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

Political leadership is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

In action.  In deeds.  Not just in words.

I spent 40 years in and around state government in Oregon, including 25 years as a lobbyist.  And, during those years, I looked for political leadership, hoping to see it.

I did son occasions few and far between, though I suspect what I saw has tended to evaporate in the last few years as politics has become a game of “gotcha,” not consensus.

The leadership concept came up again in a column by Henry Olsen in the Washington Post as he commented on the apparent failure of the Build Back Better bill to cross the finish line in Congress, due, he contended, to political leadership failures by President Joe Biden.

In this context, I remember what my boss, Fred Miller, told me when I worked for him in the State Executive Department.  He said, “the easiest thing to do as you watch a legislative process is to become cynical about it.”  Instead, he advocated tolerance and open-mindedness.

So, perhaps the Post writer, Olsen, is being cynical; so be it.  But here are excerpts from what he wrote:

“Biden, by all accounts, is a likable and accommodating fellow.  He built genuine friendships on both sides of the aisle during his 36 years in the Senate.  He prides himself on his ability to use his personality and willingness to compromise to good effect behind closed doors.  For Biden, this is leadership.

“Genuine leadership, however, is something altogether different. Successful political leaders make clear statements of direction, provide specific proposals to move in that direction, and compel people to join them through artful rhetoric and hard-knuckled politics.

“That often requires negotiations around the edges, as was the case when President Ronald Reagan tweaked his tax-cut package to secure its passage. It does not, however, entail evisceration of the original package, nor does it take place solely in backroom conversations.”

Olsen faults Biden who he says may talk a good line, but at least in the Build Back Better case, has failed to deliver.

I find Olsen’s recipe for leadership to be inadequate; at least it contains a verb – compel – than I would not necessarily use because it is too aggressive.  Calling for action is one thing; compelling it is another.

For me, political leadership contains these traits:

• The ability to make a solid case for an initiative – a case based on both facts and anecdotes to prod understanding.  Don’t underestimate anecdotes – real stories – as a way to make a complicated topic more understandable.
• The ability to design a process that strikes the right balance for government between acting in public and negotiating in private.
• The ability to see issues from another’s perspective, not necessarily to agree, but at least to understand as a first step toward agreement.
• The ability to know when to listen, not just talk.  [In this example, I often cite a favorite saying of one of my partners in business.  He said, “God gave you two ears and one mouth.  So, listen twice as much as you talk.”]
• The ability to avoid political labels or name-calling that do nothing to contribute to a solid outcome.  This involves a tough balance for a leader – finding a way to say “no,” even as you encourage further negotiation.
• The ability to exhibit patience because finding middle ground often takes time, even when a leader wants to spur action as the clock runs.
• And, perhaps foremost, the ability to envision compromise – the middle – because that is often where the best solutions lie anyway.

Biden may have some of these abilities, but to be sure, he faces an almost impossible task as president.  For one thing, he has to do a dance to round up enough liberal and moderate Democrats in his own party to support his initiatives.  Further, Republicans believe they will succeed best if they just oppose Biden all the time, even if what he is proposing would benefit their Congressional Districts.  Don’t give Biden any political victories, they say.

In terms of numbers, there are just enough Democrats to provide reasonable control in the Senate, which means that any one senator can influence – read, control — the process as much as he or she wants.  Witness Senator Joe Manchin who has ground the Senate to a halt.

Back to my 40 years of Oregon experience.

The two best legislators who showed political leadership at the State Capitol — working the middle to produce compromise — were Senator Neil Bryant from Bend and Senator Betsy Johnson from Scappoose.

As a moderate Republican, Bryant’s political leadership skills almost took him to the Attorney General’s Office, though he had a good run as a State Senator.  And Johnson, a Democrat by name, but a centrist by action, is now running as an independent for Governor.  The consensus is that, beyond past third party candidates, she has a good chance to run well, or even to win.

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

The news came last weekend from a strange, not to mention remote, source – a polling company in Ohio.

The results were noteworthy in the sense of this key finding based on a report from the Oregonian newspaper:

One Donald Trump – remember him? – has lock on Oregon Republicans.

Here is how reporter Jeff Manning started his article on the poll:

“The Oregon Republican party, decades ago a party of moderate centrists like Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, now is overwhelmingly loyal to Donald Trump and would prefer its gubernatorial nominee to be much like the former president, even if that means that nominee can’t win in Oregon, a new poll found.

“In the poll of 600 likely Oregon Republican primary voters conducted in early November, 75 per cent said they view Trump favorably, and 58 per cent think that the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from him. Just over 60 per cent of respondents said that Republican candidates for statewide office should be “more like Trump” while 23 per cent said they should be less like him.”

It is Democrats who are often known as a “disorganized political party” as they try to bring a lot of different folks under their tent.  But, if the polling is true – and I have no reason to dispute it – the results show that many Republicans in Oregon are as disorganized as the other side.

