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.

Atlantic Magazine staff writer Tom Nichols asks the question in the headline as he ponders what prompts the Oath Keepers and other seditious organizations to do what they do.

Then, he answers his own question with striking words.  These:

“Even before January 6, 2021, I wondered about the kind of people who live the classic American paranoid life, the citizens whose politics are a stew of ‘heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.’

“I first encountered this mindset when I worked in the U.S. Senate as personal staff for the late John Heinz of Pennsylvania:  I would field calls from constituents who demanded to know whether the senator was in league with the Trilateralists or the Bilderbergers or the one-worlders.

“I was barely 30 and taken aback at speaking with people who seemed to be living on some other planet.

“I am thinking about such people again, now that the leader of the Oath Keepers, Elmer Stewart Rhodes, and some of his associates are likely headed for federal prison.”

Why?  For what?

Nichols says he was struck, “not by the grandiosity of the militias, but by their smallness.”  

Rhodes is a disbarred lawyer who managed to shoot himself in the eye.  Kelly Meggs, the leader of a state Oath Keeper chapter who was also found guilty of seditious conspiracy, was a Florida car dealer.

Nichols wonders, as I do, what the Oath Keepers intended to do if they and their ilk had won the day on January 6?  

He adds:

“Perhaps they expected Donald Trump to strut out onto the south balcony and declare martial law.  Maybe they thought that they would march into Congress and be greeted as liberators, perhaps with medals bestowed.

“There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society’s ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved boredom.  In almost all the descriptions of the periods preceding the rise of mass movements there is reference to vast ennui; and, in their earliest stages, mass movements are more likely to find sympathizers among the bored than among the exploited and suppressed.”

Washington Post columnist George Will wrote about this in 2020:   “When society is bored by its own comforts, there is a ‘hunger for apocalypse,’ a need for great drama that can provide some sense of purpose in life.

“The Oath Keepers and the militia movements found their sense of purpose in a belief that their fellow citizens were too hoodwinked, too stupid, too corrupt to run an election, and know that the results are fair.  They made ominous-looking arm patches and wore tactical gear and glowered through their sunglasses at the people whose rights they claimed to be defending.  They arrogated to themselves the duty to interpret the Constitution in any way that would dissolve their sense of emptiness, douse their own insecurities, and make their lives more interesting.”

Some of these aimless people will now go to prison.  Others will live out their lives stained by their participation in the events of January 6, with careers obliterated, friends gone, family destroyed, and even freedom taken.

So, to answer the question in this blog headline, there was no “what.”  Just animus.

Which means that all of us who value American democracy, with all of its faults and foibles, must work hard to save it and improve it by the steadfastness of our citizenship.

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 stumbled across this summary of the way Morocco beat Spain in the World Cup a few days ago.

“When the moment came for Morocco’s Achraf Hakimi to take the most important penalty kick in his country’s history, he was suddenly faced with a million options.

“He had 196 square feet to aim at from 12 yards out.  Go right or left, high or low.  Hard or soft.  All Hakimi had to do to send Morocco past Spain and into the World Cup quarterfinals was put the ball where the goalkeeper wasn’t. 

“Instead, he did the opposite.

“Hakimi took a deep breath, approached the ball with four short steps, and dinked a gentle shot right down the middle of the goal.  Had Spain goalkeeper Unai Simon stood his ground, the ball would have dropped right into his hands.  Unfortunately for Spain, he didn’t.  Simon dived low to his right and was already on his knees by the time Hakimi’s penalty bounced into the net.”

Hakimi became an immediate national hero.

What I learned was that Simon was the latest victim of “the most audacious, most inadvisable gamble in soccer:  The Panenka.”

What?

Well, it turns out that the incredible move has earned the name of person who first did it, Antonin Panenka.

Just like Dick Fosbury.  Remember him?  

He was the high-jumper for Oregon State University who inaugurated what came to be called “The Fosbury Flop” and now, many years later everyone uses it in that part of track and field.

I also remembered that there is a third case of an athletic move named after the athlete who did it, the “Ali Shuffle,” named after Muhammad Ali, the famous boxer.

And, still, I found out there is fourth case that bears the name of the player who invented a move, the “Cruyff turn,” an evasive dribbling move used in soccer named after Dutch player Johan Cruyff.

