Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As my wife and I walked into our regular 8 a.m. church service last Sunday here in Salem, Oregon, we were thrilled by what we saw.

Up front on the platform stood about 30 refugees who now live here after arriving, often under duress from several foreign locations over the last few years.

The group led in music, singing in a variety of different languages – including a few dialects we had never heard of before.  They did so with enthusiasm and gusto.  And, just so you know, English was included.

For my wife and me, as Christians, what we saw was an expression of what heaven will be like some day – all kinds of people, all kinds of nationalities, all kinds of ages, all kinds of colors…all children of God.

The group up front Sunday is called “Baraka,” a word that means “blessing” in various languages. 

To use a phrase from Baraka’s website:  “It is a ministry of Salem Alliance Church that exists to bless our global neighbors with God’s love through long-term practical, social, and spiritual support.”

But, to me, it is far more than just that sentence.

It is an example of how we can have respect for and love people who are different from us, thus illustrating that God’s love transcends borders and nationalities and every other factor that often separates, not unites.

Baraka programs, which my wife and I support, include English language teaching, immigration legal services help, workforce training, and others.

Consider these statistics:

• More than 1,000 refugees have located in and around Salem in recent years, so this issue is not just one that resides in larger cities – it is in “our neighborhoods.”

• More than 12 languages are spoken by these refugees.

• More than 250 volunteers help to provide needed services.

Doug and Anya Holcomb lead the Baraka program – Doug often leading music as he sings in multiple languages and Anya delivering sermons on the importance of love for all people.  They are both children of missionaries, but were able to learn that they didn’t have to go overseas to serve as missionaries – they do so right here in Salem, Oregon.

On Sunday, Anya used these Bible verses as her text for a message that focused on unity that only God can spur – John 17:20-23:

In these verses, Christ says:  “My prayer is not for them alone.  I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me — so that they may be brought to complete unity.  Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

To close, two thoughts from me:

• God loves everyone, as I wrote earlier, a foretaste of what heaven will be like when we get there.
• I wish Donald Trump would have heard what we heard Sunday so he wouldn’t label all immigrants/refugees as criminals.  It might change his priorities, though I doubt it (and, I add, the good news was that politics was not involved Sunday — and it should not have been in our church).

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

At least two views have emerged on the controversy over how much money to put into Medicaid, the program that serves health care needs of the country’s low-income population. 

As always, perhaps more than two.

• One view came from Dr. John Kitzhaber, the former governor in Oregon, who, when he held public office, made health care policy his top priority.  He was very innovative then; and now he still deals with health care policy from that vantage.
• The other view came from U.S. House Republicans in a proposal that focused on cuts, not reform – and it appears to have a chance to pass the House, though as I write this, the fate in the House is unclear.

Kitzhaber’s proposals make sense.  The House R’s, not so much.

In an opinion piece posted in the Washington Post last week, Kitzhaber illustrated why, when he was a governor in Oregon, he focused on health care reform, not just cuts.

Frankly, he sullied his reputation near the end of his term when he came under review for ethical failings by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.  [And, for the record, I am a member of that Commission, so I will not comment further on that Commission’s work.]

To illustrate Kitzhaber’s health care policy chops, I’ll post excerpts from what he wrote for the Post under this headline – “Democrats should push for change in the system.  Oregon offers a model.”

From Kitzhaber:

“As negotiations continue on the budget bill Trump wants Congress to pass, Medicaid is squarely in the crosshairs.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicaid could lose up to $880 billion over the next 10 years, and that millions of low-income Americans would lose their health coverage.

“The Democrat Party has understandably reacted with outrage.  But its ‘no cuts or reforms to Medicaid, period’ mantra creates a false choice between cuts and defending the status quo.

“On one hand, any action that reduces funding for Medicaid, without also making structural changes to the program, will in fact cause millions to lose coverage.  That is unacceptable — and will increase costs in the long run for most Americans.  

“People without insurance tend to access care through hospital emergency rooms, where federal law requires they be seen and treated.  That uncompensated cost is reflected in higher premiums for those who have health insurance.”

Kitzhaber has maintained for years that just cutting Medicaid made no sense because it does nothing to ensure the long-term viability of a popular program that serves thousands of Americans.

More Kitzhaber:

“The party (the Ds) needs to come up with a better solution, which would both improve the program and save money.  We did it in Oregon.  Since 2012, my state has provided Medicaid through community-based coordinated care organizations (CCOs).  Faced with rising costs, inefficiencies in care delivery and inequities in outcomes, we looked for ways to focus on health rather than disease, and to reward techniques that worked.

“And, significantly, we changed the financial incentives.  CCOs operate on a budget indexed to a growth rate below medical inflation.  They are required to maintain enrollment and benefits, and also to meet metrics around quality, outcomes and patient satisfaction.  This realigns the incentives to focus on health rather than disease, by emphasizing prevention, primary care, and reducing waste and inefficiency.  We rebuilt our Medicaid system from the bottom up.”

Today, CCOs serve most of the Oregon’s 1.4 million Medicaid recipients, and between 2011 and 2021, operated within the per-member, per-year growth rate, met the required quality and outcome standards — and realized a net cumulative savings of approximately $3.7 billion.

Finally, Kitzhaber uses a metaphor to make his case for reforming Medicaid.

