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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

Some of us who have too much time on our hands spend energy reviewing golf rules. It is a trying exercise.

Golf rules are, by their very nature, complex and difficult to grasp. Plus, the rules are written in language that often defies understanding.

So, it was with a bit of glee that I came across a set of new golf rules that make good sense especially for older golfers like me who are approaching 70 years of age.

Here is a summary of the new rules:

Rule 9.k.34(a): If a tree is between the ball and the hole, and the tree is deemed to be younger than the player, then the ball can be moved without penalty. This is so because this is simply a question of timing; when the player was younger, the tree was not there so the player is being penalized because of his age.

Rule 1.a.5 – A ball sliced or hooked into the Rough shall be lifted and placed on the fairway at a point equal to the distance it carried or rolled into the rough with no penalty. The senior player should not be penalized for tall grass, which ground-keepers failed to mow.

Rule 2.d.6 (B) – A ball hitting a tree shall be deemed NOT to have hit the tree. This is simply bad luck and luck has no place in a scientific game. The senior player must estimate the distance the ball would have traveled if it had not hit the tree, and play the ball from there.

Rule 3.B.3(G) – There shall be no such thing as a lost ball. The missing ball is on or near the course and will eventually be found and pocketed by someone else, thereby making it a stolen ball. The senior player is not to compound the felony by charging himself with a penalty.

Rule 4.c.7(h) – If a putt passes over a hole without dropping, it is deemed to have dropped. The Law of Gravity supersedes the Rules of Golf.

Rule 5. – Putts that stop close enough to the cup that they could be blown in, may be blown in. This does not apply to balls more than three inches from the hole. No one wants to make a mockery of the game.

Rule 6.a.9(k) – There is no penalty for so-called “out of bounds.” If penny-pinching golf course owners bought sufficient land, this would not occur. The senior player deserves an apology, not a penalty.

Rule 7.G.15(z) – There is no penalty for a ball in a water hazard, as golf balls should float. Senior players should not be penalized for any shortcomings of the manufacturers.

Rule 8.k.9(S) – Advertisements claim that golf scores can be improved by purchasing new golf equipment. Since this is financially impractical for many senior players, one-half stroke per hole may be subtracted for using old equipment.

These new rules make sense because, golf, above all, is a game of integrity.

So, maintain integrity, I say.  Adopt the new rules!

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

If you watch politics these days, it is easily possible to come away with the proposition in this headline. The future of democracy in this country, as we know it ,may be at stake.

There are those who will say this is because many Republicans (not all I say, to avoid an unfair generalization), led by the narcissist in the Oval Office, have turned politics into a game which can be cruel to others, including, but not necessarily, immigrants.

What I say is that many Republicans are reacting to the liberal, we-know-best tone of the past. That doesn’t excuse the “gen-even mentality;” it just helps to explain it because, for me, both the left and right extremes are at fault.

All of this came to mind as I read in the Washington Post recounting the experience of a candidate for Congress from Minnesota, Elissa Slotkin.

The story says she assumed her campaign would be built around pocketbook issues such as the rising cost of health care, stagnant wages and unaffordable college tuition.

But what this veteran of three tours in Afghanistan found on the campaign was alarmingly different.

“Voters say they are tired of the anger and polarization emanating from Washington,” she told the Post. “They say they crave compromise.

“Yet these same voters view the rival party with disdain and frequently punish politicians for reaching across partisan lines.

“They want the anger to stop but can’t stop being angry.”

Quite a paradox!

It is what has prompted me to favor a return to political activity as we once knew it. Differ on policy, to be sure. But do so with respect for views of the other side without vicious name-calling.

President Trump has led this country to new lows in politics, but, as I wrote above, the previous administration and those associated with it prodded this country to believe that government had the answer to every problem. If someone raised a problem, then there was automatically a government solution.

Health care is one example. Is what has come to be called “ObamaCare” all bad? No. But all of us are still contending with the over-the-top federal approach to health care, including the incredible proposition from then House Speaker, California’s Nancy Pelosi, that the bill should be passed first, then read later.