The fact is, according to the poll, they have little idea about right and wrong in politics; otherwise, why would they be wrong so grievously and fawn over Trump?  The alternative would be to organize effectively so someone other than another Democrat would ascend to the Governor’s Office for the first time in 40 years.

I view all of this from the lens of having worked for the last Republican Governor in Oregon Vic Atiyeh.  He was a master at working the middle with Republicans and Democrats, never being concerned about who got credit for quality actions, but only concerned with the actions themselves.

So it is that I long for the days of political leaders who work the middle.  They are in short supply these days.

Here are other conclusions from the new poll.

• Results prompted John von Schlegell, a prominent Portland business executive and political novice who commissioned the poll while he considered jumping into the race, to abandon that notion.  “After looking at all the data, as much as I believe a moderate Republican would be really good for this state, it would be difficult to pull off,” said von Schlegell, co-founder of Endeavour Capital.
• Bud Pierce, the Salem doctor who was the party’s nominee in 2016 before getting trounced by Kate Brown in the general election, got significantly more support than any other Republicans named in the poll. When asked who they would vote for if the primary were tomorrow, 13.7 per cent went with Pierce.
• The poll found that 53 per cent of likely Republican voters were most likely to vote for a candidate for governor who “focuses on fighting liberals to protect our basic freedoms, defend our borders, and stopping masks and critical race theory from being forced on our children.” Only 35 per cent, by contrast, said they would be more likely to vote for one “who focuses on economic issues like promoting opportunity and job growth, lowering taxes on middle-class families and holding government accountable.”

But, the Oregonian newspaper reported, “the 2022 race will face an unknown not seen before in modern Oregon politics.  An elected office holder with a track record of raising substantial campaign donations has filed for the race.  She is longtime moderate Democrat lawmaker Sen. Betsy Johnson from Scappoose, Oregon who will run without the backing of either major political party.

“In a state that has far more registered voters who also are not affiliated with either party –1.2 million – than its 730,000 registered Republicans, Johnson’s role as a spoiler could be as significant as it is unpredictable at this stage.”

Regarding Johnson, I lobbied her for more than 10 y at the State Capitol in Salem.  I found her to be refreshing and candid.  She always conveyed to me her reactions to my comments about what my clients wanted and, if she said something, her word was her bond.

That might make her a good governor.

More from the Oregonian:

“The poll contained a morsel of good news for Johnson. Fully 30 per cent of likely Republican voters agreed they were ‘open to the possibility’ of voting for her.”  So it would not be surprising to see significant Republican support for Johnson from party members tired of getting beat.

“If you’re a Republican voter, what do you have to lose voting for Betsy?” one analyst said. ‘She leans right, she’s (now) non-affiliated.  And you haven’t won in 40 years.’”

So, once we get past the primary, the general election for governor in Oregon will provide a real choice. 

It could come down to, (a) the leading Democrat candidate, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, who represents the left wing of the Ds who have held the Governor’s Office for about 40 years; (b) the probable leading Republican, the Salem doctor Bud Pierce; and (c) a wild card – Johnson — with a real chance to take votes, if not win.

To build her chances, Johnson has resigned her Senate seat, one she has held for 20 years in Columbia County, to focus exclusively on the governor’s race.  In the first campaign finance report, she reported a huge dose of cash – more than $2 million – which made her instantly more credible.

What’s ahead should be one of the most interesting races for governor in many years with a lot at stake for all Oregonians.

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

The headline in this blog is not meant as a scare tactic.  No.  It is meant to summarize the new reality we face in America – the huge risk of a “civil war.”

This was driven home anew by a column written by Dana Milbank for the Washington Post.  It appeared a few days ago under this headline:

WE ARE CLOSER TO CIVIL WAR THAN ANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, NEW STUDY SAYS

Whom do we credit for this fragile state of democracy in this country?

No question.  Donald Trump who tried to overthrow democracy a year ago and is about the same business as we head into both the mid-term elections in 2022 and the next presidential election in 2024.

He wants to be a dictator.  He is narcissist.  He believes he always knows what’s best for this country and wants everyone to bow at his throne. 

The apparent last thing he wants?  Democracy.

Milbank began his column this way:

“If you know people still in denial about the crisis of American democracy, kindly remove their heads from the sand long enough to receive this message:  A startling new finding by one of the nation’s top authorities on foreign civil wars says we are on the cusp of our own.

“Barbara F. Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, serves on a CIA advisory panel called the Political Instability Task Force that monitors countries around the world and predicts which of them are most at risk of deteriorating into violence.

“By law, the task force can’t assess what’s happening within the United States, but Walter…applied the predictive techniques herself to this country.

“Her bottom line: ‘We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.’

“’No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” she writes.  ‘But, if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely. And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.’”

