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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

“In this abundance of distractions and dramas, the political fate of the nation oscillating between extremes, a fairly subdued President Trump delivered his annual address to Congress in a monotone. From time to time, he would cock his head in a quizzical, half-challenging way, working his smiles and freeze-pose grimaces.

“Behind him sat Vice President Mike Pence, as mysteriously impassive as always, and the woman who stage-managed Trump’s impeachment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi compulsively worked her teeth with lips and tongue, her fidgeting countenance alive with fury. When the president was finished, she emphasized the theater of the evening by dramatically ripping up the text of the speech, as if to say, like Samuel Johnson kicking a stone to dismiss that bishop (Berkeley) who preached the unreality of things: I refute him thus!”

This is how essayist Lance Morrow described the scene in the U.S. House as President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address only a day before the U.S. Senate stooped to new depths by acquitting him of impeachment, even in the face of substantial evidence that he demanded that a foreign country intervene in the next presidential election.

Does the way I wrote the previous paragraph indicate my bias?  Yes.

Trump compromised the good of this country – an open and fair election – for his own good because he relates the two as being equal.  What is good for him is good for the country.

With impeachment acquittal, it is useful to consider the long-range implications of what has happened in Congress over the last couple months.

The main implication:  Abuse of power by the president has now been ruled entirely appropriate.

As for the State of the Union address — normally a time when the country comes together to review the past and look toward the future — I didn’t watch Trump’s reality show appearance where again he took credit for everything even when he doesn’t deserve it and ridiculed everyone who does not bow at his altar.

Many Democrats in the chamber couldn’t stand his bluster, so walked out.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in what had to be a planned demonstration, tore up a copy of
Trump’s speech just as he finished — and all of it was caught by TV cameras.

As I write this, I cannot help but remember the governor I worked for in Oregon, Victor Atiyeh.  A hallmark of his style was that he did not seek credit for good things he did or that happened on his watch.  Rather, he deflected credit and took solace in the simple fact of the good things.

A contract to Trump?  Yes.

After impeachment acquittal, we, as Americans, face several realities:

• One is that Trump, emboldened by what has happened, will continue abusing his power because, after all, even he has said there are not bounds — zero — and the Senate has now concurred with him.  Would he ever learn from a failure — being impeached is a failure — and change his behavior.  No.
• A second reality will be that new presidents — and I hope there is a new one after Trump, either in 2020 or 2024 — will face no guardrails on their actions.
• A third reality is that the U.S. Senate has lost all claim to being the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”  It will take years to reclaim that standing, if it ever will happen.

Here’s the way Washington Post political writer Philip Rucker put it in last weekend’s edition of the newspaper:

“The evidence of President Trump’s actions to pressure Ukraine was never in serious dispute.  After a systematic presentation of the facts of the case, even some Senate Republicans concluded that what he did was wrong.

“But neither was the verdict of Trump’s impeachment trial ever in doubt.  The impending judgment that the president’s actions do not warrant his removal from office serves as a testament to Washington’s extraordinary partisan divide and to Trump’s uncontested hold on the Republican base.

“The expected acquittal also has profound and long-term ramifications for America’s institutions and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, according to numerous historians and legal experts.

“In effect, they say, the Senate is lowering the bar for permissible conduct for future presidents.”

Speaking of lowering the bar, consider what Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz told the Senate (yes, I have written about this before, but I do so again because the comment still stuns me).

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected “in the public interest,” Dershowitz intoned, “then that cannot result in impeachment.”  So, Trump can demand that Ukraine interfere in the U.S. election and can ask China to do the same.

No problem,  Dershowitz says.

George Washington Law School attorney Jonathan Turley wrote this:

“That idea provided the most dramatic — and damaging — moment of the trial.  Dershowitz’s argument produced audible gasps.  It was an argument that would have made Richard Nixon blush and suggested that any abuse of power short of a criminal act would be by definition unimpeachable.

“The damage had been done. The president’s defense was then tied inextricably to this extreme and chilling argument.”