Both sides have squirreled away opportunities to find the smart middle ground on health care, which, if adopted, would take advantage of two strengths – (a) government in its role to care for low-income citizens who have no where else to turn (such as single mothers with children), and (b) smart private health care providers who can capitalize on innovation and technology to offer better health care.

I wish Democrats in charge several years ago would have opted for this approach. And I wish Republicans in charge now would opt for it.

But, too often, one side wants to get even with other side for perceived – or even – actual slights. So, we have gridlock.

And, as candidate Slotkin has discovered on the campaign trail, we have anger.

To repeat from I quoted above, “Voters say they are tired of the anger and polarization emanating from Washington. They say they crave compromise. Yet these same voters view the rival party with disdain and frequently punish politicians for reaching across partisan lines.

“They want the anger to stop but can’t stop being angry.”

There is a message in this for all of us. Stop being angry. Advocate for your point-of-view, but have respect for other sides. Support finding middle ground. Don’t penalize those who represent us for being open to compromise, which is not a dirty word.

If we, as citizens, don’t practice these virtues, we cannot expect those who represent us to do so.

And, in truth, the fate of democracy as we know it 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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 like oxymorons!

There, I said it.

With so much time on my hands in retirement, I often think of oxymorons. Go figure.

So, what is an oxymoron?

The dictionary defines the word this way: “A figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly.’”

Those two are good examples, ones I did not have in my repertoire.

The word “oxymoron” is itself oxymoronic, which is to say contradictory.

The dictionary says the word is derived from two ancient Greek words oxys, which means “sharp,” and moronos, which means “dull” or “stupid.” Take this sentence, for example:

“This was a minor crisis and the only choice was to drop the product line.”

Two oxymorons. Minor crisis. Only choice.

Here are some of my favorites oxymorons:

• Jumbo shrimp: This is one that is often used to define the term oxymoron.
• Political courage: This is one of my favorites.
• Legislative leadership: I cite this based on my many years of working with Oregon Legislature in Salem.
• Ethical lobbyist: And I cite this, having been lobbyist, albeit an ethical one, for about 40 years.
• Military intelligence: This also is one often used to define the term oxymoron.
• Government ethics: This one comes to mind if, for no other reason, than that I current serve on the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
• Traffic engineer: This one comes to mind as I try, mightily, to ply the crazy street “plan” in Salem, Oregon.
• Civil war: Impossible.
• Old news: Possible, I guess.
• Working vacation: Sounds impossible, but I took several.
• Crash landing: Again, impossible.
• Dull roar: Say what?
• Guest host: Never thought about this one until now.
• Larger half: Heard this many times.
• One-man band: Think about it!
• Random order: And about this one, too!
• Student teacher: I used to have many of these in my youth, though never thought of them as oxymorons.

Enough already! Okay. But, I intend to keep looking for and/or using oxymorons. I don’t have much else to do other than writing this blog and playing golf. Plus, tt’s just fun.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 is incredible to hear and see all the negative words to describe “our” president, Donald Trump.

If you would have asked me about such words a few years ago, I would have said, “no, we don’t talk about our president that way, even if we don’t agree with him (or her). At least, respect the office, if not the person in it.”

But, now we have a buffoon, a blowhard and a former reality TV star in the Oval Office – that is, if he actually spends much time there. And he attempts to burnish his own image with deep and personal criticisms of anyone who happens to disagree with him because, of course, he considers himself to be the smartest person in any room.

Before writing this blog, I reflected on whether, in doing so, I was just continuing a debate marked by terrible words. If all of us are to behave in a more civil fashion, perhaps it should start with me.

But, in the end, I decided to go ahead if only because I will feel better for listing words that have been used to describe this worst of all U.S. presidents.

I suppose it would be possible for fans of Trump to laud a few achievements – getting Judge Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, working with Congress to pass the most wide- ranging tax reform since the Reagan years, spurring economic growth, and rolling back portions of the huge regulatory burden left by former President Barack Obama.

