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, 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.

The person listed in this blog headline, Representative Jim Clyburn, was the who spoke up late in the South Carolina primary in favor of Joe Biden.

Clyburn’s endorsement was listed as one of the developments that pushed Biden over the top in that state, generating support for him as the frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination, thus resuscitating his campaign which had been placed in some death notices.

Last night, Biden won several further states, cementing his role as the favorite now over Bernie Sanders who pushed hard in the states Biden won.

Of course, while Biden has rebounded, at least in part due to Clyurn, it’s not over yet in what is a very volatile race for the right to take on the worst president in U.S. history, Donald Trump.

But Clyburn’s endorsement is worth nothing for another reason.

As he quoted Martin Luther King, Jr., Clyburn said this:

“King was coming to the conclusion that the people of ill will in our society was making a much better use of time than the people of good will, and he feared that he would have regret — not just for the vitriolic words and deeds of bad people, but for the appalling silence from good people.”

Think about that for just a moment.

Like Clyburn, I could contend that each of us has a responsibility to speak up when we see rage and resentment, two unfortunate “qualities” in what passes for politics in this country.

If we see failure and over-the-top anger, we need to speak up and advocate for reason and comity.  Or, as Clyburn did, advocate for candidates who will seek to unite us, not divide us.

With Sanders and with Trump, I have had enough to division and discord.  It is time to return to conciliation and compromise.  The two are not dirty words.

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, 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.

A recent major story in The Atlantic gave me, not just pause, but the instinct to throw up.  For latter reason, I have hesitated to write about the issue for several weeks and, of course, I do not have any specific, individual source that would provide confirmation.

That said, no surprise that I proceed anyway.

Here is a quick summary of the multiple-billion-dollar disinformation campaign produced in a solid, though unsettling, piece of journalism by The Atlantic writer, McKay Coppins:

“One day last fall, I sat down to create a new Facebook account. I picked a forgettable name, snapped a profile pic with my face obscured, and clicked ‘Like’ on the official pages of Donald Trump and his re-election campaign.

“Facebook’s algorithm prodded me to follow Ann Coulter, Fox Business, and a variety of fan pages with names like ‘In Trump We Trust.’  I complied.  I also gave my cell phone number to the Trump campaign, and joined a handful of private Facebook groups for MAGA diehards, one of which required an application that seemed designed to screen out interlopers.

“The president’s re-election campaign was then in the midst of a multimillion-dollar ad blitz aimed at shaping Americans’ understanding of the recently launched impeachment proceedings. Thousands of micro-targeted ads had flooded the Internet, portraying Trump as a heroic reformer cracking down on foreign corruption while Democrats plotted a coup.

“That this narrative bore little resemblance to reality seemed only to accelerate its spread.  Right-wing websites amplified every claim. Pro-Trump forums teemed with conspiracy theories.  An alternate information ecosystem was taking shape around the biggest news story in the country, and I wanted to see it from the inside.”

The story went on at length to report Coppins’ conclusion — a huge, multiple-billion dollar disinformation campaign was under way to get Trump re-elected.

Facts in Trump campaign materials?  No.

Accuracy in those materials?  No.

Context in those materials?  No.

And, the most troubling fact is that it all will be intentional.  Deception is the goal.  Motivated directly by Trump for his own ends, what his campaign will be doing will make the “dirty tricks” of the Nixon era look pale by comparison.

In terms of disinformation, we got a first-hand look at an example in a story for the Washington Post by Alex Leary wrote under this headline:

Twitter Labels Video Re-tweeted by Trump as ‘Manipulated Media’

The social network’s move, applying a new rule for first time, fuels fight with conservatives over free speech

Twitter, Inc., Leary wrote, is trying to apply new rules against misinformation to a video circulated by one of Trump’s top aides showing Joe Biden at a campaign rally saying, “We can only re-elect Donald Trump.”

Biden used those words, but the video, which was re-tweeted Saturday by Trump, omitted what the leading Democrat presidential contender said in full.

