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.

As someone with too much time on hands, I tend to follow either of two pursuits:  First, golf, my favorite sport, or, second, thinking about public policy.

Well, there is another one – functioning as the vice president for garbage pick-up and lawn maintenance at the house where I live in Salem, Oregon.

For public policy, my thoughts have gone lately to the kinds of qualities I appreciate in those who hold elective positions.

This has not been motivated by anything I have read.  It’s just my independent thoughts, some of them gleaned during my 40 years of service in and around state government in Oregon.  A few of them were highlighted during the recent mid-term election.

So, with that election in the rearview mirror, at least mostly, here is my list of top credentials.

• An elected official who knows what he or she knows and what he or she doesn’t know.  [I remember several officials, especially in health care, who thought they knew every answer to every question, so only had to propose pieces of legislation, not work with those who cared about the issue as much as they did.]

• An elected official who practices a lost art in politics these days – listening.  [One of my partner in business put it this way:  God gave you two ears and one mouth, so spend twice as much listening as talking.]

• An elected official who stands on principles that got them elected, but does hold them in a closed fist, thus being willing to listen to the perspectives of others because “no one has the right answer to everything.”

• An elected official who, when there is not agreement on a direction on a particular policy bill, will work to find middle ground, which is often where the best solutions lie anyway.  And, if there is no clear middle ground, perhaps the best solution is not to pass anything.

• An elected official who will ask two questions now not often asked by those in government:  (1) Is a government program the best way to deal with this issue, and, if the answer is “yes,” (2) how can the program be designed to achieve its objectives in measurable form?

• An elected official who listens to anecdotes, but does not propose policy in respect to just those anecdotes, which may not reflect the accurate picture.

• And, an elected official who will value honesty above all else.

Thoughts such as these at least were in the back of my mind as I voted a few weeks ago.

I hope we see these kinds of credentials in action, not just in campaign promises.

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.

Atlantic Magazine showed up this week with a thought-provoking story reflecting on two huge past human tragedies:  Slavery in America and the Holocaust in Germany.

Of course, those tragedies are separate, defined by location and specifics.  But, both indicate an incredible, foreboding reality:  Hate for a class of people – Blacks in America and Jews in Germany – has existed and could still exist.

For its December cover story, Atlantic staff writer Clint Smith — who has written a book about historical sites and memorials of slavery in America — spent time in Germany, visiting sites of the Holocaust and studying the debates around them.

He recounted how many Germans are making sure the Holocaust is not forgotten.

Smith’s reflections prompted me to remember a couple of my visits to Germany where, while I did not visit Holocaust sites, I found myself wondering whether German citizens reflected on the huge misdeeds of the Hitler era, or, if they did, how they did.

Today’s Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but it was so horrific that I thought they must have views about it.

In an Atlantic interview, Smith said this:

“Like many people, I read books about the Holocaust in grade school.  I read Anne Frank’s diary and Elie Wiesel’s Night; I spent time with a lot of these narratives that gave me a small insight into what happened.  But I’m a big believer in the power of putting your body in the place where history happened.  It gives you a different sense of your own proximity to that history.  I think I felt that most at the Dachau concentration camp.

“I’ve been to plantations.  I’ve been inside of execution chambers.  I’ve walked the halls of death row.  I’ve been to a lot of places where death and violence are, and have been, enacted on people.

“But I’ve never experienced the chill in my body and in my spirit that I did when I was walking through the gas chamber at Dachau.  I was startled by how deeply I felt it in my body, how deeply unsettled I felt in my spirit. And then you realize how recent it was.  This was less than 80 years ago.”

Smith said that one of the most moving memorials he encountered was what he called “the stumbling stones.”  There are more than 90,000 brass stones spread across 30 different countries in Europe, and they’re typically placed in front of the homes, residences, synagogues, and schools where Jews and other groups were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, or where they last lived before they were sent to their deaths.

He talked with a Jewish woman who lived in a home that had two stumbling stones in front of it, and she said, “Can you imagine what it would be like if you had this for slavery in your hometown, in New Orleans?”

At that moment, Smith said he looked down at the stones and, in fact, imagined what it would be like in America if the stones were a memorial to slavery.