Indeed, Milbank says, the United States has already gone through what the CIA identifies as the first two phases of insurgency — the “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” phases — and only time will tell whether the final phase, “open insurgency,” began with the sacking of the Capitol by Trump supporters on January 6.

Things deteriorated so dramatically under Trump, in fact, that the United States no longer qualifies technically as a democracy.  Citing the Center for Systemic Peace’s “Polity” data set — the one the CIA task force has found to be most helpful in predicting instability and violence — Walter writes that the United States is now an “anocracy,” somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state.

That’s a new word for me – “anocracy.”

More Milbank: 

“The question now is whether we can pull back from the abyss Trump’s Republicans have led us to.  There is no more important issue; democracy is the foundation of everything else in America.  Democrats, in a nod to this reality, are talking about abandoning President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda in favor of pro-democracy voting rights legislation. Republicans will fight it tooth and nail.

“The enemies of democracy must not be allowed to prevail.  We are on the doorstep of the ‘open insurgency’ stage of civil conflict, and Walter writes that once countries cross that threshold, the CIA predicts, ‘sustained violence as increasingly active extremists launch attacks that involve terrorism and guerrilla warfare, including assassinations and ambushes.’”

Well, some might say, this doesn’t sound like Oregon.  But, the Oregonian newspaper, in a story last weekend, said a new poll shows that Republicans here are “overwhelmingly loyal to Donald Trump and would prefer its gubernatorial nominee to be much like the former president, even if that means that nominee can’t win in Oregon.

In the poll of 600 likely Oregon Republican primary voters conducted in early November, 75 per cent said they view Trump favorably, and 58 per cent think that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him. Just over 60 per cent said that Republican candidates for statewide office should be “more like Trump” while 23 per cent said they should be less like him.”

Being “more like Trump” means some Oregon Republicans might even favor civil war as a way to win.

At the same time, the phrase “civil war” has come into some disrepute in this country because, for one thing, it calls to mind the bitterness of that war in this country, which was fought over slavery. 

The phrase also is an oxymoron – no way to be “civil” while at “war.”

But, for those of us who care about the future of our country, the phrase is an apt one to describe what clearly is at stake.

So, vote smartly and wisely in the months and weeks ahead.  Vote like the future of the country is at issue because…it is!

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

“Democrats should long ago have disabused themselves of the idea that facts and evidence, no matter how damning, will produce some sort of “aha!” moment for the Republican base.

“It will never acknowledge the corruption — both in the traditional sense of the word and in the damage to democratic processes — that former president Donald Trump and his minions were capable of or the even greater abuses they would feel at liberty to commit should he return to power.”

So writes Karen Tumulty, deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Her main point – “no facts and evidence, no matter how damning, will produce some sort of ‘aha’ moment for the Republican base” – got me to thinking about how bad things are in this country, when:

• …any new fact or evidence emerges, it only inflames the opposition to rational political dealings in this country.

• …Trump’s instinctive style – mimicked by his acolytes – is to go off on any new fact or evidence, calling them by his trademark “fake news” tag if he disagrees with them – and he does routinely when they call his conduct into question.  Which means that any new revelation serves only as a foundation for him to inflame further.
  
  
• …facts and evidence that would make most rational persons blush with embarrassment only inflame Trump and his acolytes.  He can grab women wherever and whenever he wants with no penalty – and his minions cheer.  He can take action to overthrow an election and his base doesn’t care; in fact, it aids in the insurrection.  He can advocate breaking various laws and his base will only accept it as a new foundation for more.

• …Trump goes off on a rage, he brings many others – Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, etc. – with him.  They bow at the altar of Trump at all costs, no matter the consequences.

In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson wrote about this in a piece appeared under this headline:

What if the eventual January 6 report is rigorous, compelling — and doesn’t really matter?

Gerson’s point:

“The boldness and persistence of the House January 6 committee are a welcome and necessary development.  It seems intent on exploring and exposing all the elements of former president Donald Trump’s plot against America:  The spurious and dangerous legal theories that fed and informed his plan to overturn the 2020 election, Trump’s direct incitement of violent and criminal behavior on the part of his supporters, and the subsequent attempts by Republicans to soft-pedal subversion.

“But I am haunted nonetheless by a recent, decisive moment in American democracy. In early February, Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin made an appeal to the Senate as it was voting on whether to pursue a second impeachment trial against Trump.

“As both prosecutor and witness, Raskin described what a disruption in the peaceful transfer of power actually looks like:  His visiting daughter, hiding in fear of her life; the door-to-door hunt by fanatics seeking public officials to attack; and the desecration of sacred national symbols. ‘This cannot be the future of America,’ he said.”

Raskin’s appeal came to nothing.

While the case against Trump is utterly compelling, it could eventually be useless.