But, he has almost continually sabotaged his own agenda by tweets that not long lacked decorum, but also impugned the integrity of those named in the tweets.

At any rate, with time on my hands in retirement, I made a list of words that have been used to describe Trump, over the last year – sometimes by me.

One of the best is BLOTUS. It is a take-off on the acronym POTUS, which stands for President of the United States. It was passed on to me yesterday by a friend who said the term described Trump to a “T.”

So, what does BLOTUS mean? It stands for “Biggest Liar of the United States.”

Other words to describe Trump:

Buffoon

Narcissist

Egotist

Shallow

Daft

“It’s all about me”

Ignorant

Arrogant

Liar

Blowhard

Idiot

Racist

Misogynist

Egomaniac

Bombastic

Clown

Obnoxious

Delusional

Unqualified

Repulsive

Pompous

Incompetent

Simpleton

The columnist who used the “simpleton” to describe Trump also said that, as Trump sustains attacks from political foes and the press he has been left “punch-drunk,” causing him to lash out again and again without “appropriate restraint.”

These are words that are not presidential. We deserve better. There is decorum to observe in the nation’s highest political office and Trump observes none of it.

Say what you will about Trump’s “achievements.” For me, they pale in comparison to his “it’s all about me” attitude.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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.

When I served as deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department back in the late 1980s, we were under substantial pressure to help to produce an “Oregon comeback.”

The phrase referred to the fact that Oregon had endured an economic recession, a fact that prompted the Democrat candidate for governor to run on the phrase – “an Oregon comeback.”

But during that time, which all the political back and forth, my colleagues and I worked hard to produce results for Oregon.

One of them was the subject of a Washington Post article the other day under this underline, “CSI Ashland? Oregon forensic investigators crack animal crime cases.”

Incredible to remember that I was on point for this investment in Oregon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create what was then called “a raptor investigation facility.”

At the time, I wasn’t even sure of the definition of the term “raptor,” but I soon learned as I worked with local officials in Ashland to cite the new facility in this picturesque southern Oregon town – another virtue because economic results were scheduled to occur outside metropolitan Portland.

I report this, not to take credit for the result, but rather to share credit for it because anything good that occurs with the Oregon economy is due to the actions of a group, not an individual.

Here are excerpts from the article:

“ASHLAND — The young golden eagle on the operating table showed no outward signs of trauma. An X-ray had revealed no fractures.

“But this bird, a protected species, was dead — and that’s why it was here, beak-up in a laboratory. It had been shipped to this picturesque college town by federal agents somewhere in the West who suspected it had been electrocuted by power lines. Now its carcass was evidence in an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against a utility company.

“A veterinary pathologist was about to cut open the bird in the hope of determining its cause of death. This unusual federal facility, the world’s only full-service forensics lab for wildlife crimes, analyzes thousands of creatures that each year cross its threshold in the form of carcasses, parts and products. Its mission is to use science to find how the animal died – and often, to figure out what kind of animal it was.”

“’In police work, you know what your victim is — it’s Homo sapiens,’ said Ken Goddard, a former crime scene investigator who now directs this place, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Forensics Laboratory. ‘Our first job is to figure out what a victim is.’”

Reading Goddard’s name also struck a chord with me because, back then, he was involved in helping to locate the new facility in Ashland. Part of the reason, frankly, was Ken told me he wanted “to live there.”

Crime against wildlife is a multibillion-dollar global enterprise that experts say is only increasing as poaching and trafficking networks grow more sophisticated and move into dark corners of the Internet. When authorities interrupt that enterprise, the lab in Ashland is often a critical stop in their investigations. Its scientists run DNA tests, examine bullets, identify poisons and compare remains to some 35,000 specimens in the lab’s reference collection – “a ghoulish panoply of pelts, bones, feathers and claws,” as the Post called it.

