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.

We have seen more occasions this week when critics have suggested private sector work comes close to disqualifying an individual for public sector work.

But consider this quote: “Good public servants — including recent Democrat presidents — have worked in the private sector.”

The quote appeared in the Wall Street Journal in a story reporting that Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg released a list of his clients when he worked at the McKinsey Group. He was able to do so after McKinsey lifted a requirement on Buttigieg not to disclose private sector client lists.

It was good news for Buttigieg. It allowed him, for example, to withstand criticism from another D president candidate, Elizabeth Warren. Apparently concerned about the fact that polls show Buttigieg ahead of her, she produced the height of duplicity when she called out Buttigieg.

Before getting elected to the Senate, Warren, too, worked as a consultant to private corporations – corporations she reviles in all of her campaign activity.

Buttigieg’s client list showed genuine work for private clients, not weird political projects.

From the Wall Street Journal on what Buttigieg said as he released his client list:

“Now, voters can see for themselves that my work amounted to mostly research and analysis. At the same time, I am also concerned about efforts to demonize and disqualify people who have worked in the private sector for the sake of political purity. The majority of Americans have worked in the private sector at some point in their life.”

Good point.

In today’s politics, the risk is that experience –- including private sector experience – is often viewed as disqualifying. Those on the far left, including Warren, want fealty to a list of proposals to expand government, so that health care, education, the chasracter of all buildings (the so-called “Green New Deal”) rest on the federal bureaucracy, not individual effort.

They don’t value real-world work.

For me, Buttigieg’s private sector work is a qualification for public office.

I talked with a friend of mine last night who said he was considering voting for Buttigieg in the Democrat primary. He suggested that Buttigieg’s status as a gay individual, not to mention his young age, actually could work in his favor, if younger people in this country vote.

Hadn’t thought of it in just this way, but my friend could be right.

I just think Buttigieg has conducted himself with distinction along the campaign trail, which has been littered with the fulminations of many others. While I do not agree with all of his comments, he has managed to come across as a reasonable individual with perspectives worth considering.

Part of this rests on his private sector experience. And that’s one reason why I am considering his candidacy.

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.

What Republicans in the U.S. House are saying is that we should wait for the next election to make a decision on Donald Trump.

It may be a good sound bite, but it doesn’t make sense.

For this simple reason: Trump has demonstrably indicated that his approach is to cheat to win the next election and there is little doubt but that, even with the impeachment process moving forward, he’ll continue to do anything to cheat in order to win.

So, we can vote in an unfair election!

No.

While the conventional wisdom is that impeachment won’t move to conviction in the Senate, I say let the process go forward. The more we know about Trump’s unethical, dishonest actions, the more the misdeeds and distortions might come home to roost against him in the 2020 election, even if not the U.S. Senate.

Is it possible to have a second bottom line? Perhaps not, but I have one anyway.

It is this. There is little question but that Trump abused his office by advancing his own personal (political) interests ahead of the national interest. That, to me, warrants conviction. Frankly, it’s hard to think of something more severe – putting yourself as president before the country.

Trump should be sent packing.

 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.

NOTE: This may seem like an arcane subject to warrant a blog, but, at least, it’s better than more on the impeachment that grinds on in Washington, D.C. That process seems more like a scripted play than anything else – a play in which the actors, the Democrats and the Republicans, utter hopelessly predictable lines.

The subject in the headline came to my mind late last week as I was invited to attend the annual retreat of the lobbying and public relations company I helped to found more than 25 years ago, CFM Strategic Communications.

Today, I am an emeritus partner, though I don’t get paid to do anything, even as I try to stay in touch with my professional colleagues because, if nothing else, I am a political junkie.

One reason I was asked to be at the annual meeting, I suspect, was that the event was held at a place called Top Golf in Hillsboro, Oregon, which, like other facilities around the country, has a golf driving range, augmented by food and drink.

I am a golfer while many in my old company are not, so there is little doubt but that I was invited to become a temporary golf coach.

In advance of the time on the three-story range, I sat in on about 30 minutes of the all-day meeting which considered company performance issues, including client development. It was reported that, since I retired about three years ago, the company has not been involved as heavily in representing private companies that want to do business with state government.

No surprise there in the sense that my background in state government, before I became a lobbyist, gave me an unusual type of expertise to represent private companies in their bids for state work.