That, Gerson continues, poses a key question:  What if the eventual January 6 report is a detailed, powerful, comprehensive and legally compelling indictment of Trump and it doesn’t really matter?  Or at least doesn’t matter to the voters it needs to?”

And, the GOP is adrift.   According to the Pew Research Center, roughly two-thirds of Republicans say that Trump “definitely” or “probably”won the 2020 election.  And the share of Republicans who believe it is “somewhat” or “very” important to prosecute the January 6 rioters has fallen by more than 20 percentage points this year.

During my professional career, when I worked as a public relations manager in state government or when I functioned as a public relations consultant to firms in the private sector, one major goal was to avoid making a challenge worse by overreacting to it.

Back in the day of major newspapers, I often advised clients that “it didn’t make any sense to argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

Today, Trump would not recognize the risks of overreacting.  As the epitome of a narcissist, overreacting is what he does instinctively.

I only hope he eventually pays a price for his criminal conduct.

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

The headline in this blog was the lead on a missive from Salem Leadership Foundation (SLF) Director Sam Skillern that landed in my in-box this week.

He sought to inform SLF advocates – including me — about the status of immigration in the Salem-Keizer area, and to advocate that all of us should treat immigrants with respect.

This is, of course, different than what Donald Trump proclaimed as he ran for president.  He ran against immigrants, claiming they were all scofflaws and miscreants. 

And, in doing so, he appealed to many people in this country, even if those people had immigrant blood in their veins.

It shocked me to see how successful Trump’s strategy was.  It was a major reason why he won the presidency – and no doubt one of the ways he wants to win again.

Back to Skillern, because I don’t want to focus only on negative fanatics like Trump.  Here are excerpts of what Skillern wrote:

“The whole world is coming to Shalom, Oregon, and it’s a beautiful thing. There was a time when those of African, Asian, Polynesian and Hispanic descent were not welcome to live here (even though some did). 

“I remember in 2002 when there was a stir at the state Capitol.  Someone discovered the Oregon Constitution still contained language restricting the rights of ‘Kanakas.’  You know, Sandwich Islanders.  OK, back then I had to look it up, too – Hawaiians!  Unwelcome? 

“Even though they’d lived in the Oregon Territory since the late 1700s and were valued as skilled seamen and workers, the Kanaka joined other peoples of color on the ‘not-welcome-here’ list.”

Things have changed dramatically.

Salem for Refugees, a relatively new program that started at Salem Alliance Church where my wife and I have attended for more 30 years, carries much of the load for the change and does so in a solid, positive spirit, with the goal being “to see all refugees in Salem as valued, thriving, contributing members of our community.”

Consider these statistics:

• Among the 42,000 students in Salem-Keizer Schools, more than 80 languages are spoken.  In the past five years, more than 375 new neighbors from around the globe have settled here through Salem for Refugees. 

• So far, Salem for Refugees, on its own, has welcomed more than 360refugees to the Salem-Keizer area.  Many of them lately have come from Afghanistan and that includes several large families looking for a new life outside of a war-torn area of the world – a new life that could and should be supported by many in Salem (including my wife who has made various donations over the past weeks to help Afghans re-settle in Salem…I give her kudos for the effort).
  
  

Skillern continues:

“In light of the fact that many of the early Oregon settlers were missionaries and Christians, it’s vexing they didn’t seem to comprehend Jesus’ family tree.  Two Biblical authors – Matthew and Luke – carefully chronicle Jesus’ bloodline. 

“Luke’s genealogy takes us all the way back to Adam, establishing Jesus’ kinship with all mankind and God.  Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus’ Jewish lineage to King David and father Abraham.   Curiously, Matthew also tells us about four non-Jewish women:  Tamar and Rahab (Caananites), Ruth (Moabite) and Bathsheba (Hittite). 

“So, in addition to meeting the messianic requirement of being from the tribe of Judah and the House of David, Jesus was also a mixed-race savior—the blood of the whole world flowed through his veins.  With Jesus, there is no such thing as a “not-welcome-here” list.”

Further, Skillern adds that “it’s interesting to note that Jesus was a Hebrew baby born in Asia and became a refugee with his folks in Africa, making him an inter-continental savior.”  

So, I ask, with Skillern, why it is that many people who call themselves Christians hate immigrants?  Consider Jesus own life.  He was “an immigrant” in many ways. 

And, immigrants are, at least potentially, “children of God,” so we should welcome them to our community, for they make life richer by their very heritage.  In this way, we, as citizens, can live like Christ would want us to live.

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

**********

Here, with a few additional paragraphs, I reprint a blog I wrote a few weeks ago, declaring that mixing the church and politics carries huge risks – risks not worth running despite many who call themselves “Christians” becoming more and more political, including even with violent intentions.

I write because doing so, for me, is a way to think through issues.  Rating myself, I think this was one of the best blogs I have written in the recent past, so, without apology, I repeat it, despite its length.

