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.

Definitions:

• Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society, and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
• Nazism is the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by in Germany from 1933 to 1945, including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the Führer.

Those definitions could just as well characterize the United States in the reign of one Donald Trump as they did with Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

So it is that the question in the headline is one that has perturbed me for three years now as we have seen Trump careen from one issue to another, mimicking either Fascism or Nazism, take your pick – and risking the very future of American democracy.

All of this came to mind again this weekend as I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Federico Finchelstein, author of a new book, “From Fascism to Populism in History.” Here is how Finchelstein started his piece:

“Despite the growing allegations about his misconduct, President Trump remains idolized by many of his supporters. His campaign rallies feature fans whose devotion is unwavering. These expressions of love should be concerning. They share features with the unconditional form of love typical of political cults that has often manifested in dangerous ways.

“Idolizing the ‘leader’ is a key dimension of fascism. In the 1930s and 1940s, different fascist leaders inspired cults of personality, which came in different colors across the globe. In China, supporters of Chiang Kai-shek wore blue shirts, while Brazilian supporters of Plínio Salgado wore integralista green shirts. Argentina’s dictator Jose F. Uriburu, Romania’s Corneliu Codreanu and Spain’s Francisco Franco similarly inspired loyal followings.

‘Supporters of fascism fervently believed in the heroic, even god-like nature of their leaders. Joseph Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propaganda minister, wrote in his diaries about his feelings for Adolf Hitler: ‘I love him … I bow to the greater man, to the political genius.’ Such devotion ultimately allowed leaders to insulate themselves from criticism and accountability.”

Finchelstein’s piece conjured up renewed images for me of comparisons between Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and Trump, though I suppose similar comparisons could be said to exist between Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and Trump.

As I wrote in a previous blog:

• Like Hitler, Trump has watched approvingly as his followers use violence to silence hecklers, dissenters and protesters.
• Like Hitler, Trump appeals to a specific race – his race — as being above all others and, thus, wants to subjugate the “others,” even to near-death.
• Like Hitler, Trump offers few real plans or strategies for confronting the nation’s challenges, giving voters instead the assurance that he, by force of his personality alone, will solve them. Of course, he never does, believing that he benefits more from the problem than any solution.
• Like Hitler, Trump has presented the electorate a scapegoat for its fears and vulnerabilities. Hitler gave the Germans the Jews. Trump has given the U.S. the immigrants.
• Like Hitler, Trump proposes to register and restrict the immigrants whom he condemns as all being criminals, even though most of them simply seek a better life in this country.
• Like Hitler, Trump views everything through his own lens – and he is always front and center. This is one of the clearest illustrations of what a narcissist is. Hitler was one. Trump is another.

Now, as the impeachment process grinds away in the U.S. House, subject of course, to a vote in the U.S. Senate, Trump is on rampage again, coming across as a victim and using the most incendiary language to inflame the passions of his supporters.

He likens what is happening to him to a “witch hunt “or a “coup,” and believes Democrats are out to get him.

Here’s the way veteran political reporter Dan Balz put it in a piece for the Washington Post:

“The president’s behavior gives expression to the judgment he seems to have reached, that what he faces is not going away and requires him to fight back with all the energy he can muster. The urgency and defensiveness of his statements and the sharpness of his attacks on those who are closing in on him underscore the frustrations and anger.”

So, for me, I still wonder how Trumpians can stand by “their leader.” I also wonder how extreme Trump will get, either to curry more favor from supporters or castigate detractors.

I hope we don’t have to find out, but I fear we will.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

In this space, I usually write from my own perspective, sometimes prompted by what various political commentators say.

After all, I am a political junkie, having been in and around politics for more than 40 years, so staying a bit involved after retirement three years ago is not necessarily unusual.

As I have watched the impeachment process unfold over the last few weeks in Washington, D.C., one particular fact impresses me. It is this. The more we learn through the process, the most Senate Republicans will face a huge decision regarding President Donald Trump when, as is likely, impeachment articles are forwarded to the Senate from the House.