“Think of our medical system as a house, built decades ago,” he says, “and think of Americans as the family that has lived in that house for generations.  The way the house was designed made sense when it was built.  But over time, the family changed — and so did its needs.  The structure of the house, though, remained the same and it’s now too expensive for the family to maintain.  At some point, the house must be redesigned so that it meets the evolving needs of the family.”

So, Kitzhaber says, the basic structure of Medicaid — and the rest of our health-care system — was put in place some 60 years ago and hasn’t materially changed since then.

From his post in Oregon far away from the fray in Washington, D.C., he advocates useful reform ideas.

I hope they could gain traction, not as a magic answer, but as a notion that could change the “always cutting” characteristic of current Medicaid.

Meanwhile, the process in Congress turned raucous last week as folks came to protest against Medicaid cuts and some of them got hauled out of a House committee meeting for failing to be quiet. 

But the debate does indicate this salient point:  Individual lives will be affected under Medicaid, so this is more than just a debate over a budget.  It’s what behind the budget that counts. 

Just ask Dr. Kitzhaber.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As a dedicated golfer, I like a story about golf as much as other followers of my favorite sport.

But, this week, Donald Trump used a stupid analogy to justify his idea to accept a huge gift from a corrupt Saudi government.

It was a 747 airplane worth north of $400 million that Trump wanted to use as Air Force One.

As for the analogy?  Trump compared taking the plane to taking a “gimme” in golf.

Yes, a gimme!

What is that anyway?

From the dictionary:  A short putt that a player is given, without putting, in informal play.

From me:  The word refers to the time when gentleman golfers “give” a short putt to an opponent as an act of generosity.  Just know that a gimme is not allowed under official golf rules in stroke play, so don’t expect or take a gimme in an official tournament.

In a gentlemanly game on a weekend, yes.

Note that, in the above, I choose to use the word “gentleman” because most women who play at my home club, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, eschew gimmes; they say putt everthing in, which, of course, directly complies with golf rules.

Regarding Trump, he invoked the golfing great Sam Snead to justify a plan to accept the $400 million plane from Qatar to use as Air Force One.

Here is how national newspapers described the situation:

“This is the parable of the president and the putt.

“It was Monday morning in Washington and Trump was in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, signing one more executive order before departing for his expedition to the Middle East.  Over the weekend, news had broken about his plan to accept a $400 million plane from Qatar to use as Air Force One.  Questions abounded.

“This luxurious gift from the Qataris presented all sorts of concerns — ethical, legal, logistical, mechanical.  There was also the fact that Trump had once described Qatar as a ‘funder of terrorism at a very high level.’

Even some of Trump strongest supporters were concerned.  But, of course, Trump was having none of it.

“They’re giving us a free jet,” he said.  “I could say, ‘No, no, no, don’t give it us, I want to pay you a billion, or $400 million,’ or whatever it is.  Or, I could say, ‘Thank you very much.’”

“He paused.  Something had occurred to him.  The idea ofthe plane reminded him of something he had heard once and never forgotten.  It was just a little thing, really, and he said it almost as an aside.

“But it told so much about Trump and the way he sees the world.

“’There was an old golfer named Sam Snead,’ he said. ‘Did you ever hear of him?’

“Old Sam Snead ‘had a motto,’ Trump continued.  “When they give you a putt, you say, ‘Thank you very much.’  You pick up your ball, and you walk to the next hole.  A lot of people are stupid.  They say, ‘No, no, I insist on putting it.’  Then they putt it, they miss it, and their partner gets angry at them.”

Even for Trump, the analogy was a stretch as he compared a gimme in golf to accepting a luxury jet from a foreign government that no doubt wants many “somethings” from the United States.

Still, as simplistic as the analogy was, it was a revealing insight into how Trump views, not only the plane, but all the other ethical concerns swirling around him.

He doesn’t even know what the phrase “ethical conduct” means.  So, he doesn’t recognize one when one exists.

One of my good friends couldn’t believe that Trump would compare being given a huge jet to a gimme.

Neither can I.

Stupid?  Yes!

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I borrowed this blog headline from one that appeared in the New York Times a few days ago.

It carried a solid piece by three writers contending that the United States, under Donald Trump, is already heading toward autocracy, if not already there.

So, first what is an “autocracy?”

The dictionary definition:  “Government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.”

To me, that sounds like Trump, or at least how he views himself, now just past 100 days of his second term as president.

A friend of mine and I talked about this issue the other day as we sat around on the 19^th hole to dissect the state of our golf games, plus the state of our country.

This friend and another of mine here in Salem, Oregon, have expressed themselves by joining protests over Trump’s actions, actions which have soiled this country as he seeks more and more power.

I applaud my friends, who, out of conscience, joined demonstrations against Trump.  It is better than sitting on the sidelines.

So, in the face of Trump’s autocracy, my wife and I have purposed to avoid going down Trump’s rat hole.  Instead, we intend to invest ourselves in community organizations that seek to make life better for the folks Trump hates – low-income citizens, immigrants, and real Christians…though, clearly, Trump has no idea what is means to be a real Christian.

Examples of the community organizations we support:

• Salem Free Clinics (started by our church here in Salem, Oregon)
• Salem for Refugees (also started by our church)
• Salem Area Young Life (which brings Christ to youths here in Salem)
• Salem Leadership Foundation (which brings groups together to solve community challenges)

Better to invest time, energy and money in these organizations than to keep worrying every moment about Trump.

