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.

For the life of me, as a long-time participant in politics, I cannot figure out how a brand new representative in Congress has developed so much social media fame that she goes by initials – AOC.

That stands for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and she is certifiably nuts. She has no idea what she is doing or what she is advocating other than a new, different America that suits her purposes.

Capitalism be damned. Personal endeavor be damned.  Diligence be damned.  Creativity be damned.

Do it my way, she avers, or take the highway.

And, if you care to loft criticisms her way, you’re a racist.

Just ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  In a meeting of the in-control Democrats in the House, Pelosi told members not to criticize others in their party for fear of fomenting controversy that would eventually work to the benefit of Donald Trump as he runs for a second term.

Perish the thought regarding Pelosi’s concern – a second term for Trump, that is.

We need far less of both Ocasio-Cortez and Trump.

We need leaders who will gravitate toward the middle, not the extremes of right or left. Or, the stupidity Ocasio-Cortez illustrated when, after she and other ultra-liberals succeeded in persuading Amazon not to locate a second headquarters in the New York area (along with taking away thousands of jobs from New Yorkers), she said, good, now we can use the money for something else.

What money?  Of course, there was none.  Amazon had negotiated tax reductions in exchange for bringing the jobs and secondary investment to New York. The total was in the millions.  Ocasio-Cortez, incredibly, wanted to spend “that money” elsewhere.  She couldn’t.

Regarding Pelosi, she is taking heat for the caucus meeting where she scolded Democrats for publicly attacking each other. “You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK,” Pelosi was reported to have said.

She noted that “a majority is a fragile thing,” and warned the loudest progressives to quit their attacks on moderates.

Her comments were viewed as a direct warning to “The Squad,” a quartet of high-maintenance female freshmen:  Representatives Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.

Pelosi was responding, among other things, to offensive tweets, including from Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti.  Last month, he accused moderate Democrats who backed a compromise border-spending bill of “being hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s.”

Ocasio-Cortez played the race-and-sex card on America’s foremost liberal, Pelosi.  She accused Pelosi of “singling out newly elected women of color” and of being “outright disrespectful.”  Pressley complained that the speaker’s comments were “demoralizing.” Omar suggested Pelosi was insufficiently committed to resisting the Trump administration.

To the extent Pelosi has faced moments of “chaos” or “civil war,” it has been entirely at the hands of a few media starlets who are at the far left of even the so-called “progressive world.”

As opined by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel, “the Squad commands the cameras, and they are getting good at creating outrages, imposing litmus tests, and intimidating other members.”

Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk — this is not a racist criticism; it is one based on the demerits of her point of view.  Sne wants to fight, not to produce results or capitalize on the good that is in America.

In that way, she mimics Trump on the right.

That’s what he does, too. He wants a fight because he believes the fight, not results, will accrue to his credit.

The problem is that Trump’s approach may win him another four years in the Oval Office.  And, if it does – if it produces a second term for the buffoon – Ocasio-Cortez should be given credit for the result.

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.

Donald Trump – some would call him president, but I reserve that title for someone who deserves it – got just what he wanted this week with a series of over-the-top, “I hate you” tweets.

First, he changed the debate to be about him, which he always wants as the self-defined narcissist – the smartest person in any room because it revolves around him.

Second, he managed to elevate the group of representatives – it is called “The Squad” – to be the face of the Democrat party.

One member of “The Squad,” Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, is exactly the kind of person Trump want to illustrate the Democrat Party.

Here is what political commentator Karl Rove said about Ocasio-Cortex in a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal:

“Representative Ocasio-Cortez is not a serious legislator but an unusually shallow poseur, the product of social-media culture. She offers slogans cribbed from the latest socialist bull session; wild utterances that receive enthusiastic nods from “woke” Democrats and looks of astonishment from much of Middle America.

“There are reasons why AOC, “The Squad” of her running buddies on the House’s far-left fringe, and their operatives are characterizing some less-liberal Democrat representatives as akin to 1940s Southern segregationists, threatening them with primary challenges, and even castigating Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a racist.

“They’re convinced the shock value of their attacks and radical ideas will give their movement dominance over the Democrat Party and the country.

“For now, they’re drowning out the Democrat presidential candidates. As these young representatives become the face of their party, they define it with their wackiness. Trump knows this, and he will take full advantage of their gift.”