As facts keep flowing out about the over-the-top behavior, illegal behavior of Trump, his normal allies in the Senate will have to decide whether to remain unflinchingly loyal to him.

To illustrate what is at stake for Senate Republicans, there is no better way to do so than to reprint excerpts from a column by Washington Post writer Michael Gerson.

Here is what he wrote under this headline:

If Republicans stay loyal to Trump, they’ll be implicated in the moral decay of our politics

“When it come to President Trump, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between a political strategy and a nervous breakdown. His tweeted trash talk, his meandering stream of consciousness media availabilities and his shameless embrace of sleaziness are not the signs of a healthy mind. Trump’s followers might eventually look up to find they were actors in someone else’s delusion.

“But Trump’s recent self-defenses at least clarify his ambitions as an ethicist. Concerning the Ukraine scandal, the president is not seeking forgiveness for a failure in judgment or even trying to change the subject. He boldly asks Americans to accept that his actions — pressuring a foreign power to investigate a domestic political rival — were good and proper.

“’I don’t care about [Joe] Biden’s campaign,’ Trump insists, ‘but I do care about corruption.’ And there was ‘tremendous corruption with Biden.’”

“Trump is effectively setting a new standard of political morality and requiring his supporters to defend it. He is asking elected Republicans, in particular, to agree with his claim that a practice uniformly viewed as corruption in the past is actually an example of fighting corruption now. That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right.

“Trump holds no objective, abstract beliefs about the meaning of justice or duty. He approves of things that help him and disapproves of things that hurt him. There is no other moral grounding. Yet, he makes his assertions with utter confidence.

“The president currently claims that asking a dependent government to dig up dirt on a political rival is a good thing, even when it involves the implication of extortion. He makes no argument about why the traditional definition of corruption has changed. He feels no need. The shift is in his interest. And that is enough to require the assent of his followers.

“Elected Republicans, as a result, are looking mighty uncomfortable. Mouthing the words that Trump wants from them — saying that corruption is really anti-corruption — would mean sounding like a fool and surrendering what remains of their political honor.

“Republicans are being called to follow their leader down a relativist rabbit hole. Trump is not only asking them to accept his arguments on policy matters such as building a wall or provoking a trade war. To be loyal foot soldiers, they must affirm that morality means what Trump says it means — even when it violates their clearest instincts. They know, deep down, that if a Democratic president had asked France or China for help in destroying a prominent Republican rival, they would be in a fever pitch of outrage. But, in the Trump era, this isn’t supposed to matter anymore. Consistency means nothing. Principle means nothing. Character means nothing. It only matters who wins.

“Many Republicans would dearly like to say: What Trump did is wrong, but it doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense. There are two problems with this approach: First, Trump will not regard this as evidence of sufficient loyalty; he demands full approval. And, second, I imagine that most of the founders would regard Trump’s act — inviting a foreign country to influence an American election — as the definition of an impeachable offense. If their intent means anything, it means Trump is seriously corrupt.

“So we are left with positions that can’t be reconciled. Trump honestly seems to have no moral objection to what he did. His opponents are left sputtering, ‘But this has always been seen as serious corruption!’ The president simply doesn’t care. And, if his GOP supporters remain loyal, they will be further implicated in the moral decay of American politics.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

The Department of Bits and Pieces is open again. It one of three I run, with enough time in retirement to do so.

ATLANTIC MAGAZINE STORY ON AMAZON CEO: Jeff Bezos, the CEO of super-power corporate titan Amazon, is the subject of a major story in the magazine.

By major, I mean two things – long and, at times, tedious.

