PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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 give you the good news in the headline for a couple reasons.

One is that I have no credentials to add anything to a blizzard of information — some accurate, some inaccurate — that is swirling around the world nearly every moment.

Think of it this way – and this is meant as a neutral, not a pro-con, comment:

With social media so rampant these days, not to mention solid journalistic endeavors such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post with their on-line posts, we are bombarded with information about coronavirus.  In past threatened epidemics, we didn’t know as much – and, in some ways, that was a good thing.

The blizzard of information strikes me much like another blizzard – the information about snowstorms in our part of the world, the Northwest.  If you read or watch the “news about storms,” your perception is that it is snowing everywhere.  It’s not.

If current coronavirus reports focus on facts and figures, thus adding context to a troubling issue, good.  Further, if solid journalism adds information about what we, as individuals, can do about the virus, also good.

But, enough about coronavirus.

This is actually a post about the fact that the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is open again.  It is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

FROM HOLMAN JENKINS IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IN A COLUMN ABOUT QUALITY JOURNALISM:  “One solution seems irresistible:  Stop calling cable news personalities ‘journalists.’  There’s a reason normal journalism doesn’t pay as well as TV journalism.  Real journalists are dependent on reality to furnish their material and reality just ain’t that exciting.”

Comment:  Jenkins is right on.  Real journalists practice real journalism.  Rampant social media these days ignores facts and context.  The goal is to inflame.

I say, quit paying so much attention.  Find quality journalism and allow that to influence how you think and react.

FROM WILLIAM GALSTON IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “In the past week, Joe Biden finally found his voice, summarizing his case simply and straightforwardly. As president, Biden says, he would focus his efforts on practical, achievable steps to improve people’s lives.  He would work to repair America’s tattered alliances and renew its moral authority in the world.  He would restore dignity and decency to the Oval Office.

“Most important, Biden would do everything in his power to heal our divided country. Republicans are Democrats’ opponents, not their enemies.  He believes that Trump has intimidated but not converted them.  He will treat them with respect, as potential partners in a common enterprise.

“Within his own party, he has been mocked for raising the possibility that a measure of bi-partisanship is still possible.  No matter.  As president, he would act as though it is and, by so doing, increase the possibility of its restoration.

“Bi-partisanship is essential, because little of what our country needs can be accomplished through executive orders and unilateral acts. We cannot possibly rebuild roads and bridges, or extend health insurance to all Americans, or reduce the burden of prescription drug costs, or reform the immigration system, unless Congress rediscovers the nearly lost art of legislation.”

Comment:  Most solid solutions to pressing public policy problems lie somewhere in the middle, not the right or left extremes.  We need someone in the Oval Office who will set out to lead us there through working with all sides to find reasonable solutions.

FROM DAN BALZ IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The Democrat contest (for president) has been transformed almost overnight from one with many candidates and no clear alternative to Bernie Sanders into a head-to-head battle that pits a populist insurgent preaching revolution and democratic socialism against an establishment-backed politician calling for modest change and civility and claiming greater electability against Trump.”

Comment:  Good summary from one of this country’s standout political reporters, Dan Balz.

And this from another Washington Post writer:

“After a head-spinning four days, a primary race that began with a historically large and diverse field — powered by a half-dozen women attempting to tap into an activated female electorate — has now boiled down to two white men in their late 70s who each have spent about a half-century running for political office.”

For my part, I don’t care about age.  I care about the ability to get the job of president done in way that honors the office, something which now does not occur.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

The question in the headline won’t make sense to either of two kinds of people – those who bow at Donald Trump’s altar and those who fawn over Bernie Sanders.

But, surprisingly, as the headline says, there are a number of similarities between what I label as “the two buffoons,” neither of which represent what I think this country needs in the way of political leaders.

[As I write this, I should note that we have just come through Super Tuesday where Sanders won some stuff, but also watched Joe Biden resuscitate his campaign.  Too soon to tell, but the Democrats may be headed to a brokered convention.]

For the list of Sanders and Trump similarities, I am indebted to Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson who, I think, writes persuasively about today’s gone-awry political landscape.