What he said was this:  “We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad.”

Twitter applied the label “manipulated media” to the bottom of the video, part of a new policy to combat misleading altered media on its platform.

According to the Post reporter, “Twitter’s new rules state that users ‘may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm.’  The company may also ‘label tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand the media’s authenticity and to provide additional context.’”

Predictably, the White House responded that nothing was wrong with the post and that “it had not been manipulated. “

Apart from the general disinformation issue, the recent feud over the
Twitter ad illustrates another round in a fight over what constitutes free speech.  The Trump band believes free speech is what he says it is, no matter the accuracy or the context.

Others long for accuracy and context.

For me, the best approach, to avoid at least some of the disinformation – including that promulgated by Trump and his sycophants — is to avoid looking at political advertising and focus instead on quality journalism.

Such as that practiced by the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and The Atlantic – and there are others.

Read information from various sources such as these and make up your own mind about events shaping this country, be those related to political campaigns, the workings of government, or, at the moment, the coronavirus outbreak.

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, 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.

In some ways, I hate to write about the coronavirus epidemic because, for one thing, so much has – and is – being written, enough to dwarf anyone’s ability to consume all of it.

For another, I am not sure I, not a scientist or a medical professional, have much to add of consequence to the current situation.

Still, there is one development recently that is worthy of comment, if only because it is so far-fetched as to be grossly irritating.

And, yes, it involves Donald Trump.  To be sure, bureaucrats in several federal agencies have made mistakes in working to combat coronavirus, but they pale in comparison to Trump’s unconscionable, selfish focus on himself.

The other day a Washington Post headline said this:

“’Maybe I have a natural ability’: Trump plays medical expert on coronavirus by second-guessing the professionals.”

That’s Trump.  Contending that he and only he has all the information.  True to his narcissism.

In “The Debrief: An occasional series offering a reporter’s insights,” Post reporter David Nakamura wrote this:

“President Trump likes to say that he fell into politics almost by accident, and on Friday, as he sought to calm a nation gripped with fears over coronavirus, he suggested he would have thrived in another profession — medical expert.

“I like this stuff. I really get it.  Citing a ‘great, super-genius uncle’ who taught at MIT, Trump professed that it must run in the family genes.

“People are really surprised I understand this stuff.  Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”

But, Nakamura added,  for members of the general public alarmed by more than 300 diagnosed cases in the United States — including at least 21 that his administration announced Friday were discovered on a cruise ship off the San Francisco coast — Trump’s performance during an impromptu 45-minute news conference at CDC was not necessarily reassuring.

Sporting his trademark red 2020 campaign hat with the slogan “Keep America Great,” the president repeatedly second-guessed and waved off the actual medical professionals standing next to him.  He attacked his Democratic rivals — including calling Washington Governor Jay Inslee a “snake” for criticizing his response — and chided a CNN reporter for smiling and called her network “fake news.”

And, he described coronavirus testing kits — which his administration has been criticized for being slow to distribute — as “beautiful” and said they were as “perfect” as his Ukraine phone call last summer that led him to be impeached.

“The upshot,” Nakamura wrote, “was that the self-proclaimed medical savant came off looking less interested in his administration’s unsteady efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus than he was in bolstering his own status in a campaign year.  Trump repeatedly sought to judge his administration’s performance by the numbers of how many have been shown to have contracted the virus and comparing it to other nations — and, in doing so, appeared to be making judgments based solely on that scorecard.”

Trump’s approach:

• Ridicule all the scientists who work for federal government, the ones who understand such epidemic as coronavirus and what could be done about it.
• Advance his own cause, no matter the subject, as the one who knows all.
• Treat the epidemic as just another political rally on the way to what he hopes will be his re-election.

So, Dr. Trump?  No.

Again and as usual, he has no idea about what he is talking about or doing.

Trump’s toddler traits – short attention span, quick temper, and focus on only himself — have exacerbated the mismanagement of the current situation, a pandemic in the making.

