Slow play continues to be a topic of conversation on golf’s professional tours, so what will be done?  Here’s a novel idea:  A shot clock.  Like the one used for the Shot Clock Masters.  Remember it?

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 have gone on record in favor of this before, but I’ll do so again.

It’s past time to deal straight on with a major problem in golf:  Slow play.

There is an official golf rule – Golf Rule #6-7 — that gives players 40 seconds to play their shot once they reach their ball, with a bit of extra time if they face a specific problem, such as being near a tree, or a couple other factors outlined in the rule, which appears below.

“A player will be allowed a maximum of 40 seconds to complete his/her stroke.  An additional 10 seconds will be allowed for a) the first to play from the teeing ground on a par 3 hole; b) the first to play a second stroke on a par 4 or par 5 hole; c) the first to play a third stroke on a par 5 hole; or d) the first to play on or around the putting green.”

Is the rule ever enforced on the pro golf tour, or farm club tours?  No.

One of my on-line golf magazines, The First Call, dealt with this over the weekend in a story by writer Gary Van Sickle. 

Here are excerpts from the story:

“Is anything less popular than slow play on the PGA Tour?  Monday pro-ams?  Slow greens?  Air pollution?  Greg Norman?

“No one wants slow play.

“The solution for golf is in plain sight.  Basketball has a shot clock.  Football has a play clock.  Baseball has a pitch clock.

“Attention, golf:   It’s the shot clock, stupid.

“The time has come for the PGA Tour — all tours, actually — to crack down on turtle-esque players who are stifling the game.”

Sickle reports that, since 1995, only two players have been penalized strokes for slow play.  

Sickle continues:

“The main cause of slow play on the PGA Tour isn’t field size, it’s ‘the kabuki dance they do on the greens,’ as a golf industry friend of mine refers to Tour players putting out.  Sure, the faster the greens roll and the more slope they have, the tougher it is to ascertain the read.  That takes time.  But unless you’re first to putt, you’ve got ample time before your turn to get most of that done.

“The second biggest slow play cause is distance.  Nearly every par 5 on the PGA Tour is reachable in two for a majority of the field.  Players in the fairway must wait for the green to clear to hit second shots, thus causing those on the tee to wait, thus causing those coming off the previous green to wait behind the guys waiting on the tee, thus causing … well, you get the idea.  It’s the 805 Freeway in Los Angeles at rush hour.”

One answer to all this.  Use a shot clock and then enforce violations.

This will work as proven by the Shot Clock Masters in 2018.  At a DP Tour event at Diamond Country Club in Atzenbrugg, Austria, each player was allotted 40 seconds to hit his shot once it was his turn, with the first player to hit in each group getting an extra 10 seconds.  Each competitor was allowed two extensions of time — or timeouts.  It was a one-stroke penalty if a player didn’t hit the shot before time expired.

This was done through the use of a golf cart carrying a shot clock down the fairway following every group.  When a player got to his ball and pulled a club, the clock started.

What happened? The European Tour cut 30 minutes from its average pace of play to 4 hours, 13 minutes.

Sickle also reports that the LPGA’s Charley Hull recently suggested, possibly in a half-joking way, that every slow-play timing should be a two-shot penalty and players should lose their tour cards if they get three such timings.

“Harsh.  Ruthless, even.  But effective.”

Then, to close, Sickle writes this about the PGA Tour’s best player, Scottie Scheffler, though you could contend that Scheffler should not be the example in what Sickle imagined because he, Scheffler, is far from a slow player on tour:

“Imagine an announcer saying this:  ‘Friends, the gallery is hushed here at the 18th green as Scottie Scheffler looks over a 20-foot birdie putt to win the Masters.  He’s taking a long look but Sir Nick, I think he’s forgotten about the shot clock.  It’s down to eight, seven, six … Now Scheffler sees the clock and you can see the surprise on his face.  He hurries into his stance … three, two, one … and strokes the putt off just before the buzzer echoes through the cathedral of pines.  The putt is tracking, tracking … it’s in!  Great Scott, he’s won the Masters again and beaten Father Time with one for the ages in one magic moment going going gone slamma-jamma ding dong.’”