Entire streets, he said, would be filled with stones.

“I think about what it would be like if we did something commensurate with that here.  What would it be like if we had stumbling stones or markers in every place where enslaved people were sold or held or rendered captive?  What might it do to our collective understanding of our history?  Would we have such a distorted sense of what America has been and what it is if we were regularly reminded of what it has done?

“Markers and stumbling stones are not a panacea by any means.  But the thing about Germany is that these sites of memory are ubiquitous.  There are so many reminders, everywhere you turn, of what Germany did, that it becomes an indelible part of the national psyche.”

And, I say that’s good because one way to avoid repeating a horrific catastrophe like the Holocaust is to remember it!

Smith added a useful perspective for Americans.

“In the United States,” he said, “there are 41 million Black people in this country.  And, so you can’t simply build a memorial to slavery or put a wreath down once a year on Juneteenth and say, We did this terrible thing. We won’t do it again, without accounting for the material implications of what happened for the people who are right in front of you.

“Contrition without reparation would feel empty or incomplete.  Across the country, we see the manifestations of a lack of reparations in the pervasive inequality between Black and white people.”

For me, contrition and reparation are separate issues.  The latter is very controversial.  The former – contrition – should not be, especially if it can motivate beliefs and actions today.

Further, Smith said memorials to slavery in America do not have rely on government – or, perhaps, should not.

“There are examples of communities in the U.S. that are not waiting for the government to tell them that they should build a memorial or that they should create sites of public memory.  I think one of the most compelling is a group in Connecticut that’s doing a Witness Stones Project, based on the stumbling-stones project in Germany.

“Middle- and high-school students are placing stones to mark the spaces where enslaved people lived, worked, and worshiped.”

So, this bottom-line thought for all of us – one underlined for me on my trips to Germany:  Do not forget past misdeeds in any country. 

For Germany, it was the Holocaust and may it never happen again.

For us, it was slavery and may it never happen 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 have chosen today to devote an entire blog to reprinting a story from the Washington Post this morning that conveyed sad news, the passing of a great columnist and a treasured human being, Michael Gerson.

It’s my way to eulogize Mr. Gerson.

I do so because he was one of my favorite columnists going these days, for at least a couple reasons:  First, he had a great way with words to convey the points he was making as a political analyst; and, second, he did so from his position as a genuine Christian.

So, I honor you today, Mr. Gerson, for your role in national affairs, your role in writing great words, and your role as a Christian.

Here is the Washington Post story.

Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush who helped craft messages of grief and resolve after 9/11, then explored conservative politics and faith as a Washington Post columnist writing on issues ranging from President Donald Trump’s disruptive grip on the GOP to his own struggles with depression, died November 17 at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington.  He was 58.

Gerson had been receiving treatment for cancer, said Peter Wehner, a longtime friend and former colleague.

After years of working as a writer for conservative and evangelical leaders, including Prison Fellowship Ministries founder and Watergate felon Charles Colson, Gerson joined the Bush campaign in 1999.  Gerson, an evangelical Christian, wrote with an eye toward religious and moral imagery, and that approach melded well with Bush’s personality as a leader open about his own Christian faith.

Gerson’s work and bonds with Bush drew comparisons to other powerful White House partnerships, such as John F. Kennedy’s with his speechwriter and adviser Ted Sorensen and Ronald Reagan’s with aide Peggy Noonan.

Conservative commentator William Kristol told The Post in 2006 that Gerson “might have had more influence than any other White House staffer who wasn’t chief of staff or national security adviser” in modern times.

“Mike was substantively influential, not just a wordsmith, not just a crafter of language for other people’s policies, but he influenced policy itself,” Kristol said.

As an impromptu speaker, Bush had a reputation for gaffes and mangling phrases, but Gerson provided him with memorable flights of oratory, such as the pledge to end “the soft bigotry of low expectations” in the education of low-income and minority students and the description of democracy — in Bush’s first inaugural address — as a “seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations.”