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, 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 ask the question in this blog headline as we have watched socialism advocate Bernie Sanders go from leading the Democrat presidential sweepstakes to now being behind – at least a little behind — Joe Biden in what still is a volatile race.

For my part, I am not ready to trash capitalism and move on to what Sanders wants, which is more and more government.  Under his watch, government would be in charge of every area of our lives, thus limiting individual effort and enterprise.

It appears that voters now involved in the D campaign may feel the same – or at least they are not ready to line up behind Sanders.

Here’s the way Wall Street Journal analyst Daniel Henninger put it in a column late last week under this headline:

Socialism Just Bombed

Hard to believe these days, but voters still get the last word on what they want from our politics.

Henninger wrote:

“Joe Biden’s back-from-the-dead primary wins…were remarkable, but they aren’t the biggest story.  Super Tuesday was a wake-up call for this country’s understanding of who we are and what we want from our politics and culture.

“Before the voting began Tuesday it was conventional wisdom — more like an article of faith — that something called progressivism was on the march in the U.S., sweeping aside decades if not centuries of belief, history and tradition with a new agenda of wokeness, identity politics and socialism. Its political vessel the past four years has been Senator Bernie Sanders.

“This movement’s primary political weapon is not persuasion but intimidation.  Starting in the universities and spreading to politics and the private sector, progressivism uses social media platforms to assert:  Fall in line with our views or we will isolate and discredit you with moralistic shaming.”

Agreed.

First, let me say that I disdain the word “progressive,” which comes across as far too positive to describe people who, as Henninger puts it, “will isolate and discredit you with moralistic shaming.”

Second, if the Biden resurrection provides evidence of a move back toward moderation, good.

Third, I also appreciated a humble perspective provided by another Wall Street Journal columnist, Gerard Baker, who wrote about his misgivings for giving up too soon on Biden.

Baker wrote:

“It’s easier to laugh, I suppose, than to acknowledge the humbling truth:  When it comes to political commentary (to borrow the immortal phrase of the late, great screenwriter William Goldman), ‘Nobody knows anything.’

“You would think by now that pundits would have learned a little humility when commenting on the likely future decisions of voters. Our capacity to be surprised is, curiously, undimmed by the frequency with which we are surprised.  Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Brexit, Donald Trump:  All major political upsets that have reshaped our world in the past dozen years alone.  Who saw them coming?

“I’m not (for once here) just attacking others.  I have been wronger than anyone on this topic, and readers of The Wall Street Journal would have been better informed about the presidential race by examining the patterns made by the scraps of food left on their breakfast plates than by reading my observations.”

Baker adds that he often thinks about two phrases as – or even before – he posits conclusions in his columns.  They are:

• “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
• “When giving a forecast, give a number or a date, but never both.”

All of us could learn a few lessons from the useful reflections of Henninger and Baker as we deal with roiling political issues in this country.

Be better listeners.  Be slower to arrive at predictions or conclusions.  Be willing to consider facts more than opinions.  Be willing to recognize that someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily a jerk.

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, 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.

No surprise here, but both sides have ramped up their political statements just hours after the aborted 2020 short legislative session ended in a stalemate.

Most of the statements are designed to influence the next election when Democrats say they should be granted larger margins of control to give them quorums, and Republicans say they – and their rural Oregon constituents – should be considered victims of urban Oregon mandates.

Here are two examples of the to-ing and fro-ing:

• Oregon Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. held a video press conference from an undisclosed location to say: “As promised, my caucus and I will be ready to work on March 8 to pass the bills the short session was intended for. The focus all along should have been on the budget bills, not cap-and-trade.  It amazes me how the Democrats do not take any responsibility for the failure of the session.  Let’s get back to the purpose of the short session.”
• Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, was quoted extensively in a story in the Oregonian newspaper under this headline, “Normally staid Oregon House Speaker decries session marred by cheating, ‘corrosion of democratic process,’ shame and a ‘hostage situation.’”

“Just before gaveling the House’s half of the 2020 Legislature to an abrupt, early close, the Portland Democrat gave a speech brimming with fear, pride, idealism and – above all – anger.