If I was king for a day – pardon me, Mr. Arnold Palmer who is the only king in golf – I would institute a shot clock immediately for golf and then watch the result.  Faster play.  Perhaps even better play.  A wider television audience.  And better lessons for young players coming up.

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.

Here’s the preamble to this blog headline:

When I serve as a 1^st or 10^th hole starter in golf tournaments, I always pass out at least two documents to players:  An official scorecard and a set of rules for the event.  I do this in both junior and adult tournaments.

Then, the players, eager to tee off, don’t appear to spend much time reading the rules.  I always emphasize that doing so could help them play their round, not just to hear about penalties that could be involved.

I also often suggest that, when players head down the 1^st or 10^th fairways, they should spend a few minutes reading the rules.

That said, here is a story about a recent pro tournament where reading the rules would have helped a player.

The headline from Apple News:  “A pro takes second look at the rules sheet.  Then comes seven penalty strokes.

“The pro — Anthony Quayle read the rules sheet quickly.  Another look wouldn’t have hurt.

“As soon as I realized (what had happened), I felt sick in the stomach,” Quayle said, “I thought I’d done something terribly wrong.”

“What followed at the Victorian PGA Championship, a PGA Tour Australasia event, included a call to the tournament director and rules officials, along with multiple penalties – and a pledge (to read the rules more carefully).

“The sequence came during first-round play, after players had been given a document alerting them to the option to use preferred lies — or lift, clean and place — on a portion of the 13th fairway on the Open Course at Moonah Links.” 

“But only on the 13^th fairway.

“Quayle said he looked at the announcement, but mistakenly read it as preferred lies being in effect for the entire course — and played in that fashion all the way to the 15th green.”

Then, to his credit, Quayle realized his mistake, conferred with rules officials, and gave himself seven penalty strokes.  Rising above the problem, he went on to make the cut and win a little money.

But the story underlines an important task in playing in a golf tournament:  Read the rules!

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 you might be able to discern from this blog headline, it took me a long time to think in a nimble enough way to be able to write this.

After all, what’s a “dichotomy?”

Here’s what the dictionary says:  “A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.”

I came up with this summary after reading a New York Times article that analyzed whether President Joe Biden, soon after pardoning his son Hunter, should issue blanket pardons for persons who are on President-Elect Donald Trump’s “enemies list.”

You could make two arguments here:

• The future:  Biden should not take this action because it would violate the spirit of what any president should do, which is to issue pardons only for those who genuinely deserve them, such as persons who may have been put in prison for certain drug offenses that did not result in injuries to others.  Plus, it would tarnish Biden’s legacy (as if he cares about that because, pardon the bluntness, he’ll be dead when folks get around to characterizing a legacy).

[On this general subject, by the way, I already have indicated that I had no trouble with Biden pardoning his son because it is what fathers do – take care of their sons and daughters, especially in Biden’s case as tragedy has roiled his family over the years.  And he wanted to avoid another tragic chapter.]

• The real now:  The fact is that Trump and his minions – especially Pam Bondi, the nominated Attorney General, and Kash Patel, the nominated director of the FBI – have enemies lists and are prepared to go after persons on those lists.  So, blanket pardons could defeat Trump’s retribution agenda – and, if I was in Biden’s shoes, I would move to protect those on Trump’s agenda.

Trump has promised actions for his perception of wrongs against him, no matter the fiction of those perceptions.  Plus, he has said he intends to pardon those who have been put in prison for their criminal actions in the January 6 insurrection that he, Trump, ordered.

Here’s more from the New York Times in the article that appeared under this headline:  “Biden Team Considers Blanket Pardons Before Trump’s Promised ‘Retribution.’”  [The story was co-written by one of the best political writers doing these days, Peter Baker.]

“White House officials believe President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s selection of partisan warriors for top law enforcement jobs indicates that he will pursue revenge against his perceived enemies.

“President Biden’s staff is debating whether he should issue blanket pardons for a swath of Trump’s perceived enemies to protect them from the “retribution” he has threatened after he takes office.

“The idea would be to pre-emptively extend executive clemency to a list of current and former government officials for any possible crimes over a period of years, effectively short-circuiting the next president’s promised campaign of reprisals.”