• Neither Trump nor Sanders go by a script or, better put, any sort of conventional political wisdom.

Sanders’s performance in last debate before Super Tuesday, Gerson says, was “a bellowing, boorish mess. The Vermont senator’s signature response when challenged was to pump up the volume, as though persuasiveness were measured in decibels.”

Those favoring Sanders say he speaks his mind.  He is not scripted. He is true to himself.  He may not play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

Trump speaks his mind, too, though who knows what will emerge next.  Like, Sanders, he isn’t scripted.  He is true to himself.  He doesn’t play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

• Both Sanders and Trump come across as unpleasant, ill-mannered loudmouths. For each, authenticity equals incivility and spontaneity no matter who or what becomes the target.

Gerson writes that, “It is worth noting, first, that speaking your mind without filters is not a sign of political authenticity; it usually indicates a basic lack of respect for others.  In almost any human interaction other than politics, Sanders’s outbursts on the debate stage would be taken as a sign of general jerkness.

For Trump, such gracelessness is a lifestyle.

• Both Sanders and Trump practice a type of communication that doesn’t seeks to change minds or clarify important differences. Rather, their communication seeks to establish dominance.

Communication that seeks to change minds, Gerson contends, is essential to self-government.   What Sanders and Trump do “is more appropriate to professional wrestling matches and campaign rallies.  This is not merely a matter of style.  Attempting to persuade someone — even when the source of disagreement is deep — involves the affirmation that they are worth persuading.  Shouting someone down is the denial of their dignity.”

• Both Sanders and Trump hew to an arrogant and lazy belief that anything that pops into your head is worthy of public utterance.

By contrast, Gerson says “authentic beliefs in politics emerge from reflection and craft.  Ideas and policies are refined through the careful choice of arguments and words.  Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address was an authentic piece of communication because it displayed deep thought, embodied in beautiful language.”

Trump’s tweets and Sanders rants on the campaign trail illustrate the same thing — impulse and ignorance, not reasoned thought.

• Both Sanders and Trump equate authenticity with being a disruptive outsider.

Gerson adds, “Trump’s lack of governing experience did not provide him with fresh perspective; it led to governing incompetence.  His disrespect for institutions led to an assault on essential institutions, including the FBI, the Justice Department and the intelligence services.  The promise by a politician to burn down the house is visceral and emotional.  That does not make institutional arsonists more sincere or wise.”

For Sanders, there are those who contend that as a “veteran politician” – a title he would abhor, though he has been in office for about 30 years – understands how government works.  Yet, he has not used his Senate position for anything other than to try to boost his own status.  Bi-partisanship does not exist for him.  Becoming part of producing solid, middle-ground legislation does not exist for him.

Gerson closes with this paragraph.

“In the upside-down world of American politics, Sanders and Trump are given credit by their followers for vices that corrupt democracy. Meanwhile, grace, careful rhetoric, learning and governing skill have few practitioners and few defenders.”

I wish it were not so.  And, because, it is, I fear for the future of American democracy, which is why the presidential election decision we face later this year is so important.  For me, my vote will not be for either Sanders or Trump if that is the choice.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

There is a proposal circulating around the Capitol in Salem these days that makes little sense.

And that is not because of the Senate and House Republican walk-out that now has lasted for just under a week.

It is a public records law change that would give statutory heft to making a so-called public records czar in state government independent of all other authorities.

Dumb.

I say this as a person who has worked with Oregon’s public records laws for about 40 years.

The laws may be complicated, but there is a solid basic proposition that underlies what is in the statutes:  All government records are public unless you can cite a specific statutory exemption that will stand up under scrutiny – often intense scrutiny.

The proposal is to make an individual public records czar (by the way, in my judgment, there should not be such a position) responsible to no one other than himself or herself.

The best option, if there has to be a public records czar, is to make the person report to the governor.  Then, as is the case with other positions in the Executive Branch, the governor or another statewide elected official would be held accountable for performance.

All of this arose because the czar – she was called a “public records advocate” — complained because she reported to the governor and key staff there, for the governor, oversaw her operation, at times telling her what policy to follow.