The additional paragraphs are drawn from a blog written by David French, an American political commentator, a theologically conservative traditional Christian, and former attorney who has argued high profile religious liberty cases.  A fellow at the National Review Institute and a staff writer for National Review from 2015 to 2019, French currently serves as senior editor of The Dispatch.

Here is what he wrote:

“Let me put it another way. I’m old enough to remember the words and expressed beliefs of even some of the most enthusiastic Trumpist Evangelicals before they supported Trump, and this much I know:  If I’d told them in December 2014 that white Evangelicals would shortly vote in overwhelming numbers for a thrice-married man who bragged about grabbing women by their genitals, appeared in a Playboy movie, paid hush money to cover up an affair with a porn star, and was facing multiple corroborated claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault, they’d say that only Democrats were that hypocritical. 

“Then, if I followed that up by saying that a disproportionate number of that same evangelical community would shun pre-vaccine mask-wearing and social distancing in the midst of a deadly pandemic that would claim hundreds of thousands of American lives and then disproportionately reject life-saving vaccines, they’d think I was an anti-Christian bigot.

“If I capped off my prophecy by noting that white evangelicals would be far more likely than virtually any other American community to embrace wild election conspiracy theories and then a subset of that community would literally storm the Capitol with prayers on their lips, then their assessment of me would be clinched. They’d think I’d simply lost my mind.

“This is not the result you’d expect from a community whose politics is centered on biblical justice. It is the result you’d expect from a community disproportionately shaped by the history, culture, and traditions of the white American South.”

Appearing below is my original blog.

**********

Back when I served in a leadership capacity as a Governing Board member at Salem Alliance Church here in Salem, Oregon, we made a critical decision.

It was this:  We declined to allow politics to infect the church.   Rather, we contended, church should be about God and the role of his son, Jesus, in our lives.

It should not be about politics.

Put another way, we declined to allow the church to become just another political organization, thus perverting its real purpose.

Peter Wehner, writing for Atlantic Magazine, produced an excellent piece on the subject of the evangelical church and its erosion into politics.  The article appeared under this headline:

THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IS BREAKING APART: Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church

Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writes widely on political, cultural, religious, and national-security issues, often for Atlantic Magazine.  He also is the author of a book, The Death of Politics:  How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.

Here is the way he started his piece:

“The election of the elders of an evangelical church is usually an uncontroversial, even unifying event.  But this summer, at an influential megachurch in Northern Virginia, something went badly wrong. A trio of elders didn’t receive 75 per cent of the vote, the threshold necessary to be installed.

“A small group of people, inside and outside this church, coordinated a divisive effort to use disinformation in order to persuade others to vote these men down as part of a broader effort to take control of this church.”

Why?

Apparently, church members had been misled, having been told, among other things, that the three individuals nominated to be elders would advocate selling the church building to Muslims, who would convert it into a mosque.  In a second vote on July 18, all three nominees cleared the threshold.  But that hardly resolved the conflict.  Members of the church filed a lawsuit, claiming that the conduct of the election violated the church’s constitution.

Beyond the election, the church’s pastor had been accused of proposing “wokeness” and pushing a “social justice agenda” from the left of center.  Not clear whether the pastor did or didn’t do this, but the allegation was enough to bring down the church.

According to Wehner’s report, what happened in this church is happening all over the evangelical world.  The account above simply serves as an anecdote to describe an infection – the church becoming political.

For my part, at Salem Alliance, now about 20 years ago, my colleagues and I experienced advocacy for political activity.  In one case, we faced a demand to give sermons against abortion from a right-side political point-of-view.  In another case, we were asked to develop a list of positions on political issues for the church to espouse.

We did neither.

Now, surely, when it comes to an issue such as abortion, there is scriptural advice on the subject, but we preferred to allow that advice to be individual in nature, not a collective admonition on one side or the other.

At any rate, buoyed by Wehner’s article, I developed list of what ails churches today when political action becomes an overriding objective, not honoring Jesus.  [The quote marks below indicate that I drew material from Wehner’s article, though I did not necessarily use the individual names of sources to whom he talked, believing it was enough to attribute words to Wehner.  He serves credit for sparking my thinking.]

AGGRESSIVE POLITICS FOMENTED BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: The aggressive, disruptive, and unforgiving mindset that characterizes so much of our politics has found a home in many American churches.  The religious right is to blame for much of the intrusion.

“The coronavirus pandemic, of course, has placed religious communities under extraordinary strain.  Everyone in America has felt its effects; for many Christians, it’s been a bar to gathering and worshipping together, sharing communion and performing baptisms, and saying common prayers and participating in rituals and liturgy.  Not being in community destabilized what has long been a core sense of Christian identity.

“But there’s more to the fractures than just COVID-19.  After all, many of the forces that are splitting churches were in motion well before the pandemic hit.  The pandemic exposed and exacerbated weaknesses and vulnerabilities, habits of mind and heart, that already existed.”