The one-story, 40,000-square-foot lab is a federal building, but it feels almost quaint, compared with the fortresses in Washington. Visitors don’t pass through metal detectors, though evidence is sometimes X-rayed upon arrival. A new parking lot barrier gate was installed this summer to deter truck bombers, not because of a specific threat, but because it’s protocol at government facilities.

Beyond the desires of the federal official, Goddard, the facility ended up in Ashland, a town flanked by two mountain ranges just north of the California border, in part because a local chiropractor pushed Oregon senators to support the project, even as Oregon Economic Development Department officials cooperated with the federal government and local officials to orchestrate the siting.

So, the siting still ranks as an achievement for Oregon, but, before the process, if you have asked me if I was going to be involved in locating a raptor investigation facility in Oregon, I would have said, “no.” Now, reflecting on the past, I can say, “yes.”

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 direct with full freedom to do what I want. Which makes me a dictator.

From Dick Hughes in his column, Capital Chatter:  “My only advice as the campaigns progress is to be cautious about labeling anyone. Labels say as much about the person doing the labeling as they do about the person being labeled.

Comment: Hughes has it right again in his advice to be cautious about labels. They rarely work to describe someone’s real character.

One recent example occurred when a friend of mine said, “all Republicans should be ashamed that they support Trump.” Well, let me say the label doesn’t work. I know many Republicans don’t support Trump and a few have renounced the Republican label as a result of the president’s conduct. So, it should have been “some Republicans,’ not the label “all Republicans.”

Also from Hughes:  “Representative Pam Marsh D-Ashland wrote this is one of her recent constituent newsletters: “In its simplest form, a legislative proposal, or bill, is nothing more than a good idea designed to address a community problem. You don’t have to be an elected official to recognize the need to implement change. With help from my Ashland High School student intern, we’re soliciting your ideas for new legislation.”

Comment: Wait! To say that a “legislative proposal, or bill, is nothing more than as good idea to address a community problem,” violates one of my central propositions, which is this: Legislators should ask key questions about any legislative proposal, such as, “does this proposal warrant government action?”

Legislators also should be willing to answer “no” to the question. Not every proposed solution is a good one, warranting government action.

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Kavanaugh displayed many skills during his Senate hearings, but one above all: the ability to suffer political fools.”

Comment: In the circus-like confirmation process (if it can be called a “process” at all), Kavanaugh has come across as a reasoned person who has conducted himself with dignity and discretion. The same cannot be said for many of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have answered a call from many of “their side” to do anything to sideline Kavanaugh’s appointment. My hope is that, at the vote now scheduled for September 20, they won’t succeed.

Misusing the word “partner:” It happens all the time. What? Using nouns as verbs. The most recent was the word “partner.”

Comment: As I write this, I cannot find the example quote, but just know this is true: Partner is a noun, not a verb. You cannot “partner with someone.” You can be “a partner with someone.”

A final thought: This from my wife this morning. How is it that persons are losing their jobs all across the land for having been accused of groping someone and our president doesn’t lose his?

Comment: Good question. By even his own admission, Trump has groped many women, using the reality as a plaudit, not a debit. He should lose his job for many reasons, this included.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 I watched a replay of Serena Williams’ incredible temper tantrum in the recent United States Open Tennis Tournament, I found myself wondering this – was what we saw “just sports,” or was it something more about society in general.

Forgive that kind of big thought, but know that, in retirement, I have nothing better to do than play golf and consider such issues.

Williams, one of the great tennis players of all time, went off against officials, contending that she was being treated differently than men would have been. She yelled at the referee, calling him a sexist. She slammed her racket on the court, earning a substantial penalty in the world of tennis.

Here is a short version of what happened.

Williams lost the first set to Naomi Osaka, who is 20 years old and moved to the U.S. from Japan when she was 3. In the flexible national-origin rules of professional tennis, she represents Japan. Growing up in New York and Florida, Osaka idolized Williams.

In the second set, the chair umpire, Carlos Ramos, gave Williams a warning for being coached from the stands. Her coach, said of course he was coaching her, which is against the rules, but it shouldn’t matter because everyone does it.

