrote this:

“Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, President Joe Biden’s consistent support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response has prompted a series of anonymous letters from staffers within the White House, the State Department and the Biden campaign — letters that have left politicos of a certain age shaking their heads.

“The notion that junior staffers in such coveted jobs would dare cross the principal — even anonymously — would have been inconceivable not long ago, they say. 

“There’s this whole, ‘You’re not the boss of me’ attitude now. ‘I might work for you, but I have my own views,’” said longtime Democrat strategist James Carville, who worked for former President Bill Clinton as a top campaign strategist. 

“’The bargain a staffer strikes has always been this:  You get to influence the decisions of the most powerful government in the history of the world,’ said Paul Begala, who worked alongside Carville in the Clinton White House.

“In exchange for that influence, you agree to back the final decision even if it goes against your advice.  If confronted with a decision that crosses one’s ethical, moral, social, and political lines, the choice is clear:  Shut up and support it, or resign.”

There, the bottom-line point:  If a decision goes against your ethical principles, you have two choices – “shut up and support it, or resign.”

Let me propose this key difference.

In a business organization, if you disagree with a decision, but it is just that – a disagreement over a decision — you have a basic choice, go with it and support it. 

But, if the decision happens to go against your more basic ethical, moral or principled fiber, then you have the two choices listed above – stomach it, or resign.  And the latter may be your best approach.

As for a culture change in today’s White House, the Politico writer, Daniels, says unauthorized leaks in the Donald Trump presidency became a form of political currency, with anonymous officials writing op-eds, and wild bits of drama routinely finding their way into the news.

Inside the current White House, Daniels writes, there’s a feeling that the culture has now irrevocably changed.

For me, I hearken back to the time I co-managed a lobbying and public affairs firm in Oregon, CFM Strategic Communications.

We told staffers that, if they had strong opposing views to a client we were taking on, we would not require them to work on that client.

But, if they found us violating their basic principles, then they had the choice outlined above – inform us about their problem, encourage us to change, or if we did not change, then live with the decision or strike out on their own.

If the above about the White House is true, I wish staffers would behave the same way I outlined in my old firm.