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.

It’s way too early for this notion to have crossed my mind, but it did.  Does what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine conjure up images of what Adolph Hitler did in post-World War I Germany?

The notion arose as I read a good story in the New York Times, one reported from Moscow, Russia, by a seasoned reporter.  The story appeared under the headline that leads this blog.

And, this admission — what I know about the Ukraine-Russia issue revolves around what I read in such publications as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and The Atlantic.  Not, to state the obvious, personal experience.

Hitler’s abhorrent view of history was that he wanted to restore Germany to pre-World War I power, given that he believed the allies had set out to punish Germany after the war ended.  Of course, Hitler also rose to power by hating the Jews and murdering millions of them.  Hitler’s animas appeared to be trait exemplified by many in Germany during his time in power.

Now, several analysts believe that Putin has similar goals for Russia.  He appears to be angry about the dissolution of the Soviet Empire starting in 1990 and wants to retore it to a previous standing in the world.

According to the New York Times:  “The collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago gave birth to democracies across Eastern Europe — and to Putin’s grievances.  He once described the Soviet breakup as ‘the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century’ — a time period that included two world wars and the Holocaust.  He has suggested he wants to reverse that collapse.”

It is not clear whether Putin has views about a certain race of people as Hitler had for the Jews, but that could emerge in the future.  [But, while there is no indication that Putin is going after Jews, there is this strange coincidence.  Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and has given the world a Jewish hero.]

Notice that I have used the word “appears” because there is the “fog of war,” even as smart analysts assess the reasons for what’s happening as bombs fall.

Here are excerpts of the NY Times article:

• The autocrat who has steered Russia for 22 years was embraced by many Russians for what they saw as his rationality and astute risk management.  That image has been upended.  Russians thought they knew their president.  They were wrong. 
• For most of his 22-year rule, Vladimir Putin presented an aura of calm determination at home — of an ability to astutely manage risk to navigate the world’s biggest country through treacherous shoals.  His attack on Ukraine negated that image and revealed him as an altogether different leader:  One dragging the nuclear superpower he leads into a war with no foreseeable conclusion, one that by all appearances will end Russia’s attempts over its three post-Soviet decades to find a place in a peaceful world order.
• Many Russians had bought into the Kremlin’s narrative that theirs was a peace-loving country, and Putin a careful and calculating leader.  After all, many Russians still believe, it was Putin who lifted their country out of the poverty and chaos of the 1990s and made it into a place with a decent standard of living and worthy of international respect.
• During the pandemic, analysts had noticed a change in Putin — a man who isolated himself in a bubble of social distancing without parallel among Western leaders.  In isolation, he appeared to become more aggrieved and more emotional, and increasingly spoke about his mission in stark historical terms.  His public remarks descended ever deeper into distorted historiography as he spoke of the need to right perceived historical wrongs suffered by Russia over the centuries at the hands of the West

So, what does all this say about how any of us should react?  Well, not sure because, as individuals, there is not much we can do about a new, major war. 

However, we can continue relying on major, credible media outlets – the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the NY Times and The Atlantic – as we try to separate fiction from fact.

And, we can hope that the Russian people will not give Putin the same kind of room to move as the Germans did for Hitler in post-World War I Germany.

President Joe Biden is facing a reality as a war-time president, though the conflict is overseas.  Still, he must face this new reality, one he led with as he gave a credible State of the Union speech this week.  The Ukraine reality probably could end up dwarfing such issues as inflation and the pandemic, two other realities Biden faces.

I continue to be glad he is in the Oval Office, especially in comparison to his predecessor.

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.

President Joe Biden appeared last night in Congress for his State of the Union speech and it was in a place – the U.S. Capitol – that he had called home for more than 30 years.

How well did Biden do in this important annual ritual?

Well, as you might imagine, opinion is mixed.

As one viewer and hearer, I thought he did a workmanlike job, though also it is true that State of the Union addresses tend to be as memorable for the atmosphere that surrounds them as for what is said.  That was true last night when Ukraine looming in the foreground, inflation in the background, and Covid-19 in retreat at least for the moment.

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post produced different editorials to rate Biden’s content and delivery.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST/

“Now, Putin’s effort to redraw Europe’s map by force has exploded not only Biden’s plans for a foreign policy pivot to China but also the entire global balance of power.  Dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its consequences seems likely to consume a large part of this Administration’s attention for the next three years.

“In short, events have thrust historic challenges upon Biden, but also opportunities.  Tuesday night, Biden rightfully claimed that he had helped maintain, and indeed increase, the unity of Western allies in the face of Russian aggression and that his administration made innovative and subtle public use of its intelligence.

“Strong and swift U.S.-led sanctions, widely supported around the world, have indeed isolated the Putin regime andensured it pays a heavy price. “This has aided unity between the two parties; members of both rose to applaud Ukraine and its ambassador, who was present.  The Republicans among them were differentiating themselves from the shameful praise for the dictator voiced by their party’s presumed 2024 presidential front-runner, Trump.”

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL/

Under this headline — Biden Misses the Moment in His State of the Union Address – editorial writers said Biden “had supportive words for Ukraine against Russian, but offered no domestic or defense policy reset.”

