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 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.

Let me pose this basic question:  How can some of my friends continue to support a fraud for president even as they remain my friends.

The fraud is Donald Trump.  The friends somehow have bought into his lies.

But, even as Trump faces more trials in court, he continues to operate in the court of public opinion – and, often, he wins…or at least raises more political contribution money along the way.

In the New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd put it this way:

“A man is running to run the government he tried to overthrow while he was running it, even as he is running to stay ahead of the law.

“That sounds loony, except in the topsy-turvy world of Donald Trump, where it has a grotesque logic.”

Trump is saying simply this, often in a voice that conveys his status as what he could call a victim:  I want to be president and, despite all of my so-called crimes, they don’t count – they are just the left going after me and you again. 

So, send me checks and vote for me.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote about this:

“For years now, some Republicans — and, to a large extent, the mainstream media — have harbored the notion that the GOP eventually would come to its senses.  Surely, it would eventually dump the unhinged, disloyal, undemocratic, and unfit Donald Trump, right?

“But if Republicans did not wake from their slumber after the first impeachment or the second, after a jury decided he had lied about sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, after an indictment accusing him of obstruction and violating the Espionage Act (set out in shocking detail), and after replete evidence of his alleged role in an attempted coup, it is hard to imagine what would bring them to their senses.

“There is scant evidence that Trump would flee the race to focus on his legal defense; to the contrary, the worse his legal position, the more desperate he becomes to regain power.”

And he brings many with him.

Rubin says many elected Republicans and right-wing media figures have contributed to the predicament as they have minimized, rationalized, and denied jaw-dropping allegations against Trump.  

They have made it easy, she adds, for Republicans to cling to Trump.  “Listen, stealing and bandying about top-secret documents isn’t so bad, is it? And, after all, he didn’t do all that much on January 6, 2021, did he?

“Frankly, the mainstream media has made it that much easier for cowardly Republicans to stick with Trump.  Rather than challenge Republicans at every turn to defend their embrace of Trump or even to examine seriously the historical origins of toxic racist, xenophobic and delusional beliefs, the mainstream media largely sticks to horserace politics.”

Rubin writes that she – and we – cannot be sure that Trump’s many legal challenges will result in convictions before the presidential election.

The so-called E. Jean Carroll II trial is scheduled for January.  The Manhattan criminal trial is set for March, but even a conviction there might not move the GOP primary electorate.  The Mar-a-Lago documents case won’t begin before May.  And, all are subject to further delay.

Meanwhile, the GOP presidential primary will have gotten under way in January and will run through March.  Republicans might crown a presumptive winner by early May (as happened in 2016), even before the Mar-a-Lago trial concludes.

“The GOP,” Rubin continues, “could very well be saddled with a nominee who has been indicted multiple times and perhaps convicted more than once.  They would be betting that millions of voters who didn’t vote for him last time would vote for an indicted or possibly convicted nominee who spends most of his time railing about his plight.”

In keeping with one of my previous blogs, Democrat pollster Celinda Lake and documentary filmmaker Mac Heller recently wrote for The Post that “between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people.”

Put differently, the 2024 electorate will be younger and more Democrat — by a lot — than the electorate that chose Trump in 2016. Thus, the GOP will be pleading with a less Trump-friendly electorate to ignore his alleged crime spree and re-elect the January 6 instigator.

And, finally, this from Rubin:

“If it seems fantastical, even unimaginable, that a party would put itself in such a position, remember this is a party that obsesses over Hunter Biden, elevates to prominence Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and still won’t admit that Joe Biden won the White House in 2020.  

“Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that, barring an epiphany, the GOP’s self-delusion is risking a political wipeout that will take out more than its disastrous nominee.  And it won’t be able to claim it wasn’t warned.”

Yes, but to repeat another my fond hopes, I wish both parties would find better candidates than Trump or Biden.

If that doesn’t happen, I’ll side with the latter even as I hope for others – or even a highly-qualified third-party candidate who could appeal to our better instincts of decency on the part of those who want to lead us.

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

“The” Open is always one of my favorite golf events to watch on TV.

One reason is that the event showcases links-style courses in Europe and that often brings out the best in many golfers who are more accustomed to “parkland” golf courses in the United States.

Sometimes the event is won by a golfer who had not prevailed previously in the “majors.”

Such was the case last year when Shane Lowry won in his homeland.  And, such was the case this year when American journeyman Brian Harman took the Claret Jug by a whopping six shots.