We, as Americans, are victims of Trump and it is possible, if Democrats don’t get their act together by proposing a candidate who can appeal to folks who don’t reside in Trump’s alternate universe, then we’ll face four more years of presidential abuse.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

“In this abundance of distractions and dramas, the political fate of the nation oscillating between extremes, a fairly subdued President Trump delivered his annual address to Congress in a monotone. From time to time, he would cock his head in a quizzical, half-challenging way, working his smiles and freeze-pose grimaces.

“Behind him sat Vice President Mike Pence, as mysteriously impassive as always, and the woman who stage-managed Trump’s impeachment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi compulsively worked her teeth with lips and tongue, her fidgeting countenance alive with fury. When the president was finished, she emphasized the theater of the evening by dramatically ripping up the text of the speech, as if to say, like Samuel Johnson kicking a stone to dismiss that bishop (Berkeley) who preached the unreality of things: I refute him thus!”

This is how essayist Lance Morrow described the scene in the U.S. House as President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address only a day before the U.S. Senate stooped to new depths by acquitting him of impeachment, even in the face of substantial evidence that he demanded that a foreign country intervene in the next presidential election.

Does the way I wrote the previous paragraph indicate my bias?  Yes.

Trump compromised the good of this country – an open and fair election – for his own good because he relates the two as being equal.  What is good for him is good for the country.

With impeachment acquittal, it is useful to consider the long-range implications of what has happened in Congress over the last couple months.

The main implication:  Abuse of power by the president has now been ruled entirely appropriate.

As for the State of the Union address — normally a time when the country comes together to review the past and look toward the future — I didn’t watch Trump’s reality show appearance where again he took credit for everything even when he doesn’t deserve it and ridiculed everyone who does not bow at his altar.

Many Democrats in the chamber couldn’t stand his bluster, so walked out.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in what had to be a planned demonstration, tore up a copy of
Trump’s speech just as he finished — and all of it was caught by TV cameras.

As I write this, I cannot help but remember the governor I worked for in Oregon, Victor Atiyeh.  A hallmark of his style was that he did not seek credit for good things he did or that happened on his watch.  Rather, he deflected credit and took solace in the simple fact of the good things.

A contract to Trump?  Yes.

After impeachment acquittal, we, as Americans, face several realities:

• One is that Trump, emboldened by what has happened, will continue abusing his power because, after all, even he has said there are not bounds — zero — and the Senate has now concurred with him.  Would he ever learn from a failure — being impeached is a failure — and change his behavior.  No.
• A second reality will be that new presidents — and I hope there is a new one after Trump, either in 2020 or 2024 — will face no guardrails on their actions.
• A third reality is that the U.S. Senate has lost all claim to being the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”  It will take years to reclaim that standing, if it ever will happen.

Here’s the way Washington Post political writer Philip Rucker put it in last weekend’s edition of the newspaper:

“The evidence of President Trump’s actions to pressure Ukraine was never in serious dispute.  After a systematic presentation of the facts of the case, even some Senate Republicans concluded that what he did was wrong.

“But neither was the verdict of Trump’s impeachment trial ever in doubt.  The impending judgment that the president’s actions do not warrant his removal from office serves as a testament to Washington’s extraordinary partisan divide and to Trump’s uncontested hold on the Republican base.

“The expected acquittal also has profound and long-term ramifications for America’s institutions and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, according to numerous historians and legal experts.

“In effect, they say, the Senate is lowering the bar for permissible conduct for future presidents.”

Speaking of lowering the bar, consider what Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz told the Senate (yes, I have written about this before, but I do so again because the comment still stuns me).

If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected “in the public interest,” Dershowitz intoned, “then that cannot result in impeachment.”  So, Trump can demand that Ukraine interfere in the U.S. election and can ask China to do the same.

No problem,  Dershowitz says.

George Washington Law School attorney Jonathan Turley wrote this:

“That idea provided the most dramatic — and damaging — moment of the trial.  Dershowitz’s argument produced audible gasps.  It was an argument that would have made Richard Nixon blush and suggested that any abuse of power short of a criminal act would be by definition unimpeachable.