They went on:

“President Biden is no Olaf Scholz.  The new Germany Chancellor upended decades of center-left German defense and energy policy this week after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, and Biden had a similar opportunity in his State of the Union address Tuesday.  He missed the moment. The President remained on the same policy course of his first year, albeit dressed up in new anti-inflation packaging.

“More defense spending to meet the threats from autocrats?  No.  A new appreciation for the contribution of fossil fuels to American and European security?  Not a word.  A note that government spending contributed to the highest inflation in 40 years?  Nope.  A word of praise for the private Pharma innovation that developed Covid therapies and vaccines?  He proposed government price controls instead.

“Biden did offer stirring support for Ukraine and its fight for freedom, which received bi-partisan applause. His Administration deserves credit for helping to rally Europe and other nations to impose sanctions and provide more military aid.  He was properly condemning of Putin.”

FROM COLUMNIST DANA MILBANK IN THE POST/ 

He wrote under this headline:  “Republicans are so eager to see Biden fail that they’d let Putin succeed.”

More from Milbank: 

“After her fellow Republicans booted her from party leadership last year, Rep. Liz Cheney posed a question:  “Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country?”

“Now, with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Republicans are answering that question — in the affirmative.”

For my part, I have heard many “State of the Union” addresses over the years, including when I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for a couple years. 

I always thought it was tempting to make too much of them.  After all, the speeches are and were only expressions of a point of view at a moment in time.  On occasion, they offered an opportunity for a president to set a new agenda or call for a bi-partisan America, both good goals.

But, they often degenerated, as last night’s example did, into a round of partisan bickering.

For one thing, President Biden, for all his good, honest traits as a public figure, does not have the wherewithal to deliver soaring rhetoric in the manner of, say, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama or John F. Kennedy.  No memorable lines such as, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” or “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Nor, does Biden lower himself into the depths as Donald Trump was prone to do. 

If you listened closely to his speech, Biden managed to condemn Putin and Russia while, at the same time, outlining an agenda to combat inflation, thus, in a way, setting a new course for his Administration.  Not the huge “Build Back Better” agenda, but bits and pieces of that aspiration.

Apart from the list of policy proposals, Washington Post, columnist Max Boot captured what, for me, was the best assessment of yesterday evening’s speech:

“It is a great comfort in this dangerous time to know that, while Russia might be led by an unhinged egomaniac, the United States no longer is.”

The egomaniac in the U.S.?  Of course, it’s Trump.

Just imagine what Trump might have said if he was at the lecturn in the Senate.  He would have cozied up to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, whom he admires.

So, I, for one, am thankful this morning that Joe Biden is in the Oval Office and I wish him only the best as his Administration moves into near wartime footing.

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.

I have written previously about the issue summarized by this headline:  Pro golfer Phil Mickelson endorsing the new Saudi Golf League, despite that country’s horrible human rights record.

I do so again, the realization that any more comments by anyone, me included, could be assumed to prolong this issue.  Still….

Mickelson paid a price for his comments, though they were made to the writer of what was called an “unauthorized biography of Mickelson,” and Mickelson apparently thought they were off-the-record.  His biographer strongly disagreed.

For Mickelson, clearly a “public official” – not one in government, but one in the public eye — the price is growing larger by the day. 

So far, the following firms have pulled back from endorsing Mickelson:  American-Express (which removes Mickelson’s status as the host of the pro golf tournament in La Quinta, California), Callaway (the golf clubs Mickelson plays and has endorsed for years), Workday, Amstel Beer, and KPMG.

Rather than write more about this issue myself, I am going to provide brief excerpts of coverage that has appeared in major newspapers.

WASHINGTON POST:  In a column that originally appeared under this headline – Phil Mickelson and the perils of sportswashing – the Post , interestingly, produced a new headline (How Phil Mickelson got clocked by his own backswing).  It was the lead for a column by long-time excellent sports writer, John Feinstein, which included these excerpts:

“The Saudi Arabian soap opera involving some of golf’s biggest stars — notably Hall of Famer Phil Mickelson — appears to be a complicated tale.

“In fact, it’s very simple: It’s about money — and how reaching for more can damage even the best reputations.

“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman believes that throwing millions of dollars at professional golfers can help him whitewash his reputation as the man who U.S. intelligence officials believe ordered the murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

“Players such as Mickelson have been ready to accept Mohammed’s cash, guaranteed to players up front, instead of sticking with the PGA Tour, where — for the most part — you are paid what you earn each week.”

MORE WASHINGTON POST:  Editorial writers at the Post went on record under this headline:  “Saudi Arabia is trying to distract from repression — 18 holes at a time.”

“Saudi Arabia has long had a knack for running its bad deeds through the wash, displaying to the world a squeaky-clean version of itself to distract from reports of brutal repression and a general disregard for civil liberties.  The country’s latest attempt at reputation-laundering relies, cannily, on an institution known for neat presentation and exemplary decorum: professional golf.

“No doubt the PGA would like to squeeze every cent it can out of a beloved golfer’s 30-foot birdie putt or bunker shot placed right in the hole. But by suggesting these sins are on par with the abuses rampant under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s rule, any golfer who flees the PGA for the SGL hits right into Saudi Arabia’s hand.