Amidst all of the comments on Bezos, this one caught my attention:

“Amazon has a raft of procedures to guide its disparate teams. Bezos insists that plans be pitched in six-page memos, written in full sentences, a form he describes as “narrative.” This practice emerged from a sense that PowerPoint had become a tool for disguising fuzzy thinking. Writing, Bezos surmised, demands a more linear type of reasoning. As John Rossman, an alumnus of the company who wrote a book called Think Like Amazon, described it, “If you can’t write it out, then you’re not ready to defend it.” The six-pagers are consumed at the beginning of meetings in what Bezos has called a “study hall” atmosphere. This ensures that the audience isn’t faking its way through the meeting either. Only after the silent digestion of the memo—which can be an anxiety-inducing stretch for its authors—can the group ask questions about the document.”

COMMENT: I like the intention – getting someone to write summaries as a way to spur critical thinking.

Without comparing myself to Bezos, writing as a way to think clearly is a long-held bias of mine.  When I was interviewing candidates for state government positions or positions in the public relations and lobby firm I started with two partners, I always asked the candidates to write something as a way to see how they thought and how they performed under pressure.

COLUMNIST THIESSEN ON TRUMP MISTAKE IN SYRIA: The columnist, Mark Thiessen, who sometimes defends Trump, even in the pages of the Washington Post, goes after Trump’s Syria stupidity this morning.

Here are excerpts of what Thiessen wrote:

“President Trump has defended his shameful abandonment of our Kurdish allies in Syria, declaring that “I was elected on getting out of these ridiculous endless wars” that have left America “bogged down, watching over a quagmire.” Listening to the president, Americans might think that we still have large numbers of U.S. troops fighting on fronts across the Middle East. We do not.

“The days when we deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East are long gone. Today, we have 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, about 5,000 in Iraq and just 1,000 in Syria. That is a grand total of about 20,000 troops in all three countries. By contrast, we have about 37,950 U.S. troops in Germany, 12,750 in Italy, 53,900 in Japan, and 28,500 in South Korea — a total or over 133,000. In fact, we now have three times more troops deployed in Spain (3,200) than we do in Syria.

“The cry that America is fighting “endless wars” is a canard. Our force levels in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are a shadow of their former selves, and U.S. forces are not doing the fighting but rather arming and training allies who are doing the fighting for us. That is the right strategy. But after watching Trump abandon our allies in Syria to be slaughtered, why would anyone step forward to help America in the fight against Islamist radicalism? The president can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want American forces fighting ‘endless wars,’ then you can’t betray your allies.”

COMMENT: Flying by the seat of your pants, especially in cases of national security, is a prescription for failure. But that’s what Trump does all the time, preferring to go his own, shameful way rather than reading anything about history or listening to experienced national security advisers.

AND MORE ABOUT THE SYRIA MISTAKE: Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan does her usual masterful job of skewering Trump when she writes:

“The Syria decision contributes to the hardened impression that in foreign policy he’s all impulse, blithely operating out of his depth. It adds to the hardening suspicion that in negotiations he’s not actually tough; he’ll say yes to a lot of things, and some very bad things, to get the deal, the photo-op, the triumphant handshake.

“Foreign-policy decisions in this administration look like the ball in a pinball machine in some garish arcade with flashing lights and some frantic guy pushing the levers ping ping ping and thinking he’s winning.”

COMMENT: Trump, again, is all about his own perception, not any kind of reality. That is a prescription for failure – and Trump is guilty, which ought to resonate in the coming presidential 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 pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It’s surprising, but perhaps should not be, that a great quote says volumes.

Better than a lot of words, which could be advice to me because I like words, sometimes too many of them.

One of my favorite quotes of all time was uttered by General Colin Powell a number of years ago when he declined to run for president when he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Imagine what Powell would say today.

Or this one from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, again dealing with the now-lost art of civility:

“Unfortunately, civility is hard to codify or legislate but you know it when you see it.  It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.”

Now, another new, great quote was contained in a Washington Post article yesterday.