At the same time, it was critical then – and it is critical now — to involve yourself in such representation with a specific set of commitments to preserve the work as being above-board and honest. That’s how we approached the work at CFM – and I recount this, not to take credit for it, but to underline how important it is to represent companies with a strong sense of ethics, including on the part of the companies.

Here is a summary of credentials that are important to do this kind of work. When I first wrote this a few years ago, I labeled it “A Primer on Representing Companies that Want To Do Business with Government, including Oregon State Government.”  The title still works today.

There are at least three main keys to success in this line of lobbying; call them the three c’s:

1. COMPETING:  A major emphasis was to make sure clients understood the need to COMPETE for government business.  Sweetheart deals were not in play, at least not as a matter of course — and, if on occasion, they were, I believed our client should remain above and apart from that kind of unseemly fray.  We believed public officials needed to justify their decisions in the light of day by verifying that the competitive process they oversaw was fair and open to all comers.
2. CONTENT: It was critical for clients to deliver a brief set of messages to the government officials who had circulated a request for proposals.  Brief, staccato-like, to the point.  Get the attention of those making procurement decisions without boring them with “sales or product pitches.”

There usually were three overarching messages to emphasize — as I called them, “the three on’s:”

*  Be on budget:  For most governments, there is no more critical commitment than to live within the amount of money that has been dedicated to a project.

*  Be on time:  Again, it is critical to illustrate an understanding of the time constraints any government is under.

*  Be on track and on target:  Wishes and designs of the government officials are paramount; clients need to understand they are the consultant, with expertise and experience to be sure, but are reporting to the contracting authority which sets the parameters of a project.

3. CREDENTIALS:  If someone is applying for a high-level job, there is no substitute for experience. The same was true for companies competing for government business.  There is no substitute for experience.  Show experiences and successes elsewhere, including welcoming first-hand tours of the sites of the other experiences.

CONCLUSION: Representing companies before government executive agencies can be a private, behind-the-scenes business.  For me, it was not.  I always registered with the appropriate agency, either the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) or a local government comparator. Our clients also registered.

This illustrated a critical commitment, both for CFM as the lobbyist and for the company seeking government business:  There was no substitute for full disclosure.

To provide context for decisions such as this, I provide four examples where our representation helped to produce a contract for a client:

Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS):  When Oregon state government set out to establish a new on-line system for managing medical payments for clients under the Medicaid program, Electronic Data Systems (EDS), decided it wanted to compete for the contract, as it done in a number of other MMIS projects around the country.  The company came to me to ask for help and I readily agreed.

EDS won the contract. [Then, Hewlett-Packard bought EDS, so the contract was signed by H-P.]

Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network (OWIN):  In the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attack in New York, authorities in Oregon agreed that they should create an “interoperable” public safety communications system to assure that various types of first responders could communicate with each other in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.  One company that indicated it wanted to compete was M-A/COM Wireless Systems. It came to CFM for help.

M-A/COM won the contract. [The company eventually became Harris Corporation, so the contract was signed by Harris.]

State of Oregon e-government operations:  As EDS won the Oregon state government contract to run the MMIS system, its credentials came to the attention of the State of Oregon chief information officer who asked EDS if it would be willing to take over operation of state government’s overarching e-government system.

The answer was yes. And, again, EDS engaged CFM.

EDS won the contract.

Oregon State Capitol Building Renovation:  About 15 years ago, the “gold man” at the top of Oregon’s State Capitol building almost came tumbling down in what for Oregon was a major earthquake.  That, coupled with a general recognition that parts of the infrastructure for the Capitol building were more than 75 years old, prompted legislative leaders to embark on a major renovation project.

On the construction management competition, a company with a long-standing Oregon office, JE Dunn, decided to submit a bid and sought help from CFM because our firm had worked with company officials over the years on a variety of other projects.

JE Dunn won the contract.

The successful projects listed above underline a final important credential for competing in Oregon — and that is to understand the political context within which procurement decisions will be made.  A company doesn’t have to operate offices in Oregon, though that can be a clear advantage if it does.  But it does have to illustrate an understanding of the political backdrop which exists for any major government project.

All in all, representing companies competing for government contracts is a purposeful business.  It rests on the reputation of a company like CFM, which takes representation seriously and realizes that any useful project will be handled with full disclosure in the light of day.  It also rests on the credentials of the company competing for state business.

May the best bid win, not always the lowest bid.

