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.

To hear left-wing Democrats talk as they run for president, you’d think our country needs to be changed so dramatically it would no longer be recognized as a center of capitalism.

Several of those on the far left, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, want to make the United States into a socialist country.

They must think, I guess, that trashing this country will help them win a trip to the Oval Office.

I hope not. To be sure, I want a centrist to emerge, someone who can defeat one of the worst presidents in U.S. history – Donald Trump. And someone who will work to improve our country, not trash it.

A couple personal thoughts about capitalism vs. socialism.

MY OWN SITUATION: Back in 1990, with another partner, I formed a company that came to be called CFM Strategic Communications. We set out to create and build a company that would provide several services – (a) lobbying services at the local, state and federal levels, (b) public relations services for public and private sector clients; and (c) public opinion services to help public and private sector clients understand the universes in which they operated.

Twenty-five years later, CFM is still functioning as a small business, though I am retired and now serve as an emeritus partner.

Without capitalism in this country, there would have been no opportunity to succeed with CFM.  In socialism as advocated by Sanders, Warren and others, we would have had no incentive to provide for ourselves as partners, as well as for those who worked for us because those individuals always shared in our profits.

We would have been just waiting for the next handout from government those on the far left believe would be better than business effort and enterprise.

A VISIT TO PRAGUE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC: On a recent international trip, my wife and I spent three days in Prague, which no longer is a communist country.

We were struck by comments from our tour guide, who said she grew up in a communist state, but now treasures the freedom she enjoys in a non-communist system.

She said she is now able to think for herself, to speak, and to be creative. Without fear of reprisal.

She has no desire for the Czech Republic to return to communism, which she fears is an agenda in some parts of the country.

So, the question is this: Can those with a capitalist commitment improve how they operate in this country?

Of course, there always is room for those who have earned so much to share with those who have less. Consider the example of Bill Gates, who made a fortune as he started and led Microsoft for years, but, through his foundation, has shared his wealth with others around the world.

Sharing with others was the subject of a recent sermon at the church in Salem my wife have attended for more than 30 years, Salem Alliance. To remember a sermon several weeks after it was given says something about the quality of the subject!

The title was, “What is Our Responsibility, as citizens and Christians, to help the Quartet of the Vulnerable.” The quartet was defined to include the poor, children (sometimes orphans), widows and refugees.

All of them need our help, both in our roles as citizens and as Christians.

Scripture has much to say about this, including what may be the best verse on the subject – Romans 12:13:

“Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”

Sounds simple, but it isn’t.

It requires commitment – commitment of the type that shows how those who have thrived in capitalism are willing to share what they have earned with others. And, if done enough, the sharing will help, in our topsy-turvy political world, to illustrate the value in our current way of life, not the value in turning to socialism.

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.

This, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to operate them as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Bits and Pieces.

So, here are more good quotes.

FROM MAX BOOT IN THE WASHINGTON POST/”At one level, it’s pathetic and even amusing that President Donald Trump is fabricating quotes to boost his fragile ego. But at another level, it’s terrifying, because he isn’t your dotty old uncle boasting of having landed a 500-pound marlin.

“There are real-world consequences when the most powerful man in the world lives in a make-believe universe where Greenland is for sale, video games v cause mass shootings, climate change is no big deal, and “trade wars are good and easy to win.”

“The unanswerable mystery is whether Trump is consciously lying or whether he believes his own drivel. The latter possibility is more terrifying, yet the former is scant comfort, either. Best-case scenario: The president is a pathological liar who repeatedly utters falsehoods that no one who does not work at Fox News could possibly believe. Worst case: He is a fantasist who cannot tell lies from truths, fantasy from reality.”

Comment: True, which is a hard word to utter in relation to Trump who has amassed a record for lying – more than 12,000 times, according to the Post’s Fact-Checker column. As Boot says, Trump believes his own stuff — and wields a black sharpie pen to prove it.

FROM JENNIFER RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST/”He’s an embarrassment plain and simple. Donald Trump is the anti-McCain. Not only is he unhinged and unsteady, not only is he incapable of looking farther than his nose when it comes to foreign policy, but he also would rather lose a war than lose an election.”