“No one is empowered to speak for Trump but him,” a Republican congressional aide told me, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “People are afraid to say too much because it might be irrelevant in the next two minutes.

“Any messaging product that the White House puts out is as useful as a lighthouse in Kansas.”

Nothing more needs to be said.

Or, for those who may not appreciate analogies – ever heard of a lighthouse in Kansas? Nor have I.

That quote may be enough, but in trUE fashion, I persevere by calling out Trump’s behavior as the impeachment inquiry widens – often due to his own over-the-top behavior – and even as support for impeachment grows among Americans, according to several new polls.

As a now-retired public relations/lobbying executive, I used to counsel clients about how to deal with the media. If I was working for Trump – perish the thought; I never would – he violates all of the advice I would provide.

Here’s how.

• He intentionally foments controversy in a blatant attempt, often successful, to steer focus away from his own misdeeds.
• He debases his office by the most vulgar comments on record for any president in history.
• If someone has the temerity to disagree with him, he criticizes them in over-the-top words, the best example of which is his ridicule of the late Senator John McCain, even after McCain’s death.
• He intentionally violates laws because, as he contends, he can do what he wants as president.
• He intentionally violates all conventional and constitutional norms of any leader of the Executive Branch.

Before Trump was elected, if anyone would have described his behavior and actions in this way, that person would have been presumed to be crazy. Not so much, it turns out.

So, to repeat the quote, “any messaging the White House puts out is as useful as lighthouse in Kansas.”

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 iconic series of golf courses on the South Oregon Coast – Bandon Dunes — come in for various plaudits, well deserved, I think, in the current issue of Links Magazine.

The writer, Graylin Loomis, starts his story this way:

“Twenty-one years ago, Bob “Shoe” Gaspar delivered a load of mulch to a construction site just south of North Bend on Oregon’s southern coast. Unsure of what was being built, he walked over a dune and saw a half-finished golf course. There was no clubhouse, the back nine was dirt, the front nine was being cleared of trees. But that was enough. Gaspar could tell that whatever he was looking at was going to be something special, so he quit his job as a truck driver and went to work at what he soon learned was to balled Bandon Dunes. He became employee number two.”

Good story and, as usual, Loomis has a solid way to describe a piece of ground in human terms.

Twenty years later, Bandon Dunes today has become a national, if not international, landmark in the world of golf.

What started as one course – Bandon Dunes – became three more full-fledged courses, plus an acclaimed putting green, a par-three course, and a practice area to die for – if you are a golfer.

The development is a tribute to Michael Keiser, who made his fortune in the recycled greeting cards business – whatever that is – but then made substantial investments in golf venues.

It started with Bandon Dunes, but then branched out into Nova Scotia and Wisconsin and may soon add the Caribbean, New Zealand and even Scotland – and I use the word “even” because Keiser says he developed “links-style” golf patterned after great courses in golf’s homeland, Scotland.

One reality I like about Bandon Dunes is that it is an accurate approximation of links golf in Scotland – and I say that after having had the privilege of playing golf in Scotland five times.

“My initial vision,” Keiser says, “was to find a sand-based site somewhere in the world that reminded me of the great links courses in the British Isles.”

He succeeded, perhaps beyond even his own wildest dreams. Can you imagine the scene when Keiser, reportedly, hired a small plane to take an aerial view of the coastal property, then said, “I want to buy that?”

He made the purchase and the rest is history.

Initially, he and his colleagues projected about 12,500 rounds annually on the first course, Bandon Dunes, designed by Scottish architect, David Kidd, who now makes his home in Central Oregon.

Not 12,500. Instead, 35,000 rounds in the first year. Now, each of the four cases at Bandon – Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails and Old MacDonald — logs about 35,000 rounds a year.

Plus, a new, full course is under construction. It will be called Bally Bandon and should be open soon.

In its previous life, many of us called it “The Sheep Ranch.” A few years ago, Bill Swancutt, the superintendent at my home course in Salem (Illahe Hills), was able to make arrangements for us to play The Sheep Ranch.