Thus, Trump has achieved the goal of running against those four who all are American citizens, three from birth, but who advocate making America into a socialist country, not to mention a host of other wacky, far left wing ideas.

So, Trump will set out to energize his base, as well as “white America” to win another four years in the Oval Office.

The trouble is that Democrats, not just “The Squad,” but most others, are playing right into Trump’s hands. Rather than advocate policies that might convince voters to depart from Trump, they call him a racist, which might actually be true, but which only serves to tick off right-wing acolytes.

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.

Remember the movie, “Dumb and Dumber?” I do.

But the movie title could just as well apply to politics these days.

Just when you think things couldn’t get worse, the combatants – and that’s what they like to call themselves – on the right and left go off the deep end.

President Donald Trump, on the right (if that is where he really is) and Democrats on the left have absolutely no use for each other. So, they result to name-calling, innuendo and charges of racism.

Dumb and Dumber is a 1994 American comedy film starring Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels. It tells the story of Lloyd Christmas (Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Daniels), two dumb but well-meaning friends, who set out on a cross-country trip to return a briefcase full of money to its owner, thinking it was abandoned as a mistake but was actually left as ransom money.

Today, the title captures all that is wrong with politics.

Who is dumb and who is dumber, the Republicans or the Democrats? Take your pick. Both qualify either nickname.

Former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal put it this way in a piece for the Wall Street Journal:

“The political world has gone absolutely crazy. America has seen event after event that broke every precedent and seemed to set a new standard that couldn’t be surpassed — until it quickly was.

“Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and undisciplined tweets drives even some of his supporters crazy. They wonder if he is his own worst enemy and hope he doesn’t sabotage his success. Yet, many more supporters want a disruptive force and view his unorthodox behavior as a positive feature rather than an unfortunate price to pay for conservative judges and lower taxes.”

The craziness on the Democrat side, Jindal writes, “lies in its leaders’ policies and the plan they want to impose on America. The party’s inability to condemn anti-Semitism with a unified voice and the current debate on whether America owes reparations to African-Americans and Native Americans are the tip of the iceberg. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren favor a steep wealth tax, even as Europe is largely abandoning such schemes.

“Others want to abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court.

“Whereas President Obama realized fully government-run health-care was too radical for the American people, many in his party now believe the problem with ObamaCare was that it forced too few people off plans they liked. The misnamed Medicare for All would cost more than $30 trillion and force almost 200 million Americans off private health insurance.

“The Green New Deal dwarfs Medicare for All in potential cost and damage to the economy. Its supporters aim to do more than merely eliminate the use of oil, gas, coal and nuclear power — they aspire to rid the country of commercial airline travel and flatulent cows, retrofit every building, and provide a universal federal guarantee of economic security even to those ‘unwilling to work.’”

For his part, Jindal says he would choose Trump over the Ds, a point which, perverse as it is, makes just a bit of sense to me if, as reported by the Washington Post this week, U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is viewed as the “standard bearer” for the Ds.  I would never choose her for anything and, no doubt, I’ll be called a racist for saying so.

To call her a standard-bearer makes little sense because she has no standards. She prefers to fight about problems rather than work to solve them. In that way, she is much like Trump.

I say they deserve each other.

What I long for is someone from the middle who works for the middle. That means it won’t be Trump or any of those running as Ds, except, perhaps, for Joe Biden if he can survive the slings and arrows of others in his own party.

As another movie phrase went, “we need serious people who will work to solve serious problems.”

It’s just so far each day proves that there are almost no such leaders either on or vying for the national stage in politics. As Americans, we are worse for the failure.

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.

At the risk of going overboard on this subject – the tactic by Senate Republicans to walkout of the recently-completed session of the Oregon Legislature — I am posting two a “point-counterpoint” description of the action.

Don’t worry. Overboard is what I do when it comes to politics because, other than golf, which is more important, I have nothing else to do in retirement.

One summary is from Senator Cliff Bentz, the Republican from Ontario, who, before he and other Republicans left town, was the chief R negotiator on the controversial “cap-and-trade” carbon reduction bill.