It is important to add that White House officials involved in these blanket pardon discussions do not believe the potential recipients have actually committed crimes.  These officials say that, even a Trump-inspired investigation that results in no charges could drag on for months or years, costing those people hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and crippling their career prospects.

The Times reports that the choices of Bondi, the former Florida attorney general and Trump surrogate, to run the Justice Department, and Patel, the  former Trump aide and far-right provocateur, to be director of the F.B.I., have put the issue front and center. 

Patel, for one thing, has vowed to “come after” Trump’s critics and even published a list of about 60 people he considered “members of the executive branch deep state” as an appendix to a 2023 book he wrote.

In the Washington Post, here’s what Jennifer Rubin wrote – and I agree with her:

“In fact, the better justification for the blanket pardon applies, not only to Hunter Biden, but to scores of Americans:  Reasonable fear that a weaponized FBI directed by a vengeful president will carry out threats to pursue his enemies.”

Among those who could be attacked by Trump:

• Former Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, who was vice chair of the bi-partisan committee that investigated Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol

• Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the former top infectious disease expert for the government whose advice on Covid-19 made him a target of far-right attacks

• Jack Smith, the outgoing special counsel who prosecuted Trump

• Senator-elect Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who was a lead House prosecutor at Trump’s first impeachment trial

• Olivia Troye, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, who has been a leading critic of the president-elect

• General Mark A. Milley, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who Trump said deserved to be executed 

• Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who won a verdict against Trump for business fraud

• Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who presided over the business fraud trial

• And many others too long to list here.

Now, back to the headline on this blog.

It is one thing to argue that blanket pardons violate the spirit of the presidency.  The fact is that it may be true.

But, today with a felon set to enter the White House in a about six weeks, the spirit of the presidency is not alive and well.  It will be in shambles as soon as Trump arrives in the Oval Office, if not already in his various over-the-top pronouncements.

So, in the real world in which Biden operates now in the face of Trump’s pledges for retribution, I think submarining Trump makes good sense — and putting him under water should involve a blanket pardon. In ot

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 ask the question in this blog headline for at least two reasons:

1. When a new two-year budget is proposed by a governor on December 1 – just as Governor Tina Kotek did a few days ago in accord with state law – it can come across as just a set of numbers.  So many numbers on so many pages that it is difficult to understand their context.

• But, based on my 40 years watching and working in state government in Oregon, I know that, buried beneath the numbers, lie public policy issues important to all Oregonians.  The challenge is to go beneath the surface to find them.

Today, I’ll spare more details about this budget, which I wrote about in my blog yesterday. 

Instead, I’ll emphasize what I may be the true purposes of the budget recommendations produced by Kotek.

It is #2 above.

Smart governors – and there have been smart ones in Oregon’s recent history, even if you disagree with them – will use the opportunity of preparing a recommended budget to outline where they want Oregon to go in the future.

Not just numbers.  But policy directions.

Here is how the Oregonian newspaper summarized a few of the directions recommended by Kotek, ones that lie beneath the surface:

• A big budget increase for the Labor Bureau

• Money to target fentanyl distributors

• A new attorney to investigate cases of missing and murdered indigenous people

• Money to “protect Oregon’s values” [whatever that means, though it may be a nod to protecting Oregon from president-elect Donald Trump’s plans]

• Money to help incarcerated women

Each of these proposals cited by the Oregonian are probably different than what Kotek would cite if she were asked about major “asks” in her budget.  Her emphasis – and the one I saw through the budget document — more new housing and more efforts to reduce homelessness.

So, say what you will, all of this will be up for grabs in the 2025 legislative session, which begins in January and runs for about six months.  With super-majority control by Democrats in the House and the Senate, Kotek will likely get most of what she wants.

Make your own judgment beyond the numbers.  Will what the governor wants go down well with citizens in the state?

As the old saying goes, only time will tell.

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.

This blog headline is how the Oregonian newspaper characterized the details in the next two-year budget (2025-27) released on time this year by Governor Tina Kotek, now in the middle of her first term as Oregon governor.

Before getting into a few details, I well remember the years, as lobbyist or a state government official,  that I waited with great interest – a combination of desire and dread — for December 1.