“The damage had been done. The president’s defense was then tied inextricably to this extreme and chilling argument.”

We, as Americans, are victims of Trump and it is possible, if Democrats don’t get their act together by proposing a candidate who can appeal to folks who don’t reside in Trump’s alternate universe, then we’ll face four more years of presidential abuse.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Several of my former colleagues at CFM Strategic Communications – now called CFM Advocates – will be spending long days at the Capitol in Salem for the next month or so.

They are there as lobbyists for what has come to be called “the short legislative session.”

But the reality is that the session may be even shorter than originally planned.

That’s because Republican members of the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate may decide to walk out rather than tolerate what they believe is an over-the-top climate change bill called “cap and trade.”

If they walk out, it would deprive the process of a quorum which must exist for any business to be done. And, in an already short session, that could be the death of the session this time around.

Here’s how my CFM colleagues wrote about the issue in their Capitol Insider blog:

*********

2020 Session Opens Under Shadow of a Potential GOP Walkout

“The 2020 Oregon legislative session convenes today, but it isn’t certain what will happen when it does as both Senate and House Republicans have shown signs they will walk out to block passage of another Democratic attempt at a cap-and-trade measure.

“’It’s just ungodly how many bills and what type of bills are being proposed for a 35-day session,’ Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. was quoted as saying in a story by Oregon Public Broadcasting. ‘To try to do climate change policy in 35 days when it should be done over five or six months — it’s a crying shame.’”

“In addition to cap-and-trade, other controversial issues abound – foster care, public records, gun control measures, a declaration of a statewide homeless emergency, increased funding for mental health services, more investment in emergency preparedness and a handful of new taxes.

“Governor Brown and Democrat leaders have made cap-and-trade legislation a top 2020 session priority after a similar bill failed to pass in the Senate in the waning days of the 2019 session. Democrats say they have made concessions to lessen opposition and ease impacts on rural areas. Republicans have expressed doubts the concessions go far enough.

“Budget issues will be prominent in the 2020 session. The Department of Human Services is requesting an additional $126.8 million in spending authority, $14.3 million of which would go toward reducing the number of children placed in foster care. The Oregon Health Authority is seeking $30 million to bolster staffing, open additional mental health beds and lay groundwork for new residential treatment centers.

“Brown wants $12.7 million to ensure the ShakeAlert warning system is operational by 2012. She also wants $150 million or more to enhance the state’s wildfire capability and forestland management to avoid fires.

“A certain flashpoint will come from a Democrat proposal, House Bill 4005, to require gun owners to secure their weapons with trigger locks. Senate Bill 1538 would allow local governments and school districts to ban concealed weapons.”

**********

When the idea of annual legislative session was proposed in 2010, it required changing Oregon’s Constitution to achieve the objective and that would require a ballot measure. The idea was sold to voters as a way to address emergency budget issues and to consider other non-major issues that could not wait for the normal long legislative session every other year.

Things have changed, so much so that some of those interested in legislative processes in Oregon have begun saying it may be time to re-think the annual, short-session idea. Do away with it, they say.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I did not vote in favor of annual sessions. I thought it was a mistake then, suggesting that we were moving toward a professional legislature that could end up resembling Congress.

And that would not be a good result.

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 past-time  – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

This is day President Donald Trump will deliver his “State of the Union” address from the rostrum of the U.S. Senate chamber and the day before Republican senators will turn a deaf ear to his abuse of power.

So it is a significant day in the political life of this country.

For me, however, something purposeful – golf – will take precedence and I will find a way not to watch both events, the State of the Union and the Senate impeachment vote.

But, as both events are pending, there is no better way for me to “commemorate” them than to post a column by one of my favorite writers, Michael Gerson, whose material is published in the Washington Post.

He makes a series of great points this morning under this headline —To cheer Trump is to submit to him.

Here is the Gerson column, word for word.  I wish I would have been smart enough to write this stuff.

**********

If a divine censor were to remove everything deceptive, exaggerated, malicious and hypocritical from President Trump’s third State of the Union address, I suspect the president’s walk to the rostrum would take longer than the speech itself. But since a mysterious Providence is unlikely to intervene, citizens will need to make their own analysis. And as a former speechwriter, I have a few tips for informed viewing.