As a Bush confidant and head of the speechwriting team, he also encouraged such memorable turns of phrase as “axis of evil,” which Bush used to explain the administration’s hawkish posture as it started long and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the chaotic months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Gerson became the key craftsman articulating what became known as the “Bush Doctrine” — which advocated preemptive strikes against potential terrorists and other perceived threats. With his team of writers, he began shaping Bush’s tone and tenor, including addresses at Washington National Cathedral on September 14 and to a joint session of Congress on September 20.

“Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution,” Bush told Congress.  “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

Gerson and Bush found common ground in the use of religious themes of higher power and light vs. darkness, seeing such rhetoric as part of other historic struggles, including the abolitionist movement. “It is a real mistake to try to secularize American political discourse,”  Gerson told NPR in 2006.  “It removes one of the primary sources of visions of justice in American history.”

Before the State of the Union address in January 2002, Bush’s speechwriters were instructed to link Iraq to the wider battles against terrorism — a sign that Bush and his inner circle, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, were gearing up for war.

Speechwriter David Frum said he came up with “axis of hatred” to describe Iraq, North Korea and Iran (even though Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was a foe of leaders in Tehran).  Gerson tweaked it to “axis of evil” to make it sound more “theological” — a battle between good and evil — Frum wrote in his 2003 book on Bush, “The Right Man.”

“I thought that was terrific,” Frum wrote about Gerson’s change.  “It was the sort of language President Bush used.”

Gerson also had a hand in pushing the Bush White House’s false assertions about Iraq — including debunked allegations of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — that would seek to justify the 2003 invasion. More than eight years of war claimed the lives of about 4,500 U.S. service personnel and more than 100,000 Iraqi insurgents and civilians, according to monitoring groups. Some place the number of Iraqi deaths far higher.

Gerson never publicly expressed regrets for having helped sell the Iraq War.  His 2007 memoir, “Heroic Conservatism,” declared that U.S. leadership is essential to fight terrorism and global poverty and disease. But he mostly sidestepped the many ethical and legal questions arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and such consequences as the waterboarding of prisoners, renditions to Guantánamo Bay and the thousands of civilian casualties.

After a heart attack in December 2004, Mr. Gerson stepped back from the stresses of speechwriting and took on policy advisory roles full time.  He often lamented that the Bush administration’s humanitarian initiatives, such as AIDS prevention in Africa, became footnotes in a world changed by 9/11.

Gerson left the White House in 2006, with Bush’s backing, to pursue outside policy work and writing. The next year, he joined The Post and wrote twice-weekly columns that expanded his reach as a conservative distressed by populism and the politics of anger, and animated by the conviction that religion and social activism are powerful partners.

“That’s a different kind of conservatism,” he told the PBS show “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” in 2007, “a conservatism of the common good that argues that we need to orient our policies towards people that might not even vote for us.”

Gerson’s columns for The Post took plenty of shots at President Barack Obama during his two terms, calling his foreign policy undisciplined and the Affordable Care Act — and its bid to move the nation toward universal health care — shambolic.

With the rise of Trump, however, Gerson found himself outside looking in. He bemoaned how many in the Republican Party — including fellow evangelical Christians — shifted allegiances to Trump despite his record of lies, infidelities and racist remarks.  But he acknowledged that, for the moment, he was on the weaker side as a Trump critic.

“It has been said that when you choose your community, you choose your character,” Gerson wrote in an essay for The Post this past September 1. “Strangely, evangelicals have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue.”

My conclusion that, in the end, Michael Gerson chose well.

Error! Filename not specified.

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, this is one of three departments I run with full and complete authority to manage as I see fit.

Since I created the departments, I can give myself all the freedom I need.

The other departments are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of “Just Saying.”

This time, I almost created a fourth department, one called the Department of the Best Lines in Political Analyses.  But I demurred.

Still, I like when political analysts write good words that prompt you to think and consider.

MICHELLE COTTLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES:  Such was the case when the member of NY Times Editorial Board wrote this:

“In the high-stakes fight for control of the Senate, Pennsylvania was a hot spot, widely considered the Democrats’ best opportunity to flip a Republican-held seat and, by extension, a must-hold for the G.O.P.  Dr. Oz’s high-profile flop was a particularly painful one for Trump’s party.