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 used to be that politics was defined as “the art of compromise.”

No longer.

To many, compromise is a dirty word. For me, as a retired lobbyist, the fall of compromise from the political lexicon is bad news.

It makes good sense for middle ground solutions to exist when policymakers face difficult issues. It should not just be “win or lose.” The process should allow, if not value, finding solutions in the middle.

That’s one reason why, during my career, I enjoyed lobbying more than running election campaigns.

In the former, middle ground exists. In the latter it does not – it’s only win or lose.

We face these realities in today’s version of politics:

• Donald Trump and other Republicans on the right (if that is really where Trump belongs?) ignore political processes to advance their own causes – no compromise.
• Democrats running for president and various members of Congress on the left want government to handle nearly every issue. They, too, avoid compromise at all costs.
• Voters across America also are fault because they reject notions of compromise as being evil since only “their principles” matter – no compromise.

So, these definitional phrases come to my mind to chronicle the sad state of politics today – phrases that are more accurate than the old one, “politics is the art of compromise:”

• Politics is when you go out to the street corner (figuratively at least, if not literally) and yell about how right you are on every issue.
• Politics is when you call someone who doesn’t agree with you stupid, ignorant and just plain wrong all of the time – often in words that impugn the character of those who disagree with you.
• Politics is when you stand on what you call principle to justify your behavior when no ethical, moral principles are involved.
• Politics is “my way or the highway.”

In my work as a volunteer member of a committee appointed by Oregon Common Cause to propose ways to restore ethical conduct as a hallmark of American citizenship, my colleagues and I have worried a lot about the loss of trust in government.

In the case of public impeachment hearings in Washington, D.C., testimony from witnesses and questions from committee members illustrate that trust is up for grabs in America.

In fact, a recent PEW Research Study reported record levels of mistrust in institutions of government, religion, business and media. Since the Watergate hearings, which are now a distant memory for many Americans, ethics has receded as a matter of public concern.

That is understandable given the conduct of public officials on both sides of the political aisle who display “credentials” such as those in my list of political phrases above. It is bad news for this country.

One way to restore trust – one way, at least for me – would be to return to a position that compromise is a worthy, ethics, trustworthy goal.

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.

Do you remember where you were when…

• Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon?
• President John F. Kennedy was felled by bullets in Dallas?
• When terrorists slammed planes into the Twin Towers in New York?
• When the draft lottery started 50 years ago – and affected so many young men in and around 1970?

Part of the reason the draft lottery came to mind related to a story I read in one of my most recent editions of The Atlantic. It recounted the draft lottery in these words:

“Festooned with mustard-yellow drapes and a dangling American flag, the room resembled a grange hall on bingo night. At center stage sat a wide vase containing oblong, plastic lotto balls, and over that vessel stood Representative Alexander Pirnie of New York.

“As his hand dug into the vase he averted his eyes, like a game-show contestant pulling prizes from a mystery bag. Almost as many U.S. television viewers as had seen the Apollo 11 moon landing a few months earlier were watching him now.

“Inside each capsule was a small sheet, to be pulled out like the slip from a fortune cookie. But these small strips did not predict the future; they changed it. Each paper’s inscription scheduled the assignment of what scientists would call a “treatment condition”—an intervention that, from that day onward, would alter the life outcomes its subjects experienced, just as a pill randomly allocated in a pharmaceutical trial might alter a participant’s health.

“Pirnie would not have thought of his role in these terms, but on December 1, 1969, he was serving as a lab assistant in one of the most significant randomized experiments in history: The Vietnam Selective Service Lotteries.

“’The lotteries’ not only changed how the Selective Service chose men for the conflict in Vietnam, they also marked a turning point in the history of science. By assigning military induction via an arbitrary factor uncorrelated with personal traits, the lotteries amounted to an experiment.”

However, all of the studies cannot overcome a basic and foreboding fact: By the sheer act of the drawing of a birthdate number, thousands of citizens died in a far enough and purposeless war where those who took the nation to war had no idea why, nor how to end the carnage.

I was subject to the draft lottery when it mattered in a huge way because of the existence of the basic fact cited above: It was a lottery to enable the fight in the ride paddies of Vietnam.

All of this remains a difficult memory for me. Not because I went there to fight.  But because many of my friends did and came away changed because of the experience, both because of the terrible toll of war, as well as the aftermath when many who risked their lives in a far off place were not welcomed back to the U.S.