My main advice? Distrust the words. All of them.

Here I mean not just the specific words Trump uses, but their overall aim. Normal presidents have employed words in the State of the Union challenge and unite. They have taken, of course, some partisan potshots at opponents along the way. But their broader goal has been to assert and serve some vision of the common good. Even their exaggerations and simplifications were generally dedicated to this objective.

In the case of our abnormal president, rhetoric is bent to a different purpose. Trump — with the apparent approval of congressional Republicans — conflates his political fortunes with the national interest. This is the reason he saw nothing wrong with twisting Ukrainian arms to undermine an opponent and cheat in a presidential election. Nothing done to help him can ultimately be judged corrupt because he regards his success as identical to the nation’s.

This is the plain meaning of the Dershowitz Doctrine — the theory advanced during the Senate trial by legal expert and Trump defender Alan Dershowitz that, since public officials universally regard their election as serving the public interest, this intention can’t be the basis of a “quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” (Dershowitz now denies this was his actual meaning, but he will be forever remembered as the scholar who gave constitutional blessing to malignant narcissism.)

This approach to politics has rhetorical implications. Some are relatively innocent. To Trump, self-praise is a kind of patriotism. So major portions of his speeches are occupied with infantile boasting. This may not do great damage to the republic, but it can be uncomfortable to watch.

Other strategies are more sinister. Much of Trump’s rhetoric is not an attempt at persuasion; it is the assertion of dominance. When he declares — as he recently did — that Mexico is currently paying for construction of his border wall, he is not seeking a response of “true” or “false.” He is requiring a decision to “submit” or “resist.” Swallowing his interpretation of facts and events is the evidence of loyalty to his person. To cheer is to yield.

More than any other recent politician, Trump uses language as an instrument of power. To him, epistemology is ideology. A willingness to accept his claims — and to view all competing information as fake and false — is what defines his movement. And his job is made easier by a conservative media bubble that allows people to live in Trump’s alternative reality 24 hours a day.

So how does Trump employ such profound influence over so many American lives? First, he attempts to keep his followers in a constant state of agitation against elites, presented as their oppressors. Both red and blue America can discover — in a vast nation made minuscule by social media — sufficient material for daily outrage. We now have a president who finds it politically useful to turn natural differences into the trench lines of an endless culture war. It is deeply damaging to the health of our union. And no three-minute peroration about national unity at the end of a State of the Union is going to change this.

The second way Trump employs his power is to encourage hostility toward some of the most vulnerable members of the human family, including migrants and refugees. If Trump dares to repeat the charge that he has been unjustly treated by Congress, viewers should recall the kind of due process found in Trump’s “Remain in Mexico program.

More than 56,000 asylum seekers — including rape victims, pregnant women and children with autism — have been condemned to squalid camps, victimized by crime and kidnapping, denied adequate access to counsel, and subjected to a review process rigged against them. In God’s eyes, they are Trump’s real jury.

Here is my viewing advice: Any claim of credit deserves deep skepticism. Any claim of exoneration for an abuse of power that everyone — really everyone — knows he committed deserves laughter. Any attempt at rebranding deserves derision. And any claim of victimization deserves the quality of justice that Trump himself provides.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Did I say my last post might, in fact, be my last on the impeachment process?

Yes, I did.  But I was wrong.

Here is another one.

I simply cannot avoid posting again given the incredible significance of what’s poised to happen in the U.S. Senate this week – acquitting Donald Trump despite the grievous actions he took to benefit himself, including in the 2020 election.

Senate acquittal will do nothing but embolden Trump.

Beyond demanding that Ukraine interfere in the election – with national security money held out as a brige — he went one up on that by asking China to do the same.

If you think he won’t do it again, think again.

Senate Republicans, who bowed at the altar of Trump, have had guts to say that the best approach, for all of us as Americans, is to allow the presidential election to go forward.

Sure.

