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.

Love your neighbor as yourself!

That’s an admonition from the Bible, which is worth nothing today.

So I do, with this introduction.

I am a member of what’s called a “Links Study Group” at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club where I play in Salem, Oregon.

The group meets weekly to share perspectives about how we can live for God in our world.

Most of us in the group – which is open to anyone – play golf, which draws us together, thus the use of the word “links.”  Our group is patterned after Links Players International, a national non-profit headquartered in Palm Springs, California, that sets out to develop “fellowship” groups at golf clubs around the country.

The lesson this week was patterned after this Bible verse in Galatians 5:14:  “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command:  Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Just think about this admonition for a moment.  If all of us patterned our lives after those words – “love your neighbor as yourself” – the world would be a better place.

And, permit this political thought just for a moment.  We wouldn’t have to listen any more to notions from one Donald Trump that immigrants are enemies, worth deporting or even killing.  They are neighbors, so we should love them.

Here are more quotes from the Links lesson on loving your neighbor.

“Without a doubt, Arnold Palmer was one of the most beloved golfers of all time.  Of course, Arnie was a great golfer, with 62 PGA victories and seven majors.  But he was much more than that.

“Arnie transformed the game with his personality, charisma, and ‘go for broke’ style of golf.  He reached his peak just as television was there to capture it, captivating his fans.  The public adored him and showed up in droves to follow him around the course.  Arnie’s nickname may have been The King, but he was a man of the people, a hero for everyday folks who comprised ‘Arnie’s Army.’

“The fans loved Arnie because he loved them.  He bent over backward to please them, acknowledging their cheers with a big smile, giving them his famous ‘thumbs up’ gesture, and always signing autographs – very carefully so people would recognize his signature.

“When fans wrote to him requesting an autograph, Arnie always responded and paid the return postage himself.  The 2014 Golf Channel documentary on Arnie reported that his expenses for that act of kindness amounted to over $100,000 annually.  Men and women, young and old, Arnie showed kindness and compassion to all of them.  

“Two thousand years earlier, Jesus set the standard for kindness and compassion.  In particular, Jesus specialized in showing love to the last, the least, and the lost, which annoyed the Jewish leaders.

“Note these verses from Matthew 9:11-12: ‘When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.’

“Jesus made a point to reach out to those that society rejected.  He met and healed the demon-possessed, touched those with leprosy, and allowed prostitutes to touch him.”

So, I say, follow both Arnie and Jesus, not to compare the two, but just to emphasize their “love your neighbor” ethic as worth emulating.

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.

Atlantic Magazine writer Tom Nichols held forth a few days ago to contend that Donald Trump suffers when compared to America’s first president, George Washington.

Trump favors only himself.  Washington favored the country.

Yesterday, Nichols wrote a column summarizing his conclusions.  Here, I reprint what Nichols wrote.

“I’ve been thinking about George Washington.  Or, I should say, I had a discussion some time ago with The Atlantic’seditor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, about America’s first president, which began the process that resulted in my cover story for the November issue about how Donald Trump is the kind of demagogue that Washington warned us could one day gain the presidency, abuse its powers, and refuse to relinquish office. 

“Trump and his authoritarian political movement represent an existential threat to every ideal that Washington cherished and encouraged.  They are the incarnation of Washington’s misgivings about populism, partisanship, and the ‘spirit of revenge’ that Washington lamented as the animating force of party politics. 

“No man who has ever held the office is more unworthy of it than Trump — but he may hold it yet again.

“Initially, I didn’t want to write this article.  Perhaps like many other Americans, my understanding of Washington was limited to the things I’d learned in school a half century ago.  This is something of an irony, because I know a lot about Washington’s military campaigns:  I taught them as a professor at the Naval War College.  

“If you wanted an explanation of, say, the battle of Yorktown as an example of a joint and allied operation, I was your man.

“But Washington himself was, to me, something of a cipher.  (This is partly because I grew up in Massachusetts, where local revolutionaries such as John Adams were our heroes.)  And, so I studied him anew, including a visit to his home at Mount Vernon.