The advocate\czar, Ginger McCall, cited irreconcilable differences with the governor’s staff over role of the public records advocate, including that she felt pressured by the governor’s administration to advance Brown’s public records policy goals without publicly disclosing who was directing that work.

Of course, then McCall left Salem to head to another government job on the East Coast.  Before she left, said it was important to add language to state law to make clear that “the public records advocate” is independent.

It is not clear, at the moment, whether the bill will pass in the “short session,” especially given the walk-out impasse.

If not, that’s good.

No one manager in state government, no matter the subject, should be given carte blanch to operate as he or she sees fit.  Better to hold an elected official accountable — and that’s what should happen when it comes to public records.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

The Department of Just Saying is one of three I run as director.  The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

It will come as no surprise to you that I run all three with skill and dexterity, which means I multi-task well.

ISSUE #1:  PRIVATE HEALTH CARE BACK IN GOOD GRACES…TEMPORARILY?/The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that “Americans naturally turn to the government when their health or physical security is at risk, but a core U.S. strength is the breadth of its private medical resources.”

That’s on display now as is calling on private actors to buttress the federal response to the Coronavirus the government pandemic-in-the-making.

The Food and Drug Administration says it will allow hundreds of academic hospital labs to begin testing for the coronavirus.  The country had relied on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, but its testing kits turned out to be faulty.  By unleashing academic labs, the U.S. will have the capacity by the end of this week to screen “probably 10,000 people a day,” says Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who writes for the WSJ.  Within two weeks that should be 20,000 a day, Gottlieb said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

JUST SAYING that it’s interesting that private health care is back in good graces, if only for a few moments, even as all of those running for the Democrat presidential nomination call for a complete government system – no private health care – and as the Trump
Administration, up to this point, has been setting out to thin the ranks of scientists in such departments as the CDC.

What’s needed, however, is a solid combination of government and private health care, which, together, will produce the capacity and the skill to serve citizens.

ISSUE #2:  BUTTIGIEG EXITS PRESIDENTIAL RACE/Sorry in some ways to see that Pete Buttigieg decided to drop out of the Democrat presidential race.  In a way, his decision represents a statesmanlike act because he did not see a way to win and wanted the country to focus on finding the best candidate among those remaining – if, I add, that is possible.

Here’s what one columnist, Daniel Drezner, said about the decision:

“Pete Buttigieg managed to surprise everyone again. He suspended his campaign last night.  The development marks an abrupt end to what was briefly an ascendant candidacy, as Buttigieg won the Iowa caucuses and came in second in New Hampshire.  But despite attracting enormous attention, significant support and sometimes enthusiastic crowds, there was no clear path forward toward the nomination.”

JUST SAYING that we have not heard the last of Buttigieg.  He is young enough to rise again and I suspect he will.  To the current race, he brought intelligence chops, coming as he did from attending Harvard and being a Rhodes Scholar, but also a willingness to discuss tough issues with the ability to use good words in doing so.

He actually came across as someone who did not need to “yell on a street corner” to be heard, as is the case with the D who might win the nomination, Bernie Sanders.  Nor did Buttigieg, for all his youth, appear as ill-suited to the Oval Office as the person who now occupies it.

ISSUE #3:  SEAL TEAM LEADER GOES ON THE RECORD/In the Wall Street Journal, military Seal Team leader, William McRaven (he led the Team when it caught up with terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden), said this:

“As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

JUST SAYING that McRaven is right and, on top of that, has earned the right to speak based on the incredible level of his service to the country.  Integrity and character do matter in politics, no matter that various political leaders or supposed-leaders on all sides violate the norms every day.  McRaven is right.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

The headline in this blog appeared first in various newspapers around the country last week to herald a column by Leonard Pitts, a very credible national journalist.

The words say volumes about what has happened in this country as rage and resentment have taken over, not just in politics, but in society overall.

Unfortunately, political figures have led the way in denying the importance of integrity and ethical conduct.

Donald Trump is the leader in this travesty – if leading is a word that belongs in such an issue.  But, it also is true that many on the left have followed him into rage and resentment.  Think of Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who yells to drown out disagreement.  Add U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and to the mix and you get a toxic brew.