I knew about the Fosbury Flop and the Ali Shuffle, but not the others.

So, for all of you who have as much on your hands as I do, here is a brief description of all four athlete-named moves – and, to give credit where credit is due, I defer to Mr. Google:

THE PANENKA:  The icy-veined, slightly crazy individual who made it popular was Czechoslovakia’s Antonin Panenka in the final of the 1976 European Championship against West Germany.  The game ended 2-2 in regulation and eventually proceeded to a penalty shootout. That’s when a German miss gave the Czechs a chance to end it.  

Up stepped a 27-year-old wearing the number 7 on his back and a hairbrush of a mustache on his face.  Panenka took a fast run-up as if to hammer the shot.  But at the last moment he simply played a delicate chip down the middle.

The keeper had already thrown himself to his left.  Thus “The Panenka.”

THE FOSBURY FLOP:  This is a high jumping style popularized and perfected by American athlete Dick Fosbury, whose gold medal in the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City brought the style to the world’s attention.

The flop became the dominant style of the event.  Before Fosbury, most elite jumpers used other forms — the straddle technique, Western Roll, Eastern cut-off or scissors jump to clear the bar.

Though the backwards flop technique had been known for years before Fosbury, landing surfaces had been sandpits or low piles of matting and high jumpers had to land on their feet or at least land carefully to prevent injury.  With the advent of deep foam matting, high jumpers were able to be more adventurous in their landing styles and hence experiment with styles of jumping.

Then came Fosbury and the “Fosbury Flop.”

THE ALI SHUFFLE:  This is the famous series of fancy footwork created by Muhammad Ali as a taunting mechanism.  He used it multiple times to win against opponents, cementing his status as one of the greats in a sport I don’t follow – if it really can be called a sport when the aim is to pummel someone into submission.

But, Ali made the “sport” famous, in part by using the “Ali Shuffle.” 

THE CRUYFF TURN:  In the 24th minute of a game against Sweden in the group stage of the 1974 World Cup, while Johan Cruyff had control of the ball in an attacking position but was facing his own goal and being guarded tightly by Swedish defender Jan Olsson, he feigned a pass before dragging the ball behind his standing leg, turning 180 degrees, and accelerating away.

With its simplicity, effectiveness, and unpredictability, the Cruyff turn remains one of the most commonly recognized dribbling moves in modern soccer.

So, we have the “Cruyff Turn.”

There, now you know what I know.  And don’t feel better?

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.

On occasion, a column I read is so well done that I reprint it as my blog.  This is one of those cases.

This time, one of the country’s best writers, John Feinstein, had his column published by the Washington Post under the headline that leads this blog.

His support for Rory McIlroy is noteworthy.

McIlroy, besides one of the best, if not today’s best, pro golfer, he has become the voice of aligning with the PGA Tour as it fights insurgent rival, LIV Golf.

Here is the summary of Feinstein’s main point:

“McIlroy’s great golf is not why he should be sportsperson of the year.  It’s because he became the conscience of his sport.

“Golf is in the midst of a crisis, divided by the presence of a new circuit that is funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, which is so corrupt that it makes the choice of Qatar as host of the World Cup look like a blip.”

So, without further ado, here is the full text of Feinstein’s column.

**********

Error! Filename not specified.

I have absolutely no problem with Sports Illustrated naming Stephen Curry its sportsperson of the year this week. In June, Curry led the Golden State Warriors to the NBA title — his fourth — and was the Finals MVP. He even went back to Davidson and finished his degree.

He’s a class act, a wonderful story and an excellent choice. My only quibble: He was part of the Warriors team that won the award just four years ago.

Still, if I had been consulted — which, remarkably enough, I wasn’t — I would have recommended someone else: Rory McIlroy.

McIlroy didn’t win a major championship this year, although he finished in the top 10 at all four: second at the Masters, eighth at the PGA Championship, tied for fifth at the U.S. Open and third at the British Open. He did win three times on the PGA Tour — including the Tour Championship despite its screwy format — and claimed the year-long titles on both the PGA Tour (for a third time) and the European tour (for a fourth time).

But that’s not why he should be sportsperson of the year. It’s because he became the conscience of his sport.