After losing her serve, Williams pounded her racket against the ground and then walked to the chair to have it out with Ramos. “You owe me an apology,” she said. “I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right for her.” Ramos gave her a point penalty for the crushed racket.

Williams won the next game, and then the 2018 women’s final pretty much imploded. For what seemed like 10 minutes, Williams attacked Ramos, calling him a “thief” for stealing points from her. Staring at them, Osaka forlornly dropped the two balls she thought she was supposed to serve and walked away. Ramos then imposed a rare game penalty on Williams.

The episode spurred people all over America comment on what had transpired.

One of my favorite columnists, Daniel Henninger, found time to wonder, in a Wall Street Journal piece, whether sports could be a metaphor for real life.

“Cynics call it a sports-metaphor alert,” he wrote. “But maybe it’s the other way around. Given the confused state of real life, we should consider ourselves lucky that sports exist as a mirror for reflection. Exhibit A this week, bigger than the NFL, is ‘the mother of all meltdowns,’ his reference to the Williams’ episode.”

Still, Osaka finally served out the match to win the U.S. Open, for which she essentially apologized at the award ceremony. The New York crowd lived up to its low reputation by booing her victory even into the awards event until Williams told them to stop.

More from Henninger: “In the real world, public tantrums have become commonplace and even ratified as legitimate expressions of policy grievance.

“One thinks of the screaming audience members carried out of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Or the routine shout-downs of speakers on campuses. After the last presidential election, the advance guard of the resistance sat during rush hour in the middle of intersections. Members of Congress routinely throw tantrums now, as in the Peter Strzok hearing. Seen a White House press briefing lately?”

Whether in real life, sports, entertainment or, heaven knows, our national politics, unsportsmanlike conduct and self-indulgence have become routine. We are worse off for the actions – in sports, in politics, and in life.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 one of three departments I direct with full and complete authority to run each as I see fit. Thus, the decision on quotes to include is mine and mine alone. The comments, of course, are mine, as well.

From the Wall Street Journal: “Bob Woodward’s new book ‘Fear’ does not paint a different picture of the early Trump White House than the one that has already emerged from credible news organizations in daily reporting on President Trump. Rather, the book fills in details of a presidency led by an ignorant, impulsive and dishonest narcissist — and the people around him who enable or restrain his worst instincts.”

Comment: To say the Trump White House is disorganized is to employ a start understatement. I find myself wondering how experienced leaders, such as White House chief of staff John Kelly can tolerate the public musings of a disconnected president.

From Washington Post Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin: “The 12 hours Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh spent testifying Wednesday served only to entrench each party’s preconceptions of the judge—a brilliant, principled jurist humbly serving the law (to Republicans) or a duplicitous right-wing ideologue selected to secure President Trump’s grip on power (the Democratic view).”

Comment: The confirmation process before the Senate Judiciary Committee – using the word “process” does not apply accurately to the circus – was another testament to government gone awry. Democrats on the committee couldn’t hold their tongues in a way committee members normally – and appropriately – do when the person with the gavel tries to preserve order. Vote no on Kavanaugh if you must, I say, but honor the traditions and processes of Senate confirmation as you do.

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Here is the increasingly evident reality of the Trump era: We are a superpower run by a simpleton. From a foreign policy perspective, this is far worse than being run by a skilled liar. It is an invitation to manipulation and contempt.

“What we are finding from books, from insider leaks and from investigative journalism is that the rational actors who are closest to the president are frightened by his chaotic leadership style. They describe a total lack of intellectual curiosity, mental discipline and impulse control. Should the views of these establishment insiders really carry more weight than those of Uncle Clem in Scranton, Pennsylvania? Why yes, in this case, they should. We should listen to the voices of American populism in determining public needs and in setting policy agendas — but not in determining political reality.