“She expressed concern about bedrock public institutions and the public’s faith in government. She excoriated Republicans for what she cast as a fundamental failure to keep their oath of office. And she used language of the sort she’s never before shouted from the dais.”

I, for one, have no idea how to bridge the gap – no, it’s a chasm – between the two sides.  Urban Oregonians think they know best about how to solve pressing public policy problems and, in some cases, they may be right, especially for where they live.

But, rural Oregonians think those in urban areas have no idea about the challenges in Eastern Oregon, so those who live consider themselves to victims of the urbans.

At one point in the last week or so, I thought I had come up with what struck me as relatively easy solution to the stalemate over climate change legislation called “cap and trade.”  It would have been for Democrats to agree to Republican demands to send the measure out to a vote of the people and, then, count on urban voters to pass it.

However, one of my sources at the Capitol told me that this wouldn’t work.  Democrats, this source saidm, had commissioned polling showing the measure would fail because of the huge tax increases contained in it.

Well, I submit, if that polling is done by a reputable pollster (not one paid to do the bidding of one side or the other), then why should the in-charge Democrats impose the cap-and-trade measure in the first place?  At least the measure in its current form.

Work instead, I say, to reduce the tax consequences while, at the same time, taking steps to protect the environment.

This is the kind of action that would occur if those in the Legislature worked to find the smart middle ground instead of modeling themselves after Congress which almost always produces nothing but disagreement.

Oregonians deserve better and my view is that both sides are at fault.  There are no heroes.

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, 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.

From my position in the cheap seats out West, I am not sure I have anything cogent to add, but that won’t stop me.  So, here are a few impressions:

WHERE IS SOLID JOURNALISM?:  The opportunity to provide information about the virus – sometimes too much information, sometimes not enough, and sometimes filled with inaccuracies – does not always create solid journalism.\

However, one example of quality occurred this week when Oregon Public Broadcasting produced a solid piece under the headline, “Everything you want to know about coronavirus.”

Find it on-line.  It’s worth reading.

If you reflect back on previous health scares 10 or 20 years ago, just think about how much more information we have today compared to back then.  Frankly,with the rampant prevalence of social media, it can be too much.

Plus, if you are a public health official trying to inform the public, something you say one minute could be wrong or at least outdated the next.

WHAT IS AN “INFODEMIC”?:  The Washington Post produced a column this week that focused on a new word for me – “infodemic.”

Here are excerpts from the piece:

“The World Health Organization has approved of another, more innovative “-demic” term: “infodemic.”

“In a report last month, the organization warned of ‘a massive infodemic,’ an overabundance of information—some accurate and some not—that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it.

“That warning was seconded by the MIT Technology Review, which observed that the virus has the makings of “the first true social-media ‘infodemic,’ as social media has zipped information and misinformation around the world at unprecedented speeds, fueling panic, racism … and hope.

“’Infodemic,’ as a shorthand for ‘information epidemic,’ has been circulating since 2003, when it was coined by the political scientist David J. Rothkopf in an opinion piece for the Washington Post. Rothkopf was addressing the SARS epidemic, writing, ‘A few facts, mixed with fear, speculation and rumor, amplified and relayed swiftly worldwide by modern information technologies, have affected national and international economies, politics and even security in ways that are utterly disproportionate with the root realities.’”

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THE PRESIDENT SAYING OR DOING?:    The Washington Post says the “president’s running commentary about the coronavirus, untethered to script or convention, indicates that the Trump Administration’s greatest obstacle to sending a clear message about the outbreak may be Trump himself.”

For me, in sum, the issue with Trump is this:  He has told so many lies over the last three years that, even if he happens to say something that could be true, many listeners, including me, believe he is lying again.

Or, in this case – the coronavirus challenge – making things up as he goes “untethered to script or convention.”

So, as we face a continuing epidemic, with “infodemic” proportions, I say we need find solid sources of real journalism and rely on those, not rampant, rumor-mongering social media.