Golf is in the midst of a crisis, divided by the presence of a new circuit that is funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, which is so corrupt that it makes the choice of Qatar as host of the World Cup look like a blip.

There is absolutely no doubt that the money behind LIV Golf is blood money. There’s also absolutely no doubt that most golfers and those who have gone to work for LIV don’t really care. They point out — correctly — that there are plenty of other corrupt governments that are embraced by the sports world.

Qatar is hosting the World Cup. Russia recently hosted a World Cup and an Olympics. China, which is very much in business with the NBA, has hosted the Olympics twice since 2008. If Qatar, Russia and China can “sportswash,” why can’t the Saudis?

They can, which is why Hall of Famer Phil Mickelson, British Open champion Cameron Smith and 11 other major champions jumped to LIV for huge guaranteed money, some of it into the hundreds of millions. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s first recruit was Greg Norman, who was hired as LIV’s CEO and lead recruiter.

My friend David Feherty, about whom I have just finished a book, also jumped, becoming LIV’s lead analyst for millions. Feherty is different from most players in that he made no bones about why he joined the new circuit.

“Money,” he said. “… I hear, ‘Well, it’s to grow the game.’ Bull. … They paid me a lot of money.”

Most players who have jumped made the “grow the game” claim. The most important players who turned down LIV money — and have been adamant about why — are McIlroy and Tiger Woods.

Woods has been sportsperson of the year twice and is, for all intents and purposes, an emeritus superstar who played all of nine rounds in actual competition this year. He will turn 47 this month and remains a major voice in the game.

But McIlroy is the top-ranked player in the world. He has won four majors but none since 2014. He’s 33 — the same age Mickelson was when he won his first major and a year younger than Ben Hogan was when he won his first.

More important in 2022 was his willingness to speak up on behalf of the PGA Tour, both publicly and privately.

Last spring, when his good friend Sergio Garcia was being recruited by LIV, the two had a lengthy talk. Garcia’s mind was made up; he told McIlroy this was their chance to “finally get paid what we deserve.”

“Sergio, we’re golfers,” McIlroy answered. “We don’t deserve to be paid anything.”

McIlroy is a multi-multi-millionaire, and he has cashed in on his fame and success around the world. He doesn’t apologize for that. But unlike so many wealthy professional athletes, he understands that he doesn’t deserve any of the money he has made.

“I’m lucky that I’m good at a sport that allows me to make a lot of money,” he told me this spring. “That doesn’t mean I think I deserve it.”

McIlroy’s sense of the world was shaped differently than that of most of his colleagues. His dad, Gerry, was a bartender at Holywood Golf Club in a middle-class suburb of Belfast. His mom, Rosie, worked in a 3M plant as her only child was growing up, and both parents worked second and third jobs so they could afford to pay for Rory to travel when it became clear his talent as a golfer was undeniable.

Their son is honest and willing to admit mistakes. When he first qualified to play in the Ryder Cup in 2010, he told reporters he would be happy to play, but his goal in golf was to win major championships. The Ryder Cup, he said, was a nice exhibition.

“It took me about 15 minutes after I got to Wales [for the 2010 matches] to know I’d been wrong,” he said years later. “… Looking back, what I said initially was selfish. I’m an only child, and since I was a kid, my golf was the most important thing in my world. I had to readjust my thinking to understand that wasn’t true.”

He smiled. “Can you imagine that, a golfer being selfish? Had to be a first.”

This year, he dueled publicly with Norman and talked with many of his fellow golfers about why staying with the PGA Tour is important. Many, like Garcia, haven’t listened. That hasn’t stopped McIlroy from telling them and the public what he thinks. Recently, he said Norman needs to “exit stage left” before the PGA Tour and LIV can sit down and negotiate the peace. Woods has said the same thing, and Norman has responded by saying he pays no attention to what either says.

Eventually, with or without Norman, there will be some sort of agreement between LIV and the golf establishment. The Saudis are never going to run out of money, and they are continuing to recruit big names.

Woods still has a voice but tends to be careful with what he says publicly. McIlroy is the No. 1 player in the world and never holds back publicly — and he will still be onstage during major championships in the future.

McIlroy had a great 2022 on the golf course, though not a perfect one. He had a greater year — and a more important one — off the golf course.