Comment: I have found myself trying to find words to describe Trump with so many options at my disposal. But, Gerson, one of my favorite writers, come up with a new one this time around – “simpleton.” Exactly right! As Gerson writes, Trump’s “total lack of intellectual curiosity, mental discipline and impulse control” compromises his presidency.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog – yes, I know there are a legion of you – that one of my favorite words is “civility.”

I usually apply the word to the political arena where I often comment on the loss of civility, as well as my fond hope – poly-annish though it may be – that we can return to a time when civility matters in politics.

Call it finding what I call the “smart middle ground” which is where the best solutions lie to complicated public policy problems.

I also have said several times that one of my favorite quotes can be attributed to military leader and, at one time, a possible presidential candidate, Colin Powell, who said he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics” and cited the loss as one of the main reasons why he chose not to run for president.

The dictionary defines civility with words “courtesy and politeness,” styles missing from today’s politics.

So it was that I read and appreciated a column by William McGurn which appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning under the headline, which is the one I used for this blog – Playing the Civility Card.

Here are excerpts from McGurn’s column:

• “’A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings—unintentionally.’ The quip is attributed to Oscar Wilde, and the sentiment is capacious enough to include Donald Trump. For even the most ardent Never Trumper would concede that when this president offends, it’s intentional.”
• “During the 2016 campaign, for example, Trump claimed a judge’s Mexican heritage meant he couldn’t be impartial. He belittled a Muslim mom and dad whose U.S. Army officer son had given his life in Iraq. And he declared John McCain was ‘not a war hero’ because he had been a prisoner of war. The insults continued in the Oval Office, from regular jabs at ‘Crooked Hillary’ to ‘low IQ’ tweets variously directed at MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, actor Robert De Niro and Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat from California.”
• “Yet the civility offensive is not without contradiction. How is it that those who presume they posses the moral standing to preach on Trump’s incivility are so conspicuously blind to the equally glaring outrages of his critics? Was it civil, for example, for Hillary Clinton to dismiss half of Trump voters as ‘deplorables’ who were also ‘irredeemable? Is it civil that showing up with a ‘Make America Great Again’ cap can invite a beating?”
• “Perhaps this explains why the civility conversation is mostly confined to those who already agree. In the past few months alone, after all, Americans have watched press secretary Sarah Sanders and her family hounded out of a Virginia restaurant while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his wife were harassed by young men. More recently, John McCain’s memorial services became a weeklong taunt to the president—all by the same people applauding each other for their exquisite decency.”
• “As for the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanagh, talk about incivility and norm-breaking. Leave aside the disruptive audience members. When Democratic senators weren’t interrupting Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, they were attempting to smear a decent and respected husband, father and jurist. Surely the proposition that Trump has a monopoly on rudeness and incivility took a beating from the antics of Senator Cory Booker.”

“This is civility?” asks McGurn. “Forgive those Americans who concur that today’s pious demands for civility are often less about good manners than shutting down folks with an opposing view.”

The fact is that civility is a two-way street. Republicans need to preserve it. So do Democrats. And, often the approach from SOME on both sides, is to be decidedly uncivil.

It is important to remember that as ALL of us contend with the lack of civility in politics. To put a point on it, all of us can at least be civil to those who disagree with us even as we take the risk of talking about politics.

So, to one of the partners in my old firm who accused me of holding onto an outdated, slim hope for middle ground, I say this — I continue to hold out hope for civility to return to politics from Republicans, from Democrats and from those who don’t accept a party label.

It is not a vain hope, or, if it is, we can say goodbye to our democracy.

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 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 a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and 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 thought about this question in the headline for some time as I have watched President Donald Trump veer from issue to issue, from tweet to tweet, for months.

There is no semblance of order to what he does or says and that, for the president of this country, ought to be a source of concern for every citizen.

In my career in the public relations and lobbying business, we always advised clients to proceed with a plan when it came to the business of trying to create a solid – and accurate – image for themselves. We also emphasized deciding on a strategy, not just a set of tactics.

We employed the same kind of advice during my 25-year career as a lobbying – strategy, then tactics.