In an essay in the New York Times by Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt, the three authors dealt with autocracies, even as their credential is that they are political scientists who study how democracies come to an end.

I toyed with publishing excerpts of this essay, but in the end, decided to publish the entire piece because it can stand well on its own.  I know it’s long, but the ideas it contains are worth considering.

*********

How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy?

Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be.  Most 21st-century autocrats are elected.  Rather than violently suppress opposition like Castro or Pinochet, today’s autocrats convert public institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax and regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and civil society onto the sidelines.

We call this competitive authoritarianism — a system in which parties compete in elections but the systematic abuse of an incumbent’s power tilts the playing field against the opposition.  It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary, India, Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Chávez ruled in Venezuela.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesn’t always set off alarms.  Because governments attack their rivals through nominally legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically targeted investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are succumbing to authoritarian rule.  More than a decade into Chávez’s rule, most Venezuelans still believed they lived in a democracy.

How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism?

We propose a simple metric:  The cost of opposing the government.

In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power.  They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government.  In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition — that all citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to remove the government through elections — is a foundational principle of democracy.

Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a price.   Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures:  Politicians may be investigated and prosecuted on baseless or petty charges, media outlets may be hit with frivolous defamation suits or adverse regulatory rulings, businesses may face tax audits or be denied critical contracts or licenses, universities and other civic institutions may lose essential funding or tax-exempt status, and journalists, activists and other critics may be harassed, threatened or physically attacked by government supporters.

When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy.

By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism.

The Trump administration’s weaponization of government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against critics has raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.

The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) punitive action against a strikingly large number of individuals and organizations that it considers its opponents.  It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement agencies against critics.

Trump directed the Department of Justice to open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly contradicted Trump’s false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles Taylor (who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official, anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in 2018).

The administration has also opened a criminal investigation into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2022.

The administration has targeted major law firms for retribution.  It effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring Perkins Coie; Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as friendly to the Democratic Party.  It also threatened to cancel their clients’ government contracts and suspended their employees’ security clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related to the government.

Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also face political retribution.  In April, Trump directed the attorney general to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue, the Democrat Party’s main donor platform, in an apparent effort to weaken his rivals’ fund-raising infrastructure.

Major Democratic donors now fear retribution in the form of tax and other investigations.  Some have hired additional legal counsel to prepare for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits.  Others have moved assets abroad.

Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has targeted the media.  Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta, Simon & Schuster and TheDes Moines Register.  The lawsuits appear to have weak legal bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are owned by conglomerates with other interests affected by federal government decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president could be costly.

At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal Communications Commission and deployed it against independent media.

It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by PBS and NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts.  It also reinstated complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while opting not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies about the 2020 election.

Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent actions taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or Venezuela during their first years in office.

Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting universities.  The Department of Education opened investigations into at least 52 universities for their participation in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe penalties.  The administration illegally suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.

It has frozen $2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, asked the I.R.S. to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status and threatened to revoke its eligibility to host foreign students.  As Jonathan Friedman, the managing director of free-expression programs at PEN America, put it, “It feels like any day, any university could step out of line in some way and then have all of their funding pulled.”

Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they oppose Trump.  Fear of violence from his supporters reportedly dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his impeachment and conviction after the January 6, 2021, attack. Republican senators were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early 2025.

For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of opposition has risen markedly.  Although these costs are not as high as in dictatorships like Russia — where critics are routinely imprisoned, exiled or killed — America has, with stunning speed, descended into a world in which opponents of the government fear criminal investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures and even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump administration official put it, “scared” out of their minds “about death threats.”

This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government have been harassed, threatened or punished:  Dissidents were targeted during the Red Scares of 1919 and ’20 and the McCarthy era, the F.B.I. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists for decades, and the Nixon administration attempted to use the I.R.S. and other agencies to attack his rivals.  These measures were clearly undemocratic, but they were more limited in scope than those occurring today. And Nixon’s efforts to politicize the government triggered his resignation, in part, and a set of reforms that helped curtail such abuse after 1974.

The half-century after Watergate was America’s most democratic.  Not only did the Trump presidency put an abrupt end to that era, but it is also the first — at least since the Adams administration’s persecution of the Jeffersonian Democrats in the 1790s — to systematically target both the mainstream partisan opposition and a broad sector of civil society.

The administration’s authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact.  It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally protected opposition.  Consequently, many of the politicians and societal organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the sidelines.

There are troubling signs of media self-censorship. CBS’s parent company, Paramount, which is seeking the Trump administration’s approval for a merger with Skydance Media, recently established additional oversight over “60 Minutes” programming.  This move triggered the resignation of the program’s longtime executive producer, Bill Owens, who cited a loss of journalistic independence.

And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as checks on executive power.  As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, put it, “We are all afraid.  It’s quite a statement.  But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before.  And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real.  And that’s not right.”

Americans are living under a new regime.  The question now is whether we will allow it to take root.

So far, American society’s response to this authoritarian offensive has been underwhelming — alarmingly so.  Civic leaders confront a difficult collective action problem.  A vast majority of American politicians, chief executives, law partners, newspaper editors and university presidents prefer to live in a democracy and want to end this abuse.  But as individuals confronting government threats, they have incentives to appease, rather than oppose, the Trump administration.

Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from government attacks:  Chief executives need to protect shareholders and future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts.

For any individual leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably steep.  Although they acknowledge that everyone would be better off if someone took the lead and defied Trump, few are willing to pay the price themselves.  This logic has led some of America’s most influential figures, including politicians, billionaires, chief executives and university presidents, to stay on the sidelines, hoping that someone else steps forward.

Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like the only reasonable course.  But this is the fatal logic of appeasement:  The belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.

It usually doesn’t.  And acts of individual self-preservation have serious collective costs. F or one, acquiescence will probably embolden the administration, encouraging it to intensify and broaden its attacks.  Autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted.  Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping to be the last one eaten.

Individual acquiescence also weakens America’s overall democratic defenses.  Although the retreat of a single donor or law firm may not matter that much, collective retreat could leave opponents of the Trump administration without adequate funding or legal protection.  The cumulative effect on public opinion of every newspaper story not published, every speech or sermon not delivered and every news conference not held can be substantial. When the opposition plays dead, the government usually wins.

The acquiescence of our most prominent civic leaders sends a profoundly demoralizing message to society.  It tells Americans that democracy is not worth defending — or that resistance is futile. If America’s most privileged individuals and organizations are unwilling or unable to defend democracy, what are ordinary citizens supposed to do?

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent into authoritarianism is reversible.  Pro-democracy forces have successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

America’s courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some of the administration’s most abusive measures.  But judges — themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest — cannot save democracy on their own.  Broader societal opposition is essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to resist Trump’s authoritarian offensive.  It has several hundred billionaires; dozens of law firms that earn at least a billion dollars a year; more than 1,700 private universities and colleges; a vast infrastructure of churches, labor unions, private foundations and nonprofit organizations; and a well-organized and well-financed opposition party.

But civil society must act collectively.  Chief executives, law firms, universities, media outlets and Democrat politicians, as well as more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in preserving our constitutional democracy.  When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance.  The government cannot attack everyone all at once.  When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear.

So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic leaders but from everyday citizens, showing up at Congressional town hall meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the country.  Our leaders must follow their example.  A collective defense of democracy is most likely to succeed when prominent, well-funded individuals and organizations — those who are best able to absorb blows from the government — get in the game.

There are signs of an awakening.  Harvard has refused to acquiesce to administration demands that would undermine academic freedom, Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the administration and hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in Washington, D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by the government.  When the most influential members of civil society fight back, it provides political cover for others.  It also galvanizes ordinary citizens to join the fight.

America’s slide into authoritarianism is reversible.  But no one has ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.

**********

The last sentence is worth due and careful consideration as many of us fight Trump autocracy.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Donald Trump is known for lying about just about anything.  But, he also has been using another rationale lately to escape criticism about dumb stuff happening on his watch.

“I didn’t know about that,” Trump says.

Sure.

The Washington Post ran a column last weekend making this point in detail.  It was written by Aaron Blake and appeared under this headline: “The many big things Trump ‘didn’t know’ about.”

Here is more from the column:

“One of the major themes of Trump’s 2024 campaign was the idea that Joe Biden had no idea what was happening around him.

“Trump called then-President Biden a ‘vessel’ for others who were really running the country.  ‘He has no idea what’s going on,’ Trump said in early 2024.  He remarked in 2022 that Biden ‘has no idea what he’s doing, and he’s got no idea what he’s saying or where he is. Other than that, he’s doing a fantastic job.’”

But, the Post adds, “less than four months after taking over from Biden, it’s Trump who, in his own telling, is often unaware of major events surrounding him and directly involving his administration.

“At other times, Trump has distanced himself or appeared distant from his administration’s major and consequential decisions, as if he had little or nothing to do with them.”

The writer, Bump, provided a range of specific examples of Trump’s “I don’t know” defense:

• Most recently, Trump on Thursday suggested he had played virtually no role in the selection of his new pick for surgeon general, Casey Means.  “I don’t know her,” Trump said.  “I listened to the recommendation of Bobby” — i.e., Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”
• On Wednesday, Trump said he “didn’t know that” when asked about a key Republican senator coming out against his controversial nominee to be U.S. attorney for Washington , D.C., Ed Martin.
• On Sunday, Trump was asked about more than a dozen layoffs the previous Friday in a program that provides health care for 9/11 first responders and survivors.  “I’m not aware of anything that may have been brought up recently,” Trump said.
• Often, Trump says he is unfamiliar with major foreign policy and military stories taking place around him.  One of the most striking examples — given the stakes — has to do with four U.S. soldiers who died in a training exercise in Lithuania.  Trump paused briefly at the mention of “the soldiers in Lithuania” before saying he hadn’t been briefed on the situation.”
• The story was similar to one of the major controversies of Trump’s second term:  “Signalgate.”  The content of the Signal chat string, which the Atlantic later published, also raised eyebrows for how distant it made Trump appear from the deliberations over a foreign military strike. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vice President JD Vance said at one point, according to the report.
• Somewhat similarly, Reuters reported last week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in late January ordered a halt to military aid shipments to Ukraine, despite Trump having issued no such order and reportedly being unaware of what Hegseth was doing.

Enough?  Perhaps.

But, add to this, all of Trump’s assurance that he doesn’t know anything about immigration and deportation controversies that are occurring at his specific order.