“As I stood in the rooms where he lived and died, I realized how human he was, with his own weaknesses and shortcomings, and how much he’d struggled with difficult decisions throughout his life while always trying to do right by his fellow citizens.  Even in his last hours, he thought of others, as he tried to reassure his grieving doctor that he was not afraid to die.

“Unlike Trump, who grasps for power to serve his own interests, Washington regarded his offices as authority entrusted to him by the American people.

“I know Atlantic readers value history and the guidance it can offer us in our daily lives as citizens.  I know, too, that these are stressful political times, when the American idea — the concepts of liberty for which Washington risked his life — are under siege.

“But I hope that you will find some inspiration, as I did, in remembering Washington, and that you can take heart from his example:  He showed us that true patriotism is not some heroic act, but a virtue we can express every day if we are guided by an innate sense of decency and a thoughtful love of country. 

“The votes cast in November will be more consequential than those in any other American election in more than a century.  As the United States confronts the choice between democracy and demagoguery, we should give thought to Washington’s example and the qualities that he possessed — ones we once expected, and should again demand, from our presidents.”

Well written, Tom Nichols.

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.

Utah Senator Mitt Romney put it best yesterday when he said this:

“He just makes it up.  And he is able to spew enough disinformation that the Chinese must be smiling.”

Of course, Romney was talking about Donald Trump. 

And the farther we go along the presidential campaign trail the more difficult it is to believe anything Trump says – especially the lies that spew – yes, literally, spew — from his mouth all the time.

In the Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker put it this way:

“Lying, for Trump, is so reflexive that he needn’t bestir his fourth-grade vocabulary to seize headlines and malign those he finds inconvenient to his purposes.”

In general, Parker added this:

“…politicians every day try to score points with key constituencies:  Voters, party leaders, influencers and media figures.  A decision to lie is a simple math equation:  I am likely to score enough points with this lie that it will outweigh any consequences it might have from voters/donors/the media.

“Through numerous interviews with political pundits, pollsters, politicians and public figures, one author has learned that lies are mostly manufactured for a candidate’s base, whose members are willing to accept anything that affirms what they already believe.

“For the Republican base, which readily embraced Trump’s earlier birther lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, it takes little to persuade them that Harris would steal money to support illegal migrants.”

For my part, beyond Parker’s points, which are good ones, I think at least two things are true about Trump:  First, he is old and getting older by the minute, so senility may be setting in, or perhaps dementia; and, second, he must sit in a room somewhere with close allies and share perspectives about how to make stuff up in order to garner headlines, regardless of the facts.

In this connection, for some reason I happened to think of all the comedy writers for the Seinfeld TV show, now off the air, who regaled everyone with stories about how they sat around  in a room together and brainstormed stuff for Seinfeld and other actors to say.

Of course, what sycophants do for Trump is not comedy.  It is something far worse that threatens the America we know.

Consider this list of made-up stuff from Trump that were included in a column yesterday by Washington Post writer Dana Milbank the appeared under this headline:  TRUMP UPGRADES HIS CON TO CATEGORY 5.

• He absurdly alleged that after Hurricane Helene, the previous storm, Vice President Kamala Harris “didn’t send anything or anyone at all … as men, women and children drowned,” and he claimed that the Biden Administration confiscated relief supplies others tried to send.

• Trump falsely claimed that there are “over 13,000 illegal alien convicted murderers roaming free in our country … that were released from jail from all over the world,” particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Illegal immigrants, he said, “have equipment that our military doesn’t have” and are “taking over apartment buildings” in Colorado.

It’s all part of a “mass migrant invasion of murderers and child predators and gang members, terrorists, drug dealers and thugs.” He told the audience that if “this crazy, incompetent” Harris wins, “this same group is going to meet in Caracas, Venezuela, because it’ll be much safer than your particular state.”

• He proposed the ludicrous idea that public schools are changing children’s genders.  “Your child goes to school, and they take your child.  It was a ‘he’ and comes back as a ‘she.’  And they do this, and they do it, and often without parental consent.”

• He announced, falsely, that “I’m the only president in 78 years that didn’t start a war.”  Twenty-seven minutes later, he repeated himself: “I’m proud to be the first president in decades who started no new wars.”  Four minutes more elapsed, and he did it again: “I had no wars. I had no anything.  We had no terrorists.  We had no terror attacks.”  The fact is that he had all of the above.)