Comment: Again, true. I have come to a belief, from my position in the cheap seats out West, that Trump is mentally deranged. And all of us as Americans are in danger as a result.

FROM AMANDA RIPLEY IN THE WASHINGTON POST: “As a journalist specializing in disasters, I have seen…creative denial in all manner of catastrophes — from market crashes to hurricanes. This summer, I saw it again, while watching the Democrat debates. First came the self-serious moderators, trolling for conflict. Next came the candidates, powdered and prepped. Cue the opening statements!”

Comment: Ripley has ideas about what to do about the presidential debate issue, just as we are preparing for another sham one for the Ds. Her idea:

“To help identify candidates, moderators could ask different questions. For example: Who in your inner circle routinely challenges your beliefs? Explain why someone might oppose abortion or gun control and still be a good person. Can you think of solutions to these issues so that neither side would have to compromise their core beliefs?

“Or get rid of the debate format altogether. Is the United States really yearning for more argument? Instead, give candidates an exercise, like in a real job interview. Put them in American living rooms where they listen to people whose life experiences and beliefs challenge their own. See which candidates can stay curious, without necessarily agreeing.

“What happens when you put Pete Buttigieg in the home of an African American family in Chicago? Or if you put Elizabeth Warren in a white evangelical Christian home in rural Tennessee? What if these families decided who “won” this contest — based on which candidate talked with them, not down to them?”

Good approach. Will it happen? Probably not, but anything is better than the drivel which passes for a Democrat presidential debate these days.

Now, later this year, add Trump to the mix and we have something not worth watching.

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 writer, a political scientist, skewers both sides in political debates these days.

There is no middle ground. If you disagree with me, you are nuts and I am right.

Sound like President Donald Trump. Yes. But it also sounds like the most of the Democrats who want to take on Trump in 2020.

Here is what struck me as one of the best paragraphs in the NY Times piece:

“These claims of corruption and rigging make for a strange campaign of ideas, like the one Warren is lauded for waging and an even more bizarre populism of the kind associated with Trump and Sanders. Each of them deflects criticism by delegitimizing opposition. Trump may have perfected that art, but Democrats should be cautious about imitating it. Accusations of corruption are rooted in the assumption that one’s positions are so obviously correct that the only explanation for opposing them is that the opponent has been bought and his or her supporters have been brainwashed.”

So, here is a reprint of the entire piece because of its trenchant analysis.

The Shallow Cynicism of ‘Everything Is Rigged’

Why do the president and many of his opponents act as though American political life is just another film noir?

By Greg Weiner

[Weiner is a political scientist and was a senior Senate aide to Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska.]

President Trump wants his supporters to know that he is still draining the swamp over which he has presided for nearly three years. One of his Democratic rivals, Senator Elizabeth Warren, says Americans are trapped in a “rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else.” Her colleague and fellow candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, calls it “a corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful.”

These claims of corruption and rigging make for a strange campaign of ideas, like the one Warren is lauded for waging and an even more bizarre populism of the kind associated with Trump and Sanders. Each of them deflects criticism by delegitimizing opposition. Mr. Trump may have perfected that art, but Democrats should be cautious about imitating it. Accusations of corruption are rooted in the assumption that one’s positions are so obviously correct that the only explanation for opposing them is that the opponent has been bought and his or her supporters have been brainwashed.

This corruption chatter, a mainstay of American political history that has accelerated in recent years, is unhealthy for political conversation. It is a film noir conception of politics, in which everyone is good or evil, mostly evil, and no one simply disagrees. It is also inaccurate. American politics has never been cleaner of classic corruption — of the cash-under-the-table Teapot Dome variety — than it is now. The bigger problem is that the political puritanism that sees corruption around every corner actually makes it harder to address the issues in whose name it is invoked.

The contemporary scandal, it is often said, is not that criminal corruption occurs but rather that the political system is legally rigged. It supposedly takes the form of campaign contributions that, Sanders says, enable corporations to “literally buy elections.” “This is, literally, false. Money unquestionably influences elections. But the candidate with the most votes, a commodity that cannot be legally bought or sold, always wins (except when it comes to the presidency, a discussion for another day).