Finally, this conclusion from the writer, Blake:

“The ‘I don’t know defense’ is certainly a notable posture from the man who said his predecessor was hopelessly disengaged and repeatedly talked about how bad it was to have people who aren’t the president call the shots.”

After writing this blog, I will be heading to the golf course to get my head on straight after too much focus on the “I don’t know” president.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Okay, here’s another set of comments on the new Pope, Pope Leo, from me, a non-Catholic, but, still, an early admirer of the new Pope, so pardon me, I could write about this Pope many times because of how he stands out as a man of conviction before God.

Now, it appears that Pope Leo is driving MAGA faithful crazy here in the United States.  That’s the posit for a new column by David French that appeared over the weekend in the New York Times.

French lists reasons for MAGA craziness, but he also makes this salient basic point: 

“President Trump is no longer the most important American in the world.

“He is certainly the most powerful, at least for three more years, but power is only one measure of importance.  On Thursday, a Chicago native and Villanova University graduate named Robert Prevost supplanted Trump. He became the first American pope, taking the name Leo XIV.”

As you can imagine, for Trump to be labeled #2 at best, drives crazy all those who bow at the feet of Trump.  It also makes Trump crazy, too.

French’s column appeared under this headline:  “Pope Leo Is All Over the Map, and That’s Driving Some People Crazy.”

To repeat:  “President Trump is no longer the most important American in the world.

“He is certainly the most powerful, at least for three more years, but power is only one measure of importance. On Thursday, a Chicago native and Villanova University graduate named Robert Prevost supplanted Trump. He became the first American pope, taking the name Leo XIV.

“And it happened at exactly the right time.

“I’m not Catholic. I’m an evangelical from the rural South who grew up so isolated from Catholicism that I didn’t even know any Catholics until I went to law school.  But I’m deeply influenced by Catholicism, in both its ancient and modern forms.”

I don’t know French, but, in this column, he speaks for me, as well as for himself.

More from French:

“I devoured the works of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in college.  And one of my favorite classes was about liberation theology, a left-wing, modern Catholic approach to the Gospel that puts an emphasis on improving the material conditions of the poor, in part through political and economic reform.  

“And no book has influenced my approach to abortion and human life more than Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae.”

“It was in this study and reflection that I understood the true importance of the historical stream of Christian thought.  Christianity is an ancient faith, one that has endured through rulers and regimes far more ignorant and brutal than anything we’ve ever confronted in the United States.

“All too many American evangelicals are disconnected from that history.  We belong to churches that measure their existence in months or years, not centuries or millenniums. Our oldest denominations have existed for only the tiniest fraction of time compared with the Catholic church.”

This lack of perspective, Franch adds, ends up exaggerating the importance of politics.   “It narrows our frame of reference and elevates the temporal over the eternal.  It leads to absurd declarations, such as Trump’s vow this Easter to make America ‘more religious than it has ever been before.’

“And when you believe the success of your religion depends on the success of any politician, it’s only a matter of time before politics becomes your religion.  That means that too many Christians will evaluate even the pope through a partisan political lens.”

French is right on at least two counts.  First, count me as among those who don’t have an adequate sense of history, including history for the church.

Second, count me among those who abhor the fact in many parts of American that, to quote French, “you believe the success of your religion depends on the success of any politician, it’s only a matter of time before politics becomes your religion.”

That’s what is happening in the America where Trump says he is the most important person in the world.  He is all-important, almost like a pope.  So, he demands allegiance that, instead, should go to God, the real God.

Pope Leo also posted this:

“We need to hear more from leaders in the Church, to reject racism and seek justice.”

Finally, from French:

“As one American steps onto the world stage as a man of malice (read, Trump), another American answers, leading with love and compassion.”

I root for Pope Leo to emerge on top, not because he wants to be there, but because he exalts the real God.

And, this footnote:  The new Pope no doubt also made Trump crazy when he, the Pope, met with the media at the Vatican and, according to the New York Times, said this:

“Pope Leo XIV used his first audience with the press on Monday to appeal to journalists to help cool the heated language of today’s media landscape, as he renewed his calls for a more peaceful world.” 

And he also went on record in favor of a free press, exactly the opposite of what Trump and his minions want.

Go Pope Leo!

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I published a blog yesterday commenting on what I had learned about the Conclave that chose a new Pope a few days ago.  As a non-Catholic, I was very interested in the process, which occurs behind closed doors.

I could have noted yesterday that I hoped to publish a second blog today to commemorate what Pope Leo said in his first homily.  I did not make that note, but today I publish a full text, thanks to the Catholic News Agency, of what the Pope said because it is so good as it exalts God and an inclusive church.

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

Pope Leo XIV delivered this homily at his first Mass as pope in the Sistine Chapel on May 9, the morning after being elected the 266th successor of St. Peter, addressing the cardinal electors who had chosen him.

I will begin with a word in English, and the rest is in Italian. But I want to repeat the words from the responsorial Psalm: “I will sing a new song to the Lord, because he has done marvels.”

And indeed, not just with me but with all of us. My brother cardinals, as we celebrate this morning, I invite you to recognize the marvels that the Lord has done, the blessings that the Lord continues to pour out on all of us through the ministry of Peter.

You have called me to carry that cross, and to be blessed with that mission, and I know I can rely on each and every one of you to walk with me, as we continue as a Church, as a community of friends of Jesus, as believers to announce the good news, to announce the Gospel.