His putter did the work for him.

But, there were a few other general perceptions for me in this year’s “Open” (and far be it from me to call it the “British Open,” thus riling up many Brits if I made this “mistake.”)

• The first is that, while he faltered on occasion, Harman rallied after every bogey, usually with a birdie.  Or, with a saving bar putt, such as on the last hole when he got up and down from a bunker.
• In the final round, starting with a six-shot lead, he never let that lead get down below three, thus avoiding a negative reputation of the sort European golfer Jean Van de Velde earned by throwing away the Open on his last hole at Carnoustie.
• And, then, how about Harman’s “waggles?”  Before hitting any shot, he waggled, often excessively.  Like others, I even began to count the waggles, sometimes getting up as high as 12.
• Waggling became an issue in stories by several on-line golf publications, some going as far as to compare Harman to Sergio Garcia, who became famous – or not so famous – for being “Sergio-esque” when he couldn’t pull the trigger.  Or, Kevin Na when he had trouble bringing the club back.  Harman, waggles and all, had no such trouble.

So, when all is said and done, give Harman credit. 

I do.  His win sealed his reputation as a solid golfer and, perhaps, even earned him consideration to join United States’ Captain Zach Johnson’s team in the upcoming Ryder Cup in only a few weeks when selections will be made for America’s 12-man team.

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 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.

That old saying – “there is light at the end of the tunnel, but I don’t know if it is sunlight shining at end of the tunnel or an oncoming train” – comes to mind as I think about the next presidential election.

The light could be:

• That candidates other than President Joe Biden or former president Donald Trump will emerge, giving us better candidates.  That would be sunlight.
• That the train comes, running over all of us on the way toward Biden and Trump.  And that would be – obviously — getting run over.

Two authors in the New York Times wrote a column that could shed light – pardon the play on words – on the next election, positive light.

They are Celinda Lake and Mac Heller, the first a Democrat party strategist, and the second a political documentary producer.

Here is how their column started:

Error! Filename not specified.

“It’s easy to envision the 2024 presidential election becoming the third straight contest in which a veteran Democrat goes up against Donald Trump.  Once again, the Democrat wins the popular vote, but swing states are tighter.  Could go either way — and has, right?

“But things are very different this time, and here’s why:  The candidates might not be changing — but the electorate has.”

To buttress their point, Lake and Heller produced statistics to verify that voters are getting younger and more willing to consider important issues than just raw politics:

• Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote.  In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.
• Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die.  So, in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.

Which means, the two authors say, that, between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 per cent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.

And, unlike previous generations, those in Gen Z usually vote.

Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 per cent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 per cent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 per cent higher in midterms.

The two authors add that Trump is not necessarily the deciding factor for these young voters.

“When pollsters ask why, Gen Z voters say their motivation is not a party or a candidate.  It is, instead, strong passion on one or more issues — a much more policy-driven approach than the more partisan voting behavior of their elders.

“That policy-first approach, combined with the issues they care most about, have led young people in recent years to vote more frequently for Democrats and progressive policies than prior generations did when of similar age — as recent elections in Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin have shown.”

American voters historically have tended somewhat to become more conservative as they age – and that includes me.

Other factors in the New York Times piece:

• About 48 per cent of Gen Z voters identify as a person of color, while the boomers they’re replacing in the electorate are 72 per cent White.
• Gen Z voters are on track to be the most educated group in our history, and the majority of college graduates are now female. Because voting participation correlates positively with education, expect women to speak with a bigger voice in our coming elections.
• Gen Z voters are much more likely to cite gender fluidity as a value, and they list racism among their greatest concerns.
• Further, they are the least religious generation in our history.

All of this doesn’t cut fully one or the other in terms of parties.  There are implications for both.

For Republicans, the message is obvious:  Listen to the voices of this soon-to-be-dominant group of voters as you formulate your policies on climate, abortion, guns, health care, inclusion, and everything else.

For Democrats:  Meet young voters where they are — on social media, not cable news.  Make your messages short, funny, and somehow sarcastic, yet authentic and earnest at the same time.  Your focus should be issues first, and parties never.

Could young voters embrace third-party candidates?

Perhaps and that is another major implication for both parties.

Past elections show that Gen Z voters shop for candidates longer and respond favorably to new faces and issue-oriented candidates.  They like combining their activism with their voting and don’t feel bound by party loyalty.

And this final point from the authors.