More from Pitts:

“…it is often said that we are living now in Post-Fact America — but truth is, we are also living in Post-Integrity America.  That’s not breaking news. But it’s been brought into painfully clear focus these last few days.

“One watched – not with surprise anymore, the capacity for that being long lost, but surely with dread and fascination – as Donald Trump launched his post-impeachment purge of aides deemed insufficiently sycophantic.  But that was just a prelude.

“Last week, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people, most of them guilty of lying, fraud, corruption, tax evasion and similar crimes.  In other words, the kinds of things of which Trump has often been accused.

“But it is worth noting that every person Trump pardoned or gave clemency came to his attention not through the normal machinery of government, but through inside connections or else, as The New York Times noted, ‘were promoted on Fox News.’  Some were championed by aides and allies.  Some had donated big money to his campaign.  And again, most had breached the public trust.

“Like former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who had served eight years of a 14-year sentence for trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.  Trump, who has opined how unfair it is that U.S. companies are not allowed to pay bribes to do business overseas, had called that sentence ‘ridiculous.’

“If granting clemency and pardons opens a window upon a president’s moral priorities – and it does – the view offered here suggests an unfortunate affinity for scammers and grifters, an empathy for those on the make, cutting deals, cutting corners, living the dream, until they got caught up by pesky rules designed to enforce integrity.  And if those same people happened to give him money or had their names whispered into his ear by a friend, so much the better.

“That’s not how this is supposed to work. And that it is working this way right out in the open, before our very eyes, suggests — no, screams — Trump’s imperviousness to any sense of ethical affront.”

There’s that word again – ethics.

It’s an important word to me, for at least two reasons.  First, I am privileged to serve as one of nine members of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, which is assigned to enforce statutory ethics laws – and Oregon had a solid list of ethics laws that apply to appointed officials, elected officials, and members of state boards and commissions (including, to put a point on it, me and my colleagues in our roles on the Ethics Commission).

Second, I am a volunteer on an Ethics Committee formed at the behest of Oregon Common Cause to propose ways to reinforce the importance of ethical behavior and conduct in public life.  We are working, (a) to create ethics pledges for appointed and elected officials to sign on an annual basis (much like what now occurs at Intel Corporation); and (b) injecting improved ethics education into Oregon school curricula.

Both assignments are important to me and, it is with this background, that I read and applaud the column by Leonard Pitts.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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 wrote the other day about the stupidity of current presidential debates, which are about everything other than substance.

They look and feel more like professional wrestling than real and reasoned discussions of pressing public policy issues – issues every voter faces as the future of the U.S. as we know it is at stake.

Before my earlier post, I wish I would have had a chance to read a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal from a writer in Salisbury, Connecticut.

It was just published yesterday, but it makes several very good points, such as:

• “Take the debates away from the networks—they have too little substance, too much focus on au courant frivolousness such as tweet insults and too much time spent on attempting ‘got-chas.’
• “Give running the debates back to the League of Women Voters, or anyone disinterested in network ratings.
• “Get rid of the studio audiences. Please. This is serious political discourse, not professional wrestling. While you’re at it, dump the ‘pre-game’ show. This isn’t a spectacle and it isn’t about the networks or whatever ‘expert’ talking heads they can bring in to pre-analyze.
• “Keep each debate to a narrower subject or range of subjects, so there is enough time to properly answer a question. A minute and 15 seconds guarantees nothing other than a pre-packaged bumper sticker or, just as likely, for a candidate to answer a different question than what was asked.
• “The hardest, and perhaps one of the more difficult improvements, would be to ask the press and related pundits to pledge to shut down their Twitter feeds while watching the debate, and perhaps also pledge to write their post-debate reviews before reading any ‘trending’ write-ups.
• “Concurrent Twitter tends to enforce herd instinct as the press piles on and focuses on what’s hot on Twitter, often while competing to show they’re up on some sidetrack. Too much is driven by the Twitter mob as it is. We certainly can do better.”

Great improvements!