Plus, one of my friends with whom I grew up in Portland shared with me a draft number that meant he would be drafted. He allowed himself to be drafted and went to Vietnam. While he survived that experience as a medic in the field, he came home to contract cancer and eventually succumb to agent-orange exposure.

For my part, I am not hesitant to admit that, when the draft occurred, I took initiative to avoid the “regular army obligation.” I chose the Army Reserve..

On the day of the draft lottery, I sat around in my dorm room at college listening to the radio because, back in that day, there was not a way to listen on-line or do much of anything else via technology.

When numbers were drawn, those numbers corresponded to a birth date. My birth date was – and, of course, still is – November 2. It was drawn as #32, so I knew for sure that I would be drafted. Estimates were that the military would have to draft 150 birth dates to reach personnel quotas.

My best friend in college, by the way, was #332, so, obviously, it was his turn to buy drinks that night.

The next day I went down to the U.S. Army Reserve recruiting station, fearing that I would be in a long line of guys around the block trying to do what I was trying to do, which was to avoid Vietnam.

I was the only one there.

So, I signed up immediately for what was a six-year hitch – eight weeks of basic training, eight weeks of advanced training, then six years of being a weekend warrior, along with two weeks of summer camp.

Better, I thought, than being shot at or shooting someone in Vietnam.

The rest is history. I survived the six years intact.

And, I also believe that, in comparison to my friends who went to Vietnam – or other friends who served in Desert Storm, in Iraq and in Afghanistan – I do not deserve the “veteran status” they have earned.

The draft lottery wanted me to go to Vietnam.  I didn’t.

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.

This is a new topic for me on my blog post.

Consider it to be a respite from blogging on the impeachment process.

Does President Donald Trump like dogs?

On one hand, I don’t care what the answer is.

On another hand, I suspect the answer is no.

Witness this piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago.

“Trump participated in a Rose Garden ceremony honoring Conan, the hero canine who helped trap and kill Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“The tribute was especially unusual, since Trump, who has never owned a pet, is clearly no fan of man’s best friend.

“Former Republican rival Marco Rubio was ‘sweating like a dog’ during a 2016 presidential debate, candidate Trump asserted. He has suggested that a female challenger was ‘barking like a dog,’ said that Republican challenger Carly Fiorina had a ‘face like a dog,’ and described a cabinet secretary being ‘fired like a dog.’

“So it was surprising to see Trump hailing Conan on the White House lawn as ‘brilliant,’ ‘smart,’ ‘excellent,’ ‘fantastic, and an ‘incredible fighter.’

“Trump awarded Conan a medal and a plaque for his outstanding service.

“What the Belgian Malinois did not get from POTUS was a treat or even a head pat; Trump left the touchy-feely part of the ceremony to Vice President Mike Pence, a self-described ‘pet person.’

“The significance of the Conan tribute: It’s a reminder of how closely Trump follows opinion polls. Half of all American households have dogs. And last week, Trump signed into law another measure aimed at pleasing pet-lovers — the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, which makes mistreatment of animals a federal crime punishable with stiff fines and up to seven years in jail.”

Okay, so Trump gets credit for honoring a dog.

But I’ll bet, if the dog had a choice, he would have decided not to go to the White House.

And, if the dog had another choice, he’d vote – doggedly, I say – in favor of impeachment.

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 have made my views known on this subject in past weeks, but I want to do so again…for whatever reason (see below).

For one thing, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has released an impeachment report summarizing its views, plus the points made by 17 witnesses who appeared before it.

For another thing, House Republicans are gearing up for a fight – a fight they stand to lose in the House, but one they are likely to win in the Senate.

And, for a third thing, the Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings today on whether to propose articles of impeachment and, as the Washington Post reports, the hearing could be marked by the tactics of a “bunch of brawlers,” which could boost TV ratings.

In the past, there used to be decorum in D.C. hearings. No longer.

The Intelligence Committee report’s conclusion shows the depth of Trump’s misdeeds:

“The president placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.”

In more detail, here’s the way the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote about the report’s conclusion:

“President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”

I am not sure my views matter from my post in the cheap seats out West – and, even if they do in my own mind, I suspect no one pays much attention to them. But, still, I feel compelled to provide my views…again…as well as to go on record against the Wall Street Journal’s editorial proposition, which contended that “the report’s summary sentence reveals the weakness of its case with overstatement.”