“We suspect both campaigns know most or all of what we have written here.  Habit may prevent them from acting on it, but they have these numbers.  In one of life’s great ironies, the group that doesn’t know it is young voters.  They think of themselves as ignored, powerless, and marginalized in favor of big money and shouting boomers.

“But over the next year, they’ll figure it out.  Gen Z may get tired of waiting for Washington to unite to solve problems, so could grab the national microphone and end up deciding the 2024 presidential race.”

Armed with all this political intelligence, if I was still a political strategist, I would consider it very carefully.  Then, I would design issue-oriented campaigns to appeal to voters regardless of party.

And, as a voter, I hope this works, for it would be part of enabling us to get away from the kinds of campaigns today that criticize anyone and everything without proposing any real-world solutions.

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 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.

Different skin color.

Different country of origin.

Different cultures.

Different garb.

All those features mark refugees who are coming to America to escape tumult in their home countries.

And, yes, some of them are coming to Salem and Keizer, Oregon.

To help with this issue, there is a great new program in Salem-Keizer – Salem for Refugees – which provides valuable lessons for all of us…if we take time to learn them.

I put it this way:  As the organization helps to locate refugees here, the rest of us have a great chance to show that we care about persons other than ourselves.

There are at least two reasons to do this:

• First, caring simply is the best the way mature citizens ought to act – to show respect for persons other than themselves.

• Second – and more importantly, to me – the number of new refugees in our community provides a way for Christians to show spiritual love for persons who are or could be children of God.  Refugees have the same access to God we do.

Still, there are trends in this country that decry “immigrants.”  In politics these days, fomented by Donald Trump and his ilk, immigrants have become the enemy.  Lock them up and throw away the key, Trump says. 

Or, at least, build a wall to the south so immigrants cannot enter this country.

I understand concerns over persons who try to enter this country illegally.  Leaders in Congress (if there are any), as well as in the Biden Administration, need to do more to stem that tide.  Not near enough has been done so far as political slogans get in the way of middle ground solutions.

But, those who are coming to Salem and Keizer are, to put a phrase on it, “legal refugees.”

The program I mentioned above — Salem for Refugees — started in 2016 at the church my wife and I attend here in Salem, Salem Alliance.  There were two other sponsors – Salem Leadership Foundation (SLF), and Catholic Community Services.

The refugee organization itself has grown enough now to be on its own, though with continuing support from the church, SLF, and Catholic Community Services.

Incredibly, since its start, Salem for Refugees has served more than 600 individuals, often in family groups, as they arrived in this country.  At one point, refugees coming to Oregon were directed mainly to Portland, but costs up there got out of hand, so Salem and other communities stepped up.

The list of home countries for refugees is incredible – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, the Congo, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela, and others. 

Just stop and think about this reality for a moment. 

The displaced people probably don’t have much of the English language, nor do they know how to go about living in America.

Things are much different here than in their homeland or in a refugee camp.

Yet, they want a chance for a new life.  So, they need help.

When I explained all this to a group a couple weeks ago, I sensed a mixed reaction.  Some who heard me appeared to support the idea of helping refugees adjust to living here.  After all, some of them will be “your neighbors.”

But others appeared to wonder why support mattered.  It was as if the color of someone’s skin, the original home of refugees, and the different background of those persons supported the argument that leaving them to exist on their own was the best approach.

If this was true of some who heard me speak, it ignores this basic fact in this country:  We all are immigrants. 

Our forebears came from other countries to find a new home in America.  Mine came from Norway.

Now, as “new immigrants” arrive here, we should welcome them just as all of us were once welcomed.

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 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.

Am I biased when it comes to this story?

Yes.  Clearly.

I have had the privilege of being a member at Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, for more than 30 years.  I also live on the course, about three houses from the 1^st tee.

It is a privilege for me to be able to play Illahe as often as I do, which is nearly daily.

The high ranking mentioned in this blog headline comes from GolfWeek magazine.  Here is a text of the article:

Golfweek’s Best Private Courses 2023:  State-by-state rankings of private courses

By Jason Lusk

“Want to find the best private golf courses in each state?  You’re in the right spot, and welcome to Golfweek’s Best 2023 list of top private layouts as judged by our international panel of raters.

“The hundreds of members of that ratings panel continually evaluate courses and rate them based on 10 criteria on a points basis of 1 through 10. They also file a single, overall rating on each course.  Those overall ratings are averaged to produce these rankings.”