• He informed his supporters that he could be on a beach, with the “sun beaming down on this beautiful body in a bathing suit.”  And, of course, he boasted about his crowd size at his “beautiful” rallies:  “We never have an empty seat — never have.”
  
  

In summary, Milbank said, “This stuff was typical of Trump’s recent speeches, which have become darker, less coherent and almost entirely fictitious.  Peter Baker and several New York Times colleagues published a computer analysis showing that Trump’s rally speeches have gotten longer and show attributes that ‘some experts consider a sign of advancing age,’ can be an ‘indicator of cognitive change,’ and ‘could reflect what experts call disinhibition.’”

I am not sure what “disinhibition” means, but I suspect it is something along these lines:  Trump has no funnel for the truth.  He says whatever comes into his mind and, if he criticizes others in doing so (John McCain, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz), so much the better.

I also just looked up the word.  Here is the definition:

“A temporary loss of inhibition caused by an outside stimulus.”

As I said, that’s Trump.

*********

A footnote:  On “my” golf course the other day, players were told we were playing “preferred lies.”  I couldn’t believe it.  Were we going to be playing in a tournament held by Donald Trump.  No.  “Preferred lies” is a term meaning that, given weather and course conditions, you can “lift, clean, and replace” your golf ball before hitting it.  But, still, “preferred lies” sounds like Trump doesn’t 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.

Without my subscription to Atlantic Magazine, I would not have thought of this comparison – George Washington to Donald Trump.

But Atlantic performed a public service by writing about the difference between America’s first president, George Washington, and the person who now wants to gain the nation’s highest political office again, Donald Trump.

I hope others will read about the thoughtful comparison.

Here is how Atlantic writer Tom Nichols described the situation:

“Washington’s life is a story of heroic actions, but also of temptations avoided, of things he would not do.  As a military officer, Washington refused to take part in a plot to overthrow Congress.  As a victorious general, he refused to remain in command after the war had ended.

“As president, he refused to hold on to an office that he did not believe belonged to him.  His insistence on the rule of law and his willingness to return power to its rightful owners — the people of the United States — are among his most enduring gifts to the nation and to democratic civilization.”

Then, Nichols drives home the point with these words:

“Forty-four men have succeeded Washington so far.  Some became titans; others finished their terms without distinction; a few ended their service to the nation in ignominy.  But each of them knew that the day would come when it would be their duty and honor to return the presidency to the people.

“All but one, that is.”

And, who is the one? 

Donald Trump, of course.

He wants back in the Oval Office – it is a national tragedy that he once occupied that office – and says he will not honor results of the election if he loses to Democrat Kamala Harris.

From Nichols:

“Today, America stands at a critical moment.  A vengeful and emotionally unstable former president — a convicted felon, an insurrectionist, an admirer of foreign dictators, a racist and a misogynist — desires to return to office as an autocrat.

“Trump has left no doubt about his intentions; he practically shouts them every chance he gets.  His deepest motives are to salve his ego, punish his enemies, and place himself above the law.  

“Should he regain the Oval Office, he may well bring with him the experience and the means to complete the authoritarian project that he began in his first term.”

Nichols’ editor, Jeff Goldberg, put it this way:

“Even those who believe they understand Washington’s greatness will be surprised by the degree to which Trump is so obviously his opposite — Trump, who seeks to be a dictator, who believes he is smarter than any general or statesman, who evinces no ability to learn, who possesses no humility, who divides Americans rather than unites them.”

As I wrote earlier, The Atlantic has gone beyond the call of duty to compare Washington and Trump and contend that Washington knew when to step away from power.

Not Trump.

He wants power for its own sake and will call on his MAGA hordes to put him over the top, even if he loses to Harris.

So, my fond hope is that, in fact, Trump will lose and that, in so doing, he will be removed from any hope of regaining power.  Will he leave on his own?  Probably not.

But keeping him from the power he seeks is one way to relegate him to where he belongs, which is in the dust bin.

Call me a bit of an optimist in that regard.

So, go Harris and Tim Walz!

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 and J.D. Vance have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to national health care policy.