Too much is at stake in this country to allow the current form of so-called “presidential debates” to continue because, for one thing, they only will fit the conduct of the reality show host currently acting as president, and, for another, will allow Democrat challengers to get off without explaining their proposals in sufficient detail.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

Elected Republicans in Salem have walked away – again — from their jobs at the Capitol, but they contend it is the only way to protect their rural Oregon constituents.

What they are doing is legal and Democrats have done it before.

The goal now, Republicans say, is to stop the so-called “cap and trade” climate change bill they believe will wreak havoc in rural Oregon, meaning job losses and higher costs at the gas pump.

So, is there anything more basic behind the current set-to at the Capitol?

Yes. It’s the urban-rural divide.

There really are “two Oregons.”

One:  Urban areas, including Portland, the tri-county area around Portland, Eugene, parts of Medford and, according to new statistics, Bend, which now houses more Democrats than Republicans. And, the Democrats have been elected in nearly all of those areas.

Two:  Rural areas, which is every other part of Oregon, especially Eastern Oregon. There, Republicans have been elected in nearly all of those areas.

Never the twain shall meet.

Here is the way my former colleagues at my lobbying firm, now called CFM Advocates, described the current tension.

“Republican lawmakers say Democrats ‘rigged’ the legislative process to advance Senate Bill 1530 (the cap-and-trade bill) by rejecting every GOP amendment, blocking a move to refer the measure to voters, and failing to provide a comprehensive fiscal and revenue analysis.

“’We will not be party to a legislative process that ignores minority voices, rejects opportunities for consensus and rushes bills through without key information from our nonpartisan policy staff,’ House GOP Leader Christine Drazan wrote in an op-ed published by The Oregonian newspaper.

“’Walking out on the job is a dereliction of duty,’ Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick said. ‘Serving in the legislature is a great honor. Walking out on the job is dishonorable and disrespectful. I am disappointed in the Senate Republicans for taking this irresponsible action.’

“Governor Kate Brown also scolded Republicans, calling the walkout a ‘taxpayer-funded vacation.’”

Further, to illustrate the gravity of the tension, officials in several Eastern Oregon Counties have announced that want to leave Oregon and become part of Idaho. The idea has been christened “Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho Movement.”

“It’s a movement to try to maintain our rural values,” says spokesman Mike McCarter, a 73-year-old retired nurseryman and firearms instructor from La Pine in Central Oregon.

“We’re afraid of what’s coming down legislatively. It’ll destroy rural Oregon.”

Seceding from one state and joining another is a high bar, one reason says won’t be cleared.  But, still, the fact that the move is being discussed on the record shows the depth of rural angst.]

Here’s what Senate GOP Leader Herman Baertchiger says about the idea. “Oregon is largely controlled by one party that does not represent the entire state effectively, making the urban and rural divide striking. Democrats should be paying attention to how unhappy these Oregonians are with the current regime to seek secession from Oregon.”

No one appears to know what will be necessary to resolve the “two Oregons” issue, which has persisted for years. Perhaps some kind of political statesmanship would be required, but it is in short supply these days in Oregon.

And that failure applies to all sides.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

In many ways, it’s a sad commentary on politics in Oregon when many readers will know exactly the meaning in the headline of this blog.

It’s a question related to a tactic being employed by Republicans at the Capitol during the current “short legislative session.”

They say rural Oregon cannot tolerate what is called a “cap and trade” bill which aims to put climate change provisions into Oregon law.

Proponents say it’s needed in the face of federal inaction on climate change, which is already affecting the state.  Opponents say it would do little to solve climate change while increasing costs for consumers across the state and particularly damaging Oregon’s rural economy.

So, Republicans have “walked out” to deny legislative leaders a quorum to conduct business in the Senate and House chambers.

The tactic has employed for years by both Republicans and Democrats when one or the other couldn’t tolerate outcomes proposed by those in charge in Salem.

In the last long legislative session, it was the Senate Rs who walked over cap-and-trade.  Now, they have done so again and their colleagues in the House have joined the protest.

One risk for the Rs is that state financial allocations they favor could fall into the dust bin, the main one of which is a proposal by Governor Kate Brown to fund flood relief efforts in Eastern Oregon.

There are two competing views about walk-outs.