We all should vote in an election that already has been tainted and, inevitably, will be tainted again.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorial writers came to different conclusions as impeachment nears its end.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“It is too low a constitutional bar for the House to claim, as it does, that Trump can be impeached because Democrats think his motives were corrupt. The acts themselves must qualify as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ Trump’s acts don’t qualify—because asking aid recipients to investigate corruption isn’t illegal, and in any case the aid to Ukraine was delivered on time and no investigation of Joe Biden was started. T his does not condone Trump’s request, which was reckless and dumb, but it isn’t an impeachable offense.”

From the Washington Post:

“Republican senators who voted to suppress known but unexamined evidence of President Trump’s wrongdoing at his Senate trial must have calculated that the wrath of a vindictive president is more dangerous than the sensible judgment of the American people, who, polls showed overwhelmingly favored the summoning of witnesses. That’s almost the only way to understand how the Republicans could have chosen to deny themselves and the public the firsthand account of former national security adviser John Bolton, and perhaps others, on how Mr. Trump sought to extort political favors from Ukraine.

“So cowed are Republicans that they have echoed the president’s indefensible claims that there was nothing wrong with the pressure campaign. Their votes against witnesses have rendered the trial a farce and made conviction the only choice for senators who honor the Constitution.”

And this from the New York Times:

“Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. ‘When you strike at a king,’ Emerson famously said, ‘you must kill him.’

“Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down.

“With the end of impeachment, a triumphant Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.”

Apart from the impeachment result – acquittal – the most convulsing impression for me over the last few weeks resides with the attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who always is seeking the limelight.

A Washington Post editorial said this about Dershowitz:

“When a lawyer for President Trump suggested to senators that whatever a president does in pursuit of re-election is inherently in the public’s interest, the moment crystallized fears among some of Trump’s critics about creeping presidential autocracy.

“’If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,’ said the lawyer, Alan Dershowitz.”

In this way, Dershowitz parrots Trump.

If something is good for Trump – in this case a tainted election – that that something is good for America. Because, remember, Trump is a great president and, thus, anything is does to promote his re-election equates to the public good.

What has happened over the last week in the impeachment trial contains huge risks for America. The main one is that it has now been confirmed by Congress – or, at least the U.S. Senate – that Trump can do whatever he wants without fear of recrimination.
To him, that even means shooting someone in the middle of Times Square.

It also means rigging the next election.

Only time will tell what Trump does next in his dictatorship.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Is this the last blog I’ll write about impeachment?

Probably not, though on this Friday morning, it appears we are all about to witness the acquittal of President Donald Trump from two charges that, truth be told, are exactly right – he tried to bludgeon a foreign country into helping him win the next election and he told Congress to take a hike when it tried to investigate his conduct.

I call this a pyric victory because, as the word is defined, it means “relating to, or resulting from burning” – and that’s clearly what is happening – our sense of ethics and comportment is being consumed by fire, just as is our equilibrium in the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Senate is deciding not to proceed and senators there may end up paying a price as more and more information emerges about the over-the-top actions of Trump.

If I allow myself to focus on the specifics of the impeachment process over the last couple weeks, I end up with a fear that our sense of democracy has turned to ashes. No conduct is beyond the pale.

Here’s the way Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank put it in his Impeachment Diary this morning:

“In the beginning, the president’s lawyers made a relatively benign argument: He didn’t do it. No quid pro quo.

“But House managers tried their case too well. Evidence piled up on the Senate floor over the past 10 days that the president withheld military aid to force Ukraine to announce probes of his political foes. And former national security adviser John Bolton’s firsthand account leaked about the quid pro quo.

“In response, Trump’s defenders shifted to a far more sweeping, and dangerous, defense. They stepped away from denying misconduct and instead declared that the president can do as he pleases — or, as Trump puts it, that the Constitution gives him “right to do whatever I want as president.”

And, this from one of Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, who apparently will say anything someone pays him to say: “If a president did something which he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

According to Dershowitz, because Trump believes he is the greatest of all presidents, then what he does to win-election is, by definition, in the national interest.

Again, Trump, with Dershowitz as his mouthpiece, says he is above all law.