What Sanders means to say, of course, is that money allows those with an opinion on, or a stake in, a given issue to buy the means of persuading voters that the spenders are right. That was what he meant when, in the second Democrat presidential debate, he defended his single-payer health insurance proposal and warned darkly — although how surprising was it, really? — that private health insurers had purchased advertising time during the program to register their disagreement.

But this “buys” elections only to the extent Sanders is claiming voters are passive automatons incapable of discernment. This is a paternal populism according to which voters need politicians to protect them from being duped by ensuring they are never spoken to in the first place.

Whether this activity on the part of health insurers is corrupt hinges on what corruption, which is notoriously hard to define, actually means. Critics of the campaign finance system typically warn of a rigged “quid pro quo” arrangement, in which a donor contributes to a campaign on the assumption that the recipient will support the donor’s interests.

But if this is the definition of corruption, it seems to apply equally to the health insurer that spends $25,000 to maintain its right to offer its product and to the grandmother who sends Sanders $25 and asks him to protect Social Security. The two are separated by degree rather than kind. For her part, Warren thinks it is corrupt for the wealthy to defend their economic interests, but her campaign also plays to what she believes is the self-interest of her supporters. Why is one corrupt but not the other?

In either case, the money is useful only to buy the means of persuading and mobilizing voters. It would be irrational to do something that alienates voters in order to attract money whose purpose is to persuade them.

That voters are not simply dupes of contributors is clear from the fact that, in the 2016 Republican primary, when Jeb Bush was a powerhouse fund-raiser and Donald Trump relied on the cost-free device of Twitter, there was little evident comparison between money spent and votes received. American voters often blame money in politics for political outcomes they dislike. In fact, the constitutional system is designed to require majorities to persist in supporting something concrete before they prevail. It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something specific that it has not eventually gotten.

Clearly, members of Congress are far wealthier on average than their constituents. This may affect their thinking, but not nearly as much as the fact that each of them holds his or her office by the permission of voters. It is also difficult to deny that contributions correlate with policy outcomes on some issues — although causation is difficult to establish because most major policies trigger spending on both sides — or that large contributors enjoy enhanced access to politicians, who are susceptible to lobbying.

The question is which issues these contributors are able to influence. The answer is those to which voters do not pay attention. This tends to happen in a system that attempts — as in Trump’s industrial policy or Sanders’ democrat socialism — to dictate precise economic distributions and consequently involves itself in far more than voters can monitor. Rent-seeking — the attempt to use government power to tilt the market in one’s favor — is certainly a problem. But it arises not simply from the fact that economic favors are sought but also from the fact that they are provided.

Anthropomorphizing economic “systems” that are actually the products of trillions of individual choices further confuses the issue. Warren may wish to describe the results of those choices as kicking “dirt” on workers, but there is no single identifiable system doing the kicking.

All the claims of rigged systems that now saturate American politics make reasoned conversation more difficult. Whether one supports or opposes it, for example, abolishing the private insurance that hundreds of millions of Americans hold is certainly a radical proposition. Is it really impossible for anyone other than the venal or the duped to oppose the idea?

In reality, the activities swept into the label of corruption — campaign finance and quid-pro-quo negotiation — are important means of building coalitions. Whatever their merit, Ms. Warren’s ambitious plans to remake the economy are doomed unless she is elected along with a Democratic Senate, which will only happen if money is spent to persuade voters to dislodge entrenched Republican incumbents. Given the advantages of incumbency — incumbents, for example, do not have to spend money to garner name recognition — they almost certainly will have to be outspent.

Similarly, earmarked, pork-barrel spending — which the Republican House of Representatives prohibited in 2011 as part of the Tea Party wave — is an invaluable tool for assembling bipartisan majorities for legislation because it helps members of Congress see the good a bill does for their constituents.

The go-to argument that everything is corrupt is, in fact, not intellectual engagement at all. It is an escape from the responsibility to defend one’s position on its merits. It is polarizing because it turns argument, which is healthy in a republic, into accusation. It yields cheap cynicism that falsely regards outcomes with which one disagrees as the product of corruption rather than diversity of opinion. The result is intellectual paralysis, since shallow cynicism does away with the need to make or listen to an argument at all.