KEY: (m) modern, built in 1960 or after; (c) classic, built before 1960. For courses with a number preceding the (m) or (c), that is where the course ranks on Golfweek’s Best lists for top 200 modern and classic courses in the U.S.

* indicates new or returning to the rankings

1. Eugene CC
Eugene (T97m)

2. Pronghorn (Fazio)
Bend (T104m)

3. Waverley
Portland (T115c)

4. Pumpkin Ridge
(Witch Hollow)
North Plains (m)

5. Astoria*
Warrenton (c)

6. Columbia Edgewater
Portland (c)

7. Bend GC*
Bend (c)

8. Portland GC
Portland (c)

9. Illahe Hills*
Salem (m)

10. Broken Top Club*
Bend (m)

I take pride in this new listing, though, of course, I did not create it, nor did I have a hand in its creation.  It arises because, in their wisdom, those in charge of Illahe have allowed it to be open on occasion to non-members for tournaments and charity events.  Word then filters out about the quality of the course, including by those who rate it for magazines like GolfWeek.

There is often a very delicate balance here.  Allow the course to be open to non-members, but don’t overdo it, thus depriving members themselves from a chance to play “their” course.  All private golf courses walk this tightrope.

From a big-picture perspective, Illahe members enjoy almost unparalleled access.  Private courses to the north in and around Oregon’s largest city, Portland, have many more golf rounds per year than does Illahe.  So do courses to the south, including Eugene Golf and Country Club, which leads the GolfWeek list.

Willamette Valley Golf and Country Club, to the north, runs more than 40,000 rounds per year, making it tough for some members to book tee times.

 By contrast, Illahe’s annual rounds total about 18,000.

One point I make frequently about Illahe:  I have been a member for more than 30 years, but never – yes, never – do I get tired of playing the course.  It offers new challenges every time I tee it up on the 1^st hole.

Join me. 

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 my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline on this blog captures a huge point in politics these days.

Character used to matter.  It may not matter at all these days.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, essayist Joseph Epstein posted a column in this week.  It appeared under this sub-head:

“An insistence on decency in presidential candidates might be a start to restoring national political life to a respectable level.”

Excellent point.

Epstein continued:  “I admire my friends who no longer watch cable news. I doubtless take in too much of it, typically switching among the three main networks: Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.  I watch most of it with a book or magazine in my lap, but stories about the seemingly endless lawsuits against Donald Trump and accounts of the skullduggery of Hunter Biden and his father (“the Big Guy”) get my attention.”

Epstein is candid enough to admit that, from the standpoint of “decency,” he doesn’t like either President Joe Biden or Republican candidate Donald Trump.

“Trump, who comes across so bold, and Biden, who wishes to seem so sly, strike me as roughly equal in their depravity.  I think of the one as the Manchurian Cantaloupe and the other as the Old Gaffer.”

He adds that he wishes failure to both, so we – Americans – can consider candidates who practice and exude decency.

Epstein says each man has risen to the presidency thanks, mostly, to the unattractiveness of his electoral opponent.  

“Each man was elected as a lesser-evil choice, yet both have succeeded in vastly polluting the tone of our country’s political life.  Lesser-evil choices sometimes turn out to be evil enough.

“Low and seedy are the corruptions of which Messrs. Trump and Biden have been accused:  Molesting women, entering into dubious financial dealings with foreign corporations and governments, cavalierly mishandling important documents, and more.

“Yet, both men have been leaders of the free world, as the old saying had it, and both men want another go at it.  Worse yet, as things currently stand, one or the other is likely to be successful.  Little wonder that in most opinion polls a strong majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.”

Epstein wonders if there is any way to get what he calls “these two bozos” off the national stage? 

So far, neither political party seems ready or willing to do so.

“The party that prides itself on probity and family values is likely to be represented by a man found liable for sexual abuse, while the party that prides itself on fairness and social justice by a man whose son has allegedly siphoned off millions from the sale of political influence that he may have shared with his father.”

During their presidencies, Epstein remembers that George W. Bush and Barack Obama were at least able to elude financial and sexual scandal.  Say what you will about their decisions as president, both evidenced traits of character and decency.

I with for a return to such traits.  Decency matters.

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 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 would be appropriate to call an experience I had this week stunning, disappointing, stupid, shocking.

Find another negative word.  It would fit.

Here’s what happened.