We traveled to the South Coast to see the course first hand and, on the day we were there, we were the only players on the course.

The person who let us in the gate to the course said he was the superintendent and that he had the greatest job in the world – working on a golf course, with few, if any, golfers.

As we stood on a promontory looking out west to the Pacific Ocean, The Sheep Ranch superintendent handed us a piece of paper. On it, he had scrawled a written description of how to play 15 holes. In the distance, we saw about 15 flags, noting that called them “golf holes,” though fairways were not visible.

He suggested a routing, then said that, when we finished playing a hole, we should find a plot of flat ground near the green we had just played and hit from there to the next hole. [No range finders, by the way, just Ben Hogan-like eyesight.]

And, the super suggested, after 15 holes, just make a routing of your choice over the last three holes to get in a full 18.

Great fun!

And, my goal is now to head south to play Bally Bandon as soon as it is open.

Overall, golfers from around the world continue flock to Bandon Dunes, which has given the area, still trying to recover from the demise of the timber and fishing industries, a hand-hold on a new economy.

To put a point on it, there are former loggers and fishermen who are functioning as caddies.

Great place – Bandon Dunes. Worth the trip!

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.

As Donald Trump ran for and then became president, he relied on a catch-phrase – ‘Let’s Make America Great Again.’

Well, in the last three-plus years, the goal has not been achieved.

It’s Trump First, not America first.

Trump has made himself “first” by selling out America to those who would do his bidding, as well as to international despots who would give him what he wanted in return, which is personal aggrandizement.

In another column this week, Washington Post writer Dana Milbank made this point in substantial and excruciating detail.

“At the core of the impeachment inquiry — indeed, at the core of almost every complaint about this president, Milbank wrote, “is one simple truth: Donald Trump is not a patriot.

“I don’t question that on some level he loves his country. I just know that he loves himself more. Again and again, he has harmed the nation’s interests to further his own.”

The most recent example is when Trump appealed to a leader in Ukraine to dig up direct on Democrat presidential candidate, Joe Biden. That, in turn, sparked the current impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House, which Trump believes illustrates a “coup” against his presidency, though recent polls indicate that Americans may be changing their view to something along this line – it’s time for the impeachment process to go forward.

And, now this – impeachment is not a conviction. It is essentially an indictment, which means that Trump will have to defend himself even as the scope of his misdeeds widen. As that happens, it is likely that it will become more and more difficult even for Republicans to justify the president’s conduct.

If Ukraine wasn’t enough, Trump doubled down by asking China to engage in a Biden investigation – and did so in public, thus appearing to indicate that he is above any rational law.

According to Milbank, “Geopolitical archrival China, fighting us in a trade war, now knows that, to secure good relations with the U.S. administration, it should produce dirt on Trump’s prospective Democratic opponent.

“That’s not in the national interest (it’s flatly against the law). It’s in Trump’s personal interest.”

Milbank makes other contentions about Trump using government powers for his own interests.

• Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, at Trump’s behest, revived an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s long ago e-mails.
• Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani spearheaded the effort to solicit political dirt from Ukraine.
• Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin ignored the law in refusing access to Trump’s tax returns, thus blocking Congress from knowing about Trump’s foreign entanglements.
• Trump has encouraged everybody from Vice President Michael Pence on down to patronize his resorts and is now seeking to host the Group of Seven at his Florida golf resort.
• Trump even pressured federal meteorological officials to rescind weather advice that contradicted his — much as he pressured the National Park Service to falsify inauguration attendance.

From Milbank:” “Trump has many undesirable attributes: He lies, he chases conspiracy theories, he’s racist, he abuses power, he’s cruel. The common thread — a unified theory of Trump, if you will — is that the man who promised an ‘America First’ agenda is instead pursuing a ‘Trump First’ agenda.”