The second summary is from Senator Michael Dembrow, a Democrat from Portland, who says he played a key role in developing the basic bill, which eventually died, either because of the walkout or because three of Dembrow’s colleagues among the Ds couldn’t vote for the bill.

As I have said previously, the walkout was a legal maneuver, one various legislators on both sides of the aisle have used in the past. This time, the tactic tended to gain more notoriety, if only because of the prevalence of social media.

Was it worth it?

Rural Republicans would probably answer “yes” for some of the reasons cited by Bentz.

Urban Democrats would probably answer “no” for some of the reasons cited by Dembrow.

From Senator Bentz:

In a democracy, the majority rules. But when the Democratic majority decided to trade Oregon’s economic free-market system for one of central government control – while ignoring our constitution and making a shambles of Oregon’s rural and low-income economies – we walked.

These parts of House Bill 2020, which would have imposed greenhouse gas-emissions limits on businesses and forced them to buy allowances whose cost, (set by the state), would get passed on to consumers, were particularly egregious.

The bill’s regulatory cart is way out in front of the technology horse. The bill forces drivers to pay ever higher fuel prices years before the development of electric trucks and before installation of the infrastructure needed to allow meaningful use of electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles. Likewise, there’s a constitutional problem. The billions that Oregonians would be forced to pay in carbon taxes couldn’t be used to construct such infrastructure because that money is constitutionally restricted.

HB 2020 would increase the cost of fuel by 22 cents a gallon on Jan. 1, 2021, without regard to significant increases in the cost of fuel already in the pipeline. Those include Oregon’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (now five cents a gallon and on its way to 25 cents over the next few years); the 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax authorized by HB 2017; the international ban on bunker fuel for sea transport, estimated to increase the cost of diesel by 20 to 30 percenteffective January 2020; and the recently enacted Corporate Activities Tax which exempts fuel sales, but does not exempt other costs of fuel such as freight. HB 2020 callously stacks its 22 cents per gallon on top of these increases.

Democrats tried to design HB 2020 so that its 22-cent-per-gallon cost would not be considered a tax, even though you have no choice but to pay and the government gets to spend it. This unconstitutional approach kept the verboten word “tax” out of the bill, side-stepped the three-fifths legislative vote requirement and flouted the prohibition against use of an “emergency clause” in a tax bill. (Emergency clauses are often used to prevent referral of legislation to the people).

Finally, the Democrats silently changed how to measure Oregon’s carbon reduction. Instead of factoring in the amount of carbon sequestered by Oregon’s forests and sea, the bill tallies only emissions reductions. This seems innocuous, but the result skyrockets the cost of the scheme and ignores Oregon’s natural carbon sinks which, if used appropriately, could help Oregon become a major global player in the sequestration of carbon.

Yes, Oregon’s Republican senators walked and yes, HB 2020 is dead. But it will be back. Maybe the demonstrations against the bill, the three brave Democratic senators who also opposed the bill, the Senate walkouts, and the thousands upon thousands of emails supporting the death of 2020 will prompt the majority to actually address the many and damaging shortcomings of cap and trade. And maybe this time they will have the courage to let Oregonians vote on it.

From Senator Dembrow:

HB 2020B, the Clean Energy Jobs bill that would have created the Oregon Climate Action Program, was at long last ready to go – after years of work, hundreds of hours of public hearings and debate, thousands of pages of public testimony.

We had made the necessary design decisions that balanced out the needs of environmentalists and industry, urban and rural.  We had secured the support of the utilities, the construction trade unions, the tribes, large forest landowners and all the major environmental organizations, and Oregon Business and Industries had taken a neutral position on the bill.  We had the votes to pass it in both chambers.

And then, for a variety of reasons—political, ideological, irresponsible lobbying, inadequate communication, misleading communication, timing, bad faith, and, ultimately, threats of violence and the involvement of dark, anti-government elements—the effort stalled and nearly took with it the entire remainder of the session.

*********

There is room for both views. For my part, I tend to head toward Bentz because he makes a solid case about the damage the cap-and-trade bill would have done to rural Oregon, an area which is often left out of legislative decisions biased toward urban Oregon.

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.

George Will has a point.

In a recent column in the Washington Post, Will skewers Democrats for falling all over themselves to advocate for a totally government-run health care system, even if that meant some citizens would lose private health insurance coverage – coverage they might value.