For me, he’s the sportsperson of the year.

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.

One of my friends took issue with I wrote yesterday comparing millions of dollars in charitable donations made by the PGA Tour with what I contended was zero made by LIV, the rival tour.

He sent me information saying that LIV, in fact, had committed $100 million to a new global corporate social responsibility platform.

Well, I responded, why would I want to let a new fact intrude into my perspective, which, put simply, is that I favor the PGA Tour over LIV.

These days, facts are not often allowed to intrude into points of view, especially in politics.  Right?

But, seriously, I told my friend that the information he sent was helpful, that I would accede to it, and that I would stop arguing that charitable giving is a measure of differences between the two golf organizations.

My friend and I talk about lots of stuff, not just this golf issue, and we enjoy the interchange, no matter whether we agree or disagree.

However, on the PGA Tour vs. LIV, I still hold these views:

·      I favor PGA tour COMPETITIVE golf over LIV exhibitions.

·      I continue to wonder how players who made millions using the PGA tour as a platform can now find their way clear to disavow that platform and move to LIV.

·      And, I hope that negotiations between the two rivals can occur, but the only way that has chance is if LIV mouthpiece Greg Norman exists the scene.  He carries so much animus for the PGA Tour, cultivated over many years, that no one wants to sit down with him, especially to consider the future of golf.

So, in a genuine nod to my friend, I will throw away one of my arguments against LIV – charitable donations — and focus on others. 

 

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.

Reading Covid stats these days isn’t much fun.

Especially, as in my case, because I came down with the Covid a few days ago.

Here is how the Oregonian newspaper reported the status:

“Patients infected with the coronavirus took up 363 Oregon hospital beds Wednesday, a 16 per cent increase over the previous week that signals COVID-19′s continued presence, and impact, on the state and its already strained health care system.

“New cases of the coronavirus have also grown, with new state data showing 3,914 new cases reported this week which, at 10 per cent more than the previous week, is all the more notable given testing in Oregon fell by about 6,500 COVID-19 tests, or 15 per cent.

“Months ago, health officials effectively dismissed state-reported cases numbers as a metric by which to judge the state of the pandemic in Oregon and elsewhere.  That’s because people who test positive using an at-home test don’t have to report those results to the state — assuming they test for the virus at all.  But whether cases are climbing or declining does reflect, if not the prevalence of the virus, its immediate trajectory.”

See, I told you.

Pretty dry.

But, what seems clear is that Covid is no longer declining.  Incidence is rising.

A friend of mine who lives down the street is a doctor for Salem Health, our regions’ major hospital system.  She told me that Salem Health is on “divert,” which means that it is no longer able to accept admissions – and who knows what happens if you have a major health scare and cannot get into the hospital?

As for me, my Covid started quickly a few days ago and seemed more like a bad cold than anything else.  But I did test at home and got a positive reading. 

So, I am like others mentioned in the Oregonian paragraph above.  I have Covid, but have not reported it to anyone, nor is there a requirement to do so.  And, at least so far, I am not in need of hospital care.

Here’s hoping that I recover from this episode, so I am not longer part of a dry list of statistics.

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.

Amount given to charity?

• PHA Tour/  $3 billion

In fact, the PGA has raised more money for charity than all other professional sports in this country combined.  And, with the 2022 event at Pebble Beach, the total there will surpass the $200 million mark in philanthropic giving since the tournament moved to the area in 1947.  It is the first tournament on the PGA Tour schedule to reach that figure.

As the American Express Tournament prepares for its 64th playing in two months in La Quinta, California, another tradition continued this week when the tournament announced a donation of another $1 million to 37 desert charities.

• LIV/  $0

Say no more.

Well, one more thing.  I agree with various individuals – long-time PGA players Davis Love, Tiger Woods, and Rory McIlroy — who say that the best way to create the possibility for direct negotiations between the PGA Tour and LIV is for Greg Norman to take a hike.

Norman’s antipathy for the PGA Tour is too substantial to allow any room for negotiations.

He is just too controversial and ego-driven to lead any discussions with the Tour.  No one knows what he wants except to remain the center of attention with flamboyant rhetoric.

So, Norman should exit stage left and the Tour and LIV should get about the business of agreeing on the future of golf for the good of the game.