Now, I repeat these points from Milbank, not because I agree with all he writes about Trump. I don’t. But, Milbank makes a solid point about what motivates Trump. It’s his own aggrandizement rather than anything good for the country.

A solid piece in USA Today yesterday was written by a Republican and a Democrat who said it is past time for an impeachment process to go forward.

“Trump should be impeached for abuse of his office, obstruction of justice, breaking campaign finance laws and violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses. The primary articles will bring into sharp relief that this president endangered the nation for his own self-serving purposes, while the emoluments charges should be a reminder of a sacred principle to which we seem to have somehow become numb: The president can never monetize his or her time in office.”

Put simply, Trump continues to perform as a narcissist.   So much so that we, as a nation, may not survive a second Trump term, So, I say, give us a chance in 2020 to elect someone better.

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 headline in this blog contemplates an unthinkable prospect – me being involved directly in the impeachment process.

If I somehow got stuck in the process, I wouldn’t want the involvement. I would not volunteer for it or allow myself to be drafted.

All of that said, I do have a few thoughts about the process, if, perish the thought, I was involved:

• I would never look at polls because, frankly, in today’s news cycle, they are not accurate. Because co-called “news” trips out moment by moment, it is impossible to test public opinion. At least not possible to do so accurately, even if the reputation of the pollster or polling firm is beyond reproach.
• I would avoid trying to keep up with the incessant tweets from President Donald Trump who strikes me as increasingly unhinged. He illustrated his off-the-wall craziness when, earlier this week, he made the Finnish president sit through his by-the-seat-of-his-pants news conference.

As a general rule, I think even the reputable press – such as the Wall Street on the center right and the Washington Post on the center left – pay far too much intention to Trump’s tweets. Let him emote without giving what he happens to say even more air time and space?

• I would work hard to come to my own conclusions on the impeachment inquiry, given the gravity of such a process in our political life.

For me, it is tempting to come to an early conclusion because the president has reacted so brazenly over his now-three years in office. I find his behavior beyond the pale for someone who holds the highest political office in our land – and I say that without regard, at this moment, to supposed policy positions on various issues, if, in fact, Trump ever works hard enough to establish a “policy position.”

I also worry that the person who is leading the House impeachment process, Representative Adam Schiff, is behaving so far in a way that does not lend credibility to the process. Rather, his conduct gives aid and comfort to Trump and those who believe the impeachment process is only a coup for those who still cannot believe Trump won the presidency in 2016.

The process needs to work effectively to reinforce faith on the part of the American public that it – the process – will proceed in a fair and fact-based approach, not one oriented to various public pronouncements from the politicos among the Ds, the Rs or Trump.

For once in our recent political life, let’s facts prevail.

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.

Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University, contends, in the Wall Street Journal today, that the current Trump scandal is different from all previous Trump scandals.

No way to know, at this moment, whether Drezner is right or not. And Trump will continue his routine tactic, which is, via various over-the-top tweets, to accuse everyone else of wrong-doing in an attempt to absolve himself.

Drezner posits that there are five reasons why Ukraine is far worse than previous probes of Trump, including the one that involved Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Here are the reasons, according to Drezner:

1) This is a presidential scandal. Trump’s treatment of women, his tax fraud, even the Mueller investigation primarily concerned Trump’s activities before becoming president. The Ukraine business is entirely about his alleged abuse of presidential power for personal gain. This is not about his staff or subordinates; it’s about him.

2) Trump’s staffers are making everything worse and not better. As the Mueller report concluded, “The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the people who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” It is a credit to those staffers that ,in refusing Trump’s orders, they helped stop him from committing crimes.

Now, the staff response to the Ukraine call was to try to cover up its contents, thus successfully adding a cover-up to the original scandal.