But Will’s point is one that could have been made for years as policymakers in Washington, D. C. have labored for years over health care policy usually with more regard to politics than to policy.

Will used the recent D presidential “debates’ by Senator Kamala Harris, the Democrat from California, to criticize Harris and most of her colleagues on stage. Here is what he wrote:

“If Senator Kamala Harris is elected president in 2020 and re-elected in 2024, by the time she leaves office 114 months from now, she might have a coherent answer to the question of whether Americans should be forbidden to have what 217 million of them currently have: Private health insurance.

“Her 22 weeks of contradictory statements, and her Trumpian meretriciousness about her contradictions, reveal a frivolity about upending health care’s complex 18 per cent of the U.S. economy. And her bumblings illustrate how many of the Democrat presidential aspirants, snug in their intellectual silos, have lost — if they ever had — an aptitude for talking like, and to, normal Americans.”

My point in this blog is not to rail against Harris and her ilk. Rather, it is to make a point I have made for years, including my more than 25 years as a lobbyist for Providence Health System, including its insurance arm, as well as its special programs.

My point?

What we need is a process that produces a product. What I mean is that smart minds on both sides (or more than just two) – and, yes, there are some smart minds left even as many pander to one extreme or the other – should gather in a room with a round table.

There, they should find the middle ground on health care policy, a middle that doesn’t take away your doctor (as President Barack Obama said he wouldn’t do, but did, under his :”Affordable Health Care Act”), doesn’t take away your private insurance (as Harris and others among the D presidential candidates would do), and – very importantly – finds a way to provide health care services to as many Americans as possible, if not every American.

This can be done, but it cannot be done if Democrats start over, if Republicans oppose everything (as they are wont to do), and if no one heads toward the middle.

As the “Affordable Health Care Act” comes under increasing attack, including in court (one reason is that the act no longer includes a key underpinning – an individual mandate to buy insurance much as what already exists when it comes to driving a car…you have to have insurance or you’ll pay a penalty – it is past the time for cooler heads to prevail.

I am not an optimist on this, but I choose to think that compromise is still possible.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 portions of this blog a few months ago as lawmakers were gathering at the Capitol for the start of a six-month run in Salem.

Given what happened in the session, which ended on June 30, I think it makes sense to recount again my notion of reforms that I thought months ago and think now would work to improve the process in Salem.

Would they correct the various abuses and miscalculations we saw in the last six months at the Capitol? No.

First, how to characterize the session? I think the reputation of the Legislature lies in tatters after one of the toughest six months on record.

The in-charge Democrats couldn’t convince minority Republicans that they – the Ds – care one whit about R priorities, including those in rural Oregon. Yet, it always is fair for one measure rating the majority to be how it deals with the minority in a two-party system. On this measure, it would appear the Ds failed.

At the same time, Senate Republicans couldn’t figure out a way to express their views without running away from the Capitol – twice. The walkouts were legal, but, from the standpoint of the general public, it appeared some legislators were behaving like kids –“taking their toys and going home.”

To be sure, rural constituents of the Senators probably think their representatives stood up to huge, Portland-centric pressure in Salem, so Republicans probably thought leaving was worth it.

One of those who walked, Senator Cliff Bentz from Ontario, put it this way in a column that run this week in the Oregonian newspaper:

“In a democracy, the majority rules. But when the Democrat majority decided to trade Oregon’s economic free-market system for one of central government control – while ignoring our constitution and making a shambles of Oregon’s rural and low-income economies – we walked.”

Further, prior to all of the to-ing and fro-ing over the walkout, things got so bad early in the session that several leaders almost lost their jobs because of what was labeled the negative sexual harassment atmosphere at the Capitol.

What to do? The early solution was to pay reparations to those who said they had been harmed. And, then late in the session, the in-charge Ds felt the only approach was to pass a law requiring better behavior – not just to expect mature behavior, but to legislate it.

Well, on to my reforms that would make the legislative process more open to the public, as well as might even produce better law.

Reform #1: Make every legislative committee a JOINT COMMITTEE.

The example for this is the current Joint Committee on Ways and Means, the entity responsible for preparing a balanced state government budget each two years.