In late May, I was scheduled for an annual, “routine” visit with my cardiologist, something I have done for about 20 years since my “episode,” which was a heart attack in 2004.

So, for me, this visit was another important step on the way to preventing a future, emergency event.

In advance of the appointment, I had my blood drawn to provide information for the doctor to review.

All fine, so far.

Then, guess what?

Medicare, in its infinite wisdom, turned down reimbursement for the blood draw, using these words to decline:  “Medicare has denied payment stating that these are non-covered services because this is routine exam or screening procedure done in conjunction with a routine exam.”

Those words, quoting Medicare, came from a company called Labcorp, which wanted payment for the blood draw. 

In response to the bill – as well as other “stupid bills” — my wife and I spent about an hour on the phone with our supplemental insurer, MODA, where we learned that, when Medicare makes a decision such as the one in our case, MODA simply goes along with the federal decision.  So denial.

Say what?

If that “go-along” simply exists, then why do we have a supplemental insurer here in Oregon?

All of this defies rational explanation.

The service from my cardiologist was not “routine.”  To be sure, it was an annual procedure, but it was designed to avoid a future emergency.

So, why was it not covered?

I have no idea.

I suppose my wife and I could argue with Medicare, but we would have to do so in Washington, D.C. and no doubt would make little progress.

The fact is that this may come down to another health insurance word – “coding.”

If the blood draw I got was coded as “routine or preventive,” then I guess it would not be covered.  [Though, I add quickly, that, under our previous Medicare Advantage insurer, Providence, we never got a bill for a blood draw.  So, at the earliest opportunity, we’ll likely go back to Providence, which fits in the sense that, as a lobbyist, I represented Providence for about 25 years.]

The key:  Code the procedure differently in an effort to gain insurance coverage.

In this episode, the bottom line is this:  Our current health system in America – is it really a “system” in the normal sense of that word – is screwed up.

It does not reward solid behavior for persons who are committed to “prevention.” 

The incentive ought to lie with preventing future emergencies which, if left unchecked, would cost much more than “routine” procedures.

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 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 department, one of four I run as the manager (dictator), is now open.

The others, by the way, are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering, and the Department of “Just Saying.”  No doubt I am a jack of all trades.

Inquiring minds want to know: 

Item #1:  Why do golfers call the 3-metal they hit a 3-wood?

The old name, of course, hearkens back to the day when all clubs except irons were made out of wood.  Now, with metal clubs, most golfers are not able to change their terminology.  Especially in regard to a 3-wood, er, 3- metal.

I just thought I’d point out the discrepancy.  I often am guilty of the mistake.

Item #2:  Misusing the word “handicap” in golf.

If you play or follow golf – and I do both – then one of the least understood words in the sport is this:  Handicap.  It means several things.

Mostly, it refers to the level of your golf.  So, a higher handicap player can play against a lower handicap player and have a chance to hold his or her own.  The player with the higher handicap “gets strokes” from the lower player, allowing them to play, at least in theory, “even.”

Oregon Golf Association writers the other day dealt with the word “handicap” in a different way.

Why, they asked, “is hole #3 on my course designated as the hardest hole? My friends and I think it should be hole #7.”

Golf holes also have a handicap number assigned to them, so golfers, based on their own handicap, know where they “get a stroke and where they don’t.”

“Just for giggles,” the OGA writers said, “we googled ‘What’s a handicap hole on a golf course?’  The top searches all quoted spin-offs of the following:  ‘Handicap holes are ranked in order of difficulty, with No.1 being the hardest to 18 as the easiest.’

“’Let’s bust that myth to smithereens.  It was never supposed to be the ‘hardest hole’ that gets the No. 1 spot.

“The No. 1 handicap hole should be the hole where the higher handicap player is most likely to need a stroke as an equalizer, since the idea is to provide an equal playing field for golfers of different handicap levels.

“If a low-handicap golfer is just as likely to make bogey as a high-handicapper on a particular hole, then it clearly wouldn’t rank No. 1.”

So, there you have it.  Clear now?

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 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 work up this morning to mostly clear skies, then remembered it was July 4^th, American Independence Day.

How do I feel on this day?  Well, the sky was still clear and the sun was still up.

How you feel is a good question these days as America faces a variety of national and international challenges, the toughest of which are often the national ones where Americans appear to hate each other more often than like each other.

For me, there little doubt but that the angst is fomented by one Donald Trump who capitalizes on fear and loathing to continue his march to what he hopes will be a second term as president of these United States.