3) Trump is making everything worse. Maybe Trump believed that ,after the Mueller investigation, he was bulletproof. This time around, however, every Trump response has been a disaster. If he thought the release of his conversation with Zelensky would put this all to rest, he was mistaken. His Twitter attacks on the whistleblower and on Representative Adam Schiff have only added another possible article of impeachment to the list. [I add that Schiff, the leader of the impeachment process in the House at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, needs to be more careful than he has been about maintaining a commitment to the process, not arguing with Trump.]

4) The White House’s talking points stink. The reasons for this are unsurprising, as White House talking points cannot obscure Trump’s apparent abuse of power. Efforts to muddy the waters have not succeeded.

5) Previous Democrat reticence gives this more meaning. No one can say that Pelosi wanted to take this path. She had been the primary brake on impeachment since January. Now she is saying that pursuing impeachment would be worth losing the House in 2020. GOP partisans will dismiss her previous reluctance, but for everyone else, that switch in her rhetoric is a powerful signal.

Good points from Drezner who says he is only a politics professor from a small university in a small town. He sells himself short.

Meanwhile, as always, Trump doesn’t sell himself short.

In his effort to attack the whistleblower and Democrats’ impeachment push, Trump has grasped at the tools he knows: Communication and storytelling, according to Meena Bose, executive dean at Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs.

“President Trump understands public communications, and this is an effort to gain the upper hand publicly, to control the narrative,” Bose said.

She doesn’t think he is serious about trying to have Schiff arrested, but “he’s speaking to his most loyal supporters” when he suggests that his — and their — political enemies should be strung up, Bose said.

There is little doubt but that Trump will continue lofting broadsides against anyone who he feels doesn’t concur that he is the smartest person in the room and, as president, can do what he wants without reproach.

I always have thought that an impeachment process, if undertaken in the U.S. House, could work to Trump’s favor, energizing his base to support him in 2020 no matter what. That might still be the case.

But, recent public opinion polling suggests that support for voting for impeachment articles is growing and, in terms of politics, could force Senate Republicans to take a difficult position if articles from the House head over to the Senate.

With new evidence about Trump’s behavior and conduct, the Senate Rs would have to decide whether to support him. Could be a tough vote.

The point is this: The more we know about Trump’s behavior and conduct (through the impeachment process) the more any reasonable person might support his exit, by whatever means – conviction through impeachment or losing at the polls.

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, remember, is one of three departments I run with a free hand to manage as I – and only I – see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

I suppose what appears below could fit into Good Quotes Department, but I choose Bits and Pieces. 

From James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal: “Virtually every major candidate has a proposal that would cost a trillion dollars or more, and even those positioning themselves as moderates, like Pete Buttigieg, have multiple trillion-dollar plans.

“It increasingly looks like an arms race in which case a proposal needs a 13-digit price tag to appear bold and plans costing mere billions risk being taken as not serious. Both Kamala Harris and Julián Castro have $10 trillion plans to address climate change.

“Sanders has at least four mega-proposals dealing with Medicare, climate change, college-tuition costs and, most recently, affordable housing.

“Even Amy Klobuchar, who has repeatedly criticized her opponents’ proposals as unrealistically large, has a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.”

Comment: All of this calls to mind a good phrase – “it is easy to spend other people’s money.”

I wish at least a couple of those running for president from the left would limit the “government hand-out” emphasis from their proposals. Is there a role for government? Sure. Should it cost everyone more money than they have? No.

Notable & Quotable: Pelosi Against Impeachment: The Wall Street Journal shows up today with a quote from Representative Nancy Pelosi back in 1998 when she represented California and was not Speaker of the House.

Here is what she said: “Today, the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear—privacy, fairness, checks and balances—have been seriously violated.

“And why? . . . We are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. And until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.

“I rise to oppose these unfair motions, which call for removal of the president of the United States from office.”

Comment: Now, to be sure, the current situation involving Donald Trump is different from the one involving then-President Bill Clinton. But, in the current case, Pelosi needs to be careful to run an impeachment process that, whatever the result, comes across as fair and open.