Republicans say cap-and-trade is so onerous for rural Oregon that there is no choice but to kill it in any way they can.  They also say the in-charge Democrats have turned a deaf ear to proposals from Republicans to amend the bill.

One tactic that enraged Republicans occurred the other day when Senate President Peter Courtney went into a Joint Ways and Means Committee, appointed himself temporarily to the committee, and provided the final vote to send the bill to the Senate floor.  What Courtney did was legal under Senate rules, but the action didn’t go down well with the Rs.

“Senator Courtney’s actions leave no other option for Senate Republicans but to boycott and deny quorum because cap and trade is on the way to the Senate floor,” said Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger.  “Democrats refused to work with Republicans and denied every amendment that was presented.  Pay attention Oregon – this is a true example of partisan politics.”

On the other side, Democrat leaders say legislators have an obligation to show up for work to do the public’s business rather than, as one Democrat put it, “take a vacation on the public’s dime.”  The comment was a reference to the fact the Rs had to go out of state to avoid being rounded up by the State Police if the cops had been dispatched to bring them back to Salem – which, by the way, has not occurred so far.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, issued a statement saying, “Walking out on the job is a dereliction of duty” and also describing Republicans’ boycott as “dishonorable and disrespectful.”

From my post in the cheap seats, it strikes me that there is a relatively easy solution here.

It is to send the cap-and-trade bill out to a vote of the people and count on urban voters in Portland, Eugene, Medford and, even, Bend to pass the bill over the likely objections of rural Oregonians.  As various statewide political races have shown, Democrat have more votes than Republicans and, thus, are able to control many outcomes at the polls.

Then, with such a compromise in place (no, compromise is not a dirty word), Republicans could return to the Capitol and vote to make the final decisions on the remaining issues that should be handled as “emergencies” in a short legislative session.

As one example, flood recovery money for Eastern Oregon would be approved.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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.

The presidential debates – the only ones live now are among the Democrats bidding for the right to oppose Donald Trump – tell us almost nothing about who would make the best U.S. president.

The eighth one in the dispiriting series for Democrats was up last night.  You can guess that the winner was Donald Trump because the remaining Ds focused on tearing each other down, not building each other up.

Here in the way veteran Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz analyzed the debate:

“The tone of the debate ultimately became a metaphor for the Democrat race itself, as it was marred repeatedly by candidates interrupting one another, talking over each other and constantly ignoring the moderators’ efforts to bring some order to the unruly evening.  The event did little to raise the confidence level of the Democrat voters who will be selecting a nominee to go up against President Trump.

“For Trump, this was one more debate that served his purposes.  A divided Democrat Party and a nomination battle that often seems to do as much to diminish the candidates as to elevate them is what he enjoys seeing.”

Or this, from another Post writer, Dana Milbank, who used the professional wrestling analogy:

“Within the first few minutes, the CBS News moderators lost control. Candidates shouted at each other, talked over the moderators and interrupted at will. ‘He spoke over time, and I’m going to talk!’ bellowed Biden. The audience cheered and booed as if watching professional wrestling.”

That’s what politics has become today, at least on the national scene as all of those bidding — supposedly – to represent us actually represent either themselves or a political party.

In words, that appeared before the debate, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson decried the “destruction of political institutions before our eyes.”

“From one perspective, this has come in a swift, confusing rush of events. From another, it has seemed to unfold in slow motion. Everyone sees the vase falling toward the ground, but no one seems capable of stopping the impact. And that is what a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders presidential contest would be:  The shattering of our two-party political system.

“One of the parties — which I used to call my own — has already been captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals promised a revolution against an out-of-touch elite. They succeeded, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They have devalued governing skill and compromise. They have elevated potent cultural symbols that unite and motivate their own — such as the fight against an imaginary “deep state” — rather than seeking to unite and inspire the country.

“And now the other party — as though by some horrible compulsion for imitation — is being captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals are succeeding, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They devalue governing skill and compromise. They employ potent cultural symbols — such as the demand for “revolution” and the demonization of moderation — to unite and motivate their own tribe rather than seeking to unite the country.”