No. Not overstatement. A statement of Trump’s sacrifice of the national interest in favor of his own.

I prepared this post having read a column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank who skewers Trump and the Republicans for their duplicity as the process has moved forward.

So, giving credit to Milbank, here are elements of the duplicity:

TRUMP OR COUNSELS TESTIFYING: For months, the Trump White House and its congressional chorus have clamored for Democrats to allow President Trump’s counsel to be present at impeachment proceedings.

Trump and his supporters have shared that the impeachment resolution is unfair because it “doesn’t allow POTUS’ counsel to be present to question witnesses.”

So what do Trump and his over-the-top legal counsel Pat Cipollone do when offered a chance to participate?

They say “we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

SECRET IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS: Trump and his allies complained about secret proceedings. The proceedings were made public.

NO FORMAL IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTON: Trump and his allies complained that there was no formal impeachment resolution. A formal resolution was passed.

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS: Trump and his allies complained that deposition transcripts weren’t released. The transcripts were released.

IMPEACHMENT TIMING: Trump and his allies complained that Democrats should hurry up and “move on” with impeachment. Processes. But as Democrats worked to wrap up impeachment quickly, Georgia Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, complained that, “we’re rushing this.”

TESTIMONY FROM SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS: Trump and his allies have barred top administrative officials from testifying, which means they continue with a charge that the House Intelligence Committee is getting “only second hand information.”

What’s next?

The columnist, Milbank, continues: “Cipollone is plagued by inconsistencies, but he is blessed with a surfeit of adjectives and adverbs, which he deployed in great number in his committee’s report to Nadler (New York Representative Jerome Madler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee).

“It wasn’t just the impeachment inquiry but a “purported,” “baseless” and “highly partisan” one, with an “irretrievably broken process” characterized by “profound,” “unprecedented,” “historical,” “basic,” “arbitrary,” “fundamental,” “extremely troubling,” “false,” “rudimentary” and “unfair” elements.

“If the president had a better defense, it stands to reason, his lawyer wouldn’t need such an adjectival arsenal. If we had a healthier political climate, Republicans would acknowledge Trump’s wrongdoing and propose, in lieu of impeachment, a bi-partisan, bi-cameral resolution of censure.”

Then, we could move on to the 2020 election and see if it turns out there is a candidate who could beat Trump and, thus, free America from the misdeeds of worst president in our history who continues to operate with a sense of personal entitlement, not any semblance of the national interest.

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 Trump impeachment hearings – not to mention Trump’s conduct as president – illustrate that many Americans have lost their faith in government. Call it what it is – a lack of trust.

A recent PEW Research Study confirms the failure.

Americans, PEW says, report record levels of mistrust in institutions of government, religion, business and media.

From the study: “Two-thirds of adults think Americans have little or no confidence in the federal government. Majorities believe the public’s confidence in the U.S. government and in each other is shrinking, and most believe a shortage of trust in government and other institutions makes it harder to solve some of the nation’s key problems.”

Yet at the same time, the PEW Study says, “the gig and sharing economies have transformed Americans into a people ready and willing to trust complete strangers to drive us around town, share our homes, borrow our cars, and lend us money.”

Fascinating contrast.

To deal with lost of trust issues, Oregon Common Cause formed a committee several months ago to look at trust issues. Could something be done to restore trust in the public consciousness?

Early in its work, the committee heard comments, via teleconference, Walter Schab, the retired director of the Federal Ethics Office – yes, there is one. [In the spirit of full disclosure, I serve on the committee.]

Given Watergate, or, more accurately, the response to it in the immediate aftermath of the crime and attempt to cover it up, Schab said ethical behavior was viewed more than 40 years ago as critical by public, if only because then-President Richard Nixon and his cronies had so violated the public trust.

Now, so many years after Watergate, he said trust in government has receded from the public consciousness, a perception confirmed by the PEW Research Study cited above.

From my post in the cheap seats out West – not to mention in retirement – I posit these thoughts as among reasons for the decline.

• The fact that the Trump approach to government – he lies on every issue and uses government for his own ends, including to benefit his personal bank account – breaches trust. Further, his conduct prompts many citizens to believe every public official lies and that government cannot be trusted to do the public good.

• The fact that Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything – even the time of day – breaches trust. There is no middle ground.