That’s when, according to state law, governors must release what is called their “Recommended Budget” for the next biennium.

Further, the release is supposed to be a series of recommendations for spending, not proposals for new taxes.

In the past, some governors have ignored this restriction, but this time, it appears that Kotek abided by the constraint.  However, there is little doubt but that, when the legislative session rolls around in January, she will be proposing tax increases in various forms.

And she will have the benefit of super-majority control by Democrats in both the Oregon House and Oregon Senate.  Which means Democrats can pass tax increases, if they choose to so, without Republican support, though it is far too early to predict what will happen when it comes to tax increases because such increases, regardless of party, are always controversial.

I remember, on or near each December 1, standing around near the Governor’s Office in the center of the State Capitol, waiting to get my hands on a copy of the new State of Oregon budget.  It always looked like a phone book in terms of its size.

Then, my attention turned to trying to discern detail in the thick book, which always was difficult to find, in part because such detail was obscured by so many numbers.  Plus, while some budget-makers herald the document for its transparency, it often, instead, is opaque.

At one point, when I worked for state government before I became a lobbyist, I was in charge of developing a “small book” to explain the budget in terms that would make more sense than a tome – important because, imbedded in all of the budget detail, lie important public policy issues that affect where citizens live and work in Oregon.

Back to the Kotek’s budget recommendations.

The Oregonian wrote a general summary this way:

“Governor Tina Kotek doubled down Monday on her calls to devote more state money to reduce Oregon’s homelessness and housing crises, bolster mental health care, and improve outcomes for children, priority areas she’s flagged repeatedly during her first two years in office.

“She did so when revealing her plans for the state’s 2025-27 budget, which she proposes to total $39.3 billion in general and lottery fund spending, up 17 per cent from the one lawmakers approved in 2023.”

Kotek also called for diverting $150 million from the state’s reserve to pay for fighting fires in Oregon, both in the past and in the future.  She has called for a Special Legislative Session this month to do this deed.

Various Kotek priorities:

• She proposed a new attorney in the Oregon Department of Justice who would focus on investigating cases of missing and murdered indigenous people and over $40 million to “protect Oregon values.”

• She proposed more than $700 million to fight homelessness in Oregon, including $218 million for Oregon shelters, $188 million to transition Oregonians out of homelessness, and $173 million to keep people from becoming homeless in the first place.

• She proposed $880 million in new bonding authority for housing production, the bulk of the money going to spur construction of affordable apartments.  The rest would subsidize construction of owner-occupied homes.

• She proposed to add nearly 1,000 mental health treatment beds by the end of 2026, as well as funding for (a) new staff dealing with mental health issues;  (b) expanding  provider rate increases for mental health treatment; and (c) spending money on mental health treatment for children.

• She proposed a $600 million increase in the budget for K-12 state schools, saying she was “a little tired of just always fighting over the state school fund number.”  Though there is little doubt but that such a fight will continue this session.

Not surprisingly, the leader of Republicans in the Senate showed up with a news release under this headline:  “Senate Republican Leader Criticizes Governor’s Bloated Budget Proposal.”

As I said, that is to be expected as Democrats – led by Kotek – and Republicans in the minority in both the House and Senate begin sparring over the budget.  Which stands as the only issue lawmakers have to solve when show up in Salem.

So, what happens now?

Well, legislators and the governor will spend the next seven or eight months coming up with final figures for the budget, where revenue must equal expenditures.

Note that last phrase!  The state’s budget must be in balance, so whatever your view – Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative – you have no choice but to negotiate within available revenue.

As a lobbyist, I always paid a lot of attention to the budget deliberations because the success of many of my firm’s clients rode on the outcome. However, now, in retirement, I look at all this quickly and without much at stak

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.

President Joe Biden’s decision to grant a pardon to his son, Hunger, “might not be politically smart, but it is defensible.”

The quote is from a column in the Washington Post by Eugene Robinson and I repeat it for one basic reason:  I agree with it as it cites what almost any father would do.

Here is more from Robinson:

“If I were President Joe Biden, I would have done the same thing.  I would have pardoned a son who faced possible federal prison time, not because of the crimes he committed, but because of me.