Still, despite his apparent aspiration, he acts like he mostly hates the country he wants to lead.

Perish the thought that he would be in the Oval Office again practicing his craft as more showman, than political leader.

But, this morning, rather than focus on Trump, I prefer to do what I do every morning, which is to read the Washington Post.  There, I encountered two columns worth noting – one an editorial and a second a column by Megan McArdle.

Both are worth contemplating on this Independence Day, so I reprint them in whole.  For me, I prefer not to pessimistic about this country and these two articles help me achieve that objective today.

**********

BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Error! Filename not specified.

The United States finds itself in a funk as it celebrates its 247th birthday. Fewer than 4 in 10 U.S. adults describe themselves as “extremely proud” to be American, according to fresh Gallup polling, essentially unchanged from last year’s record low and down from about 7 in 10 two decades ago.

This is understandable given the unremitting pace of alarming headlines. There is a tide of worry about a lack of civic cohesion, intense partisanship and, to some, a sense of hopelessness. July 4^th , however, is a day to celebrate, among other national virtues, the United States’ proven capacity for renewal and self-improvement. The staying power of our system comes from its ability to correct and recalibrate. Free elections and open markets create dynamism that increases political and economic freedom.

The genius of America is that it’s built for give and take, accommodation and compromise, checks and balances, reform, and reaction. People in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba aspire to freedom. But their systems don’t tolerate constructive dissent.

Yes, we hear people who should know better say things have never been this bad. That’s as historically myopic as it is objectively wrong. Measured by almost every metric, the United States is better off than 200 — or even 20 — years ago. Start with economic well-being:  The U.S.-led global order has brought millions out of poverty. America remains the capital of medical, technological, and artistic invention.

The framers designed a self-healing system that also allows for moral growth. We carry the scars of the Civil War, the Jim Crow era, the Great Depression, McCarthyism, Watergate, and Vietnam but came out of them a better people. The country that initially counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person twice elected a Black president. The newest member of the Supreme Court is not only the descendant of enslaved people; she’s married to the descendant of enslavers in a marriage that could have been illegal until 1967.

So why are many Americans no longer as proud of their country?

Corrosive partisanship is no small part of the answer. Until 2018, Donald Trump’s second year as president, majorities consistently expressed extreme pride in America when Gallup ran its annual pre-July Fourth poll. But many Democrats lost faith in their country after the 2017 white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville and failed to reclaim it after their party won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. Today, only 29 per cent of Democrats say they’re extremely proud to be American, compared with 60 per cent of Republicans.

Alarmingly, across party lines, just 18 per cent of 18-to-34-year-olds say they’re extremely proud of this country. This generation grew up amid the dislocation of the Great Recession, seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, school shootings and active-shooter drills.

More recently came the disillusionment that accompanied pandemic isolation; George Floyd’s murder; the casual cruelty of Trumpism; the January 6, 2021, insurrection; the opioid and fentanyl crises; and warning signs that the effects of climate change are real and growing. With these frames of reference, fear and hopelessness are unsurprising.

A decline in national pride ought not be viewed in isolation from daily events, but these events also provide evidence of this nation’s resiliency. While Trump remains the dominant force inside the GOP, democracy held in 2020 despite his efforts to overturn the election and voters rejected the most egregious election deniers in 2022. January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days in U.S. history, but a House select committee conducted a thorough investigation and the Justice Department has charged more than 1,000 people with participating in the Capitol attack. All of this reflects a triumph for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Even the chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border — a flash point for the left and the right — is a reminder that this country remains a beacon of opportunity so powerful that people around the world are willing to take enormous risks to move into what they understand to be a promised land. They still want a shot at the American Dream.

Then there is the indispensable supporting role that the United States is playing in Ukraine. American leadership in the world remains as essential as ever.

Between baseball and barbecue, let’s all take a deep breath before the presidential election season kicks into high gear. Despite the corrosiveness of self-doubt and political tribalism, there is much to celebrate. American values have matured and endured, and while our union is still far from perfect, we continue to believe it’s an experiment worth pursuing.

This Editorial Board often highlights ways in which America falls short of her ideals. A newspaper’s role is to hold leaders accountable and to measure America against her promises and potential. The unfettered freedom to do so is one of many reasons we’re extremely proud to be citizens of this country.

**********

BY COLUMNIST MEGAN McARDLE

Her words appeared under this headline:  Why there’s reason to believe American democracy has a bright future

Error! Filename not specified.