This puritan strain in American politics makes it more difficult to find common ground because it stigmatizes, and therefore hardens, opposition. How can there be a legitimate compromise with corruption? It would be healthier for politicians to make their best arguments for their positions, let their opponents argue back and accept the realities that defending one’s own interests is normal, that honest people disagree, and that the candidate who persuades more of them prevails.

 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 often fear that we, in Oregon as well as nationally, have lost all ability for politics to work as it should, which means that those in public office appear unable to seek and find the smart middle on issues.

Too often, certain officials believe they alone are right and other side be damned.

This was best expressed several years ago by military leader and talked-about presidential candidate Colin Powell when he uttered one of my favorite quotes:

“I will not be running for president because I bemoan the loss of civility in politics.”

I am no Colin Powell, but I share his sentiment.

So it was that I read this week a column by former Salem Statesman Journal editorial page editor Dick Hughes who writes under the Capital Chatter headline.

His piece focused on legislators from both sides of the political aisle who gathered in Florence for the eighth annual Oregon Coastal Caucus Economic Summit.

“It was,” Hughes wrote, “a profound two days of wide-ranging discussions about infrastructure, which sounds boring but was not.

“It sets an example for decision-making. It is bi-partisan and bi-cameral. The current chair is a south coast legislator, Representative David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford. The vice chair is a north coast lawmaker, Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose (whose districts stretches over to the North Coast).”

Here’s more information based on Hughes’ column.

During a legislative session, the eight coastal legislators meet once a week to discuss issues affecting the coast. They do not take a group stance on an issue unless everyone agrees. The relationships formed through their collaborations allow them to disagree on other issues while respecting the divergent viewpoints.

“The unity of this group is very unique,” said Senator Dallas Heard, R-Roseburg, who previously served in the Oregon House and now represents a large Senate district that includes the South Coast.

To Hughes, he recounted being so dispirited by partisanship in the House that he wondered about continuing as a legislator. He credited the Coastal Caucus with helping restore his hope and his passion, adding that it really is the “responsibility of legislators to work together for the common good of everyone.”

The rural-urban divide also was a big topic at the caucus meeting on the Coast. “I see it all the time on the national level,” said Representative Kurt Schrader who represents the 5th Congressional District. “There’s a lack of understanding by the folks in the cities about the plight we have out here.”

Schrader, who has a small farm in the Canby area, said he sometimes feels like he lives in a petting zoo.

“The city people will come out and spend money and time in my backyard,” he said. “Then they go back in the city and they pass all this legislation that makes it almost impossible for me to do what they seem to like to see and be part of.

“That’s a big problem. That’s why this group of bi-partisan individuals can make a huge difference in your state legislature.”

He said rural Oregonians need to be able to make a living, including through agriculture and forestry.

Representative Dave Gomberg, D-Otis, and his coastal colleagues pointed out that many of them represent districts that are neither conservative red nor liberal blue. Their constituents are both, and thus their districts are purple.

As a result, they have to collaborate and be able to defend their decisions on sound policy, not politics. Note this quote above:

“The relationships formed through their collaborations allow them to disagree on other issues while respecting the divergent viewpoints.”

Good news from the Oregon Coast. Perhaps the approach could serve as a model for the entire state. The Legislature in Salem would be better for it.

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 still remember when a good friend of mine, about 40 years ago now, used to ask me why newspapers didn’t care more good news.

This friend knew I was a reporter for a daily newspaper, The Daily Astorian, so thought I would have an answer for his good question.

I didn’t then.

Part of the reason, of course, was that I was a new journalist, so I thought I would be able to report what was going on at Astoria City Hall, my beat, along with the Port of Astoria – and didn’t have to set out to focus on good news.  I would function in the tradition of muck-rackers.

Just news.

In the last 40 years, I have developed two thoughts about journalism. One is that the best journalists today (who work for papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times )expose us to what is going in our world. Their focus is not to report “good news;” it is to report “the news.”

If it strikes negative chords with us, so be it.

If positive, so be that, too.

Of course, the bad journalists today – if you even can call them journalists – focus on bad news, a sort of “gotcha” approach because they apparently think such an approach generates readers, hearers or viewers.