So, health care stands much like almost every other public policy topic for those running on the Republican presidential ticket.

They don’t care about policy, including for health care.  Or they don’t even want to know about it.

Doing so would just distract them from criticizing everyone and everything.

Consider two recent developments:

• In the debate against Kamala Harris, when Trump was asked whether he had a plan for health care coverage that would either replace or improve upon the Affordable Care Act, he said only this:  “I have concepts of a plan.”

• Then, to compound this incomprehensible statement, Vance, in the vice-presidential debate against Democrat Tim Walz, claimed that, as president, Trump worked hard to save the Affordable Health Care Act, which had been developed by President Barack Obama.  Of course, Trump tried to do just the reverse.  He wanted to send it to the dust bin.

New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman wrote about some of this in a recent post.  It started this way:

“Donald Trump has been ridiculed, rightly, for his answer, during his debate with Kamala Harris, about whether he had a plan for health care coverage that would either replace or improve upon the Affordable Care Act:  ‘I have concepts of a plan.’

“He has been running for president or sitting in the White House for nine years, and that’s all he has?

“But the other day, J.D. Vance, his running mate, gave us a bit more insight into those concepts — concepts that, if implemented, would have the effect of denying health care to millions of Americans, particularly those who need it most.”

Krugman continued:

“On September 15 on ‘Meet the Press,’ Vance — after noting that people in good health have very different needs from those with chronic conditions — called for de-regulation, saying that we should ‘promote some more choice in our health care system and not have a one-size-fits-all approach that puts a lot of people into the same insurance pools, into the same risk pools.’

“It’s not clear whether Vance was laying out a real vision for health policy or just floating his own concepts of a plan.  These remarks by Vance — who is closely associated with the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, one of the architects of Project 2025 — sounded similar to this airy statement in the Project 2025 manifesto:

“The federal government should focus reform on reducing burdens of regulatory compliance, unleashing innovation in health care delivery, ceasing interference in the daily lives of patients and providers, allowing alternative insurance coverage options and returning control of health care dollars to patients making decisions with their providers about their health care treatments and services.”

Why, Krugman asks, would Vance stake out such an unpopular position, conveying the impression that he was speaking for Trump as well?

“I don’t know whether he was blurting out in public what Project 2025 proponents say to one another in private or whether he was just winging it on an issue he really hasn’t thought through.  Of course, these explanations aren’t mutually exclusive.

“In any case, while Trump doesn’t have a health care plan, Vance’s remarks offer a pretty good preview of what he’ll propose if he wins.  It might be summed up as:  ‘Trump to Sick Americans:  Drop Dead.’”

Back in the day, just after I retired as a health care lobbyist in Oregon, I wrote this:  “It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress.”

I outlined what I called “four legs of the health care stool.”

1.  It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided, at least partially, by government if they cannot.

Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse.  The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered to spread the risk.

Think of it this way.  All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance.  If we don’t, we pay a price.  The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2.  Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan, such as has occurred to a degree with what has come to be called ObamaCare.

3.  Third, just as is now the case with ObamaCare, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance has gone up and will go up further with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions.  Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

And, I firmly believe in the concept that human beings should take care of other human beings (if they are willing to accept help) rather than send the differently-abled to the scrap heap.

4.  Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA).  ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in.  

There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Now, the reality is that, given the achievements of ObamaCare, health care policy is not necessarily top-of-mind as it used to be, nor has it been a major issue in the current presidential campaign.

Trump and Vance should be thankful for that, because if health care policy rises in the public consciousness, the two of them have nothing good to say about health care – or perhaps even nothing at all.

Which is what they have to say about almost anything these days.

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.

My wife (she is also my tour guide) and I just returned a day or so ago from a 10-day cruise from Montreal, Canada, and then back to Montreal after nearing the Atlantic Ocean.

Overall and on balance, a good trip.

But, as always, I am very glad to be back home, which is Salem, Oregon.

Here, I have been reflecting on the good and the bad of the recent 10-day voyage:

The Bad:  When we arrived at the Montreal Airport, we couldn’t believe how difficult it was to get out of the airport for a ride to our hotel the day before boarding the cruise ship.