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, 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 give you the good news in the headline for a couple reasons.

One is that I have no credentials to add anything to a blizzard of information — some accurate, some inaccurate — that is swirling around the world nearly every moment.

Think of it this way – and this is meant as a neutral, not a pro-con, comment:

With social media so rampant these days, not to mention solid journalistic endeavors such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post with their on-line posts, we are bombarded with information about coronavirus.  In past threatened epidemics, we didn’t know as much – and, in some ways, that was a good thing.

The blizzard of information strikes me much like another blizzard – the information about snowstorms in our part of the world, the Northwest.  If you read or watch the “news about storms,” your perception is that it is snowing everywhere.  It’s not.

If current coronavirus reports focus on facts and figures, thus adding context to a troubling issue, good.  Further, if solid journalism adds information about what we, as individuals, can do about the virus, also good.

But, enough about coronavirus.

This is actually a post about the fact that the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering is open again.  It is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.

FROM HOLMAN JENKINS IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IN A COLUMN ABOUT QUALITY JOURNALISM:  “One solution seems irresistible:  Stop calling cable news personalities ‘journalists.’  There’s a reason normal journalism doesn’t pay as well as TV journalism.  Real journalists are dependent on reality to furnish their material and reality just ain’t that exciting.”

Comment:  Jenkins is right on.  Real journalists practice real journalism.  Rampant social media these days ignores facts and context.  The goal is to inflame.

I say, quit paying so much attention.  Find quality journalism and allow that to influence how you think and react.

FROM WILLIAM GALSTON IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:  “In the past week, Joe Biden finally found his voice, summarizing his case simply and straightforwardly. As president, Biden says, he would focus his efforts on practical, achievable steps to improve people’s lives.  He would work to repair America’s tattered alliances and renew its moral authority in the world.  He would restore dignity and decency to the Oval Office.

“Most important, Biden would do everything in his power to heal our divided country. Republicans are Democrats’ opponents, not their enemies.  He believes that Trump has intimidated but not converted them.  He will treat them with respect, as potential partners in a common enterprise.

“Within his own party, he has been mocked for raising the possibility that a measure of bi-partisanship is still possible.  No matter.  As president, he would act as though it is and, by so doing, increase the possibility of its restoration.

“Bi-partisanship is essential, because little of what our country needs can be accomplished through executive orders and unilateral acts. We cannot possibly rebuild roads and bridges, or extend health insurance to all Americans, or reduce the burden of prescription drug costs, or reform the immigration system, unless Congress rediscovers the nearly lost art of legislation.”

Comment:  Most solid solutions to pressing public policy problems lie somewhere in the middle, not the right or left extremes.  We need someone in the Oval Office who will set out to lead us there through working with all sides to find reasonable solutions.

FROM DAN BALZ IN THE WASHINGTON POST:  “The Democrat contest (for president) has been transformed almost overnight from one with many candidates and no clear alternative to Bernie Sanders into a head-to-head battle that pits a populist insurgent preaching revolution and democratic socialism against an establishment-backed politician calling for modest change and civility and claiming greater electability against Trump.”

Comment:  Good summary from one of this country’s standout political reporters, Dan Balz.

And this from another Washington Post writer:

“After a head-spinning four days, a primary race that began with a historically large and diverse field — powered by a half-dozen women attempting to tap into an activated female electorate — has now boiled down to two white men in their late 70s who each have spent about a half-century running for political office.”

For my part, I don’t care about age.  I care about the ability to get the job of president done in way that honors the office, something which now does not occur.

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, 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.

The question in the headline won’t make sense to either of two kinds of people – those who bow at Donald Trump’s altar and those who fawn over Bernie Sanders.

But, surprisingly, as the headline says, there are a number of similarities between what I label as “the two buffoons,” neither of which represent what I think this country needs in the way of political leaders.

[As I write this, I should note that we have just come through Super Tuesday where Sanders won some stuff, but also watched Joe Biden resuscitate his campaign.  Too soon to tell, but the Democrats may be headed to a brokered convention.]