“Certainly, there are ways to take a stand against corporate greed besides aligning oneself with a notorious dictatorship.  Indeed, corporate greed and that dictatorship are apt to find ways to be allies.  Just look at former president Donald Trump, who reportedly is in talks to host the likely lucrative SGL events at his financially struggling clubs.

“Mickelson has apologized for his comments.  But his blunt honesty might yet stymie the endeavor, by laying bare the moral compromise submitted to by would-be SGL players.  Or maybe not.  As PGA Tour star Brooks Koepka pointed out this past week, ‘Everyone talks about money. … They’ll get their guys.’  Still, it is to be hoped that even the most ardent golf fan would recognize a sellout.”

FROM THE DESERT SUN NEWSPAPER IN PALM SPRINGS:  “In the wake of his controversial comments about a proposed Saudi Arabia-backed breakaway golf league and his perceived problems with the PGA Tour, Phil Mickelson will no longer serve as host of The American Express PGA Tour event in La Quinta.

“The PGA Tour confirmed to The Desert Sun on Saturday that Mickelson, who served as tournament host since 2020, will not return to that role in 2023.  In addition, the Mickelson Foundation, formed in 2019 specifically to be the charitable arm of the tournament, will no longer be part of the event, the tour confirmed.”

WALL STREET JOURNAL COLUMN:  “These are supposed to be easy days for Phil Mickelson.

“At 51, the veteran pro golfer is one of the most successful and recognizable players in the sport.  His unexpected victory at the PGA Championship last spring was one of the best golf moments in eons, a thrilling crescendo on an already historic career. 

“Now in his fourth professional decade, there’s no pressure for Mickelson to deliver memorable Sundays.  Sponsors don’t need wins; they’re coasting on past deeds.

“Of course, if you know anything about the golfing life of Phil Mickelson, you know he has seldom made it easy on himself.  He’s in the rough once more, this time off the course. 

‘Mickelson is under siege and taking time away from golf after a series of remarks about his involvement in efforts to challenge the PGA Tour—an organization he feels has financially shorted its top players—by launching a Saudi-financed rival ‘Super Golf League.’”

NEW YORK TIMES STORY:  The last paragraph of the story said this, though the Times did not write an editorial about the issue:

“I have experienced many successful and rewarding moments that I will always cherish, but I have often failed myself and others, too.  The past 10 years I have felt the pressure and stress slowly affecting me at a deeper level.  I know I have not been my best and desperately need some time away to prioritize the ones I love most and work on being the man I want to be.”

Enough excerpts.

But does Mickelson deserve to pay such a huge price?  Well, not sure yet. 

My quick thoughts:

• I wish one of my favorite golfers, Mickelson, would stick to what he does better than many others, which is to play golf.

• To criticize the PGA Tour, I wish Mickelson would have done so in private by talking with its CEO, Jay Monahan, and/or consulting with the Tour Council, a group of players that advises Monahan.

• I wish Mickelson would follow his apology in words (I liked most of what he said) with an “apology in actions.”

• And, I wish all of us, as Americans, would find a way to practice forgiveness, not just criticism.

The latter strikes me as a way for Mickelson to restore at least part of his reputation.

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.

In a way, this blog could be said to be about golf again.  But, it’s not, at least not specifically.

It’s about resources to produce lithium batteries, one use for which is to power new golf carts that use lithium, not water, in their batteries.

So, why a blog about lithium?

Well, there are huge deposits of lithium in the two states where I live – Oregon and California.  So, the subject is of interest to me, as well as conveying opportunities for both states to mine lithium and provide jobs for residents of both states.  Thus, this blog.

So it was that I read stories a few days ago from two credible media outlets — Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) and CBS News.  [In the spirt of full disclosure, OPB was a major client of mine when I toiled as a lobbyist, so I readily admit to bias in favor of OPB.]

Here are selected excerpts of stories from OPB and CBS. 

In a story by reporter Bradley Parks, OPB wrote this:

“A super-volcano, a massive eruption and a lost lake left Oregon with what could be the largest known lithium deposit in the United States.

“Sammy Castonguay (an expert on the land area in Oregon) broke a chunk of rock off a small outcropping on the northeast rim of the McDermitt Caldera on the Oregon-Nevada border and pinned it to the ground with his boot.  He raised his hammer and, with a gentle swing, smashed the rock into smaller pieces.

“Castonguay was collecting samples for his geology students at Treasure Valley Community College in Ontario, Oregon, on a sunny Friday in January.  He said teaching about this ancient super-volcano is a lot easier when he can hand a piece of the soft, white rock to his pupils.

“Others are looking for their piece of the McDermitt Caldera, too.

“The caldera has some of the highest concentrations of lithium in the United States.  Lithium is the lightest metal on earth and highly reactive, making it an ideal ingredient in batteries to power cellphones, lap-tops and electric vehicles.”

According to Parks, the lithium rush is coming to Oregon as the U.S. and global powers seek more of the metal to power electric vehicles and store renewable energy from wind and solar.  Digging up Oregon’s lithium would mean sacrificing this chunk of the sagebrush sea to provide the nation with a key ingredient to wean itself off fossil fuels.

In the other story, CBS news reported lithium developments at
Salton Sea, about 10 miles east of where I live in the winter.  The story appeared under this headline:  “This is going to be a game changer – treasure hidden under the Salton Sea could be inside the next car you buy.”