The other growing perception for me is that newspapers – my first love, way above TV or radio – do themselves a favor when they focus on good news in a community.

Like the new Salem Reporter, an on-line newspaper edited by a long-time friend of mine, Les Zaitz, who used to be an investigative reporter for The Oregonian and, at one point, with his wife, owned by Keizer Times.

Zaitz and his staff focus on good news, at least on occasion. Two recent examples.

Zaitz lauded the Salem area Little League team that made it to the World Series. What a great accomplishment, he wrote, one worthy of community acclaim.

Over the weekend, Zaitz also lauded the start of the Oregon State Fair. Here is what he wrote:

“One of the highlights of the year in Salem is the Oregon State Fair, and we’re reporting from all angles. That includes jumping right into competition ourselves for a first-hand report.

“I have a special love for the fair, for I spent a summer on the maintenance crew between my junior and senior years at McNary High School. When the maintenance chief, a former Navy guy, learned I could type, I became the office clerk.

“Then one day, he handed me a big mass of keys. He said something like: “Check every padlock on the grounds and be sure they work. And I mean everywhere.

“That struck me as an odd assignment. I wondered if he was trying to get me out of his hair. So off I went for days – every entry gate, every barn door, even the catwalk on the racetrack stands.

“His genius later became clear to me. When the fair was running at full pitch, he knew he could count on me to get anywhere something needed attention. He had found a very clever way to be certain I knew every bit of the fairgrounds.”

A couple other pieces of good news have struck me in the last couple weeks. Both involved the church my wife and I attend here in Salem, Salem Alliance. During the month of August, the church gives various workers a month off and welcomes children, who otherwise would be in Sunday School, into the regular church service.

Last Sunday, a group of about 25 young people gathered on the state to play their string instruments in an orchestra to lead the church in worship. Very impressive.

That was preceded a couple Sundays ago by a group of young people (again about 25 or more) – perhaps some of the same young people — who formed a choir and also led in worship.

Great to see kids involved in such pursuits, especially as they sing and play to honor God.

And, yes, overall, there is good news around if only we look for it, even as we may worry that world events are negative and foreboding.

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.

This department, remember, is one of three I run with a free hand to do as I please, which makes me, perish the thought, sound like one Donald Trump.

Forgive the parallel.

On to the pet peeves.

Pet Peeve #1: The fact that very big pick-up trucks are allowed to park in angled spaces in downtown Salem.

If you ever have tried to park on one side or the other of the big trucks, you take your life in your hands.

There is an easy solution here. Just pass a city ordinance that prevents big trucks from using the angled spaces. The rationale would be simple: Public safety.

Pet Peeve #2: The fact that political reporters love to criticize candidates for changing positions on certain issues over the years when the changes may just be what should be a reality for all of us – our positions on issues change as we learn and know more.

Political reporters often describe changing positions as “waffling.” And, I suppose that is sometimes the case, especially when candidates say one thing one day and another thing the next.

But, if over time, political office-holders refine or change their positions, it is not waffling. It is simply learning more and coming to a different conclusion.

In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, writer Joseph Epstein criticized cable-television journalists who specialize in interviewing politicians and like few things better than to find contradictions between their past and current statements, voting patterns, behavior.

“In 1998, senator, you said unequivocally that you were for the death penalty for parakeets. (Let’s put that quote up on the screen.) Yet, just last week you authored a bill that would remove all parakeets from death row. How do you explain that?”

The focus of my pet peeve relates to so-called TV journalists who love to cite contradictions without context. And, my advice to political figures? Don’t be afraid to change your mind as you learn more over time and simply be straight and up-front with constituents. The solid voters will appreciate your honesty.

Pet Peeve #3: The fact that, when using the phone to access one of your service providers, you have to jump through so many hoops.

One of recent examples for me was dealing with the disability insurance provider for my brother. When I called the access number, it often took my five or six prompts to try to get through to a real person and, often, that involved a long wait on the phone.

In the spirit of full disclosure, when I finally reached a person, he or she was helpful, which raised the question for me as to whether it would be possible to talk to a real person earlier.

But what’s worse that going through a large number of prompts is when the non-person voice on the other end of the phone starts offering you various incentives – call them sales messages – before allowing you to proceed .