The root of the discord, Wehner writes, lies in the fact that many Christians have embraced the worst aspects of culture and politics.  Churches become repositories, not of grace but of grievances, places where tribal identities are reinforced, where fears are nurtured, and where aggression and nastiness are made sacred.  

THEN CAME DONALD TRUMP: The first step was the cultivation of the idea within the religious right that certain political positions were deeply Christian when, in fact, they were not.

Then came Trump.

What he did – and wants to continue to do – is to advocate hatred and resentment as the best approach, including for many who profess to be Christians.  For these people, Trump is close to a god.

“The dominance of political religion over professed religion is seen in how, for many, the loyalty to Trump became blind allegiance.  The result is that many Christian followers of Trump have come to see a gospel of hatred, resentment, vilification, put-downs, and insults as expressions of their Christianity.”

THE CHURCH AS ENTERTAINMENT, NOT BIBLE TEACHING:  On another side, many churches aren’t interested in Biblical teaching at all. They focus instead on entertainment, because entertainment is what keeps people in their seats and coins in the offering plate.

Further, many people rely on the media as source for teaching.  They consume media, or rather the media consumes them, and Biblical teaching ends up in second place.

“When people’s values are shaped by the media they consume, rather than by their religious leaders and communities,” Wehner says, “there are consequences.

“What the media want is engagement, and, for purveyors of media messages, engagement is most reliably driven by anger and hatred.  And so, hatred migrates into the church, which doesn’t always have the resources to resist it.”

Teaching people how to think biblically would help, as well as teaching people how to disagree with one another according to Biblical standards, Wehner writes.  There is a lot of disagreement in the New Testament, and it gives us a template for how to listen to each other to understand rather than just to argue.  Note the word listen.

FOCUSING ON POLITICS PROMPTS CHURCHES TO ILLUSTRATE THE SAME TRAIT THAT MARKS POLITICS – LACK OF CIVIILITY:  Many Christians are not inclined to heed calls for civility.  They feel that everything they value is under assault, and that they need to fight to protect it.

Trump made aggressive name-calling, cruelty and derogation the norm.  Through him, we saw the once-shocking seem routine; we saw anything short of personal cruelty to be a sign of weakness. 

THE ROLE OF THE SOUTH:  And then there is a regional component to the crisis of evangelical Christianity.

Some of the distinctive cultural forms present in the American South—masculinity and male dominance, tribal loyalties, obedience and intolerance, and even the ideology of white supremacism—have spread to other parts of the country and, in fact, to the church. 

Look only so far as the dissension Trump spread in Charlottesville and in the January 6 insurrection.  Many of those involved came from churches to do Trump’s bidding.

IT’S TIME FOR THE CHURCH TO RECLAIM JESUS:  Jesus now has to be reclaimed from “His” church, from those who pretend to speak most authoritatively in his name, but don’t.

Too many Christians resist Jesus’ call radically to rethink attitudes toward power, ourselves, and others, especially the poor and down-trodden, including immigrants.

“Unlike in the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan—unlike Jesus’s barrier-breaking encounters with prostitutes and Roman collaborators, with the lowly and despised, with the unclean and those on the wrong side of the “holiness code,” with the wounded souls whom he healed on the Sabbath—many Christians today see the world divided between us and them, the children of light and the children of darkness. 

“For many of us who have made Christianity central to our lives, the pain of this moment is watching those who claim to follow Jesus do so much to distort who He really was. “

Even as politics threatens the church, it also is important to note countless acts of kindness, generosity, and self-giving love that are performed every day by people precisely because they are Christians and, in fact, are part of a church.  Their lives have been changed, and in some cases transformed, by their faith.

So, all is not lost for churches and for their real members.

Here in Salem, for example, I see kindness and generosity in the way many individuals have rallied around refugees, including recent ones from Afghanistan who are being re-settled in Salem.

Wehner concludes:  “Something has gone amiss.  The Jesus of the Gospels—the Jesus who won their hearts, and who long ago won mine—needs to be reclaimed.”

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

California is known for a lot of things, not all good things.

A new bad one is this:

A piece of legislation in the California Legislature — AB 672 (called by opponents “The Public Golf Endangerment Act”) – poses a threat to municipal golf down south.

What the bill does is provide $50 million in developer subsidies to re-develop California’s municipal golf courses into housing complexes.

That covers 22 per cent of the state’s golf stock that hosts upwards of 45 per cent of the state’s golf play and roughly 90 per cent of the game’s growth and diversity programs, according to information from the Southern California Golf Association (SCGA).

The SCGA says the bill “singles out golf and only golf for dismemberment.  No other park, open space or land preservation use is similarly jeopardized, guaranteeing that golf and only golf will be sacrificed up for re-development.”

Now, why do a care about this?