Which, among other things, led to the name of our firm, CFM Strategic Communications.

But imagine trying to do this kind of work with Trump, the president. Won’t work.

He appears, at best, to fly by the seat of his pants, saying the first thing – often in a critical and sanctimonious way – of slamming someone else, even his own staff and executives because, as always, he is the smartest person in the room.

All of this came to mind as I read a piece by Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times, now a columnist for the Guardian and a senior lecturer in Harvard’s English department.

“It’s hard,” she wrote, “to imagine a more disturbing portrait of a president than the one Bob Woodward painted of Richard Nixon in his final days: Paranoid, poisoned by power, pounding the carpet and talking to the portraits on the walls. But the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency, as recounted by Woodward in his new book, ‘Fear” are strikingly similar and in some ways even more gut-wrenching. Then, as now, the country faced a crisis of leadership caused by a president’s fatal flaws and inability to function in the job.”

Here are other excerpts of a column by Abramson that appeared in this weekend’s Washington Post.

• “In both ‘Fear’ and ‘The Final Days’, which Woodward co-authored with Carl Bernstein, Woodward shows how a federal criminal investigation clouds and then comes to obsess a president and paralyze the operations of the White House. At a moment when feverish talk of presidential impeachment dominates the political discourse, ‘Fear’ is full of Nixonian echoes, including Trump’s childishly short attention span and refusal to read briefing papers. Nixon’s aides were instructed not to give him anything more complicated than a Reader’s Digest article.”
• “At a moment when social media and cable television are filled with journalists spouting invective about the White House and Trump blasts the press as ‘the enemy of the people,’ Woodward has clung to old-fashioned notions of journalistic objectivity. ‘My job is not to take sides,’ he told a Vox interviewer in March. ‘I think our job is not to love or loathe people we’re trying to explain and understand. It is to tell exactly what people have done, what it might mean, what drives them, and who they are.”
• “From the very first pages of the gripping prologue it is a shocking view. Woodward opens the book with a killer anecdote about how two of the president’s closest advisers purposely thwarted his directives. In one instance, Trump had ordered up a letter announcing the U.S. withdrawal from a trade agreement with South Korea. His then-chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and then-staff secretary, Rob Porter, who are both obviously major sources for the book, recognize the letter for the disaster it is, so Cohn filches it off the president’s desk. With Trump’s fitful attention span, out of sight is out of mind. The ploy buys time and short-circuits an impulsive presidential decision that had gone through none of the proper vetting channels.”
• “As a profile of Trump, the book is devastating. Even the most jaded readers will be struck by numerous examples of his childishness and cruelty. He denounces his generals in such harsh language that his secretary of state cringes. He derides the suit McMaster dons for an interview as something a beer salesman would wear. He greets his national security adviser, whose briefings he finds tedious, by saying, “You again?” He imitates Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Southern accent and calls him ‘mentally retarded.’ He tells his 79-year-old commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, that he has ‘lost it’ and not to do any more negotiating.”
• “Woodward describes an elaborate attempt to school Trump on world affairs inside the Pentagon’s famous and secure Tank, which, unsurprisingly and somewhat hilariously, ends in abject failure. Predictably, Trump is impressed by the gold carpets and curtains.”
• “‘Fear’ ends on a cliffhanger, with Dowd’s resignation. But in the man and his presidency Dowd had seen the tragic flaw. In the political back-and-forth, the evasions, the denials, the tweeting, the obscuring, crying ‘Fake News,’ the indignation, Trump had one overriding problem that Dowd knew but could not bring himself to say to the president: ‘You’re a fucking liar. ”

Abramson ends with an insightful line that may predict the future for one Donald Trump.

“Lying, as it happens,” she says was Nixon’s undoing.” Perhaps lying will catch Trump, too.

Finally, back to the headline is this blog. If I had the job of being Trump’s public relations or government relations counsel, I’d quit! I am surprised press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders can tolerate the incredible lack of discipline.