• The fact that public officials, including staff members for the president, and, even, members of Congress, conduct themselves with no recognition of the “common good” breaches These officials talk and act with impunity toward the public.

I have three examples here, though there are many more.

Number One: Stephen Miller, the aide to President Trump, who appears function as a person who hates ALL immigrants and sides with white supremacy organizations.

In the Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson wrote this about Miller:

“All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Number Two: Congressman Jim Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released.

For Jordan and his colleagues on the far right, consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

Number Three: Lest anyone believe that I pillory only Republicans, consider this. U.S. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, walks and talks like Trump. She has no time for facts or views other than her own and she spends all of her time making government the answer for every question in life.

If she knew what she was talking about, she would be even more dangerous. She doesn’t, so thinking people can do to Ocasio-Cortez what the same people do with Trump – consider the source, ignore the source and move on.

The trouble, of course, is that trust in government is continuing to recede and, for me, it is not an overstatement to contend that the very future of U.S. democracy is at stake.

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.

This post will be a bit like “insider baseball” in that what I write deals with an esoteric subject – the “Associated Press Stylebook” (AP Style).

As a reporter for a daily newspaper many years ago, I followed the stylebook religiously as did all of those who worked with me. Plus, my boss – a friend who eventually became my partner in business – expected rigorous adherence to the AP Stylebook.

It was a bible.

To be sure, there was a rationale for it. It was an attempt to provide workable rules and regulations about newspaper writing – when to use abbreviations, when to use commas, how to refer to persons in positions of authority such as a governor or a president. And, by following the rules, writing would be clearer no matter where it appeared.

All of this has changed, both for me and for the newspaper business in general, the latter owing largely to societal changes.

Several reasons:

First, I don’t work for a newspaper anymore, so I don’t allow the rules to apply to me as they once did.

Second, I have developed my own style— my rules, if you will, which, include:

• Using few abbreviations because, often, abbreviations suggest readers know more than they do.
• Using hyphens because they make reading easier. Consider the word bipartisan. Easier to read if it is like this – bi-partisan.
• Using more commas than some language usage rules advise, including the AP Stylebook. For me, commas add to readability by specifying pauses when they are indicated – pauses that it would be possible to ignore if they weren’t there.

Third, societal norms are changing and that means writing style must change with the times.

Consider this “Letter to Readers” from Theresa Bottomly, editor of the Oregonian newspaper, which appeared a week or so ago. Here are excerpts of what she wrote:

“A pronoun in an article last week left some readers confused and others annoyed.

“Jayati Ramakrishnan, general assignment reporter, turned in a routine about the resignation of an Oregon school board member. She wrote: ‘A member of the Corvallis School Board will resign Tuesday, after they tweeted an anti-police message that the rest of the board publicly disavowed.’

“Ramakrishnan explained later in the article that the subject, Brandy Fortson, identifies as non-binary – in other words, neither male nor female. Ramakrishnan used the pronoun ‘they’ as singular, abiding by Fortson’s preference.”

Bottomly went on to report that at least one reader was confused and letters to the editor over recent days indicate that more readers than one were confused, some strong adherents to “rules of grammar.”

I was one who was confused until I read Bottomly’s letter, then understood the “binary” issue today, far different than would have the case years ago.

Bottomly defended the reporter’s usage.

“The reporter’s usage is correct. The Oregonian/OregonLive, like most newspapers, follows Associated Press style. In 2017, the AP changed its guidance to allow “they” as singular. The entry reads, in part:

“’They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy.’”

Okay. An understandable change, especially given the reality of today’s gender issues. But, beyond gender, I was surprised to learn that the Stylebook recognizes the sometimes awkward or clumsy nature of singular pronouns, even though singular may be grammatically accurate.

The use of a plural pronoun to modify a singular subject always has bothered me. It was as if the writer didn’t want to pay attention to solid, accurate writing skills.

Let me provide one example.  Here is a sentence: “The committee did their work in private.” Proper usage would be, “The committee did its work in private.” Or, if that proper usage sounded tinny to the ear, use this: “Committee members did their work in private.”

Adding the word “members” allows the sentence, using a plural pronoun with a plural noun, to adhere to rules of grammar, as well as to sound better.

Bottomly’s contends that society is changing and language has to change with it.

Which means an old guy – me – also has to change. As does the AP Stylebook.

Count me as a reluctant changer, not to mention that someone who has time to right this post, has too much time on his (not their) hands.

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.