Well at least two reasons:

• First, it is a stupid idea – and, as some say, “you cannot fix stupid.”  There are far better ways to provide needed housing other than to trash open spaces such as golf courses, which, I add, have proven their worth during the pandemic.

• Second, based on my more than 25 years in the state lobby business in Oregon, I worry that legislative ideas move north and south on the West Coast.  And the ideas that move are not always good ones.

So, we could see this kind of land grab here in Oregon.

The SCGA is working to round up grassroots comments against AB 672, but it is too early to tell yet what will happen.

As a California golfer, albeit at a private club in the California desert, I intend to add my voice to the opposition.

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

An essay in the Washington Post this morning caught my attention for a simple, yet profound, reason.

This:  The words in the essay indicate what is at stake for America as we contend with the Donald Trump led attempt to re-make our government in his own image as a dictator and authoritarian.

Consider these words written by Sam Tanenhaus, an author who is

writing a biography of William F. Buckley Jr., and is a former editor of the New York Times Book Review.

“Internal assaults on American government usually come with the promise of greater freedom.  ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,’ Thomas Jefferson wrote. He was referring to Shays’s Rebellion, an uprising of 4,000 Massachusetts citizens in protest of taxes imposed by the state’s governor to liquidate Revolutionary War debt.

“Seventy-five years later, the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, explaining another rebellion, said the South had no choice but to ‘take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and State sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires.’

“To its participants and their emboldened intellectual allies, the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was another such ‘battle cry of freedom’ — a patriotic exercise against tyranny.  

“President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might deplore this as an ‘assault on our democracy,’ but ‘what they mean by our democracy is their oligarchy,’ the author and journalist Roger Kimball said in a September speech at Hillsdale College.  The protest against them may have become unruly, but it was by no means an insurrection.

“He may be right, though for reasons different from the one he gave. Militant protest, as Garry Wills wrote in ‘A Necessary Evil,’ his history of American distrust of government comes in different forms.  At one end of the spectrum are insurrectionists, who ‘take arms against the government because it is too repressive.’

“At the opposite end are vigilantes, who ‘take arms to do the government’s work because the authorities are not repressive enough.’  They become ‘vigilant,’ Wills writes, in times when they believe ‘the government is too slow, indifferent, or lax.’

“Vigilantism seems to be the defining strain of American conservatism today, embraced by both the mob and intellectuals.  Kimball is one of many who, emancipated by former president Donald Trump, feel licensed to lead their own campaigns against the country as it becomes more egalitarian and inclusive.

“In their minds, the storming of the Capitol on January 6 was meant not to subvert democratic ‘traditions,’ ‘procedures’ and ‘norms’ — the terms we hear so often — but rather to restore them through whatever means were necessary to stop a ‘stolen’ election, ‘rigged’ by the true enemies of ‘our democracy:’  The election officials and vote counters, the judges in courts across the land, even Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr.

“So, too, the chilling words ‘Hang Mike Pence’ were shouted in protest of the vice president’s refusal to ‘do the right thing,’ as Trump recently said — which in this case meant decertifying the election won by Joe Biden.”

Strong, thought-provoking words from Tanenhaus,  

They hold huge implications – negative ones — for this country as we head down an uncertain and dangerous road.  Make no mistake – more insurrections and vigilantism are on the horizon.

So, which is it – insurrection or vigilantism?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter because, whichever it is, the huge risks are there.  But, I found these definitions:

• Insurrection:  A violent uprising against an authority or government.

• Vigilantism:  Law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.

Both are involved as Trump lovers position themselves for the 2022 mid-term elections, as well as the 2024 presidential election.

As we look back on the startling actions of January 6 and the intentional planning that led up to the insurrection or vigilantism, the prospects are foreboding.  For what we saw on the 6^th is bound to happen again in this country as Trump and his acolytes – either former government officials or regular citizens — bid to overthrow America as we know it, even by violence if necessary.

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

The question in this blog crosses my mind as I consider all the candidates who are bidding to serve in Congress in Oregon’s new Sixth Congressional District.

Why?

When one wins all she or he will have to do is:

• Board an airplane incessantly to get from Oregon to D.C. and back.

• On top of a first election win, begin campaigning again because terms in the U.S. House last for only two years.

• Consider the prospect of having to obey marching orders from U.S House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she wins again on the Democrat side and keeps the Speaker job, or from Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy if he achieves his long-time goal of becoming Speaker.

• Gauge how to act in the face of nearly unsolvable public policy challenges when there is little interest on the part of Ds and Rs in finding middle ground.

On the campaign trail, I hope the media will ask candidates WHY they want to run and WHAT experiences they have in or out of government they think will serve as a credential.  Better questions like this than the normal who’s ahead “horserace” coverage from many reporters and editors.