“But there’s more:  The Democrats scored a huge win in the governor’s race as well, where Josh Shapiro had the good fortune of running against Doug Mastriano, a Trump-endorsed MAGA extremist so unsettling you have to wonder if he is secretly related to Marjorie Taylor-Greene.”

COMMENT:  The great line is the last one in what Cottle wrote.  “Doug Mastriano, a Trump-endorsed MAGA extremist so unsettling you have to wonder if he is secretly related to Marjorie Taylor-Greene.”

In this line, Cottle manages artfully to skewer two political wing nuts – Mastriano and Taylor-Greene – in only a few words.

GREG SARGENT IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  If you are thinking about lost causes, he writes, how about this one?

“With Democrats on the cusp of keeping the Senate even ascontrol of the House remains up for grabs, Republicans are escalating efforts to blame Donald Trump for themid-term debacle.  Everyone from rising stars in the party to right-wing media personalities are hammering Trump, with some demanding that he delay plans to announce a 2024 presidential run next week (this week).

“In a way, this represents an effort to get Trump himself to accept blame.  If Trump were to act chastened or delay his announcement, it would constitute public acceptance of the verdict that the MAGA movement’s influence was largely responsible for the GOP’s underperformance.

“Good luck with that.

“The most obvious problem is that Trump will never admit that he and MAGA failed in any way.  MAGA can only be failed, as Trump demonstrated when he declared Thursday that he had played his own role perfectly throughout the midterms, while simultaneously disavowing any responsibility in the actual outcome.”

COMMENT:  And, in an even more stupid act, Trump blamed his wife Melania for Trump’s decision to support Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.

The epitome of the lost cause:  Getting Trump to take responsibility for anything.

FRANK BRUNI IN THE NEW YORK TIMES:  As this long-time analyst politics wondered about whether Joe Biden would run again in 2024, he raised questions about other contenders, as in the following:

“Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who just won re-election by an impressive margin in the key presidential battleground of Michigan, is Pabst Blue Ribbon with just the right measure of merlot.  She ‘thinks like a general, looks like a ’40s film star, and talks like she’s ice fishing for muskie,’ Sarah Vowell wrote in The Times in August 2020.  Vowell grouped Whitmer with Biden and several other nationally prominent politicians who, unlike every president since Jimmy Carter, graduated from public universities (in Whitmer’s case, Michigan State, both college and law school).  She’s also the subject of an adoring song by the Detroit rapper GmacCash, ‘Big Gretch.’  The nickname took, and it’s gold.”

Bruni explained the beer and wine reference.  He said the person who came up with it likes to categorize Democrat candidates as “wine track” (Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats favored by voters with more education and money) or “beer track” (politicians, like Bernie Sanders, who are most ardently backed by a less affluent group).

Without necessarily endorsing the “wine-beer” analogy, though I do like it:

• I’ll take columnists who put words together well, producing lines that last longer than reading them.
• I’ll take candidates, whatever the party, who put America’s interests higher than their own.

GEORGE CONWAY IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  Conway continues his ability to skewer Trump and he succeeds again by a Republican political operative thusly:

“One Republican pollster taxonomizes the party thusly:  Ten percent are ‘Never Trumpers,’ who have long despised Trump. (This might be high, because of people like me who re-registered as independents to escape the cult.)  As many as 50 per cent could be considered ‘Maybe Trumpers,’ Republicans who voted for Trump twice, but are exhausted by him and would love to support someone else.  That leaves 40 per cent, the ‘Always Trumpers’ — the cultish voters who will never abandon him, even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, or at the Capitol, or anywhere else.”

COMMENT:  We’ll see which group thrives in the aftermath of Trump’s no-surprise announcement yesterday – he is running again.

Count me in the “Never Trumpers” category, or even more if there was more. 

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.

Before the election, many commentators and observers said the answer to the question in this blog headline would be “yes.”

Democracy was under attack.  Election deniers were arrayed all over the ballot.

But, as the results came in last week, American democracy emerged mostly intact.

Here is the way hill.com put it in a story this week:

“Fears of significant violence or chaos at polling places on Tuesday did not materialize.  Even candidates who had equivocated about the result of the 2020 election accepted their own outcomes, for the most part.