As July Fourth approaches, I’ve been thinking about a question that was put to the table at a recent lunch I attended: What big things are you optimistic about? I think my answer won the prize for most surprising: I am bullish about American democracy.

I’ve no doubt that many readers will find this answer a bit counterintuitive. To conservatives who are concerned about “woke capital,” the “deep state” and the ideological capture of the expert institutions that inform government policy, it might even sound crazy. And no less so to liberals who worry about a conservative Supreme Court rolling back decades of progress, as well as Donald Trump.

So in honor of 247 years of American independence, let me lay out why I am still optimistic about our country’s future.

To people on the right, I would note that capital appears to be undergoing a Great Unwokening, and the hated deep state is the same bureaucracy that validated the Hunter Biden laptop suspicions and spent years investigating him. As for expert capture, yes, it is real. But over the long run, I’m more worried that political showboating will discredit experts who have true and important information to share, as happened with public health officials during the pandemic, than I am that some PhD will bullyrag parents into letting their kids identify as cats.

To the left, I would point out that the republic has survived many sudden reversals of Supreme Court precedent, as well as the discovery of all sorts of new rights, under the Warren and Burger courts. Disliking the results of judicial fiats is not the same as proving they are incompatible with a functioning democracy.

As for Trump, yes, he would, if he could, bulldoze every American institution that stands in his way — but note how conspicuously he has failed to do so. When he was president, American institutions were tested, but while they creaked a bit here and there, they ultimately held strong.

Will they continue to do so? Many on the left see Trump’s failings as the natural outgrowth of various troubling currents on the right and therefore fear he is a harbinger of even worse to come.

Perhaps, but I think this worry ignores how unique Trump’s successes have been, how dependent on things such as his celebrity, his wicked genius for dominating a screen, and a too-crowded primary field where that talent mattered enormously. It is, of course, a depressing sign that even after Jan. 6, 2021, he still dominates the coming GOP primary. But it’s also heartening that his pale imitators aren’t having anything like his success. There is no Trumpism; there is only Trump. And Trump will eventually leave the stage.

U.S. democracy has rebuilt itself from centuries of chattel slavery and another hundred years of Jim Crow; from the Trail of Tears and the Japanese internment; from the Palmer Raids and the Comstock Act and the Red Scare. It recovered from anarchist bombs and urban crime waves and any number of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wilder schemes, including his plan to pack the Supreme Court. No matter how bad you think things look right now, you can find worse in American history — emphasis on “history.” Americans got through it. We can again.

Sure, maybe this time is different and America has finally broken itself. Maybe the antidemocratic talk has gone too far; maybe left and right hate each other too much to come together as a nation ever again. But let me close with the story I told the lunch table to explain why I don’t find all the dialed-up-to-11 online rhetoric so worrisome.

In the early 1930s, a sociologist named Richard LaPiere spent two years traveling across the United States with a Chinese couple — a fraught activity, given then-pervasive bigotry against Asians. Fortunately, they were refused service at only one of 66 hotels and none of the 184 restaurants they entered. Afterward, however, La Piere followed up with a questionnaire to those establishments, asking whether they would accept “members of the Chinese race.”

Of those who responded, more than 90 per cent said they would not.

We all know that people sometimes pretend to be better than they are — for example, by saying they care about racial equality while choosing segregated neighborhoods and schools. But this can also work the other way: Sometimes, people will confess an abstract hatred they’d never act on with an actual human being in front of them. So when I wonder whether Americans really hate each other too much to live as one nation, I look not at what people are saying online but how they behave in person.

Watch Americans dealing with one another day-to-day and you will mostly see them going out of their way to be nice. There are far more random acts of kindness in this country than there are drive-by shootings, and far more people acting with honesty and integrity, even when no one’s looking, than there are con men and thieves. We focus on the latter precisely because they are rare.

Which is why, for all the bad, America is better than it thinks itself. And I dare to believe that, in the future, it will be better still.

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 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 is known these days for his advanced age, for the gaffes he continues to produce, and for the criminal trials of his son.

But, for those who are paying attention, there are solid economic results all around.  And, some of them are due to Biden and his Administration.

I wish Americans – me included – would know more about the good news of what has come to be called “Bidenomics,” the current record of solid economic news.

Is “Bidenomics” all good news and a magic answer?  Of course not.  Plus, some critics of the Biden Administration point to what Biden has done as just more liberal spending, thus raising the federal deficit.