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.

Every once in awhile, I toy with never mentioning Donald Trump’s name again in the blogs I write.

Toy with.  Not follow through.

Because I cannot.

At least, we are past the day of Thanksgiving because there is no way I ever could be thankful for Trump, especially if he illustrates what should never happen again in this country, which is to be president.

Trump did so much damage to the country we love, the United States, that he deserves to be criticized at every turn. 

None of us should ever forget the stain of Trump’s actions and words.

Jesse Wegman, a member of New York Times Editorial Board, agrees with me – or at least I agree with him.  He wrote this a couple days ago:

“The facts are well known but necessary to repeat, if only because we must never become inured to them:  Abetted by a posse of low-rent lawyers, craven lawmakers and associated crackpots, Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 election by illegal and unconstitutional means.

“When those efforts failed, he incited a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol, causing widespread destruction, leading to multiple deaths and — for the first time in American history — interfering with the peaceful transfer of power.

“Almost two years later, he continues to claim, without any evidence, that he was cheated out of victory, and millions of Americans continue to believe him.”

So, I say to Trump and his minions.  Go away and stay away.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime  – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

As lawmakers prepare to head to Salem for 2023 legislative session, the time is right to emphasize again questions I think legislators should ask as they contemplate adding to the panoply of Oregon laws.

I have written about this before.  It has become a tradition for me to do so.

I propose these questions, perhaps a bit presumptuously, based on my 40 years or so in and around state government in Oregon.  I lobbied the Oregon Legislature for many of those years and developed a sense of how bills should be considered, including the questions that should be asked about each bill under genuine consideration.

The questions are not related to party labels, including liberal, conservative, or independent.  They are proposed in the spirit of making government better for all who serve and for all who watch that service. 

One of the realities is that, in any legislative session, more than 500 individual pieces of legislation – they are called “bills” – are proposed.  Burrowing through the thick and thin of those bills is a tall task, including to decide which bills have the stature to become more than just words on paper.

It is a task that deserves to be done in the name of better government.

So, here are the questions:

1. What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution?

• Is there an appropriate role for government to play? 

• If there is, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending — in other words, what is the expected “return on investment?” 

• How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for the taxes to fund its operations? 

If legislators would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better Legislature and better results.

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 have written in the past about the perils of the “permanent election campaign,” in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Oregon House.

In both places, those who win election serve only for two years, so, as soon as they win, the next campaign starts.

Instead of “legislating,” (deciding on useful additions to U.S. or Oregon laws) the 435 members of the U.S. House and the 60 members of the Oregon House start campaigning, often with a negative twist compounded by irritating TV ads.

Essayist Joseph Epstein, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning, added to my thinking.  His column carried this subhead:

A dispiriting mid-term cycle has only just finished and the 2024 presidential race has already started.

Here is how his column started:

“Has there ever been an election so relentlessly dreary as the one we have just been through?  The day after Election Day a cable-show panelist remarked that ‘there are only 727 days until the next election.’  He laughed. I didn’t.

“I’m suffering from political exhaustion.  I’m bored and saddened, satiated with talk of electoral politics.  In some places, it took nearly three weeks to count the votes.  I’ve seen more polls than Poland has Poles.  And most of those polls turned out to be wrong.

“Mistaken predictions from so-called experts preponderated.  There was no tsunami, wave, or serious turning of any tide in the political fortunes of the country.  I have seen all the TV white boards I care ever to see, with men in shirt sleeves — the working press? — indicating states, counties, cities, neighborhoods going for one party or the other.”

Worst of all, Epstein adds, have been the TV ads.  He says more than $16 billion – yes, “billion” — was spent this cycle, “a sum that could pay to house the homeless, return the insane back to safe mental institutions, or buy eight NBA franchises.

“The vast majority of these ads were on the attack, entirely negative, not advancing a candidate’s best qualities but setting out what a swine his or her opponent is.

“On one side, relatively obscure incumbent Members of Congress were accused of bringing on inflation, causing urban crime, opening up the borders, turning the country over to socialism.  On the other side, opposing politicians were accused of being threats to democracy, supporters of systemic racism, in favor of cutting off women’s access to health services.”