[Continuing in Italian] “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). In these words, Peter, asked by the Master, together with the other disciples, about his faith in him, expressed the patrimony that the Church, through the apostolic succession, has preserved, deepened, and handed on for 2,000 years.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God: the one Savior who alone reveals the face of the Father.

In him, God, in order to make himself close and accessible to men and women, revealed himself to us in the trusting eyes of a child, in the lively mind of a young person, and in the mature features of a man (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), finally appearing to his disciples after the Resurrection with his glorious body. He thus showed us a model of human holiness that we can all imitate, together with the promise of an eternal destiny that transcends all our limits and abilities.

Peter, in his response, understands both of these things: the gift of God and the path to follow in order to allow himself to be changed by that gift. They are two inseparable aspects of salvation entrusted to the Church to be proclaimed for the good of the human race. Indeed, they are entrusted to us, who were chosen by him before we were formed in our mothers’ wombs (cf. Jer 1:5), reborn in the waters of Baptism and, surpassing our limitations and with no merit of our own, brought here and sent forth from here, so that the Gospel might be proclaimed to every creature (cf. Mk 16:15).

In a particular way, God has called me by your election to succeed the Prince of the Apostles, and has entrusted this treasure to me so that, with his help, I may be its faithful administrator (cf. 1 Cor 4:2) for the sake of the entire mystical Body of the Church. He has done so in order that she may be ever more fully a city set on a hill (cf. Rev 21:10), an ark of salvation sailing through the waters of history and a beacon that illumines the dark nights of this world. And this, not so much through the magnificence of her structures or the grandeur of her buildings – like the monuments among which we find ourselves – but rather through the holiness of her members. For we are the people whom God has chosen as his own, so that we may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (cf. 1 Pet 2:9).

Peter, however, makes his profession of faith in reply to a specific question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16:13). The question is not insignificant. It concerns an essential aspect of our ministry, namely, the world in which we live, with its limitations and its potential, its questions and its convictions.

“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” If we reflect on the scene we are considering, we might find two possible answers, which characterize two different attitudes. 

First, there is the world’s response. Matthew tells us that this conversation between Jesus and his disciples takes place in the beautiful town of Caesarea Philippi, filled with luxurious palaces, set in a magnificent natural landscape at the foot of Mount Hermon, but also a place of cruel power plays and the scene of betrayals and infidelity. This setting speaks to us of a world that considers Jesus a completely insignificant person, at best someone with an unusual and striking way of speaking and acting. And so, once his presence becomes irksome because of his demands for honesty and his stern moral requirements, this “world” will not hesitate to reject and eliminate him.

Then there is the other possible response to Jesus’ question: that of ordinary people. For them, the Nazarene is not a charlatan, but an upright man, one who has courage, who speaks well and says the right things, like other great prophets in the history of Israel. That is why they follow him, at least for as long as they can do so without too much risk or inconvenience. Yet to them he is only a man, and therefore, in times of danger, during his passion, they too abandon him and depart disappointed.

What is striking about these two attitudes is their relevance today. They embody notions that we could easily find on the lips of many men and women in our own time, even if, while essentially identical, they are expressed in different language.

Even today, there are many settings in which the Christian faith is considered absurd, meant for the weak and unintelligent. Settings where other securities are preferred, like technology, money, success, power, or pleasure.

These are contexts where it is not easy to preach the Gospel and bear witness to its truth, where believers are mocked, opposed, despised or at best tolerated and pitied. Yet, precisely for this reason, they are the places where our missionary outreach is desperately needed. A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Today, too, there are many settings in which Jesus, although appreciated as a man, is reduced to a kind of charismatic leader or superman. This is true not only among non-believers but also among many baptized Christians, who thus end up living, at this level, in a state of practical atheism.

This is the world that has been entrusted to us, a world in which, as Pope Francis taught us so many times, we are called to bear witness to our joyful faith in Jesus the Savior. Therefore, it is essential that we too repeat, with Peter: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16).

It is essential to do this, first of all, in our personal relationship with the Lord, in our commitment to a daily journey of conversion. Then, to do so as a Church, experiencing together our fidelity to the Lord and bringing the Good News to all (cf. Lumen Gentium, 1).

I say this first of all to myself, as the Successor of Peter, as I begin my mission as Bishop of Rome and, according to the well-known expression of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, am called to preside in charity over the universal Church (cf. Letter to the Romans, Prologue). Saint Ignatius, who was led in chains to this city, the place of his impending sacrifice, wrote to the Christians there: “Then I will truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world no longer sees my body” (Letter to the Romans, IV, 1). Ignatius was speaking about being devoured by wild beasts in the arena – and so it happened – but his words apply more generally to an indispensable commitment for all those in the Church who exercise a ministry of authority. It is to move aside so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that he may be known and glorified (cf. Jn 3:30), to spend oneself to the utmost so that all may have the opportunity to know and love him.

May God grant me this grace, today and always, through the loving intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church.

**********

Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost, September 14, 1955) became the 267th successor of St. Peter on May 8, 2025—the first pontiff from the United States. An Augustinian friar and canonist with a doctorate from the Angelicum, he served extensively in Peru before leading the worldwide Augustinian order for twelve years. Prior to his election, he served as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops under Pope Francis. In his first papal address, he blessed the crowds in St. Peter’s Square with the words: “Peace be with you all!” His previous reflections on the episcopate emphasized “communicating the beauty of faith and the joy of knowing Jesus Christ” as central to the Church’s mission.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I am not a Catholic, so what I say about the Catholic Church may not be worth much.