I suspect businesses would tell you that they save money through this process, but, often, the process does nothing to exalt serving customers.

Enough pet peeves for today, though, no doubt, more will occur to me.

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.

It may be folly for me to presume to write about “my management principles,” especially because I have a friend who is a management consultant and, therefore, knows more about management than I ever will.

Will that stop me?

No.

I will just go forward and see what happens, including my friend’s sage reactions.

I used to be a high-level manager in state agencies and then I went on to manage lobbying and public relations services in a firm I helped to found in 1990, CFM Strategic Communications.

With that context, I have been thinking lately about the some of the management principles I followed in the past and would follow now if I was ever to be in management again – though let me add that I prefer retirement.

Here are the titles of my management principles – and note that, on several occasions I relate them to golf, though they also could apply more generally.

• Panorama management, not snapshot management
• Funnel management
• Always do what you think is right
• Start with a strategy, the move to tactics
• On a daily basis, thank those who work hard with and for you

PANORAMA MANAGEMENT: To avoid snapshot management, take many snapshots to end up with a panorama in order to make management decisions based on a full picture.

One snapshot is silly. A panorama is smart.

Let me provide an example to illustrate my point – and it is about golf. One of the members at the club where I belong expressed his concern to me several years ago that the golf pro was not out on the first tee to welcome him and other players as they began their round.

What this individual was doing was taking a snapshot and generalizing from there. From all he knew, the pro was on the tee earlier or later that morning to welcome players, just not on the tee when it was this friend’s turn to play.

FUNNEL MANAGEMENT: This is a tactic I used to try to reach a decision when a number of factors were involved in the context of that decision. To further the analogy, I put all of the factors in a funnel in order to see what emerged at the end.

Another example from golf. At the club where I belong, there have been concerns lately about how many outside groups are given permission to play the course when, the belief is, it should be reserved for paying members.

In my funnel, here is how would consider the issue:

• Do the outside groups pay their way, thus contributing to a balanced at the private club?
• Are events stacked on top of each other, which would aggravate members who might tolerate one closure once in awhile, but not stacked closures?
• Are outside events part of what could be considered to be private club’s responsibility to the community where it operates, including to specific charities which might need community support?
• What should the balance be between, (a) competitive opportunities for better players at my club, and (b) availability of the course for paying members who don’t want higher-level competition?

If I used this funnel, I would see what emerged. But, what’s important here from a management perspective is to make sure that you consider all factors, not just the ones you like.

ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT, NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES: Yet, don’t assume automatically that you are right; behave in a way that illustrates you understand the complexity of decisions you make and the need to test your views against others before making final decisions.

Still, maintain your intent is to do what you think is right. With that commitment, you won’t lose sleep at night.

START WITH STRATEGIES BEFORE MOVING TO TACTICS: Another of my hot-buttons in management is to make sure you and your organization have overarching strategies, not just tactics.

Then, design tactics designed to promote the strategy.

If you start first with tactics, you won’t know for sure that the tactics you choose will serve the strategies. You may just be engaging in tactics for their own sake.

For me, strategy always precedes tactics.

And, I suppose, that’s one reason that the firm I helped to found was called CFM Strategic Communications.

ON A DAILY BASIS, THANK THOSE WHO WORK HARD WITH AND FOR YOU: Expressing gratitude is an often-lost art in much of today’s management.

Thanking employees for their hard work and, when possible, rewarding them for that work is critical. In CFM Strategic Communications, we started with and continued with a commitment to share profits with employees, not just hold all of the profits for owners.

Another example. One of the best managers I worked for during my days in Oregon State government told me he tried to thank someone for their work every day, often in writing. It was a lesson I learned and took to heart.

The point is that, when something good happens in management, it is not due to one person. It is due to a team. So recognize that.

So, my management consultant friend, what did a misstate or omit?

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.

A letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal this week contained a great analysis about one Donald Trump who, unfortunately, continues to be the U.S. president.

The bottom line was this: “Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally, while Trump’s detractors take him literally but not seriously.”

Well stated.