Here are excerpts from the story:

“The Salton Sea, located about 120 miles east of San Diego, is the largest inland body of water in the state of California. 

“But even on a sunny afternoon, you won’t see it packed with boats or people lounging on the beach. This area has been declining for decades, but there is hope for the future. 

“Eight thousand feet below the Salton Sea is a chemical that some call ‘white gold.’

“Tesla, and its lightweight lithium battery powered cars, changed everything (for the Salton Sea).  Now, several automobile makers want lithium for their batteries. 

“So now the race is now on to mine the lithium under the Salton Sea. The California Energy Commission estimates the Salton Sea could produce 600,000 tons of lithium a year.  That’s far more than the current world demand.  And it could be worth $7.2 billion. 

“Company plans call for a $500 million project that includes drilling a well 8,000 feet down where the lithium is found in superheated saltwater that can reach 700 degrees inside ancient geothermal reservoirs. 

“Steam from that hot water will provide another benefit, clean energy to power the lithium mining. 

“And we’re not talking decades from now, but only a year or two. General Motors needs lithium fast as it plans for 30 fully electric models by 2025.  And that also means hundreds of new, well-paying jobs, and Jim says more than 95 per cent of them will go to people living in the area.”

So, that’s the deal:

• Development work will extract lithium from both Oregon and California that will power batteries around the world – including for a new golf cart I want to buy.
• The work will mean economic development prospects for both areas that have been hard hit by lean times.  Translate this into one phrase:  New, high-paying jobs.

For me, I’ll watch all this happen for the states of Oregon and Washington, while hoping that the companies involved will be smart and savvy about capitalizing on the opportunities.

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.

Pro golfer Phil Mickelson issued an apology yesterday for his comments regarding his involvement with a proposed Saudi-backed golf league, which was setting out to be a brazen and moneyed competitor with the current PGA Tour.

I wrote a blog yesterday about Mickelson’s comments, wondering if it was a major issue or as I labeled it, “a temporary kerfuffle.”

His apology came across to me as heart-felt and real.  He said he had spoken too strongly and too harshly and “needed time away” to compose himself.

I hope his apology, a text of which appears below, works to restore his good name in professional golf.  Temporary kerfuffle?  Perhaps.

Why do I choose to write about this with all the other more important developments in our world, including the prospect of Russian invading Ukraine? 

Well, the best answer is three-fold:  (a) I love game of golf and have followed the sport religiously; (b) Mickelson has been one of my favorite players of all time; and (c) what I know about the Ukraine issue could be written on a head of a pin.

Here is the text of Mickelson’s apology:

“Although it doesn’t look this way now given my recent comments, my actions throughout this process have always been with the best interest of golf, my peers, sponsors, and fans.  There is the problem of off record comments being shared out of context and without my consent, but the bigger issue is that I used words I sincerely regret that do not reflect my true feelings or intentions.  

“It was reckless, I offended people, and I am deeply sorry for my choice of words.  I’m beyond disappointed and will make every effort to self-reflect and learn from this.

“Golf desperately needs change, and real change is always preceded by disruption.  I have always known that criticism would come with exploring anything new.  I still chose to put myself at the forefront of this to inspire change, taking the hits publicly to do the work behind the scenes.

“My experience with LIV Golf Investments has been very positive.  I apologize for anything I said that was taken out of context.  The specific people I have worked with are visionaries and have only been supportive. More importantly they passionately love golf and share my drive to make the game better.  They have a clear plan to create an updated and positive experience for everyone including players, sponsors, networks, and fans.

“I have incredible partners, and these relationships mean so much more to me than a contract.  Many have been my most influential mentors and I consider all to be lifelong friends.  The last thing I would ever want to do is compromise them or their business in any way, and I have given all of them the option to pause or end the relationship as I understand it might be necessary given the current circumstances.  I believe in these people and companies and will always be here for them with or without a contract.

“I have made a lot of mistakes in my life and many have been shared with the public.  My intent was never to hurt anyone and I’m so sorry to the people I have negatively impacted.  This has always been about supporting the players and the game and I appreciate all the people who have given me the benefit of the doubt.

“Despite my belief that some changes have already been made within the overall discourse, I know I need to be accountable.  For the past 31 years I have lived a very public life and I have strived to live up to my own expectations, be the role model the fans deserve, and be someone that inspires others.

“I’ve worked to compete at the highest level, be available to media, represent my sponsors with integrity, engage with volunteers, and sign every autograph for my incredible fans.  I have experienced many successful and rewarding moments that I will always cherish, but I have often failed myself and others, too.

“The past 10 years I have felt the pressure and stress slowly affecting me at a deeper level. I know I have not been my best and desperately need some time away to prioritize the ones I love most and work on being the man I want to be.”

Mickelson has been one of my favorite golfers, given his ability at a very high, hall-of-fame level.  I wrote yesterday that I would give this issue more time to play out before reaching my own perception about Mickelson and his future.

It was a position advocated by a friend of mine as we talked about Mickelson.

It was good advice.  I hope Mickelson’s apology will allow us to get back to the business of golf, a phrase I used in the most positive sense.

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.

As I re-read this post before posting, I have mixed emotions what I have written, though I have labored over it for several days.