Pick your word. Startling. Appalling. Ludicrous. Jaw dropping.

Or, pyric? Yes.

Who wins and who loses with Trump’s apparent acquittal?

• Trump wins. His contention that, as president, he can do what he wants whenever he wants, incredibly, has been endorsed by Congress – or at least by the U.S. Senate. Who knows what this worst of all U.S. presidents will do next to express his narcissism.
• The Senate loses because it has demonstrated, not its stance as supposedly the “world’s great deliberative body,” but, rather, its decision to bow at the altar of Trump, the Constitution be damned.
• The House loses because its decision to move ahead with impeachment, whatever the merits of the action in the first place, will only now accrue to the credit of Trump who will claim vindication as he heads toward the 2020 election.
• Americans lose because they now will be voting in an election later this year that already has been tainted by Trump and no doubt, with the no-strings-attached freedom Trump thinks he has and which the Senate is poised to convey upon him, will be tainted again.

With their apparent votes to acquit, senators are embracing a new concept: Right is whatever the president says it is.

And that’s one of the main reasons why I worry for the future of American democracy.

**********

And this unrelated footnote: Forgive me, but I almost laughed out load late yesterday when news emerged that part of Trump’s vaunted anti-immigrant wall between the U.S. and Mexico had fallen due to high winds. So, it appears there is something more powerful than Trump – Mother Nature.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The words in the headline to this blog are appropriate.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who appears to be able to argue strenuously for any side of any issue as long as someone will pay him, made a claim in the Senate impeachment hearings that sparked the words – jaw dropping, audacious, startling.

Even to my eye – someone out West who apparently has nothing better to do than watch impeachment television – the Dershowitz claim defied understanding.

He said:

• Presidents can do nearly anything so long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest.
• If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
• I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was.   If I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly. That cannot be an impeachable offense.

Really?

Sounds a lot like Donald Trump himself.

So, in this case, it was absolutely acceptable for Trump to ask a foreign nation to intervene in what is supposed to be a fair and open election for the next president in this country. He wanted the foreign intervention to rig the election his way.

“Dershowitz’ argument was beyond absurd,” said New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand. “I thought he made absolutely no sense — because he essentially said that if President Trump believes his election is for the good of the American people that he could do whatever he wants. He is wrong, and I think he’s made a laughable argument that undermines the president’s case.”

Even late night comics entered the case.

The Washington Post reported this:

“Jaws dropped across the United States on Wednesday as comics, Democrat politicians, legal scholars and TV personalities came together in collective disbelief at the audacious claims of presidential immunity made by President Trump’s impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

“The most frequent analogies — drawing on Dershowitz’s argument that presidents could do almost anything as long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest — were to monarchs, dictators and former president Richard M. Nixon.

“Alan Dershowitz un-impeached Richard Nixon today,” tweeted John Dean, the former White House counsel under Nixon, whose testimony helped lead to the 37th president’s resignation.

“This is inane. The president could threaten people (including with our army) unless they voted for him? Could order a break-in of DNC headquarters?” tweeted Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. solicitor general during the Obama administration. “I’m not sure even kings had such powers.”

Comedy Central host Trevor Noah picked up on the monarchy theme as well: “This whole idea seems more like a monarchy or something.”

For me, it’s one thing for all the president’s men to advocate on his behalf. It’s quite another to throw out the U.S. Constitution and contend that the president should be given a pass on what is a clear and mind-boggling action – Trump tainted the 2020 election, which ought to give all of us, as voters, great pause.

Just wait, he’ll do it again and again until the election.

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 past-time – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

For three years now, I have been looking for a way to describe Donald Trump.

He stands, I posit, as the worst president in U.S. history because he functions in the Oval Office as a reality TV show host with no limits on what he says or does.

He even says he could shoot someone in Times Square and no one could touch him.  He adds that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives him authority to do what he wants without limits.

Does that mean that everything he does, happens to do, or occurs on his watch is wrong?  No.

It’s just that he is looking for credit, not the good result for ALL Americans.