The joint character of the effort – joint in terms of membership by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as by members of the House and the Senate – means that legislators have no choice but to work together earlier in a legislative session to achieve consensus.

Think how much time and effort could be saved by requiring the otherwise faint notion – working together – of all legislative committees.

Reform #2: Require the governor and the legislature to prepare a “CURRENT TAX” BUDGET FOR EACH TWO YEAR BUDGET PERIOD.

As it is now, governors now produce a “recommended budget,” which often includes new taxes, not state spending based on current taxes.

If it were up to me, I’d require a “no-new-taxes” budget so it would be clear how much government would cost for another two years if legislators did not do anything – no new taxes, no new spending cuts. I’d require this, first from a governor, then expect the same from the Legislature through its Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Reform #3: Require the governor and legislators to PREPARE AND RELEASE IN PUBLIC SPECIFIC PLANS FOR “NEW TAXES” they want to impose, including those who would PAY the new taxes, WHAT the new money would fund, and WHY those who would be asked to pay the new taxes should accept that reality.

Under the current approach, new taxes are buried in the overall budget and, though they may come up for consideration in the House and Revenue Committees – yes, separate, not joint, committees – the rationale for the new taxes is often understated, if stated at all.

Reform #4: Require the governor and legislators to PREPARE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR “THE CUTS” they would propose to make in state government so it is not just business as usual for another two years.

This final reform – listing specific spending cuts – does not get the profile it should in a legislative process. In this blog, I am not advocating for specific cuts; I am just saying that the governor and the Joint Ways and Means Committee should spend more time adjusting state spending to fit a new two-year reality.

A by-product of this type of effort could be that it would generate more support for tax increases if it were patently clear, first, what cuts would be made, and second, what those proceeds would fund.

As it is at the moment, there is no spending cut plan under consideration in a typical legislative session.

If there is good news in all of this, it is that the Oregon Constitution requires a balanced budget. That means, whatever the process, legislators have to balance spending against revenue. Good, but it’s just a process could be far more transparent – and, in turn, that would produce better laws.

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.

On July 8, the Wall Street Journal published a special section commemorating its 130-year anniversary.

Kudos to the Journal for its positive impact on real journalism in this country.

At least, one item caught my attention. It was a photo of President Ronald Reagan delivering memorable words in a speech, as follows:

“For decades America has led freedom-seeking people around the world in their struggles to destroy and dismantle the oppressive barriers that divide countries and restrict liberty. Today, many of those battles have been fought and won – the barricades that once stood between countries no longer exist and their citizens are able to live together in freedom and prosperity. With this in mind, we – as Americans – are faced with a new challenge. The Cold War is over and now we must break down the tariff walls that restrict the free flow of trade on our continent. The North American Free Trade Agreement can bring us that victory.”

Of course, Reagan, in another speech in Berlin in 1987, uttered the now famous line – “Tear Down This Wall,” referring to the wall separating East and West Berlin.

The Berlin Wall, referred to by the President, was built by Communists in August 1961 to keep Germans from escaping Communist-dominated East Berlin into Democratic West Berlin. The 12-foot concrete wall extended for about miles, surrounding West Berlin, and included electrified fences and guard posts. The wall stood as a stark symbol of the decades-old Cold War between the United States and Soviet Russia in which the two politically opposed superpowers continually wrestled for dominance, stopping just short of actual warfare.

So, turn to today.

What do we have?

Every other word uttered by “our” President Donald Trump seems to call for building new walls, not tearing down walls.

Some of the walls advocated by Trump pertain to tariffs.  Some pertain to a wall he wants to build between the U.S. and Mexico, his supposed solution to what he calls the problem with immigrants from the south.

Trump’s trait is to build walls that separate people, not tear down walls, as Reagan put it, “to dismantle oppressive barriers that divide countries and restrict liberty.”

God bless Ronald Reagan.

Not the same for 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.

There are number of reasons why what used to be a bedrock of political activity – compromise — has become, to many, a dirty word.

Whatever the reasons are, the decline of compromise is a sad commentary on America.   It means we disagree almost all of the time and don’t develop middle-ground solutions to pressing national problems, including, for example, immigration.

It is why we have leaders who yell and scream at each other rather than trying to solve problems.