The subject is pro golfer Phil Mickelson.

I have read a lot of commentary lately detailing Mickelson’s dalliance with the proposed new “Saudi Golf League,” which, if it were to exist, would be direct competitor to the PGA Tour.

It appears Mickelson’s mouth may have gotten him in trouble again.

But, as the headline says, the question is whether this is a major issue for professional golf or just a temporary kerfuffle.

By the way – and, as an aside – don’t you like that word “kerfuffle?”  It sort of rolls off the tongue and, once you know the definition – “a fuss or commotion” – the word even sounds a bit like what it is…something temporary.

However, as early as it may be in this issue, Mickelson has come in for withering criticism in a number of golf publications, as well as in such general news vehicles as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

What was it he said that set off this controversy?

He said that he not only welcomed the new, proposed Saudi Golf League, he had been instrumental in drafting the blueprint for the new league.

He was quoted in several publications as saying this:

“They’re scary motherf—–s to get involved with.  We know they killed Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and have a horrible record on human rights. They execute people over there for being gay.  Knowing all of this, why would I even consider it?  Because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape how the PGA Tour operates.”

There.  The quote says volumes.

Mickelson’s true point seems to be that he wants to re-make how the PGA Tour operates and his support for the Saudi Golf League is a way to inflate his leverage.

Or is it?

One of my friends counseled that it is too early to reach such conclusions.  What is occurring may just be a temporary kerfuffle that blows over, much like previous Mickelson rants. 

But, Eamon Lynch in GolfWeek has a more bottom-line take in a story that began with this headline:

Phil Mickelson’s mouth has brought him — and his greedy Saudi scheme — to the brink of ruin

Lynch went on:

“An old adage—often wrongly attributed to Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’—holds that if you wait by the riverbank long enough, the bodies of your enemies will eventually float by.  That’s as good a metaphor as any for how some golf industry executives must have felt in the wake of recent comments by Phil Mickelson that incinerated his reputation, alienated most every constituency in the game, exposed him to disciplinary action, and otherwise cast him in a light so unflatteringly amoral that even Greg Norman might hesitate to be seen in his company.

“In a November interview with writer Alan Shipnuck that was only made public this week, Mickelson betrayed the traits that have frequently led him into choppy waters:  A beguiling mix of arrogance and obtuseness.  He confirmed what was widely known—that he’s an advocate for the Saudi-backed Super Golf League—and breezily admitted his willingness to overlook the regime’s abuses simply for a chance to force concessions from the PGA Tour that would further enrich him.”

After two years of speculation about which current PGA Tour players might bolt to the new league and for how much, the narrative changed after Mickelson’s comments to focus on who won’t be cashing a check from the Saudis.

The list of Saudi Golf League naysayers is considerably more impressive than the roster of players who have said they might bolt.

One, Rory McElroy, entered the fray last weekend by blasting Mickelson.

“I don’t want to kick someone while he’s down,” McElroy said.  “But I thought his remarks were naive, selfish, egotistical, ignorant.”

Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin added a useful perspective when she wrote about all sorts of corporations who, she said, “shamelessly do business with the Saudis.”

She added:  “Mickelson’s Faustian bargain with the Saudis brought on a furious reaction because his reasoning was patently amoral and because the stakes for him (a new golf tournament series for already rich and successful golfers) are pathetically small.  But really, there are plenty of Phil Mickelsons out there.  They simply aren’t as honest about their willingness to attain selfish ends at the expense of the freedom, dignity and lives of others.”

Overstated?  Perhaps.

But the magazine Global Golf Post went farther by alleging that Mickelson’s comments “took a blowtorch to his own reputation,” and might also adversely affect any chance of his being named Ryder Cup captain in the future or ponder a post-playing career in television broadcasting.

In summary, major issue or temporary kerfuffle?

As they say, only time will tell.

For my part, I will be content to let events play out a bit longer before I render my judgment on whether Mickelson remains one of my favorite pro golfers or not.  For now, I hope he gets about the business of playing golf on the PGA Tour or the Champions Tour where he has carved out a hall-of-fame career worth millions.

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.

On occasion, I have said that I would not write more blogs about Donald Trump, the worst president in U.S. history.

Today, I again go back on that promise.

I cannot help it because Trump has come in for a heap of trouble recently and, I say, it’s about time.

If you are a fan of this scurrilous figure, you may be concerned about two new developments.

• First, Trump and his children have been ordered by a judge in New York to testify within 21 days at civil depositions in the New York Attorney General’s investigation of potential fraud at the Trump Organization. 

According to a column in the Washington Post, the judge’s opinion brutally rejected Trump’s arguments for blocking the depositions:  It would have been “blatant dereliction of duty” for the attorney general not to take the testimony, the judge explained, because prosecutors have unearthed “copious evidence of possible financial fraud” in Trump’s business.

• Second, the Trump organization has been told that its accounting firm, Mazars, is terminating its relationship and has said that “10 years of Trump’s financial statements, from 2011 to 2020, should no longer be relied upon.” 

In its official “we quit” letter, Mazars wrote:  “Under the totality of the circumstances, we have also reached the point such that there is a non-waivable conflict of interest with the Trump Organization.  As a result, we are not able to provide any new work product to the Trump Organization.”