Now, one more point.  This blob does not on focus either of two or three major issues currently roiling this country – impeachment, the near-war with Iran or the so-called peace deal for Israel and the Palestinians (which struck some observers as more of a PR stunt than a peace overture).

Rather, this blog focuses on the character of the person in the White House, for character still matters in politics.

The basic label that fits Trump is this:  He is a narcissist.

Everything he says or does can be explained by this basic fact:  It serves HIS interest.

According to Dan P. McAdams, psychology professor at Northwestern University, “Senator Ted Cruz once described Donald Trump as a narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen.”

That characterization, McAdams continues, echoes what many psychological researchers and therapists have long concluded. Although the American Psychiatric Association strongly discourages mental-health professionals from assigning mental-illness labels to public figures, some clinicians have even suggested that President Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD.

McAdams goes on:

“But Trump is stranger than any diagnostic category can convey. Narcissism is a psychological construct with profound implications for an individual’s well-being and interpersonal relationships. Personality and social psychologists have done hundreds of studies examining narcissistic tendencies, revealing certain patterns of behavior and outcome.

“In some ways, Trump fits those patterns perfectly. But in at least one crucial respect, he deviates.”

Back in June 2016, McAdams in the Atlantic that “narcissists often wear out their welcome.”:

“Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity in the short term.  As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant, they may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status.

“But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome.  Over time, people become annoyed, if not infuriated, by their self-centeredness.  When narcissists begin to disappoint those they once dazzled, their descent can be especially precipitous.  There is still truth in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall.”

Nearly three years into Trump’s presidency, how does this generalization about narcissism hold up for him?  On the one hand, many of the people who have staffed Trump’s administration have learned that he is not the “stable genius” he claims to be.  Disappointed and beaten down, they have left in droves.

On the other hand, Trump has retained the loyal backing of many voters despite scandal, outrage, and chaos.  How is this possible? Why has Trump followed the predictable course for narcissism in one way, alienating many who have served in his administration, and defied expectations in another way, by continuing to attract an adoring core?

A real-life narcissist manages to take his eyes off himself just long enough to find out if others are looking at him.  And if the narcissist has admirers, this makes him feel good.  It temporarily boosts his self-esteem.

Use the following from McAdams to assess Trump.

“Research shows that people high in narcissism tend to show more anger and hostility when challenged or insulted, compared with people low in narcissism. They show sharper mood swings, oscillating between exuberance and negativity.

“As they rage against those who cross them, they make enemies. Many narcissists rise to positions of leadership in various kinds of groups because group members are initially impressed with their confidence and strength, but research shows that many of them turn out to be bad leaders, incompetent and unethical.”

That’s Trump.  Agree with him – in effect, bow before his genius – and then he will say you are great.

Disagree with him and you’ll be the subject of derogatory tweets as he justifies own greatness.

Unfortunately, in the impeachment process, it will not be possible to convict Trump of being a narcissist.

I wish it would be possible because there is a very real question about whether we can survive as a representative democracy led by a person who always equates his own interests with the country’s interests – and they are rarely the same.

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.

It would not be appropriate to mark the passing of the consummate journalist Jim Lehrer without emphasizing the solid “rules” – call them “advice” — he left behind.

Lehrer, the long-time host of the PBS News Hour, died last week at the age of 85.

As a former journalist – yes, I worked for newspapers back in the day when they were more alive and well than they are today in this social media age – Lehrer’s rules make eminent sense to me. Plus, following them would make for better journalism, which in age of wackos on the right and left has degenerated into name-calling and innuendo.

The Lehrer rules:

• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Do not distort, lie, slant, or hype.
• Do not falsify facts or make up quotes.
• Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.
• Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label them as such.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
• Do not broadcast profanity or the end result of violence unless it is an integral and necessary part of the story and/or crucial to understanding the story.
• Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is.
• Journalists who are reckless with facts and reputations should be disciplined by their employers.
• My viewers have a right to know what principles guide my work and the process I use in their practice.
• I am not in the entertainment business.

Just imagine if journalism today were to abide by these solid rules.