“But that doesn’t alter the fact that the fabric of American public life has become very frayed.

“According to exit polls, more than two-thirds of all voters believe democracy in America is either ‘somewhat threatened’ or ‘very threatened.’

“Even those voters split down the middle in terms of their voting behavior.

“Precisely half the voters who said democracy was ‘very threatened’ voted for Republican candidates, while 48 per cent voted for Democrats.

“The message is obvious:  Lots of Americans believe democracy is in danger, but they have contrasting views about where the threat is coming from.

“For Democrats, the danger lies with Republican election-deniers and conspiracy theorists, as well as with Trump himself.”

I add that, for some Republicans, they don’t even appear to think about the future of democracy.

In the Washington Post, columnist Jennifer Rubin suggests that there are several reasons to be optimistic about the future of democracy.  Here is how she started her column:

Error! Filename not specified.

“The mid-term elections could have gone badly.  Really badly.  There were serious concerns that right-wing groups would resort to voter intimidation, violence or other antics at polling places.  But none of that came to fruition.

“In fact, while threats to democracy remain, 2022 might be seen as the point at which the erosion of democratic values and critical institutions were halted.” 

She cited these reasons for her optimism:

• First, courts have proved adept at heading off election-related shenanigans.
• Second, massive early voting demonstrated the ability of voters to adjust to new election rules.
• Third, low turnout in competitive mid-term contests is no longer the norm.
• Fourth, younger voters have learned to show up at mid-term elections, boding well for the health of democracy values.
• Finally, the Republican Party might finally be tiring of Donald Trump.

In sum, democracy is looking stronger than it did a week ago.  With federal and state prosecutors still at work, there is a rationale to believe that Trump and his cronies (minions, acolytes, blind followers) will face accountability for their actions, even if, as predicted, Trump announces tonight that he is running again.

MY PRESCRIPTION FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT

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.

If this blog headline strikes you as a bit presumptuous, good.  It is.

I have no business thinking I will ever be in charge of government, either at the state or federal levels and either by appointment or election.  Plus, I am retired. 

But I do have a few prescriptions for what I believe would constitute good government.

So, here goes.

1. Good government should be marked by asking one important question:  Is there a role for government in regard to this problem and, if there is, how should a government response be designed to achieve the desired result?

Too often, this question is not asked, much less answered.  Thus, we have to pay for government “solutions” to every problem.  Does government have a role in some cases?  By all means, yes.  But not all cases.

Asking this hard question and providing a fact-based answer is a first step toward good government.

• Good government should be about promises kept, not just promises made.

Making promises is easy.  Keeping them is hard.  But if promises are just talk, then why listen?  Make promises, then keep them.

Let me add one clarification here.  If a candidate makes a promise on the campaign trail or an agency head makes a promise in running a program, then finds out he or she cannot fulfill that promise, tell the public the truth.  In straightforward facts, describe why a promise cannot be kept.  That honesty and clarity builds credibility.

• Good government should be about achieving results, not just proposing them.

The “promises kept” and “results” items may seem similar.  And, I suppose they are.  But they also are different.  This relates actually to running programs, not just talking about running them.

Results matter.  Measure those who serve in elected or appointed office by the results they achieve, not the results they promise and don’t achieve.

Or, if by some chance, if results don’t materialize, elected or major appointed officials could add to their credibility by “admitting” the failure and explain why it occurred.

• Good government should be about the search for middle ground, not extremes in public policy.

Too often, government these days is about the ability to win at all costs.  Call the other side stupid.  Impose your will.

[As an insertion, pardon this reference back to an “old” issue, national health care policy.  I continue to use it because, despite the years, it still stands as an excellent example of how not to write legislation.]

Consider the Affordable Health Care Act, which came to be called ObamaCare.  It was, in fact, an apt moniker, not the Affordable Health Care Act.  The program was imposed by Obama and his Democrat supporters in Congress without one Republican vote – and this was not because Republicans were just opposed to Obama.  It was because the Act was an over-the-top, one-size-fits-all, government-run prescription for health care in America.

Was it all bad?  Of course not.  Millions of Americas got health coverage as part of new government spending, but at what cost?  A huge spike upward in health premiums, both for those newly on a government program, as well as those in the private sector.  After all, some payers had to support those new to health care coverage.