According to the Washington Post:

“Translated from legal-accountingese, the letter was a disaster for Trump, far beyond his possibly having to file late returns.  

By pronouncing a non-waivable conflict of interest, Mazars was all but saying, ‘We’re on team A.G. — or we might have to join someday soon.’ And by saying there would be no new work product and quitting, the firm essentially declared, ‘We don’t trust you — and we’re certainly not going to jail for you.’”

Washington Post columnist George Conway added this:  “It has often been tempting, but never a safe wager, to predict the demise of Donald Trump.  He lost the presidency and both houses of Congress, and was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors twice.  He’s being investigated in New York for business fraud, and in Georgia for election fraud.  He’s being probed by the House’s January 6 select committee — and, one would hope, ultimately by the Justice Department — for whipping up a riot and attempting a self-coup.

“Yet, somehow, he has managed to survive, legally, financially and politically.  Indeed, astonishingly, he remains far and away the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.  But maybe, just maybe, this time will be different.”

Conway should know.

His wife, Kellyanne Conway, worked for Trump and remains a solid supporter, which, given George Conway’s anti-Trump views, makes you wonder how they can get along together in married life.

Speaking of the Washington Post, another columnist, Dana Milbank, had a great suggestion when his proposal appeared under this headline:

We need a ‘Mazars warning’ on everything Trump says

In the same way that warning signs are posted on such products as cigarettes, Milbank says “’Mazars Warnings’ should be posted on everything Trump says.”

To illustrate that “Trump’s probity always has been suspect,” Milbank cites:  “His insurrection-fomenting lie about a stolen election, his personal fixer’s conviction over hush money Trump paid to a porn actress, an endless parade of scandal at Trump entities, or the 30,573 documented falsehoods he spoke as president.”

Will all this – orders to submit to depositions and Mazars warnings — be enough to bring Trump down?

Who knows?

But, as the depth of Trump’s troubles grow, it could mean that, this time, he is out of his depth. 

One hopes that is true.

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.

A headline on a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal caught my attention yesterday.

It was the same one I used for this blog.

Why did it catch my attention? 

Simple.  It reminded me of a great quote from one of America’s foremost military and political leaders in recent years, the late Colin Powell.

When, a few years ago, he decided not to run for president, he said the main reason was that he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Imagine what he would say today if he saw far into the depths many political leaders have fallen.

Here is the text of the letter to the editor:

“The daily news is full of reports of passengers attacking airline personnel, parents threatening school board members and escalating demands for banning books.  And, of course, there’s the Trump-incited mob’s violent insurrection on January 6 to prevent the confirmation of President-elect Biden.  I find myself seriously wondering if these increasing displays of incivility portend the death of democracy.

“These are not isolated, once-only incidents.  A sizable segment of our population appears to be dealing with the stress and uncertainty brought on by the pandemic by acting out, abandoning rules and decorum. But a large cohort of Americans are the ‘against group,’ that is, against vaccines, science, democratic values and peaceful resolution of differences.

“Their inclinations are in lockstep with an ex-president whose world view appears, for all intents and purposes, to be the perfect recipe for dismantling our democracy by creating a non-existent reality founded on disinformation.

“Democracies cannot survive when its leaders and their followers intentionally flout our laws, abandon societal rules, dismiss courtesy in behavior and speech, and lie with impunity.  The ensuing chaos we are seeing has fractured our society’s cohesion, and our democratic way of life is in serious jeopardy.”

The letter writer was Richard Thompson, from Prineville.

I agree with him.

And, this update about the governor’s race in Oregon, which, in a way, also underlines incivility. 

There were three developments yesterday, two of which were surprising, and one of which was predictable.

The predictable one was that former New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof was not allowed to run for governor on the Democrat side.  The Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, said Kristof did not meet the “you have to live in Oregon for three years” residency requirement.

The legal basis for the decision seems clear.  But, I had thought that the Court might rule that the “people could decide” and let Kristof run since Oregon has been, at least, his second home.

It will be interesting to see if Kristof decides to endorse anyone and whether that endorsement involves dispensing all or part of the $2.5 million he raised to finance his own run.

The two other developments:

• Bill Sizemore, a controversial Republican, who ran for governor in 1998 and lost by 34 percentage points to the Democrat, John Kitzhaber, filed to run again.
• Bob Tiernan, another controversial Republican who served in the Oregon Senate, also filed.

When they worked in Oregon politics in the past, both Sizemore and Tiernan were polarizing figures, one reason for which was that both practiced being less than civil in their dealings.  And perhaps both figured that, with a crowded field of about 10 primary candidates in the spring election, they could emerge on top.

Still, if I were betting this early in the race – and I’m not – I would bet that Oregonians elect another Democrat to replace Kate Brown who cannot run again.

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 answer to the question posed in this blog headline is perplexing.

When I voted for Joe Biden in the last election, it was not hard for me to do so.  Anything – anything – was better than Donald Trump.

I still believe that to be the case.

Even with missteps by the Biden Administration.

Then, I read an essay by Joseph Epstein that appeared in the Wall Street Journal under this headline:

The Unbearable Lightness of Biden:  The man has no firm principles which makes the country feel sadly leaderless.