Back a few years ago, when Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, proposed creating annual legislative sessions, I was one of the detractors.

I had to express my position at the polls because the change required a vote to amend the Oregon Constitution, which stipulated annual legislative sessions.

Unhappily for me, more voters in Oregon supported the change than opposed it.

I thought then – and still do now – that annual sessions were only one step toward a professional legislature, one that would meet continually.

Goodbye to the notion of a “citizen legislature” that had been a factor in Oregon politics for many years as the every-other-year gathering in Salem allowed legislators to keep non-legislative jobs if they chose to do so.

Was my negative premonition right?

Hard to tell.

But as we approach the annual session in early 2020, we are seeing the normal controversy about the approach – controversy that could have been avoided if we stuck to the every-other-year approach.

Today, confusion reigns over what such a short session should consider, given that it only meets for about 30 days at the Capitol in Salem.

In retirement, to state what could be obvious, I don’t have as much personal knowledge about legislative issues as I did as a full-time lobbyist. But, one issue ranks as a major, divisive one that reflects typical differences between Democrats and Republicans as they return to Salem — “cap and trade climate change” legislation.

Democrats appear to want to consider the issue. Republicans say no.

It was the issue that triggered the unseemly end of the long 2019 legislative session in Salem. – unseemly in the sense that Republicans in the Senate were so incensed by the issue that they staged a walk-out to avoid providing a quorum which was needed to close down the session.

Walk-outs are legal and have been used by both Republicans and
Democrats over the years. But the look of walking out does not reflect well on the legislative process.

Here is what my colleagues at my old lobbying firm, CFM Strategic Communications, wrote about the status of the “cap and trade” in their “Insider” blog:

“…news of a cap-and-trade revival in the 2020 Oregon legislative session unleashed familiar partisan passions. Democrats said action was overdue. Republicans said here we go again. Legislation in 2020 would be the third try.

“Representatives Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, and Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, are circulating the Oregon Resilient Communities Act (ORCA), which, according to reports, maintains the basic structure of House Bill 2020, which failed when three Senate Democrats sided with Republicans in blocking passage.

“Marsh and Power are proposing significant changes, including giving fuel importers a two-year pass on complying with cap-and-trade provisions. That modification is designed to negate, or at least delay, an immediate impact on gas prices at the pump – one of the more effective arguments of opponents.

“The Marsh-Power proposal would give more of the money generated from the cap-and-trade regime to cities and counties without competitive grants.

“Brown (Governor Kate Brown) also is exploring concessions. Instead of delaying inclusion of fuels under cap-and-trade, Brown would divide the state into three regions with staggered start dates. The Portland region would go first, other urban centers would be next, and rural areas would come under regulation at an unspecified date.

“OPB’s Dirk VanderHart reports Nik Blosser, Brown’s chief of staff, has been meeting with cap-and-trade skeptics.

“VanderHart notes that Senators Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Fred Girod, R-Stayton, are cooking up their own proposal. Both were ‘no’ votes on HB 2020.

“Senate Republicans, who staged a multi-day walkout near the end of the 2019 session, aren’t ruling out a similar tactic in 2020. ‘The short session was created to balance the budget and to do some fixes, said Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr., R-Grants Pass. ‘Cap-and-trade is an all-encompassing policy that dramatically affects how we will be conducting business. That simply should not happen during the short session.’

“Environmental groups have been agitating for another cap-and-trade try in 2020. They say meaningful climate change legislation can’t wait.

“Marsh, Power, Brown, Roblan and Girod all describe their legislative ideas as preliminary, which raises a tactical question of whether there is time and willingness to craft consensus legislation that can pass the narrow procedural windows of a short 35-day session.

“If a bill doesn’t clear a committee in its house of origin by the end of the first week of the session, it is effectively dead. Major legislation may be able to leapfrog deadlines, but it also could be snagged by a lack of time to air a proposal that could still be forming more or less on the run.”

There, the last paragraph contains a critical point. There is not enough time in a short, 30-day legislative session to debate complicated and controversial public policy issues – and cap and trade is clearly both complicated and controversial.

So, this former lobbyist says legislative leaders should stay with the original focus of short sessions – fixes to bills that passed earlier with innocent errors, updates on state budget issues, and hearings designed to provide information, but not resolve, major public policy proposals, thus saving resolution to the next “regular session.”

But, will thoughts from a retired lobbyists matter these days? Probably not.