The better answer on health care and any other pressing public policy challenge is to legislate from the middle.  Work with reasonable elected officials on both sides of the political aisle – yes, there are some — to develop real health care reform and real solutions on other issues…. for ALL Americans.

• Good government should be about ethical and honest behavior, not bending the truth.

This seems far from the case today.  A government by and for the people should be honest in its approach to the “people” – us. 

Conclusion:  These prescriptions might not always make good sound bites.  But they do make good government.

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.

Now that we have endured the mid-term election – at least most if it even as we await final results in “too-close-to-call” contests – our attention should turn to the question posed in this blog.

This:  How can those who won get past campaigning and get on to the business of governing?

As I began writing this blog, I came again to the realization that getting about the business of governing will require something more basic than political will.  It will require a change of heart that will have to weave its way into politics and, indeed, into every area of life.

That is especially true now as Donald Trump tries to sow discord and dissension as he anticipates announcing in a few days a run for president in 2024, a run that promises to emphasize disagreement and enmity for anyone who chooses to disagree with the epitome of a narcissist.

For me, Washington Post opinion writer Michael Gerson prompted deeper thoughts than just politics with a very well-written piece in the Post. 

Who among our political leaders, he asked, “is calling for mutual understanding and practicing it?  This would involve the concession of truth on both sides.”

Gerson went on to quote Judge Learned Hand who, in 1944, told newly minted citizens in New York’s Central Park: 

“What then is the spirit of liberty?  I cannot define it.  I can only tell you my own faith.  The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit that weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.”

This, I know, is a lofty, hard-to-reach goal, given the kind of politics we have been seeing in recent years.

But, for what’s is worth, here are my ideas about what the future should hold.

First, those in office should get about the business of solving – or at least making substantive progress on — two major issues that are gripping the nation, homelessness and immigration.

For too long, both issues have been subjected to talk and pithy quotes, not solutions.

Republicans and Democrats have a joint responsibility, finally, to move to solutions on the immigration issue.  Find a way to stimulate legal immigration and take advantage of the perspectives and energy of new citizens.

For one thing, we need no more of the tactics employed by two governors – Ron DeSantis from Florida and Greg Abbott from Texas, both of whom just won re-election in ways that put them into a group of Republicans who could make a bid for president two years from now. 

To illustrate their pique earlier this year, they used public transportation to deliver immigrants to cities to the north in the belief that, somehow, this tactic would illustrate “their” problem.

It didn’t work.  Many of those on the receiving end of the immigration ploy reacted with skill and empathy to help refugees gain their footing in the north.

The same admonition for solutions applies to homelessness.  Do something.  Don’t just criticize.

For one thing, it will be interesting to see how Oregon Governor-Elect Tina Kotek moves on this issue, which was a major one in the recent campaign.  If there was one issue that moved voters, it might have been this one and, toward the end of the campaign, she said she a major plan to do something about homelessness.

Second, the mid-term election appeared to underscore that many Americans were concerned about democracy in the country, so they voted against the so-called “election deniers” who wanted a dictatorship under Trump.  Elections don’t matter, those deniers said.

Well, elections do matter – and that’s why many of them lost, a good thing. 

Several reputable post-election pollsters underscored that America got through the election without major threats to democracy.

Here is how Washington Post put it:

“Democracy fared pretty well, actually.  Election Day felt normal, with fears that MAGA Republicans would refuse to concede races, based on baseless voter-fraud allegations, mostly failing to materialize.  When Donald Trump wrote on social media that people should protest a minor absentee-ballot problem in Detroit, no one showed up.

“Election officials breathed a sigh of relief that aggressive fraud-hunting novices seemed few and far between, despite promises from popular voices in the MAGA movement to inundate polling places with activists and station monitors in eyesight of ballot drop boxes

“Going into the mid-terms, many eyes were on a post-Trump phenomenon:  Election deniers on the ballot.  By The Post’s count, 51 per cent of the 569 GOP nominees questioned or refused to accept Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.  They ran in every region of the country and in nearly every state.”

Many lost.