What follows are excerpts from a story from Oregon Public Broadcasting on the Sixth District race.  It appeared under this headline:

State Representatives Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, and Ron Noble, R-McMinnville, headline crowded field vying to join the state’s congressional delegation.

Unfortunately, what has not gained much notice lately is that a Salem area friend of mine, Dr. Kathleen Harder, has joined the race despite my friendly advice that she has only a long-shot chance to prevail.

The fact that avoided by advice is running is, in many ways, a testament to her drive as what she calls herself, a moderate Democrat, who wants to change the public debate to something not akin to ravaging the other side.

Salinas is touting her track record as a lawmaker and chair of the state House committee on health care where she led efforts to increase affordability and access for Oregonians.  Most recently, she worked with colleagues in the Legislature to amend the state’s constitution to declare health care as a human right — an action lawmakers have tried to pass for more than a decade.

The resolution will appear on the November 2022 ballot, means all candidates, including Harder, will have to reckon with this huge change to Oregon’s Constitution.

I dealt with the “health care as a right” issues over many years in my role as a state health care lobbyist for Providence Health & Services and others. 

To me, the addition makes sense if only because it would compel legislators to deal with health care issues in much the same way as they with education issues.  Too often, that does not occur.

So, if we put the aside the basic question – why anyone from Oregon wants to serve in Congress – my hope is that the coming campaign will provide solid information on a range of credentials and issues – solid information that signals how best to vote.

And, this personal footnote:  As an unaffiliated voter, I am not able to play in the primary, but if my friend, Dr. Harder, makes it into the general election, I’ll cast my vote for her, if only so she can experience the reality of becoming a Member of Congress.

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

“The fight to save American democracy is just beginning.  The outcome is far from certain, but the stakes are clear.  It is a battle for objective truth over paranoid fantasy.  And one of our two major parties, the onetime ‘Party of Lincoln,’ is on the wrong side.  

“We must be blunt about how broadly and deeply the delusions advanced by President Trump have taken hold.  Only then will we be prepared for the real work before us.”

That’s how opinion columnist Eugene Robinson began a recent piece – and he is right.

In the “Trump era” (I hate to call his time an “era,” for it gives him far too much credit), truth became a casualty.

Still, the headline on this blog may be a bit misleading. 

It could be construed to suggest that I do not believe there is anything called “truth.”

No.

I do and there is.  It’s just not Trump or what he stands for.

For this reason, I have hesitated to write and post this blog.  Being misconstrued is a valid concern.

It’s just that, in some cases, with all due respect to Eugene Robinson and going beyond the Trump stupidity, truth is very difficult to define.

Consider the issue of abortion, even as I admit that abortion is a subject I have purposed to avoid in my blogs.  So, this is a one-time violation of that pledge.

What’s truth?

• Is abortion defined as a process that kills unborn infants?
• Or, is abortion defined as supporting a women’s right to choose how to use her body?

Both.  Truth is in the eye of the person who holds a belief on such a subject.

At the same time as I cite this conundrum, I oppose the notion of “alternative facts” as was often enunciated by Trump and his sycophant, Kelly Anne Conway, who both are now out of a job in the Nation’s Capital.

Trump’s standard operating procedure was – and still is — to lie.  The Washington Post Fact Checker tallied more than 35,000 lies, with, no doubt, more to come in his role as a private citizen who wants to cling to power – power for its own sake – even as he contemplates another run for president, perish the thought.

 Usually, the lies Trump told were meant to benefit him personally.

According to the Washington Post, “the Trump presidency began with ‘alternative facts.’  It ended with Trump aide Stephen Miller fantasizing about ‘alternate’ electors replacing the real ones.  And Trump’s congressional cheerleaders have taken up residence in this alternate reality.”

As for “truth,“ I think I know it when I see it.  But, I also did what I often do, which is to check my on-line dictionary.  Here is what it said about truth, which is at least partly helpful:

“The quality or state of being true.

• Loyalty; trustworthiness.
• Sincerity; genuineness; honesty.
• The quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact.
• Reality; actual existence.
• Agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy.”

The line that made the biggest impression on me was the third bullet – “the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts or reality; conformity with fact.”

There.  A fact is one thing.  Truth is another.  But they are linked inextricably.

I began thinking about the definition of truth as part of my service on a Federal Ethics Committee formed by Oregon Common Cause.   Our task was to propose ways for the federal government – including both Legislative and Executive Branches — to return to a point where ethical commitments and behavior mattered.

At the time we debated this last year, those of us on the committee were troubled by Trump’s consistent lies, so we thought we should emphasize truth – at least the word truth in what we recommended to national Common Cause.

Then came the rub.  Truth often is in the eye of the beholder as is the case with the example I cited above – the truth about abortion.

For me, the resolution is this – and it lies in the phrase “conformance with fact.” 

If someone says something that does not conform with facts, then that is not truth.  And truth is worth upholding.