At the moment, she is coming under some criticism from House Republicans that she has not held a vote on whether to begin the process, just starting it on her own motion. That, Republicans contend, silences them from discussing whether they agree or not. Surely, they would not agree.

But, even in my role as a huge critic of Trump, I also believe leaders should pay close attention to the process so it appears to be fair, though there is little doubt but that Trump will impugn it at every turn.

Columnist Hugh Hewitt in the Washington Post: “If you are a member of #TheResistance or a #NeverTrumper, it is doubtful you will allow yourself to see the enormous problem with the move toward show hearings in the House and a vote on articles of impeachment.

“If you are an #AlwaysTrumper, you will be in a position to believe that an off-the-rails House is abusing the provisions of impeachment for purely partisan purposes.”

Comment: First, the Washington Post deserves credit for giving Hewitt space to write when he disagrees staunchly with the Post’s editorial position in favor of impeachment.

Second, Hewitt is right. AlwaysTrumper and NeverTrumper folks will never agree on impeachment. To Trump troops, it will be another attempt by the left to invalidate the 2016 election. To Trump opponents, it will be about time for Trump’s conduct and rhetoric to be unveiled as beyond the scope of a “real president.”

The term “real president” is mine and indicates where, for what it’s worth, I stand on the reality of government run amok. Trump is the worst president in U.S. history. The Ds may recognize that, but are moving so far left as to be off any kind of political spectrum.

I say a pox on both – or all – sides. The risk is that the very future of American 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.

At a meeting earlier this month, a comment caught my attention. It was this:

“Anyone who thinks the private sector has all the answers to current problems in wrong.”

I agree, but a corollary is also true…this:

“The public sector does not have all the answers to current problems.”

The point is that policymakers these days should do what they don’t do often, which is to decide how to solve pressing public policy problems without reflexively turning in total to either the private or public sectors.

Many Democrats seem to believe that every problem deserves a government solution. Yet, government proves almost every day that its programs don’t always work. Plus, rarely are current government programs subjected what a call a “performance test” – is the program achieving what it was created to achieve and, if not, should it be scrapped?

Once in existence, government programs never go away.

Not, to be sure, many government programs prove their worth every day and, along the way in my career both in government and in the lobby, I advocated for adequate funding for important programs.

On the other side, many Republicans seem to believe that the private sector has all the answers. It doesn’t.

Even with the beneficence with such charity leaders as Bill and Melinda Gates, not to mention a number of others, there is no way for the private sector to carry the full load of social programs, as well as the country’s natural security interests, including in the military.

So, why don’t reasonable Democrats and reasonable Republicans – yes, there are a few left – get together and find the best of both private and public worlds.

Consider just one example – health care.

At the moment, we have a system in this country – the Affordable Health Care Act sometimes called “ObamaCare” – that was developed exclusively by Democrats. Not one Republican voted for it about eight years ago.

Plus, then and now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that she had not even read the bill when she presided over its passage.

Republicans?

Most of them just wanted to trash the new program and many of them are still heading down that pathway.

The alternative?

Find middle ground. Capitalize on the benefits of ObamaCare and take advantage of the private sector to make it even better.

To assure that I, a centrist without a party label, could not stand accused of just saying “no,” I have written about my health care policy proposals in the past. They are:

1. First, require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot. Without everyone in the to-be-insured pool, any system will collapse, much as occurred with large portions of ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan.
3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

And, I firmly believe in the concept that human being should take care of other human beings (if they are willing to accept help) rather than leave the differently-abled to the scrap heap.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

In all of this, there is a key role for the private sector — both hospitals and health insurers – a key role for government.

As the left-wing Democrats want to do, health care should not just be left to government in the form of a handout as is being advocated by many of those running for president on the D side. Take advantage of the skill and ability of the private sector to continue serving citizens who value the private options rather than just another government handout.