The line to get a taxi stretched for several blocks, both inside and outside the terminal.  The problem was that there was only a two-lane road for all taxes, limousines, buses, and Ubers.

Had we chosen to try for a taxi, it would have been a one-hour wait to get one.

We opted for Uber and even that took a half hour to find our ride.

The Good and Bad on the Ship, Insignia:  When got in our room on the 700-passenger ship (a small number by cruise comparisons these), there was a problem.  There was a leak from the bathroom that made our floor wet.

That’s the bad.  The good was that ship personnel were able fairly quickly to move us to a different room – and, yes, there was one available.

All of this meant that one of my goals for cruising – move in and unpack one, then don’t repack until the end of the cruise – didn’t quite come to pass.  But I guess unpacking twice isn’t so bad!

On another good side, I marvel how staff on a cruise ship do what they do, often with a smile on their faces.

Those who served us sign a contract for six-month stay on ship.  In other words, every week they welcome new folks on-board.

In two examples:  (1) We met a server from the Philippines who told us he missed a three-year-old daughter – no wonder; (2) We also met a server from the Ukraine who, thankfully, told us that her family was safe even in the midst of war.

As usual, these two and others on the ship were sending paychecks home to their families.

The Bad:  The weather wasn’t great on our trip.  So what.  We’re from the Pacific Northwest, so we are used to rain and clouds.

The Good:  We were able to make the best of it by getting off ship every day, except one when we sailed all day.

The Good and Bad on the Trip Home:  First, the bad.  After we had boarded our plane in Montreal and after it had pushed back from the gate, the pilot stopped and said, “We have an unusual light in the cockpit, so we are going back to the gate.”

On the good side, a mechanic came on board and fixed the problem in about an hour.  The alternative would have been to get off the plane, spend the night somewhere in Montreal, and then try for the flight home the nest day.

On the bad side, the deal meant we would be late getting to Vancouver, B.C. for our flight back to Oregon.

Unbeknownst to mid-flight, Air Canada staff took the initiative to re-book us on Alaska Airlines flight to get us back to Oregon.

Without today’s technology, there would have been no way to achieve that within the time allowed.  And the partnership with Alaska proved fruitful.

Nor would it have been possible, as we were set to board on Alaska flight, for staff to confirm that our suitcases were on-board, having made the trip from Air Canada to the new carrier.

After all this, the inevitable question is whether I would make this trip again if the opportunity arose.

Perhaps not, but even with that admission, this recent trip was a good one, all things considered.

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 don’t live in rural America, but a good story a week or so ago in the Wall Street Journal caught my attention as it dealt with seven retirees who are making it in that part of America.

I read the story, at least in part, because my wife and I, too, are retired, though not in a rural area.

We live in a relatively small town in Oregon – Salem — which, among other things, is the State Capitol.  Which is convenient for me because I spent a lot of years as a state lobbyist in Oregon, meaning the Capitol where legislators hung out was only about five miles away from my house which eventually became my office.

Here, before I report a bit more about the Journal story, is a summary of what it is like for my wife and me to live as retirees in Salem.

• We have been in Salem since 1979, so we have managed to make a lot of friends here – friends who would do anything for us, just as we would do for them.

• We live on a golf course in Salem, so I get to play my avocation there often, sometimes even every day in a week.

• My wife and son – he and his wife live down the street from us here – have worked as real estate agents for years, though my wife is now retired.  And, we watch with pride as our son continues to ply that trade.

• Golf is good for him, too – and he always has been far better at that sport than I have been, which gives me an immense source of pride.

• About four hours north lives our daughter and her family, which means that, for us, it is a weekend trip to see her.

• We have been part of the same church in Salem for more than 30 years and the long tenure has been a God-send – yes, literally, a God-send – as we have made fast friends where we have been allowed to express our love for God.

Then, this summary from the Wall Street Journal:

“Older Americans are leaving expensive cities and suburbs to retire in the country.

“The move to remote mountain and lake areas is helping reverse a long decline in the rural population.  From April 2020 to July 2023, the rural counties retirees flocked to grew 4 per cent versus less than 1 per cent for rural America as a whole.

“Baby boomers often find that their retirement savings goes further and lasts longer in the country, though rural life comes with challenges, too.