However, I still do remember a time many years ago when my family was traveling in Bend, Oregon and we came upon an ornate Catholic church that my parents said we should look at carefully. 

Then, one of them also said this:  “Some kind of Pope must be involved there.”

It clearly was slip of the tongue, one that prompted laughter afterward because, of course, there is only one Pope, not “some kind of Pope.”  I, for one, know there is only one Pope, the leader of more than 1.4 billion Catholic around the world.

So it was as the new Pope was chosen at the Vatican the other day, I was interested in an essay that appeared in the New York Times which made the point that, with different styles, Pope Leo may be much like Pope Francis.

Here are excerpts from the essay written by David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University who has covered the Vatican as a journalist for four decades:

“With the election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV, the College of Cardinals sent a clear message of continuity with the reformist agenda of his predecessor, Pope Francis.  But despite Leo’s reputation as having a quieter, more disciplined personality than that of Francis, the conservative ire that has roiled Catholicism during the previous pontificate is likely to continue with this first American pope.

“Traditionalist Catholics, especially in the United States — where much of the opposition to Francis was based — had yearned for a new pope who would rein in or even reverse changes that Francis made to foster a more inclusive church, where authority was shared and everyone could be heard.”

Francis’ favorite vehicle for those reforms goes by a bit of church jargon – the word “synodality.”

As a person who likes words, I was interested in this one, which appears to have been coined using, as a base, the word “synod.”

Here is what the word synod means:

“An assembly of ecclesiastics or other church delegates, convoked pursuant to the law of the church, for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical affairs.”

So, it makes sense that “synodality” would mean something along those lines.

From the writer, Gibson:

“It’s a term much bandied about but little understood.  It refers to the gathering of church leaders and members to discuss and debate urgent issues.  For Francis, it meant bringing together bishops and lay people, women and young people — and yes, the pope — to speak openly and as equals about issues that would have been barred from discussion, much less consideration of solutions, in the past.

“Many conservatives read into how Francis conceived of synodality a veritable heresy that sowed confusion and ambiguity among the faithful.  It was a manipulative way of changing the church, his critics believed.”

Not so, according to Gibson.  Synodality was a way to promote reasoned discussion.

As a non-Catholic, I credit the late Pope Francis for at least two things:

• Advocating inclusivity for all people, not just who resemble you – and his pastorage in Peru illustrates his ethic.
• Advocating synodality to discuss issues in an attempt to bring people together for rational conversations, not just disagreement.

The new Pope, Pope Leo, said this as he met with believers for the first time from the basilica at the Vatican:

“We must not hide behind an idea of authority that no longer makes sense today.  The authority we have is to serve, to accompany priests, to be pastors and teachers.”

As I watched reports on the Conclave that chose the new Pope, I had these thoughts from far away:

• There is something of value to the art of politics behind closed doors – the method of choosing the Pope.  Those who vote do not have to preen for the cameras; they just have to do the hard work of voting without prying eyes. 
• Those involved in politics in this country, should practice the art of synodality – finding ways to talk about tough issues under the premise that, as I like to put it, “reasonable people can disagree agreeably.”

I also understand that the new Pope will face particular challenges with political issues in America – his original homeland – as those challenges rise with Donald Trump.

The Washington Post put it this way:

“The new Chicago-raised Pope Leo XIV faces an immediate challenge in his native country:  Taming the brawling U.S. tribe of Catholics, riven by political divisions that have thwarted the will of his predecessors.

“Because Pope Leo — earlier known as Bob Prevost from the South Side — is an American better versed than past church leaders in the culture of his home country, some church-watchers and experts say, he may be able to navigate the U.S. Church in a way the Argentine Pope Francis could not.

“However, they said, it will still be a struggle to pry some American church members away from the now-deeply entrenched American habit of seeing faith through a tribal, political lens.”

So, with all this, I say to the new Pope, thanks for your history as a pastor.  Continue to do the good work of pastoring, especially in your new papacy that I trust will not fall victim to riven politics.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I am not a Catholic, so what I say about the Catholic Church may not be worth much.

I still do remember a time many years ago when my family was traveling in Bend, Oregon and we came upon an ornate Catholic church that my parents said we should look at carefully. 

Then, one of them, also said this:  “Some kind of Pope must be involved there.”

It clearly was slip of the tongue, one that prompted laughter afterward because, of course,  there is only one Pope, not “some kind of Pope.”

So it was as the new Pope was chosen at the Vatican the other day, I was interested in an essay that appeared in the New York Times a day or so ago as it made the point that, with different styles, Pope Leo may be much like Pope Francis.

Here are excerpts from the essay written by David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University who has covered the Vatican as a journalist for four decades:

“With the election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV, the College of Cardinals sent a clear message of continuity with the reformist agenda of his predecessor, Pope Francis.  But despite Leo’s reputation as having a quieter, more disciplined personality than that of Francis, the conservative ire that has roiled Catholicism during the previous pontificate is likely to continue with this first American pope.

“Traditionalist Catholics, especially in the United States — where much of the opposition to Francis was based — had yearned for a new pope who would rein in or even reverse changes that Francis made to foster a more inclusive church, where authority was shared and everyone could be heard.”