For one thing, we would not have to listen to Sean Hannity – and that, alone, would be a godsend.

But, more generally, we would have a better news product, one on which we could rely as every-day Americans who don’t have seats of power or influence that would give us insider information.

So, to honor Lehrer, I wish for a return to the principles he enunciated as unlikely as that may be.

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.

Whatever you think about the Trump impeachment process in Washington, D.C., if you think about it at all, Trump’s lawyers have gone over-board in defending the president.

They are not just advocating for his interests. They are not dealing with the facts of the case.  They are manifestly lying to curry favor from and for their boss, even as they continue to work to fool the public.

The fact is that there is a code of conduct for lawyers and they should be held to account for their falsehoods.

I say this with a background as a registered lobbyist where I – and many others like me – lived within an ethical code, one key element of which was not to lie. If we did, we would pay a penalty, not to mention that our individual credibility would crater.

Here is a summary of what the Trump lawyers want you to believe:

Issue #1: Strip away the name-calling, lies, procedural complaints and conspiracy theories, and you are left with the core of President Trump’s impeachment defense: Everyone does it.

Answer: No they don’t.

As Washington Post columnist Max Boot put it last week, “This premise may be alluring to cynical Trump supporters who are convinced that all politicians are crooks. But it’s simply false. There is no evidence that any president in U.S. history has done what Trump is accused of doing.

“Trump is being impeached because there was no public purpose for his Ukraine policy. It was not in the interest of the United States to hold up military aid to force Ukraine to announce an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden. It was only in the interest of the Trump campaign.”

Issue #2: Lead Trump lawyer Pat Cippolone has maintained that Trump advocates were kept out of House Intelligence Committee hearings.

Answer: False. Many Republicans were in the hearing room, which was supposed to be held behind closed doors – and even those doors were abused by Republicans who entered inappropriately and disrupted the proceedings within eyesight of Republican colleagues inside the room.

Issue #3: Trump’s legal team began its defense last Saturday with a version of one of Trump’s favorite tweets: Read the transcript.

Answer: So, do it. Read the transcript – which is not actually a transcript, but, rather, a summary of the call — and you come to clear conclusion: Trump wanted to make Ukraine complicit in an effort to rig the 2020 election in his favor.

Issue #4: Trump’s lawyers said there was no quid pro quo in his call with the Ukraine president.

Answer: Again, read the transcript and consider the under-oath testimony of Executive Branch officials who listened in on the call. It’s patently obvious that Trump wanted something from Ukraine and would hold funds for Ukraine until he got results – results that benefitted his own election. That’s a quid pro quo.

Issue #5: Trump’s lawyers contended that President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not know the security assistance was paused until the end of August.

Answer: No. Of course Ukraine was aware of the hold.  A now-former senior Ukrainian official, working in Zelensky’s administration at that point, indicated that she was aware of the hold by late July. Catherine Croft, a State Department official, testified that she was surprised at how quickly her Ukrainian colleagues learned about the hold soon after it was known in the administration.

Issue #6: Trump’s lawyers said there was no issue because, in the end, security assistance flowed without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.

Answer: Well, the fact is that the aid was only released after attention had been drawn publicly to the fact that it was being withheld. House Democrats had launched an investigation into the hold. The Washington Post editorial board had explicitly connected the hold to the desired investigations. Trump had already been briefed on a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower in which that connection was mentioned as part of a broad campaign to pressure Ukraine.

The aid was released only after Trump got caught.

Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt made a key point this morning when he wrote this:

“The White House lawyer told senators that, after hearing the facts of the case, you will find that the president did absolutely nothing wrong.

“In other words,” Hiatt added, “to side with the president and allow Americans their choice this November, senators must endorse the preposterous — and also threatening-to-democracy — notion that the president’s behavior is entirely acceptable.”

It’s not. And, what’s more, Trump’s lawyers want us to wait until the 2020 election to do anything about the deception. So, we wait until an election Trump already has tainted and no doubt will continue to taint because, in the end, all that matters is his own interests.

And, as a narcissist, he believes his own interests and country’s interests are identical. No.