For the list of Sanders and Trump similarities, I am indebted to Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson who, I think, writes persuasively about today’s gone-awry political landscape.

• Neither Trump nor Sanders go by a script or, better put, any sort of conventional political wisdom.

Sanders’s performance in last debate before Super Tuesday, Gerson says, was “a bellowing, boorish mess. The Vermont senator’s signature response when challenged was to pump up the volume, as though persuasiveness were measured in decibels.”

Those favoring Sanders say he speaks his mind.  He is not scripted. He is true to himself.  He may not play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

Trump speaks his mind, too, though who knows what will emerge next.  Like, Sanders, he isn’t scripted.  He is true to himself.  He doesn’t play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.

• Both Sanders and Trump come across as unpleasant, ill-mannered loudmouths. For each, authenticity equals incivility and spontaneity no matter who or what becomes the target.

Gerson writes that, “It is worth noting, first, that speaking your mind without filters is not a sign of political authenticity; it usually indicates a basic lack of respect for others.  In almost any human interaction other than politics, Sanders’s outbursts on the debate stage would be taken as a sign of general jerkness.

For Trump, such gracelessness is a lifestyle.

• Both Sanders and Trump practice a type of communication that doesn’t seeks to change minds or clarify important differences. Rather, their communication seeks to establish dominance.

Communication that seeks to change minds, Gerson contends, is essential to self-government.   What Sanders and Trump do “is more appropriate to professional wrestling matches and campaign rallies.  This is not merely a matter of style.  Attempting to persuade someone — even when the source of disagreement is deep — involves the affirmation that they are worth persuading.  Shouting someone down is the denial of their dignity.”

• Both Sanders and Trump hew to an arrogant and lazy belief that anything that pops into your head is worthy of public utterance.

By contrast, Gerson says “authentic beliefs in politics emerge from reflection and craft.  Ideas and policies are refined through the careful choice of arguments and words.  Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address was an authentic piece of communication because it displayed deep thought, embodied in beautiful language.”

Trump’s tweets and Sanders rants on the campaign trail illustrate the same thing — impulse and ignorance, not reasoned thought.

• Both Sanders and Trump equate authenticity with being a disruptive outsider.

Gerson adds, “Trump’s lack of governing experience did not provide him with fresh perspective; it led to governing incompetence.  His disrespect for institutions led to an assault on essential institutions, including the FBI, the Justice Department and the intelligence services.  The promise by a politician to burn down the house is visceral and emotional.  That does not make institutional arsonists more sincere or wise.”

For Sanders, there are those who contend that as a “veteran politician” – a title he would abhor, though he has been in office for about 30 years – understands how government works.  Yet, he has not used his Senate position for anything other than to try to boost his own status.  Bi-partisanship does not exist for him.  Becoming part of producing solid, middle-ground legislation does not exist for him.

Gerson closes with this paragraph.

“In the upside-down world of American politics, Sanders and Trump are given credit by their followers for vices that corrupt democracy. Meanwhile, grace, careful rhetoric, learning and governing skill have few practitioners and few defenders.”

I wish it were not so.  And, because, it is, I fear for the future of American democracy, which is why the presidential election decision we face later this year is so important.  For me, my vote will not be for either Sanders or Trump if that is the choice.

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, 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.

There is a proposal circulating around the Capitol in Salem these days that makes little sense.

And that is not because of the Senate and House Republican walk-out that now has lasted for just under a week.

It is a public records law change that would give statutory heft to making a so-called public records czar in state government independent of all other authorities.

Dumb.

I say this as a person who has worked with Oregon’s public records laws for about 40 years.

The laws may be complicated, but there is a solid basic proposition that underlies what is in the statutes:  All government records are public unless you can cite a specific statutory exemption that will stand up under scrutiny – often intense scrutiny.

The proposal is to make an individual public records czar (by the way, in my judgment, there should not be such a position) responsible to no one other than himself or herself.