Francis’ favorite vehicle for those reforms goes by a bit of church jargon – the word “synodality.”

As a person who likes words, I was interested in this one, which appears to have been coined using, as a base, the word “synod.”

Here is what synod means:

“An assembly of ecclesiastics or other church delegates, convoked pursuant to the law of the church, for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical affairs.”

So, it makes sense that “synodality” would mean something along those lines.

From the writer, Gibson:

“It’s a term much bandied about but little understood.  It refers to the gathering of church leaders and members to discuss and debate urgent issues.  For Francis, it meant bringing together bishops and lay people, women and young people — and yes, the pope — to speak openly and as equals about issues that would have been barred from discussion, much less consideration of solutions, in the past.

“Many conservatives read into how Francis conceived of synodality a veritable heresy that sowed confusion and ambiguity among the faithful.  It was a manipulative way of changing the church, his critics believed.”

Not so, according to Gibson.

As a non-Catholic, I credit the late Pope Francis for at least two things:

• Advocating inclusivity for all people, not just who resemble you – and his pastorage in Peru illustrates his ethic.
• Advocating synodality to discuss issues in an attempt to bring people together for rational conversations, not just disagreement.

The new Pope, Pope Leo ,said this as he met with believers for the first time from the basilica at the Vatican:

“We must not hide behind an idea of authority that no longer makes sense today.  The authority we have is to serve, to accompany priests, to be pastors and teachers.”

As I watched reports on the Conclave that chose the new Pope, I had these thoughts from far away:

• There is something of value to the art of politics behind closed doors – the method of choosing the Pope.  Those who vote do not have to preen for the cameras; they just have to do the hard work of voting without prying eyes. 
• Those involved in politics in this country, should practice the art of synodality – finding ways to talk about tough issues under the premise that, as I like to put it, “reasonable people can disagree agreeably.”

So I say to the new Pope, thanks for your history as a pastor.  Continue to do the good work of pastoring, especially in your new papacy.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline on this blog says it well.

No third term for Donald Trump.

At the rate he is going, we’ll be lucky to live through the current term, his second.

Back in the mid-1940 when Members of Congress were debating the effect of Theodore Roosevelt having served four straight terms as president, a Republican from Tennessee, stood on the House floor and said this:

“A 22nd Amendment (barring service beyond two terms) “was necessary to prevent a dictator from taking over the country.”

Point made.

Trump apparently wants to be a dictator, if not Pope (given the papacy garb he was wearing for a photo shortly after he attended Pope Francis’ funeral).

Don’t let him go more than two.

The New York Times weighed in on this issue yesterday in an editorial that appeared under this headline:  “Trump’s Third-Term Musings Are Part of a Pattern.”

Here is how the editorial started:

“When Republicans took control of Congress in 1947, they were still angry that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had won a fourth term in 1944, and they set out to pass a constitutional amendment to limit future presidents to two terms.  John Jennings, Republican of Tennessee, stood on the House floor and said a 22nd Amendment was necessary to prevent a dictator from taking over the country.

“Without such a limit on the number of terms a man may serve in the presidency, the time may come when a man of vaulting ambition becomes president.  Such a man, backed by a ‘subservient Congress’ and a compliant Supreme Court, could ‘sweep aside and overthrow the safeguards of the Constitution.  Without such a law, a president could use the office’s great powers to tilt the political system in his favor and win repeated re-election.  Eventually, that president could come to resemble a king, effectively unbound by the Constitution’s checks and balances.”

In the decades after the country ratified the 22nd Amendment in 1951, The Times says members of both parties occasionally chafed against its restrictions, but no sitting president openly talked about evading it — until recently by Trump.

“Jennings’s warning on the House floor now looks prophetic:  Trump is a man of vaulting ambition.  Congress is largely subservient to his agenda.  And he keeps mentioning the idea of a third term.”

As for what Trump actually thinks about a third term, well, who knows?  He says one thing one day and another the next.

This past weekend, he seemed to step back from the idea by saying “It’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do.”

But then he once again claimed that the decision was his to make.

“Well, there are ways of doing it,” he said.  All the while, his website continues to sell ‘Trump 2028’ merchandise, including baseball caps for $50 apiece and $36 T-shirts that proclaim, ‘Rewrite the rules.’”

More from the Times:

“But Trump’s third-term fantasizing is dangerous and it deserves more forceful pushback.  He has a history, after all, of using seemingly outlandish speculation to push ideas he genuinely favors — such as overturning an election result — into mainstream discourse.  He tests boundaries to see which limits are actually enforced.  Even when he backs away from a provocation, he often succeeds in raising doubts about those limits.  His behavior is consistent with a president who indeed wants to serve a third term, if not more, and who keeps raising the idea in the hope of getting Americans comfortable with it.

“More broadly, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for constitutional checks on a president’s power.  He has ignored parts of judges’ rulings, deported immigrants without due process and tried to eliminate the 14th Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship through an executive order.  All of this behavior suggests that he would prefer to wield power without limits.”

Plus, a couple days ago, when asked whether he was bound by the U.S. Constitution, he said he “wasn’t sure.”

The appropriate response from the political system?  Assert the clarity of the law:  Trump is barred from serving a third term, period.  And, also hold accountable to live within the rule of law and constitutional protections.