“The president’s decision to absolve his son Hunter reneges on a campaign promise and can certainly be described as hypocritical.  It creates a political problem for the Democrat Party and will be seen by many as a stain on Biden’s legacy.

“Obviously, Biden is prepared to accept those consequences. I would be, too.

“In his statement on Sunday announcing the pardon, Biden got to the heart of the matter:  “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong.”  

“This is clearly true.  If a son of mine were being subjected to selective prosecution, and I had the power to make it all go away, that’s what I would do.”

As I said, Robinson has it right. 

There will be a lot of to’ing and fro-ing over this decision.  But, for Biden, family prevailed again over politics, the so-called “rule of law,” and any other factor you might want to cite.

He is prepared to live with the consequences and, of course, so is Hunter Biden.

As a father, I would be, too.

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.

It’s one thing to do what I often do, which is to criticize Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters for their over-the-top agenda, citing a growing list of offenses.

It’s another to go behind the scenes and try to ascertain the VALUES that drive the current Trump movement.

It takes a better analyst than me to achieve this introspection. 

So, I turn to David Brooks, a talented writer who prepared a column for the New York Times that appeared under the headline I borrowed for this blog – “The Moral Challenge of Trumpism.”

The quality of Brooks’ work prompts me to repeat his column in my blog this morning.

*********

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

I admire Mitt Romney.  He is, by all accounts, an outstanding husband and father.  He built a successful investment firm by supporting successful young businesses like Staples.  He served the public as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics and as a governor.  As a senator, he had the courage to vote to convict Donald Trump twice, in the two separate impeachment trials, when few other Republicans did.

But as Noah Millman writes on Substack, people in the MAGA movement take a different view of Romney.

In private life, Romney compliantly conformed to the bourgeois norms of those around him.  In business, he contributed to the bloating of the finance and consulting sector.  As a politician, he bent himself to the needs of the moment, moving from moderate Republican to ‘extreme conservative.’  As a senator, he sought the approval of the Washington establishment.

Millman’s underlying point is it’s not sufficient to say that Trump is leading a band of morally challenged people to power.  It’s that Trumpism represents an alternative value system.  The people I regard as upright and admirable MAGA regards as morally disgraceful, and the people I regard as corrupt and selfish MAGA regards as heroic.

The crucial distinction is that some of us have an institutional mind-set while the MAGA mind-set is anti-institutional.

In the former view, we are born into a world of institutions — families, schools, professions, the structures of our government.  We are formed by these institutions.  People develop good character as they live up to the standards of excellence passed down in their institutions — by displaying the civic virtues required by our Constitution, by living up to what it means to be a good teacher or nurse or, if they are Christians, by imitating the self-emptying love of Christ.

Over the course of our lives, we inherit institutions, steward them and try to pass them along in better shape to the next generation.  We know our institutions have flaws and need reform, but we regard them as fundamentally legitimate.

MAGA morality is likely to regard people like me as lemmings.  We climbed our way up through the meritocracy by shape shifting ourselves into whatever teachers, bosses and the system wanted us to be.  Worse, we serve and preserve systems that are fundamentally corrupt and illegitimate — the financial institutions that created the financial crisis, the health authorities who closed schools during Covid, the mainstream media and federal bureaucracy that has led the nation to ruin.

What does heroism look like according the MAGA morality?  It looks like the sort of people whom Trump has picked to be in his cabinet.  The virtuous man in this morality is self-assertive, combative, transgressive and vengeful.  He’s not afraid to break the rules and come to his own conclusions.  He has contempt for institutions and is happy to be a battering force to bring them down.  He is unbothered by elite scorn but, in fact, revels in it and goes out of his way to generate it.

In this mind-set, if the establishment regards you as a sleazeball, you must be doing something right.  If the legal system indicts you, you must be a virtuous man.

In this morality, the fact that a presidential nominee is accused of sexual assault is a feature, not a bug.  It’s a sign that this nominee is a manly man.  Manly men go after what they want.  They assert themselves and smash propriety — including grabbing women “by the pussy” if they feel like it.

In this worldview, a nominee enshrouded in scandal is more trustworthy than a person who has lived an honest life.