While that headline went too far for me, it got me to thinking again about the Office of the Presidency.  I still would rather have Biden there than Trump.  Easy choice.

Epstein’s piece starts this way:

“When I listen to a speech by President Biden I am occasionally in agreement, often bored, rarely exhilarated and never inspired.  I realize that he doesn’t write these speeches; few presidents since Abraham Lincoln have written their own speeches.  Ronald Reagan didn’t even write the sentence for which he is best remembered:  ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’  Peter Robinson, a speechwriter, did.

“Something central is missing from President Biden’s speeches, the same thing that is missing from the man.  It’s gravitas—that dignity, seriousness, and convincing solemnity that powerful public utterances carry.

“Biden simply doesn’t have gravitas in him.  In his political career he has always seemed less a public servant than an operator, less a president than a backroom politician.  Yet, thanks chiefly to American voters’ deep repugnance toward Donald Trump—surely more than half of Biden’s 81 million votes in 2020 weren’t for him but against Trump—Joe Biden ended up president.”

What does “gravitas” mean?  Well, in the quote above, Epstein defines it.  For me, the best meaning is to use the word inspiration.  Does a political figure provide inspiration along his or her way toward governing?

On occasion, Biden does, especially when he describes his personal travails over the years when he has lost loved ones in his family.

But, in political terms, Biden sometimes comes up short when it comes to providing inspiration.

Part of the reason could be that, in today’s terrible state of politics, most Republicans wish Biden only ill, thus opposing everything he proposes or stands for, even if his actions are good for America – and even if they would inspire.

Overall, I also support political figures who don’t focus as much on burnishing their reputation as on doing the hard work of finding middle ground on tough public policy issues – and that, in turn, for me, burnishes their reputation.

My generalizations about Biden:

• He is not Trump and that, in and of itself, is enough for me.
• He does not employ lying as second nature as Trump did.
• He gives the impression of trying to do the right thing for America, never an easy task given the tension of national and international relations, aggravated by the pandemic.
• He needs to get better at what is not his innate skill, which is make a public case for his actions.
• He also needs to illustrate words and traits that stem from what he really believes in his heart of hearts.  We, as Americans, need to see his true self – his vision for our country – even if we might differ with that vision.

On a current issue, the Ukraine-Russia challenge, Biden uttered words that, if they had been covered more extensively by national media, would illustrate something of Biden’s vision, even his inapiration:  

“This is about more than just Russia and Ukraine,” Biden said. “It’s about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world, for liberty…the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny, and the right of people to determine their own futures, for the principle that a country can’t change its neighbor’s borders by force.  That’s our vision. And toward that end, I’m confident that vision, that freedom will prevail.”

Biden ended his speech with a significant statement:  “Thank you,” he said, “I’ll keep you informed.”  With that, he echoed Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and reinforced democrat norms:  The president answers to the American people.

So, to answer the question in the headline on this blog, with Biden we get someone who is trying to do the right thing, thus “inspiring” my confidence.

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.

Every once in awhile, a political column appears that is so good I have to borrow it for my own blog.  Always, of course, with appropriate attribution.

This is one of those times.

In this case, the columnist is Matt Bai who contributes to the Washington Post. 

Between 2014 and 2019 he was the national political columnist for Yahoo News.  For more than a decade prior to that, he was the chief political correspondent for the New York Times Magazine, where he covered three presidential campaigns, as well as wrote as a columnist for the Times.

Today, his latest work for the Post appeared under the headline that leads this blog.

To say Bai’s piece is well-written understates its value.  To say that I agree with it is also an understatement.

So here, is the column.

**********

For more than two decades, I’ve tried to make sense of political currents in both parties, often to the consternation of readers on both sides.  I’ve been called a corporatist and Republican apologist; more often, I’m called an elitist who pumps out Democratic talking points.

In all that time, I have not felt as utterly repulsed from the mainstream of both parties as I do right now.  And I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.

Like most kids who grew up politically engaged in the Northeast, I started political life as a registered Democrat, casting my first presidential vote for Michael Dukakis.  In my mid-20s, while a city desk reporter at the Boston Globe, I changed my registration to independent, and I’ve never gone back.

For many years, when I told curious politicos or readers that I was an independent, they would nod knowingly, as if we both understood this was a necessity of the job — a veneer covering my obviously leftist sensibilities.

In fact, I never thought party registration had anything to do with my credibility as a reporter.  I chose to be an independent because, temperamentally and intellectually, that’s how I’m wired.

I wasn’t comfortable with the increasing tribalism of party politics.  And once you’ve covered cops, courts and housing projects in cities such as Boston and New York, it’s hard to maintain a belief that government has all the answers.

Through six presidential campaigns and counting, I have found much to disdain in both parties but also plenty to admire.  I like politicians generally, and I’ve written positively about both Democrats and Republicans — Barack Obama, Mark R. Warner, Chris Christie, John Kasich — who had the courage to re-think old orthodoxies.

I have never bought into the idea that journalists shouldn’t vote — that refraining from the exercise of citizenship somehow made us any less biased.  I’ve voted Democrat in most elections, if not always enthusiastically, and I’ve cast ballots for Republicans and third-party candidates, too.