Doctors and nurses might be in short supply.  Winters can be harsh and grocery stores a long drive away.  And shoveling driveways or stacking firewood requires either good health or good help.

“…even retirees say the trade-offs are mostly worth it.”

Here are retiree examples from rural America.

• Jim Moore’s money got him more when he left Manhattan for a far less crowded and costly island off the coast of Maine.  With a year-round population of about 1,300, Vinalhaven lacks New York’s energy and dining, but Moore, 63 years old, said he’s landed “in the right place.”  The island’s friendly culture reminds him of growing up in rural Connecticut, he said.

• A few years ago, Allen and Diane Sonntag moved to Rogersville, Missouri from Tucson, Arizona to make their retirement savings stretch further and to be closer to family.  They searched the country for the best retirement destinations with the lowest cost of living.   Cost put California, Oregon, Michigan and Illinois out of contention. 

• Jim and Sharon Erwin like to spend as much time as possible exercising outdoors and enjoying the natural beauty of Gunnison, Colorado.  They didn’t want to spend retirement: stuck in California gridlock.  They sold their Yorba Linda house for a nearly $400,000 profit about 20 years ago and moved to Parker, Colorado about a half-hour south of Denver.  Then, when Parker felt too crowded, they sold again, netting nearly $300,000 from the sale of their home in 2017.  The couple settled roughly 200 miles away in Gunnison, Colorado., where their son went to college. 

• Jim Betz and Lorraine Ziek lived and worked for years in South Kortright, New York, a town in New York’s Catskill Mountains where cows outnumber people. They never considered moving or retiring anywhere else.  “I never thought I’d be rich. But we’re not only rich in our resources, we’re also rich in our life together,” said Lorraine, adding that she and Jim “have really excelled at this retirement thing.”

Do I know any of the people in these examples?  No.

But I relay their experiences because, in a way, they mirror my own.  With critical help from my wife, I have managed to make retirement work – financially and otherwise.

I enjoyed my professional work over about 40 years, but at the end of that period, it was time to move on to retirement.

One example for me was my father who worked in education for many years, including as a high school principal, then retired at about age 62 so he had about 15 good years with his wife, my mother.  They traveled a lot in those good years.

With my Dad’s example, I made my own system work through a combination of planning and luck.

And, I am ready for more.

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 been out of politics for several years – mostly, other than reading about it – and I am very glad that is true.

There is one basic reason:

It used to be that, in politics, you tried to tell the truth.  Sometimes you might have failed, but then, you corrected the record or you paid a price for spreading falsehoods.

Today?

I have written about this before, but I cannot help myself to do so again.  There is just so much to write or report.

Lying often is the name of the game in national politics today, especially if you are Donald Trump or J.D. Vance as they try to win the U.S. presidential election.

Rarely does Trump pay an appropriate price for lying.  Same for Vance.

Lying is just what they do as a matter of course.  Second nature to them.  And, now, Vance is supporting a man he said only a couple years ago was ill-suited to be president or to run for the job.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker column reported that, as president, Trump told more than 35,000 lies.  Now, the same column reported these falsehoods spread by Vance during the vice-presidential debate:

• “We’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.” — (False, the United States ranked 17th.)
• “We have 320,000 children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost.” — (False, this is a ginned-up number that includes the Trump years.)
• “Donald Trump could have destroyed Obamacare.  Instead, he worked in a bi-partisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.” — (False, Trump acted to kill it repeatedly in a partisan way.)
• “Remember Trump said that on January 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully and on January the 20th, what happened? Joe Biden became the president.” — (False, this is a whitewash of what happened.)

Then, this from Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post.

“Trump is a master liar.  There are his insulting lies (Vice President Kamala Harris is ‘mentally disabled’).

“Then there are his xenophobic (‘They are eating the dogs, the people that came in.  They’re eating the cats.’) and antisemitic (saying Jews will be responsible if he loses) lies.

“There are his economically ignorant falsehoods (e.g., foreign countries pay tariffs).  There are his lies to raise resentment and anger at the current administration (e.g., it is denying aid to hurricane victims, crime is rising, tens of thousands of migrant murderers are running loose).