The scandal-shrouded nominee is cast out from polite society.  He’s not going to run to a New York publisher and write a tell-all memoir bashing the administration in which he served.  Such a person is not going to care if he is scorned by the civil servants in the agency he has been hired to dismantle.

The corrupt person owes total fealty to Donald Trump.  There is no other realm in which he can achieve power and success except within the MAGA universe.  Autocrats have often preferred to surround themselves with corrupt people because such people are easier to control and, if necessary, destroy.

In other words, MAGA represents a fundamental challenge not only to conventional politics but also to conventional morality.  In his own Substack essay, Damon Linker gets to the point:  “Trumpism is seeking to advance a revolutionary transvaluation of values by inverting the morality that undergirds both traditional conservatism and liberal institutionalism. In this inversion, norms and rules that counsel and enforce propriety, restraint and deference to institutional authority become vices, while flouting them become virtues.”

I suspect that over the next couple of years we will see a series of running conflicts between institutionalists and anti-institutionalists — not only a power struggle over the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies, the schools and the institutions of democracy itself but also a values struggle over what sort of person we should admire, what values should govern our society.  The battle is on for the hearts and souls of the coming generations.

The anti-institutionalists have advantages.  It’s much easier to degrade and destroy than to preserve and reform.  We live amid a multi-decade crisis of legitimacy, during which strong voices ranging from Oliver Stone’s on the left to Tucker Carlson’s on the right have sent the message that everything is rotten.

But character is destiny.  An administration of narcissists will be a snake pit, in which strife and self-destructive scandal will snuff out effective action.  Running things is hard, and changing things is harder, and it’s rarely done well by solipsistic outsiders.

Those of us in the institutionalist camp will have to learn the lessons taught by George C. Marshall. Marshall, who served as chief of staff of the Army during World War II, and was an institutionalist through and through.  He was formed by Army manners.  The very core of his ethic was this:  I will never put my own ambitions above the needs of the Army or the nation.

Yet Marshall was no standpatter.  He didn’t respond to threats from outside by clinging fiercely to the status quo.  He was a comprehensive reformer.

When he was asked to lead the Infantry School at Fort Benning, for example, he revolutionized the curriculum.  He sent units out on maneuvers without maps because in real war you always have insufficient information.  He shifted military training toward mechanized warfare and nearly doubled the number of hours of instruction devoted to tactics.  He spent his career pushing against the stifling traditionalism that could stultify his institution.

Today it really is true that the Pentagon is administratively a mess.  It really is true the meritocracy needs to be fundamentally rethought. It really is true that Congress is dysfunctional and the immigration system is broken.  But positive change will come from people who have developed a loving devotion to those institutions over years of experience, not people who despise them — the modern-day George Marshalls rather than the Pete Hegseths, Tulsi Gabbards and Robert F. Kennedy Jrs.

What kind of person do we want our children to become — reformers who honor their commitments to serve and change the institutions they love or performative arsonists who vow to burn it all down?

*********

Contemplate Brooks’ thought if you have time to do so and consider this commitment:  Live your life as God would have you live it, eschew Trumpism, and try to make the world a better place, starting in your own neighborhood.

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.

There has been a lot of talk these days about what should characterize solid journalism in an age when people who disagree with each other don’t know how “to disagree agreeably.”

That was a phrase that marked much of my tenure as a lobbyist and government official in Oregon over about 40 years.

And, as a reflect on those 40 years, they also began with a stint in journalism as I worked for a daily newspaper in Oregon.  There, I covered local government, including the city council and the county commission, then added oversight for the port in the region.

In all those positions, I reported on local officials who didn’t always agree, but also didn’t appear to hate each other when push came to shove.

Those in government in Oregon – perhaps even in Washington, D.C. — knew more then than they know now about how to disagree in government hearing rooms but agree at the end of the day that the opponent was not an enemy.

Give Donald Trump lots of credit – or, rather, debit — for dissolving the potential to reach collegial government, especially in D.C., though many states mimic his overbearing style. 

In Oregon, it’s less about Trump than about Democrats who have been in charge for so many years that Republicans worry that they hardly matter anymore.  Democrats, in response, often say they will talk with Republicans.