Epstein goes on to cite what he calls “particularly Machiavellian strategy: Contributing to the defeat of formidable candidates in the other party’s primary so you face a weaker opponent in the general election.”  This happened, among other places, in Illinois.

Now, Donald Trump’s announced bid for another term in the White House – perish the thought – will only add to the blather.

Epstein concludes:

“How much better things would be if time — eight or nine months, say —were set aside to knock off all the blather, kick back, chill.  But it is not to be; perhaps it never will be again, and the country will henceforth live in a permanent state of electoral frenzy:  A state of claim and counter-claim, insults delivered and returned, hyperbole everywhere, agitation reigning generally.”

With Epstein, I do not hold out much hope for change.

I am not sure what the solution is.  One, of course, would be that people of goodwill and good intent run for Congress or the Oregon House and, then, bring along smart credentials to get about the business of governing.

Too much to expect?  Probably.

But another good solution, at least a partial one, exists.  Make terms for the U.S. House and the Oregon House four years, not just two.  At least that would delay the inevitable – more campaigning and electioneering.

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.

There is a term in politics and elsewhere that is gaining a lot of attention these days:  “False equivalence.”

What does it mean?

It is when two opposing sides of an argument are made to look like they hold equal weight when they really don’t.  And, presenting both views as valid is a logical fallacy, or, to use the term, a “false equivalence.”

One real-world, down-to-earth example:  “Dogs have tails and feet, and cats have tails and feet. Therefore, dogs are equivalent to cats.”

It is obvious to see why this argument falls flat.  Simply the fact that two things might have similar properties does not mean they are equivalent in all respects. 

The example above is intentionally absurd to help identify the fallacy.  But it can be hard to spot false equivalencies in this world, including, if not especially, in politics.

A friend got me thinking about the subject of “false equivalence” and he and I had a good discussion with him about examples in politics today. 

For one thing, there is a notion that Democrats and Republicans are equal in their bids to get rid of democracy in America.  No.  It is Republicans who often set out to trash America’s system of governance to avoid allowing “the people to speak.”  The Rs want to be the ones who speak and damn others who disagree with them. 

Of course, Democrats are not immune from overstatement.  But, do they generally favor violence and hate to tear America down?  No.

A piece of good news is that in the recent mid-term election most of those who follow Trump as democracy haters and who call themselves “election deniers” lost.

False equivalence also reigns in climate change.  A small percentage of non-authoritative scientists’ opinions are given equal weight or seen as “competing against” 99 per cent of scientists’ opinions. 

Or, anti-vaccine activists have proclaimed they have just as much solid scientific evidence as pro-vaccine scientists.  But anti-vaccinators’ evidence is largely anecdotal. 

Why are we susceptible to false equivalence? 

Because it simplifies our thinking.  There are less critical thinking skills needed when we accept two things as equal, rather than unequal.  In addition, when someone (especially a person in authority) tells us two things are equivalent, we might tend to believe it more due to his or her inherent position or power.

Consider this current example of false equivalence.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, in a bid to obtain what he lusts after, being Speaker of the House, has announced that he intends to avoid giving committee seats to three Democrat representatives.  They are Adam Schiff, Eric Salwell, and Ilhan Omar.  All have served on committees in the past, but now appear to be the focus of McCarthy’s exclusion. 

McCarthy compares his tactic to the Democrats’ actions to remove Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Representative Paul Gosar from their committee assignments when the Ds were in charge.

And, today, the Wall Street Journal – unfortunately, I think – has gone on record editorially contending that McCarthy is just doing what Democrats did before him, so his actions are appropriate.  But, it is just the “get even” strategy in politics these days that indicates how far Congress is from finding middle ground.

As for “false equivalence,” consider what Greene and Gosar did by going on-line to advocate killing Democrats they didn’t like.  Yes, killing!

Greene promoted the execution of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Gosar posted an animated video in which his avatar executes Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword.  

By contrast, Schiff, Salwell and Omar disagreed with McCarthy on politics.   

Well, in all of this, how do all of us fight back against false equivalence? 

• First, educate yourself on the different forms it takes so you can recognize it. 
• Next, call it out when you see it – at least call it out to yourself. 
• Next, distance yourself from the source of it.
• And, most of all, don’t succumb to it.