It is why, to make another generalization, we, as voters cannot seem to find a way to support and elect persons who will hew toward the middle. We only want to vote for those who will espouse our own, individual views, whatever those views are, even if the views spark only division and distrust.

For some, fighting politically is an end in itself. Representative Alexandra Ocaxio-Cortez espouses this view. She wants to trash the country that so many built over the years, thus becoming the “Trump of the left.” For her and those of her ilk, the fight is what she wants, not solutions.

Trump, on the right – if that is where he belongs – holds the same view. Disagree with him and Trump will call you a dolt and worse.

If it were up to me, I’d put Ocasio-Cortez and Trump in the same room and allow them to fight, which is what they’re good at.

In a piece in the Washington Post this week, Jeh Johnson, former director of the Department of Homeland Security, called for a new approach to one extremely divisive issue – immigration.

I’ll leave detail on that huge subject – immigration — for another day, but, for now, here is a quote from Johnson’s article:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has attracted criticism from the left for accepting earlier this month a more moderate version of legislation to provide humanitarian aid to migrants at the border.

“The media sensationalized the speaker’s agreement as a ‘striking defeat and a ‘capitulation.’ Give her a break. Those who govern in a democracy know that progress requires compromise, and the speaker made the obvious calculation that it was more important to deliver prompt help to those facing inhumane conditions on the border than it was to delay and hold out for everything House Democrats wanted.”

Though I am not a fan of Pelosi, I refuse to criticize her when she makes compromises. If she values that political art, point made. Point taken.

So, with that introduction, here is my summary of reasons why compromise has fallen into the dustbin:

1. The media, as illustrated above, calculates everything in win or lose propositions. There is almost no effort to give credit where credit is due for those elected officials who gravitate toward compromise. If elected officials compromise, the media says they lose.
2. Elected officials play the same win-lose game, plus set out to represent the views of their so-called constituents, even if those views sow resentment and discord. To win re-election, officials believe they have to kowtow to their base – and, unfortunately, in our tension-ridden political system, they are often right.
3. As voters, we often want only those who will support our views. We don’t want to vote for officials who say they will find middle ground solutions.

Consider the very definition of the compromise in politics.

To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. Compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms — often involving variations from an original goal or desires.

Great challenges of contemporary democracy have become more difficult in the era of the permanent campaign. Office-holders are competing more to remain in office than to do the hard work of compromise and, worse, we, as voters let them get away with it.

Compromise is frequently said to be an agreement with which no party is happy because the parties involved often feel they either gave away too much or received too little. As in the case of Pelosi above, compromise often is referred to as capitulation, even a “surrender” of objectives, or principles.

What I value in politics these days is a return to compromise, not as a dirty word, but as the act of finding middle ground that serves the public, not just the vocal and obstreperous sections of the public.

Though it may sound immodest, that’s how I tried to conduct myself as a lobbyist for 25 years. Not just win or lose. Middle ground. And my firm’s clients were comfortable with that posture.

As voters, we should find a way to respect compromise rather than trash it in pursuit of our own individual goals.

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 as dictator – er, director. This one exists because I like each of the “bits and pieces” below, but don’t want to write individual blogs about them.

So, here goes.

BERNIE SANDERS STILL HAS NO ANSWER ON HEALTH CARE: On the debate stage with other Ds running for president (was it actually a debate? I say no), Sanders didn’t have an answer for the big question about his proposal – the fact that his plan would do away with private health insurance, which many policy holders value.

Another debater asked why even successful health plans have to be outlawed under the Sanders plan. Sanders had no answer then; he has no answer now.

Which, for me, underlines what I think is necessary in the debate over health care: Get smart people on all sides of the issue in the same room and find solutions in the middle.

Sanders wouldn’t be there. Neither would Donald Trump.

BIDEN GETS CENSURED FOR WORKING TOGETHER WITH THOSE WHO DON’T SHARE HIS VIEWS: At a recent a fundraiser in Manhattan, Biden made comments that no reasonable person would interpret as racially insensitive — and was immediately censured by his Democrat competitors as though he had defended Jim Crow.

Biden recalled working as a young Democrat with Senator with James Eastland (Mississippi) and Herman Talmadge (Georgia), both segregationists and unrepentant critics of the civil-rights movement. Biden’s point was that he is able to work with people with whom he had profound disagreements to achieve constructive results – on issues other than, for example segregation.