So, if democracy matters, then so should a commitment to find middle ground on such issues as immigration, homelessness, crime, police funding, international relations (including the war in Ukraine), and many others.

Middle ground in politics is hard to find and may remain remote, especially of hard-right conservatives in the U.S. House continue to press for an advantage with the new House leadership which will have to practice the art of “herding cats.”

As the introduction to this blog says, I love middle ground – both in golf and in politics.

So, I say, let’s find it as the reality of campaigning moves to the obligation of governing.

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.

Reports from almost all media indicated that Democrats were breathing sighs of relief all night long on election day, Tuesday, as it became apparent that the Republican “red wave” predicted by some pundits and polls had failed to materialize.

Several days later, the Ds are still breathing.

Drawn from various publications here are what reporters often call “takeaways:”

• The GOP hit its high-water mark early in the night when projections from Florida showed both Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio winning their races easily.
• It was mostly downhill for the GOP from there.  The most dramatic result — so far— came when Democrat John Fetterman’s defeated Republican Mehmet Oz in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races in Pennsylvania.  To win, Fetterman, to his credit, overcame notions that he had lost so much from a recent stroke that he was not qualified to serve.
• Why did the GOP fare worse than expected?  The Washington Post says “it was that GOP leaders spent much of the last year fighting against each other or plotting against their own primary voters.  They were hobbled by unprepared first-time candidates, fundraising shortfalls, and Donald Trump, whose self-concern required constant attention — right up to the eve of the election, when he forced party bosses to beg him once again to delay a presidential campaign announcement.”
• Republicans will control the U.S. House, but by a smaller margin than originally expected.
• In the Senate, control likely will come down to run-off between Senator Raphael Warnock and former football star, Herschel Walker, who showed himself to be a terrible candidate during the campaign. 
• At the gubernatorial level, races that had caused Democrats some last-minute nervousness were won comfortably by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and New York Governor Kathy Hochul.  Plus, in Oregon, the Democrat, Tina Kotek, won the statehouse to preserve the office the Ds have held since 1987.  Further, Whitmer likely cemented a perception that she might be a good candidate for president in 2024 – if President Joe Biden does not run, or, perhaps, even if he does.
• Speaking of Biden, this was as good a mid-term outcome as he could have dared to expect.  Whatever the final results, he fared far better in his first mid-term than the two most recent Democrat presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, did in theirs.  That’s vindication, of a kind, for what has been called “Biden’s much-criticized but steady, low-wattage approach.”
• Republicans in the U.S. House – and the likely speaker, Kevin McCarthy — now face hard questions about how to manage with a smaller margin than expected.  That started yesterday when a group of far right conservative House Republicans demanded that McCarthy take more time to take up the mantle of leadership because they wanted more of a say.  Still, no doubt, the Rs would rather have won by a small margin than the alternative.
• Huge wins by DeSantis and Rubio turned Florida red from its past as a swing state.  By winning, DeSantis positions himself as a – if not “the” – leading R candidate for president in 2024.
• Of course, that irritates Donald Trump no end because he thinks he always is the leader, no matter the truth.
• According to Niall Stange who writes for hill.com, “the verdict on the vexing issues of election denialism, threats to democracy and flat-out conspiracy theories was, ultimately, ambiguous.  Several people who hew to those kinds of views lost, including Republican Doug Mastriano who was heavily defeated by Democrat Josh Shapiro in the race to be Pennsylvania’s governor, and Don Bolduc, who failed to run Senator Maggie Hassan anywhere near as close as some Republicans had hoped.”

For my part, the last bullet strikes home.  Election denialism or rabid anti-democracy was not as strong as I feared it would be.

That’s no guarantee for the future because Trump and his minions will continue to stoke the fires of antagonism and violence.  Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post says Trump will not go away quietly after a stinging defeat – he’ll have to be thrown out.

So, back to the start of this blog, regarding the WHY of this election?  Not sure yet, other than what appears above, so there is another chapter yet to be written about this election, the WHY, not just the who. 