The best option, if there has to be a public records czar, is to make the person report to the governor.  Then, as is the case with other positions in the Executive Branch, the governor or another statewide elected official would be held accountable for performance.

All of this arose because the czar – she was called a “public records advocate” — complained because she reported to the governor and key staff there, for the governor, oversaw her operation, at times telling her what policy to follow.

The advocate\czar, Ginger McCall, cited irreconcilable differences with the governor’s staff over role of the public records advocate, including that she felt pressured by the governor’s administration to advance Brown’s public records policy goals without publicly disclosing who was directing that work.

Of course, then McCall left Salem to head to another government job on the East Coast.  Before she left, said it was important to add language to state law to make clear that “the public records advocate” is independent.

It is not clear, at the moment, whether the bill will pass in the “short session,” especially given the walk-out impasse.

If not, that’s good.

No one manager in state government, no matter the subject, should be given carte blanch to operate as he or she sees fit.  Better to hold an elected official accountable — and that’s what should happen when it comes to public records.

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, 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.

The Department of Just Saying is one of three I run as director.  The others are the Departments of Pet Peeves and Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

It will come as no surprise to you that I run all three with skill and dexterity, which means I multi-task well.

ISSUE #1:  PRIVATE HEALTH CARE BACK IN GOOD GRACES…TEMPORARILY?/The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that “Americans naturally turn to the government when their health or physical security is at risk, but a core U.S. strength is the breadth of its private medical resources.”

That’s on display now as is calling on private actors to buttress the federal response to the Coronavirus the government pandemic-in-the-making.

The Food and Drug Administration says it will allow hundreds of academic hospital labs to begin testing for the coronavirus.  The country had relied on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, but its testing kits turned out to be faulty.  By unleashing academic labs, the U.S. will have the capacity by the end of this week to screen “probably 10,000 people a day,” says Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who writes for the WSJ.  Within two weeks that should be 20,000 a day, Gottlieb said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

JUST SAYING that it’s interesting that private health care is back in good graces, if only for a few moments, even as all of those running for the Democrat presidential nomination call for a complete government system – no private health care – and as the Trump
Administration, up to this point, has been setting out to thin the ranks of scientists in such departments as the CDC.

What’s needed, however, is a solid combination of government and private health care, which, together, will produce the capacity and the skill to serve citizens.

ISSUE #2:  BUTTIGIEG EXITS PRESIDENTIAL RACE/Sorry in some ways to see that Pete Buttigieg decided to drop out of the Democrat presidential race.  In a way, his decision represents a statesmanlike act because he did not see a way to win and wanted the country to focus on finding the best candidate among those remaining – if, I add, that is possible.

Here’s what one columnist, Daniel Drezner, said about the decision:

“Pete Buttigieg managed to surprise everyone again. He suspended his campaign last night.  The development marks an abrupt end to what was briefly an ascendant candidacy, as Buttigieg won the Iowa caucuses and came in second in New Hampshire.  But despite attracting enormous attention, significant support and sometimes enthusiastic crowds, there was no clear path forward toward the nomination.”

JUST SAYING that we have not heard the last of Buttigieg.  He is young enough to rise again and I suspect he will.  To the current race, he brought intelligence chops, coming as he did from attending Harvard and being a Rhodes Scholar, but also a willingness to discuss tough issues with the ability to use good words in doing so.

He actually came across as someone who did not need to “yell on a street corner” to be heard, as is the case with the D who might win the nomination, Bernie Sanders.  Nor did Buttigieg, for all his youth, appear as ill-suited to the Oval Office as the person who now occupies it.

ISSUE #3:  SEAL TEAM LEADER GOES ON THE RECORD/In the Wall Street Journal, military Seal Team leader, William McRaven (he led the Team when it caught up with terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden), said this:

“As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

JUST SAYING that McRaven is right and, on top of that, has earned the right to speak based on the incredible level of his service to the country.  Integrity and character do matter in politics, no matter that various political leaders or supposed-leaders on all sides violate the norms every day.  McRaven is right.