“You have to be able to reach consensus under our system,” he said, and he’s a consensus builder.

“Well guess what?” Biden added. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”

For that comment, Biden came under attack and it is not clear that he will recover from a comment that has riled up his competitors.

But his point is worth considering. In politics, it often is a reality that you have to work with other elected officials with whom you patently disagree. Don’t work with them, in Biden’s case, on racist issue; work with them on other issues.

It’s called compromise, the art of politics.

CLOSER TO HOME, WHAT ABOUT SENATOR BRIAN BOQUIST?: When Senate Republicans walked out of the Senate denying a quorum over concern about an anti-rural “cap-and-trade” bill, Boquist, a Republican from Dallas, issued what could have been considered a threat against State Police who had been sent to round up he and his colleagues.

He told the governor: Send only bachelors because I won’t become a political prisoner.

No one knew whether he was kidding or not.

When the Senate Rs returned to the Capitol, two Democrat senators would not remain on the Senate floor with Boquist, saying they were concerned for their safety if Boquist was “carrying” – a gun, that is.

Eventually, he left, but he will still be subject to a censure vote in a Senate committee tomorrow, Monday.

This is an example of how bad politics has become in our state — another sad story.

AND ABOUT LEGISLATIVE WALKOUTS: Say what you will about the Republican tactic this time around — that is, if you care at all – but just know that the tactic has been used before by both Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats have left the Capitol in the past. Republicans did this time around.

My only point is that it has gone both ways in the past.

Should walkouts be allowed? For my part, I say no. Stay and do the work of legislating, win or lose. Win some. Lose some. But, walking out is, at the moment, a legal tactic.

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 always has struck me as strange, if not worse, when elected officials express disdain for the private sector.

The most recent one to do so is Senator Elizabeth Warren as she runs for president on what often appears to be a far left platform.

Wall Street Journal editorial writers skewered Warren this week by saying this:

“Democrats used to at least try to conceal their contempt for the private economy, but open hostility is now a political tactic. This week’s example is a broadside from Elizabeth Warren on a former Trump Administration official who dared to resume his career after leaving government.

“Warren blasted Scott Gottlieb, who might have thought he was returning to private life when he stepped down as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration in the spring. Warren admits that, unlike ‘other administration officials,’ Gottlieb worked ‘to strengthen protections for Americans on issues like transparency and tobacco use.’”

But then, Warren averred, Gottlieb committed the sin, after leaving government, of joining the board of directors of Pfizer Inc.

Warren wrote: “That kind of revolving door influence-peddling smacks of corruption, among other barbs.

Warren says Gottlieb should rectify his mistake and immediately resign from your position as a Pfizer board member. Or else what? Progressives will boycott Lipitor?

I believe elected officials of all stripes should value the private sector, if only because it is the private sector that creates the jobs where the holders of those jobs pay taxes to fund government, including the government the Ds want.

Now, of course, all private sector leaders are not sweetness and light. They make mistakes frequently and should be held to account for those mistakes, either, in the extreme cases, serving time in prison and paying restitution, but also losing stock value when they under-perform.

But, to be made scapegoats by the likes of Warren? No.

An irony is that one of Gottlieb’s signature projects, when he was FDA administrator, was speeding up approvals for generic drugs that compete with branded pharmaceuticals and drive down prices for consumers. He often called out regulatory “shenanigans” by big companies that reduced competition.

Warren cites no evidence that Gottlieb favored Pfizer; her game, reports the WSJ, is innuendo.

None of this is about the merits. Warren, again according to the WSJ, “wants to disqualify anyone from serving in government unless they’re public-interest lawyers or have spent years camping out at progressive (I hate that word when it is used to describe groups that are not interested in progressing in anything but their own agenda) groups like Public Citizen. The outrage over ‘revolving doors’ is absent for, say, Democrats who moved between environmental groups and the Obama Administration.”

To Warren and others of her ilk on the far left, I say, compliment the hard work of the private sector or, at least, if they cannot stomach a compliment, then avoid the politics of corporate destruction, which should be a losing battle politically.

Today, at least on the left, trashing the private sector is assumed to be a winning game.