Finally, this from George Will, the savvy analyst who writes for the Washington Post:

“Tuesday’s elections should move both parties to introspection.  Journalists could benefit from emulation.  Many of them believe that the nation does not just have problems but has ‘existential’ crises:  Democracy is a guttering candle, dying before climate change snuffs out the remainder of life.  Progressives, because of their mind meld with journalists, talk to voters a tad too much about existential this and that, and too little about voters’ existence.”

Will makes a great point.

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.

As someone who has followed politics for years, I try to focus on the substance of the news coverage. 

Not just who won or lost.  But WHY someone won or lost.

But, every once in awhile, some commentator writes a line that resonates. 

Such was the case yesterday when important words appeared in the Washington Post as a writer focused on Donald Trump’s failure to capture as much political momentum as he thought he deserved (of course, as the epitome of the narcissist, he always thinks he deserves everything):

The Post quote:

“Besides, we’re not out of the woods yet.  Trump is almost certainly going to run for president again, and then we’ll see just how many Republicans are willing to join the former president on his own personal Titanicand go chasing more icebergs.”

“How many Republicans are willing to join the former president on his own personal Titanicand go chasing more icebergs?”

How’s that for a person – me – who like literal more than imagery!

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.

If you spend too much time reading newspapers, as I do, it is easy to forget several key notions about elections, such as one under way today across the country. 

Or, if you are from Oregon as I am, the mail ballot election has been under way for a couple weeks and ends for us at 8 p.m. today, Pacific time.

Today is the first mid-term election since the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.  Since then, it has become increasingly clear that the grave threat to American democracy posed on that day was no aberration; it was a prelude to a broader right-wing movement to undermine our electoral process.

So, as we wait for election results, some of which won’t come tonight (as in Clackamas County where the controversial and unqualified county clerk there says the first results won’t be posted until Wednesday) in races that are particularly close.

To avoid the “horse-race tendency” of many news outlets, I list here a few impressions about elections which are worth remembering on this “election day:”

• WE SHOULD VALUE ELECTIONS AS A WAY TO CHOOSE OUR OWN POLITICAL LEADERS

Don’t forget this as you cast your ballot.  Instead, we could be living in a dictatorship with someone else imposing his or her will on us.

Columnist Gary Abernathy said it well in the Washington Post a couple days ago:

“While it’s (elections) always been a serious business, there should also be a joy to the democracy, a celebration of process.  We live in a free country and get to decide who our leaders are going to be.  That’s a big responsibility – but we also should have fun while doing it.”

• WE SHOULD EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO VOTE AND, AS THEY SAY AT NIKE, “JUST DO IT.”

So, just do it – vote.

• ONE VOTE MATTERS.

Sometimes there is a tendency to lost sight of this reality.  On occasion, local races are decided by just a few votes – so yours’ could be critical.

Statewide or nationally, no, your vote might not determine the outcome.  But, it does matter.  And, when you cast it, you take heart in your commitment to solid citizenship.

• RECOGNIZE, NOT JUST YOUR VOTE ON INDIVIDUAL MATTERS OR CANDIDATES, BUT CONSIDER THE BIG PICTURE

This admonition is one of the reasons I read both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post every day.

The Journal gives me a right-of-center perspective, but still center, not wacky right.

The Post gives me a left-of-center perspective, but still center, not wacky left.

In both cases, I focus, not just on individual news stories, as important as those may be, but also on commentary – or opinion – which is clearly marked, an important task for any reputable journalism organization.

Varied opinion gives me a sense of the big picture that is at stake in any election.

This time around, as is the case in many mid-terms, the party in charge of both the White House and Congress, Democrats, may suffer substantial losses.  But focus, not just on the story about who wins or loses, but about what results may mean on policy grounds.

Reading the various opinion pieces give me pause as an American.  With major Republican advances, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of democracy as we know it.

Which is another reason to vote – and to vote smart.

Also, if the question of “why vote” persists, consider this from President Franklin D. Roosevelt 80 years go.

He emphasized “four essential human freedoms” in a what was then a crisis for the nation, which could be mirrored today:

“I imagine a future in which all of humanity enjoys the ‘four essential human freedoms’ — freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  This is no vision of a distant millennium; the United States is still striving to achieve those freedoms today.”

Roosevelt’s message remains as urgently relevant as ever today as we anticipate mid-term elections results and implications.