So, we trundle on with more debates, which really are not debates.  They are simply platforms for more diatribe and “got-cha” quotes.  I am waiting, probably fruitlessly, for debates that focus on real issues – health care quality and access, infrastructure planning, environmental regulation, etc.

For my part, I did not watch the debate last night, preferring to make my own decisions about the presidential race, unencumbered by the contrived “debate.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, 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 have said before that one of the best columnists writing today is Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.  Gerson’s work appears in the Washington Post.

Rather than write my own stuff today, I choose to publish Gerson’s most recent piece, which does an excellent job of skewering both the Ds and the Rs in the current presidential election.

Neither side, he says, has the best interests of the country at heart and hand.  They just want to advance their own causes, which ought to repel smart voters who want good government.  Unfortunately, being repelled by bad politics is not in vogue.

So, without further ado, here is Gerson.

************

A Trump-Sanders election would destroy our politics

It is a sad, strange experience to witness the destruction of American political institutions right before your eyes. From one perspective, this has come in a swift, confusing rush of events. From another, it has seemed to unfold in slow motion. Everyone sees the vase falling toward the ground, but no one seems capable of stopping the impact. And that is what a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders presidential contest would be:  The shattering of our two-party political system.

One of the parties — which I used to call my own — has already been captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals promised a revolution against an out-of-touch elite. They succeeded, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They have devalued governing skill and compromise. They have elevated potent cultural symbols that unite and motivate their own — such as the fight against an imaginary “deep state” — rather than seeking to unite and inspire the country.

And now the other party — as though by some horrible compulsion for imitation — is being captured by the most extreme, disturbing element of its traditional coalition. The radicals are succeeding, in part, through bullying and intimidation. They devalue governing skill and compromise. They employ potent cultural symbols — such as the demand for “revolution” and the demonization of moderation — to unite and motivate their own tribe rather than seeking to unite the country.

The two sides are not morally equivalent. Only one is subverting our constitutional order on a daily basis. Only one leader is regularly fanning flames of racial division. Only one leader has separated migrant families and abused migrant children. Only one leader has authoritarian pretensions and regularly uses his office to facilitate corruption.

But Trump and Sanders practice a similar type of politics, described with typical brilliance in Yuval Levin’s new book, “A Time to Build.” Levin argues that political institutions — say, the presidency or Congress — were once seen as formative institutions. People within them were expected to uphold certain standards and develop certain skills. Politicians wanted to be recognized for excelling at the profession of politics, which includes mastering detail, building consensus and cooperating in spite of differences.

Politicians such as Trump and Sanders, however, want to be seen as outsiders overturning a discredited establishment. Trump, for example, has continued to criticize elements of his own administration on Twitter as though he were an outside observer. In this political approach, the purpose of institutions has shifted. “We have moved, roughly speaking,” writes Levin, “from thinking of institutions as molds that shape people’s characters and habits toward seeing them as platforms that allow people to be themselves and to display themselves before a wider world.” Political institutions are no longer seen as “formative” but as “performative.”

Trump may be the champion of performative politics, but some leaders of the left, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sanders, are contesting the title. For all of them, public office is not so much a place to serve and achieve but a means to raise the profile of their activism. For all of them, the act of being viral matters more than the craft and discipline of passing laws or ensuring their proper administration.

It wasn’t that long ago that a progressive leader such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy aspired to be a master legislator and was perfectly willing to make reasonable compromises on education reform or immigration reform to secure incremental progress. Or when President George W. Bush proposed and got passed the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief with the strong support of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then-Sen. Joe Biden.

Who, in this age of the outsider, would now run for president on a platform of reasonable compromise and bipartisan purpose? (Well, actually, Biden initially did. And many in his party reviled him for it.)

But what if the greatest need of the republic is not for an outsider to shake things up but an insider to get things done on education reform, and immigration reform, and global health? What if the type of leadership we need most does not pursue virality as an end, or signal cultural loyalties as a tactic, but rather elevates prudence, professionalism and idealism rooted in achievement? What if we need politicians who know their jobs and a president who brings honor to his office and healing to a weary country?

The realization comes like a nightmare: Maybe there is no longer a democratic constituency for the talents and virtues that make democracy work.