All of which is to say that, like a growing number of Americans who eschew party affiliations, I leaned in one direction more often than not, but I wasn’t a loyalist.

Lately, however, I find myself feeling not so much ambivalent about the parties as alienated.  I’m confronted with two extreme interpretations of what it means to be American, and I emphatically reject them both.

It seems self-evident that the Republican Party — more a celebrity fan club than a political organization at this point — would, if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic.  I never thought I’d write those words about any U.S. political party, but here we are.

It’s not just that Donald Trump and his imitators would blow up the integrity of our elections, or that they have expressly countenanced a violent insurrection against the federal government, or that they basically admit to having no governing agenda beyond the reclamation of some mythical White heritage.

It’s also that the Trumpist GOP advances the notion, in all kinds of ways, that citizenship alone doesn’t mean you belong here — that your race or ethnicity, the language that you speak, or the identity you choose can somehow make you less American than your neighbor.

We’ve seen this interpretation of Americanism before — in segregated schools and diners, in the internment of Japanese Americans, in populist disdain for Catholics and Jews.  No patriotic American should entertain it, and no politician with an ounce of integrity would excuse it.

You might think, given this Republican calamity, that any political alternative would be sufficient.  And, yes, a party that doesn’t seek to limit ballot access and install an autocrat is definitely a step up.

But that doesn’t mean a lot of us who consider ourselves liberal feel kinship with today’s Democratic Party — or that we’d even be welcome if we did.

Rather than focus on traditional American ideals of citizenship over race or origin, the left is in thrall to its own misguided cultural revolution (yes, I use the term deliberately), embracing a vision of the United States that lays waste to the 20th-century liberalism of its greatest icons.

I’ve always liked and respected President Biden, and in most ways he has governed well.  His $1.2 trillion infrastructure package was a major achievement.  His efforts to counter the pandemic have been steady.  He seems poised to make a historic addition to the Supreme Court.

For all of his successes, though, there’s a fire raging in his party that Biden hasn’t even tried to control — and probably couldn’t extinguish if he did. For me (and probably a lot of suburbanites voting this fall), this is more than a backdrop to his presidency.  It’s a dealbreaker.

In their zeal to beat back Trumpism, the loudest Democrat groups have transformed into its Bizarro World imitators.  Tossing aside ideals of equal opportunity and free expression, the new leftists obsess on identity as much as their adversaries do — but instead of trying to restore some obsolete notion of a White-dominated society, they seek vengeance under the guise of virtue.

One of the bibles of this movement is a book called “How to Be an Antiracist,” in which Ibram X. Kendi declares:  “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.  The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

This is not — as the celebrated author claims — an expression of support for Lyndon B. Johnson-style affirmative action, which still makes sense to me.  It is a case for the kind of social upheaval that occurred when foreign empires relinquished their colonies.  It does not end well.

Liberals used to believe in civil debate about such ideas.  But now, the arbiters of language are constantly issuing Soviet-style edicts about which terms are acceptable and which aren’t (“woke” was okay, now it’s not) — a tactic used for controlling the debate and delegitimizing critics.

We can disagree about whether this radical uprising is necessary or politically self-destructive.  But it’s clearly not in keeping with the principles that are supposed to unite the country.

I was taught — and still believe — that in the United States, we are bound not by common origin, language or culture but by a series of laws and values that make us who we are.

As long as you swear allegiance to those laws and values — racial equality, free speech, unfettered worship — then you’re no more or less American than anyone else, and no less deserving of respect, protection and opportunity.

That we’ve failed to honor that promise over the life of the country, and are failing still, doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and abandon the project.  It means you re-dedicate yourself to the ideal of true equality, rather than reducing individuals to a box on a census form.

This is the ideology that both parties used to call liberalism.  There is no longer room for it in today’s stark political dichotomy.

In part, it’s a testimony to the damage that one shameless and unprincipled man managed to wreak on our politics.  Trump always had a talent for bringing out the worst in everyone; more than a year after leaving office, he remains the decaying star by which everyone else in our political solar system must orient themselves.

But it’s also the result of an antiquated primary system — at the presidential level and below — that plays to an ever-winnowing group of fervent believers in both parties.

The more people grow disgusted with extremist party politics, the more only those extremists are heard and the more power they exert on anyone who wants to run for higher office.

This is about the point where some (most likely some in my own business) will scream:  “Both sidesism!”  That’s the now-cliche argument that any criticism of Democrats whatsoever must be some kind of journalistic reflex to equate the parties, when clearly one is worse than the other.

One is worse than the other.  But that doesn’t mean we have to feel jazzed about supporting a party that would grade our worthiness as people on a sliding scale of identity.  It doesn’t change the fact that the broad center of the American electorate — traditional conservatives and liberals both — no longer has a political home.

So where do we go?

For years, I’ve predictedthe eventual triumph of an independent president, outside the two-party system.  That candidate hasn’t emerged, but the lane for a credible independent has never been wider.

There’s also theprobability that some reformist Democrat governor or political novice is looking at the political landscape and thinking that, if you could unify that liberal constituency inside the party, you might just be able to commandeer it.

I’ve never been very good at predicting the path ahead.  What I do know is that politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum — and, one way or another, a force will arise to fill the space at the eye of our destructive political storm.

Until then, you can call me a dissenter.