“There are his lies to deflect blame (e.g., former House speaker Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the attack on January 6, 2021; sexual assault victim E. Jean Carroll, who successfully sued Trump for defamation twice, was lying).

“There are his lies about Democrats (e.g., they favor infanticide).

“Trump also recycles numerous lies about the American people (e.g., everyone wanted to repeal Roe v. Wade, women love him) and his own record (e.g., his economy was the ‘greatest’ ever, he had a perfect call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, troops under his command suffered only ‘headaches’ from an Iranian attack).

“He even lies about what he said (e.g., denying he ever signaled openness to restricting contraception).  His lies undermining democracy might be the most dangerous (e.g., he won in 2020, millions of illegal immigrants are registering to vote).

“We should not forget the ‘merely’ ludicrous assertions of his own powers. (e.g., Hamas would not have attacked Israel if he were president, he could ‘settle’ the Ukraine war) and dystopian predictions if he loses (e.g., we won’t have a country, there will be a bloodbath’).

“And his absurd conspiracy theories can never be disproven (e.g., the Deep State).  His exaggerations about his wealth, his physical health and his cognitive performance are among the most cringeworthy.

“His lies are so prolific, they prompt some to question whether he knows he is lying.  But like many authoritarian leaders, Trump uses his go-to tactic to bend reality and bamboozle the public.  He lies to conceal his own abject failures, criminality, incompetence, disloyalty and ignorance — and the lies are made more potent when the right-wing media echoes his lies and the mainstream media presents his distortions as he said-she said disputes.

“For him, it’s better to be called a liar (and rely on the public’s suspicion that ‘all politicians lie’) than acknowledge his manifest faults and failures.

There are psychological explanations for his lying.  There are historical and political explanations for his lying.  But the consequences of his lies — stoking fear, hatred and distrust of democratic elections — are disastrous for democracy, which depends on a shared understanding of reality.”

So, with Trump – as well as Vance — the best approach is to be skeptical about anything they say because it is not likely to be true.  More than skeptical.  Don’t believe them.

Hold to the truth standard and you’ll vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, as I will.

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

Forgive me for writing about myself.  Better, I guess, that another blog devoted to Donald Trump.

Forgive me for writing about…myself.

But, with time on my hands these days, I have found myself recalling my experience as a state lobbyist.

One of the memories are some of the sayings I used to advocate for my clients.

Here is a brief summary:

• That’s the first step down a slippery slope:  This was a phrase I sometimes used to indicate that doing one thing could lead to another thing and the result would be the bad news of falling to the bottom.  I advocated, don’t take the first step.

• That’s like a circular firing squad:  This was a phrase I used – not very often, perhaps – to indicate that taking a certain action without adequate thought could lead to more than one victim.

• That’s like ready, shoot, aim:  Similar to the phrase above, this was meant to indicate that a proposed action had not been vetted sufficiently.

• What goes around comes around.  This was a phrase used by legislators and lobbyists alike to indicate that one individual action often was not the end.  What went around often came back in another form.  It served to be a good reminder that individual actions are not just that – individual.

• Your word is your bond:  For me, this was less a saying than an aspiration.  I conclude with the phrase because I thought it was a good mark of a successful, effective lobbyist – someone you could trust to stick to his or her word.  And, if you said one thing at one time and then learned something new, you could buttress your credibility by correcting the record, indicating again that “your word was your bond.”

Think of this phrase.

It would be good if it marked, not only lobbyists, but all of us in society.

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 was drawn from a column by Frank Bruni that appeared in the New York Times.

It was so well-written and reasoned that once again I reprint it in total in this, my blog.

Bruni cuts to the heart of the matter as he assesses the vice-presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz.  If you look at the debate through a normal prism, then Vance won.

But, Bruni counsels, don’t use normal appraisals to assess aspects of this “abnormal election” between Democrats on one hand who may not be all we want them to be, and Republicans on the other hand who….read this paragraph:

“…are prepared to incite violence if it serves his purposes (Donald Trump’s purposes).  We know that because he has done so already.  That candidate will invent ugly fictions and promote illegal schemes to overturn the results of an election that doesn’t go his way.  That’s not my paranoia talking; that’s his record.  He places his vanity, his cupidity, his every want and whim above the integrity of our democracy, the dignity of the presidency and the welfare of the nation.  Just a week of his social media posts and a month of his rallies make that clear.”