For my part, I have thought a bit about how I would function as a reporter today.  So it was that, as I read the Washington Post – one of the best newspapers going in these days of social media – I was drawn to a summary of the Post’s mission statement.

It is worth reading – here it is:

“The mission of The Washington Post is defined in a set of principles written by Eugene Meyer, who bought the newspaper in 1933.  Today, they are displayed in brass linotype letters in an entrance to the newsroom.  (His gender references have been supplanted by our policy of inclusion, but the values remain.)

“The Seven Principles for the Conduct of a Newspaper:

• The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained.
• The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
• As a disseminator of the news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.
• What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as for the old.
• The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.  [And, in this case, the owner is Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos.]
• In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good.
• The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public officials.”

Those are worthy principles for all of us to follow, not just in journalism, but as we apply the basic principles to life in general.

So, kudos to the Post for enunciating its credo.

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.

On this, the day after Thanksgiving, two things:

1. Continue to be thankful, a commitment which should exist on more than one day a year.

• I return to commenting on Donald Trump because his approach creates huge risks for our country, even as I continue to be thankful to live here.

There should be no surprise about what we are seeing these days from Trump.

He is doing what he said he would do as he ran for president and, against my fond homes, won the office.

For one thing, Trump has announced that, on the first day of his presidency, now about two months away, he will impose new tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China through an executive order.

No one knows how those countries will respond to Trump’s order, but one thing seems clear:  Various prices will go up for Americans, including those who voted for Trump knowing about his fealty for tariffs, which he made abundantly clear.

More than $1.3 trillion worth of goods came from the three countries in 2023, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, including gas, cars and smartphones.

Here from the Washington Post is a breakdown of goods from the three countries, which means higher prices across-the-board:

Mexico/  “The United States conducts more trade with Mexico than any other country.  It imported $475 billion in goods from Mexico last year and exported almost $323 billion.

“The United States imported more than $400 billion worth of manufactured goods, compared with about $20 billion of products from the Mexican agriculture, forestry and livestock sectors; and about the same from the oil, gas and mining sectors, according to the bank. Goods included cars and car parts, computers and other electrical equipment, beverages, medical instruments and household appliances.”

Canada/  “Canada is the United States’ second-ranked trading partner:  The United States imported more than $418 billion in goods from Canada in 2023, and exported $354 billion.

“The top goods from Canada are crude oil and related products such as petroleum gas; vehicles such as cars and car parts; and machinery such as turbines, engines and construction equipment parts, according to global research firm Trading Economics.

“The U.S. also imports billions in plastics, pharmaceuticals, metals such as aluminum, iron and gold, wood and paper, and agricultural products from Canada.”

China/  “China is the United States’ third-largest trading partner. The U.S. imported almost $427 billion in goods last year and exported almost $148 billion.

“The top imports were electronics, including phones; machinery such as computers; toys, games, and sporting equipment; furniture; and plastics, medical equipment, clothes and shoes, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.”

Apart from tariffs, Trump gained the most publicity in the last few weeks for his executive appointments.

It is easy for many of us who favor good government to ridicule many of those appointees because they have almost no experience managing anything as large or diverse as a federal agency.  What they do appear to have is loyalty to Trump and, on one hand, that’s not bad for any president-elect.  It’s just bad when loyalty is combined with no other credentials.

In many cases, Trump simply turned to hosts of reality TV shows, especially on FOX News, in the apparent belief that looking good – at least to Trump – on camera was good enough.

Tom Nichols, writing in The Atlantic Magazine, put it this way as he tried to analyze what is motivating Trump:

“By overwhelming people with the sheer volume and vulgarity of his antics, Trump and his team are trying to burn out the part of our brains that can discern truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

“Trump isn’t worried that all of this will cause voters to have a kind of mental meltdown:  He’s counting on it.  He needs ordinary citizens to become so mired in moral chaos and so cognitively paralyzed that they are unable to comprehend the disasters that would ensue if he returns to the White House.”

I put the word “if” in bold face because Nichols should have said “when” he returns to the White House, since Trump, unfortunately, is going there.