There may be at least some truth in that rendering, but, for now, I think Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin has performed a service with her most recent column that appeared under this headline:  Bidenomics is transformative. Biden needs to ensure voters know it.

Here is how Rubin started her column:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Some presidents don’t have a strong story to tell about their record, so they deflect, distract, and demonize their opponents.  Other presidents’ records almost speak for themselves. President Biden, however, finds himself in an unusual spot:  An economic record that has been working far better than most people anticipated but that the electorate doesn’t yet recognize.”

Rubin’s list of accomplishments for the Biden Administration:

“The economy has created 13 million jobs, inflation has been more than cut in half, huge investments are being made in infrastructure and green energy, wage growth has begun to outpace inflation, the first drug price controls are going into effect and the biggest corporations will finally be forced to pay something in federal taxes.

“Yet, polls show voters incorrectly think we are in a recession and remain negative about the economy.”

The White House is aware of the problem, so it is making a focused push to narrow the gap between performance and perception.

On Monday, senior Biden advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn released a four-page memorandum explaining the president’s vision, which they call “Bidenomics.”

Dunn and Donilon wrote:

“Bidenomics is rooted in the simple idea that we need to grow the economy from the middle out and the bottom up — not the top down. Implementing that economic vision and plan — and decisively turning the page on the era of trickle-down economics — has been the defining project of the Biden presidency.”

Then, they ticked off the list of accomplishments:  An economic recovery five years earlier than expected; 13 million jobs since the president took office — including nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs; a higher job-participation rate for working-age Americans than at any time in the past 20 years; and others.

In a speech in Chicago, Rubin says Biden launched a renewed focus on the two most significant bi-partisan legislative accomplishments of his term, the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS and Science Act.

He hopes these measures will help brand him as the cross-aisle deal maker he sold to voters in 2020, appeal to political moderates who formed a core of his winning electoral coalition, and impress upon tuned-out voters what he has done in office.

Seasoned New York time columnist David Brooks entered this fray the other day, writing under the headline:  Why Biden Isn’t Getting the Credit He Deserves.

“The misery index is a crude but effective way to measure the health of the economy.  You add up the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.  If you’re a president running for re-election, you want that number to be as low as possible.

“When Ronald Reagan won re-election, it was about 11.4, when George W. Bush did so it was 9, for Barack Obama it was 9.5, and today, as Biden runs for re-election, it’s only 7.7.

“Biden should be cruising to an easy re-election victory.  And that misery index number doesn’t even begin to capture the strength of the American economy at the moment. The economy has created 13 million jobs since Biden’s Inauguration Day.  According to the Conference Board, a business research firm, Americans’ job satisfaction is at its highest level in 36 years. Household net worth is surging.

Why, then, Brooks asks, does Biden suffer from low poll results.  Then, answers his own question this way:

“…the main problem is national psychology.  Americans’ satisfaction with their personal lives is nearly four times as high as their satisfaction with the state of the nation.  That’s likely because, during the Trump era, we have suffered a collective moral injury, a collective loss of confidence, a loss of faith in ourselves as a nation.”

The national malaise, despite good economic news, revolves around Donald Trump.  As nothing more than showman, he has capitalized on the national fear, the loss of confidence, and even encouraged it.  He says he wants to lead government, yet, every day, he runs squarely against it.

So much so that he has persuaded usually smart Americans to support him, no matter what he has done to anyone – and especially to women in this country, treating them as nothing more than objects.

Also this:  Remember, it was a number of Republicans who helped pass the major economic bills that have contributed to “Bidenomics.”

So, in theory at least, it will be difficult for them to continue going after Biden.

The way Rubin puts it:

“While GOP presidential candidates and the Republican National Committee continue to paint Biden’s economic stewardship as a rolling disaster, Republican senators who helped shape the legislation say they anticipated that those accomplishments would accrue to Biden’s political advantage — as well as to their own.”

Still, just wait for the partisan criticism.  It will be there.  In all of politics these days, it’s never the middle.  Never credit for good work.  Never consensus to solve national problems.

Always personal criticism.

I say, if you look at politics, try to focus on facts, not dissension.  There is too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

**********

Closing Note:  I have said in the past that I don’t intend to write any more about Donald Trump.  But, I guess, I have lied.  I cannot help myself but to mention his stupidity as I have done again in what appears above.