The author, a resident of Smyrna Beach, Florida, went on to describe what he called his “own unscientific survey” which suggests that there are a great many Americans who endorse many of the president’s policies, including tax reform, deregulation initiatives, standing up to China, and even occasionally ham-handed diplomacy with North Korea and Iran.

But, he added, they are personally embarrassed by Trump’s lack of decorum and polarizing language, even if much is discounted as being for effect.

Finally, the author made another great point when he wrote, “Unfortunately, the Democrat primary season seems determined to deny us a welcome alternative.”

Agreed.

If Democrats don’t get their act together to nominate an alternative who has a chance to beat Trump, we’re all in for a worse outcome – more Trump.

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 written about health care issues in the past, owing mostly to my 25 years as a lobbyist representing hospital and health insurers.

Two new developments caught my interest late this week and both illustrate the need for a centrist, bi-partisan approach to craft smart health care policy.

Development #1: Incredibly, Senator Bernie Sanders, in his campaign to convince Democrats to nominate him to take on President Donald Trump in 2020, came up with another crazy idea.

Under a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) headline that read, “Bernie’s Medicare for All Bailout,” editors said Sanders “wanted taxpayers to save hospitals after he bankrupts them.”

Here’s more from the WSJ:

“Usually politicians pass a bailout to clean up a mess they’ve created in the past, but Bernie Sanders is now promising cash up front. Witness the democrat socialist’s opening offer to the hospitals he’d bankrupt with his Medicare-for-All bill.

“Sanders last month suggested a $20 billion federal bailout fund for struggling hospitals. He announced this plan in Philadelphia, where the city’s Hahnemann Hospital is in bankruptcy proceedings. He spins the failure of the hospital as a tale of corporate greed perpetrated by a private-equity firm.

“Yet, one under-appreciated reality is that nearly two-thirds of Hahnemann’s patients are on government insurance, either Medicare or Medicaid, a fact noted in passing in a letter to Health and Human Services from members of the Pennsylvania delegation in Congress. This detail is significant because Medicare and Medicaid are notorious for paying hospitals less than what it costs to provide services.

“The best estimates are that Medicare and Medicaid pay hospitals on average about 87 to 90 per cent of the actual cost of care, often lower in high-cost areas like New York City. Hospitals then shift costs onto private insurers, which tend to pay more than 140 per cent of costs, according to data from the American Hospital Association.”

Sanders, thus, is topping his own “government health care for all plan” with another proposal for government funding to bailout hospitals his first proposal would threaten to bankrupt.

Save us from Bernie I say.

Development #2: The WSJ also reported late this week that “states cover millions of people who exceed income thresholds, some quite well-heeled.”

In a piece by two health care economics professors, it was reported that a National Economic Research Council found that, in several Medicaid-expansion states, many people who gained coverage under Medicaid did so regardless of their income.

In practice, the authors said, “ObamaCare has turned Medicaid into an entitlement program for the middle class.”

Here’s more from the WSJ:

“Using data from U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the authors assessed coverage changes from 2012-17 in nine states that expanded Medicaid vs. 12 states that didn’t. They uncovered a huge problem. In 2017 alone, in those nine states, “around 800,000 individuals . . . appeared to gain Medicaid coverage for which they were seemingly income-ineligible.”

“ObamaCare is supposed to make Medicaid available to households with incomes below 138% of the poverty line, or nearly $36,000 for a family of four. In the nine states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio and West Virginia—the authors found that among households with incomes 138% to 250% of the poverty line (about $65,000 for a family of four), some 78% that gained coverage had improperly enrolled in Medicaid. That was also true of 65% of the population above 250% of poverty that gained coverage.”

For me, these two developments underscore the need for smart people on both sides of the political aisle – yes, there are some left – to get around a round table in a room and pound out a centrist, middle-of-the-road approach to health care policy.

Instead, we have, (a) Republicans on the right slamming every proposal as “more government;” (b) Democrats on the right, like Sanders advocating for a government-only solution that none of us can afford; and (c) both sides appealing to this or that political trend identified by a new poll and avoiding the hard decisions of finding middle ground.

In the past in Oregon, various of us were able to do the heavy-lifting of smart health care policy. That, however, is not in the past and it is time for new solutions today that will provide health care access for citizens while avoiding budget expenditures that would make federal deficits even deeper.