More from Nichols:

“Trump will now dominate the news cycle almost every day with some new smoke bomb that is meant to distract from his attempts to stock the government with a strange conglomeration of nihilistic opportunists and self-styled revolutionaries.  He will propose plans that he has no real hope of accomplishing quickly, while trying to build an aura of inevitability and omnipotence around himself.

“His vow to begin mass deportations on his first day, for example, is a logistical impossibility, unless by mass he means slightly more than usual.  He may be able to set in motion some sort of planning on day one, but he has no way to execute a large-scale operation yet, and it will be some time before he has anywhere to put so many people marked for deportation.”

The other reality, Nichols adds, is that Trump has already accomplished the one thing he really cared about:  Staying out of jail. That’s because Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has announced his intention to leave government before Trump can fire him, has moved to dismiss the January 6 case against Trump.

Nichols adds, and I agree:  “So be it; if enough voters have decided they can live with a convicted felon in the White House, there’s nothing the rest of us can do about it.”

Finally, Nichols adds a piece of advice that is good for me and all Americans – or at least those who are worried about Trump.

“None of the things Trump is trying to do will happen all at once.  So, give yourself a break.

“Remember the great privilege and blessing it is to be an American and have faith in the American Constitution and the freedoms safeguarded within it.

“If your Uncle Ned shows up and still wants to argue about how the election was stolen from Trump four years ago, my advice is the same as it’s been for every holiday:  Tell him he’s wrong, that you love him anyway, that you’re not having this conversation today, and to pass the potatoes.”

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 found myself wondering this morning about the question in this blog headline, even as I contemplate a great Thanksgiving with my family here in the California desert.

The impetus for wondering was two-fold:  (a) having had the privilege of playing golf five times in Scotland where the title “Royal” abounds; and (b) reading again “A Season in Dornoch,” a book which touts the “Royal Dornoch” golf course, one of my favorite courses in the world.

So, golfer that I am, I turned to Golf Digest and I found that there is no simple way to answer the question.

Here is a summary from the Digest in a story written by Ryan Herrington:

“By definition, the title is authoritatively regal.  Royal Troon, host of the 152nd British Open Championship (golfers in Europe would call this “The Open”) is one of 69 clubs from around the world that can claim the label ‘Royal.’  Seven of them are in ‘The Open’ rotation.”

“’Royal,’ the Digest adds, is a distinction brimming with pageantry and, in most cases, import.

“Indeed, having the distinction brings with it an added level of authority. But it also begs the question:   Just how does a course earn the right to call itself ‘Royal?’”

More from the Digest:

“According to Scott Macpherson’s definitive 2013 book, Golf’s Royal Clubs, the designation of Royal clubs began in 1833.  The captain of the Perth Golfing Society, Lord Kinnaird, went on a trip to London to address King William IV, who had recently taken up the game.  While there, Kinnaird asked the King if he would become a patron of the Society and if the club could, in turn, call itself the Royal Perth Golfing Society.  William agreed, and a movement was born.

“A year later, the Society of St. Andrews Golfers, with royalty among its membership, renamed itself the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews.”

Earning “Royal” status, however, has not been as simple as having royal figures as part of your club.  Royal Aberdeen in Scotland, for instance,  which did not have royalty as members, added the label in the 1870s only to be turned down by the crown when officials at the course requested the official designation.  It wasn’t until 1903 that Aberdeen finally was approved.

So, there now is a formal application process for the designation.  The reigning monarch has final approval.  

Back to Macpherson for the moment.

He said the title was restricted to “institutions of eminence, long standing and secure financial position, and devoted to national, charitable and scientific objects.”

So, the designation recognizes excellence and that is what I have seen in Scotland as I have played several “Royal” courses – Royal Aberdeen, Royal St. Andrews, Royal Troon – and, as I said, my favorite, Royal Dornoch.

Beyond Europe, “Royal” status also has been given to six courses in Canada (first to Royal Montreal in 1884 where the recent President’s Cup was played), eight in Australia (first to Royal Melbourne in 1895), six in Africa, three in Asia, two in New Zealand, and two in continental Europe.

So, as a monarch – yes, I am a monarch – I hereby convey “Royal” status on my home course in Salem, Oregon, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club.

Now and forever more, it will be named Royal Illahe.