So, with this, here is Bruni’s column.

*********

I’m ashamed of myself.

During stretches of Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, I found myself admiring — sort of — JD Vance. I awarded him points for unflappability, wishing Tim Walz could mimic that composure and tap a well of confidence as deep. I envied his crispness, willing Walz to state his case as clearly and cleanly.

Vance’s answers seemed to have commas, semi-colons and colons in all the right places, while Walz’s herky-jerky statements were linked (or not) by ellipses.

The paper-grading professor in me gave Vance a high mark, Walz a barely passing one.

But the 2024 election isn’t an essay contest. Nor is it a beauty pageant, with the debates functioning as the interview segment. It’s a morality play. It’s about fundamental values. And Vance’s are rotten, no matter how much oratorical perfume he sprays on them, no matter how eloquently he diverts you from the stench.

The hell of the debate matched the hell of this presidential campaign, in which there’s a temptation — a pull — to evaluate performance, parse communication or dissect policy, employing criteria that we attentive citizens have used across the decades. But such assessments are utterly beside the point.

The race for president pits a Democratic ticket with many shortcomings against a Republican ticket with no scruples whatsoever, decency against indecency, respect for the democratic process against unfettered ambition, and psychological stability (Kamala Harris) against a spectacular lack thereof (you know who).

In that context, it’s pointless, even reckless, to dwell on Walz’s visible nervousness during the debate or his many missed opportunities.

Yes, he failed to nail Vance appropriately and effectively for spreading the dangerous calumny — or is it cookery? — that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating other people’s pets. Yes, that suggested a discouraging limit to Walz’s political skills.

But it didn’t erase those lies, just as Vance’s mild, even milquetoast manner on the debate stage didn’t expunge his record of hateful, bigoted remarks that demonize whole groups of Americans in the interest of whipping his followers into an election-delivering frenzy.

Vance would drive a truck through and over a huddle of thirsty people if they were the sole obstacle between him and higher office. Walz would hit the brakes, climb out of his vehicle and offer them some of his Diet Mountain Dew.

Our reflexes prompt us to observe and analyze this election as we have many others, and so some of us chide Harris for avoiding interviews and, when she does give one, often leaning on vague, canned answers. That’s a fair, worthy complaint to the extent that it’s pushing a person who’s seeking the most powerful office in the world to flex her intellectual nimbleness and present a comprehensive plan.

Some of us tuned in to the vice-presidential debate to gauge Walz’s steadiness in circumstances with higher stakes and higher visibility than the ones he was accustomed to before Harris made him her running mate, and we’re disappointed that he wasn’t sturdier.

That’s understandable, and that’s responsible in and of itself. Walz could end up a proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency.

In addition to which, the range of skills that he and the other players in the presidential contest demonstrate and the degree of competence that they project could determine the election’s outcome. Those factors are tactically relevant.

But as I wrote last week and will surely write again before Nov. 5, the normal stuff — the details of one economic proposal versus another, the major and minor line items on the candidates’ curricula vitae — doesn’t matter in this abnormal election, because a single consideration nullifies all others.

It’s this:

One candidate is prepared to incite violence if it serves his purposes. We know that because he has done so already. That candidate will invent ugly fictions and promote illegal schemes to overturn the results of an election that doesn’t go his way. That’s not my paranoia talking; that’s his record. He places his vanity, his cupidity, his every want and whim above the integrity of our democracy, the dignity of the presidency and the welfare of the nation. Just a week of his social media posts and a month of his rallies make that clear.

And the crucial takeaway from the vice-presidential debate was Vance’s audacious claim — I questioned my own hearing — that Donald Trump honored the peaceful transfer of power from one president to another when his administration ended and Joe Biden’s began. In what alternate timeline? In what parallel universe?

With that comment and with others, Vance laundered and sanctioned Trump’s depravity, telling us not merely that he stands with Trump but that he sinks every bit as low as Trump.

I’ll take all the ellipses in creation over that exclamation point.