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.

Slow play has come up several times recently as a plague for many sports, but golf, especially, has tended to get into first place on the problem list.

Those who criticize have a point and, so far at least, those who administer the game of golf on the PGA Tour appear not to have done much about the problem.

All it would take for slow play to end is for a player or players to get penalty strokes. Almost immediately there would be no more plague. Hit pro golfers in their pocketbooks to solve the problem.

A couple instances lately have brought the subject to the fore (pardon the pun).

In one case, Bryson DeChambeau, a five-time PGA Tour winner, came under fire for two instances of slow play last week at the Northern Trust tournament. The instances of DeChambeau’s slow play and his defense made the social media rounds and led to harsh criticism.

He was clearly upset by the backlash, twice defending himself to reporters and suggesting that his speed in getting to the ball should balance any extra time he might take to hit it.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal writer Jason Gay put it in a recent column:

”Even golf pros think golf can go on too long. Witness the recent controversy around the young golf star Bryson DeChambeau, a wildly talented, tournament-winning 25-year-old who sometimes moves around a golf course like, well, a tortoise on Benadryl.

“A viral video made the rounds this past weekend of DeChambeau preparing for a putt. DeChambeau looks at his putt from one angle. Then he looks from another angle. Then another. DeChambeau spends more time prepping for this putt than I did for my wedding and the birth of my children combined.

“The whole thing lasts…well, it only lasts a bit longer than two minutes, but it feels like forever. One of DeChambeau’s playing partners starts reading Dickens. The other crochets a cable-knit sweater. OK, I’m making that stuff up, but you get the point.

“Here’s the big finale: He misses the putt. It’s like watching someone spend six hours making a pie, only to drop it on the ground.”

The second incident involved one of the slowest players of all time — , J.P. Holmes. He takes forever to line up any shot, often plumb-bombing even three or four foot puts. Plus, he never prepares to hit any shot until it is exactly his turn to play – in other words, he always waits until the last minute to get ready to hit, then takes forever to hit the shot.

It has become so bad that I, as a dedicated golf player, will turn to a commercial when it is Holmes’ turn to hit. Can’t watch the elongated process.

Okay, rather than just complain, here are my ideas about actions to take.

1. Adopt what the Oregon Golf Association (OGA) does for all of its tournaments, including ones it runs for the United State Golf Association, which usually area local qualifiers for national events.

From tournaments involving junior players as young as eight up to senior players, the OGA has a strict pace-of-play policy. Listed on the scorecards are the times for each hole to be completed and, then, at four checkpoints around the course, players are informed about whether they are ahead of behind the appointed times.

If they are behind, they get, first, a warning, then, if they remain behind, they get a one-stroke penalty.

Yesterday, in a USGA qualifier in Salem, OGA tournament officials used this policy and, for the last group that finished its 18^th hole, they barely made it under the time by only about 30 seconds. If the group had missed the time, a penalty would have been imposed because it would have been the second miss.

Under the approach, pace-of-play has improved in Oregon tournaments, suggesting that such an approach could be a national model.

2. Use what Europe has used at least once in a tournament called the “Shot Clock Masters.”

Each group in this professional tournameant was followed by a golf cart with shot clock mounted on the back for all to see, including the players.

When a player got to his ball to play the shot, the official in the cart started the clock. That gave the player 40 seconds to play. In one case, the player took 41 seconds – yes, 41 seconds – and received a one-stroke penalty.

Think of this as a bit like the time clocks used in football and basketball at the professional golf. They are used to speed up the pace-of-play.

3. Give players a target time to play their round.

This is the approach used where I have the privilege of playing in La Quinta, California each winter. The scorecard lists the target time to play 18 holes as three hours and 50 minutes. Yet, on the tee, the pros tell players the target time is three hours and 30 minutes.

Not tough to do if you focus on the game at hand.

For those of us who love golf, a lot rides on dealing with slow play. The reality of slow play means, for one thing, that it is often difficult to attract new players to the game. They simply believe they do not have time to get out on the course.

Trimming the number of holes played from 18 to nine is one option. But more needs to be done for the good of the game and the three ideas above are just two options.